please spare us the :
:
if you read the "deal" abf wanted you would see what i mean
the deal was abf paying what
they thought was the withdrawal liability figure, roughly 640 mil and then pay it off over a long term plan roughly 10 yrs if not more
then replace the old pension & health plan with one of their own
the actual withdrawal liability would have been in reality somewhere in the 1 bill range
the pension plan would have been one of the 401k kind and we all now truly know how susceptible to a bad economy they can be in comparison to a plan like we currently have
our plans got hit hard but not as hard as 401ks did
furthermore the health plan without union representation would have opened the door really wide for you to contribute heavily to such coverage which you do not currently consequently any future raises would just go from your pocket to theirs
think about it for a second why employee contribution was not an issue in the recent contract negotiations
in fact it wasn't even broached upon
why you say
the reason is simply the company would not have total control over it and that is what they wish
having total control would be an ideal situation for them
notice i said for them
in a real way we have been contributing in the past by taking less of a raise each contract and diverting more of the contractual rate agreed upon to H&W so why does that not satisfy the company?
because again they wish to have total control
here's another bonus for them
since abf would administer the plans they would be entitled to administrative fees which more than likely be a windfall for them
also since they would be administering and setting rules for the fund they would
entitle themselves to borrow from the fund at very attractive (cheap) interest rates for operating capital
sort of what you can currently do with a 401k that you may have individually
if you wanted to buy a car for example you could borrow the money from yourself and then pay it back to yourself over a long term low interest rate
just be cautioned with the prospect that if they controll it totally it may evolve more than likely into an employee only fund meaning they will no longer contribute on your behalf
refer to the conway situation
and in the worst case scenario what if abf borrows very large amounts of capital and then goes belly up and cannot pay it back
who gets stuck with the bill? simple answer YOU DO, WE DO
so when their rhetoric sounds too good to be true it usually is too good to be true
lets see
did you read the bear stearns analysis prospective on withdrawal from the fund?
well i ask you what do you think of a company (ABF) who relies on information provided by a company (BEAR STEARNS) who themselves cannot keep their own house in order!
bear stearns shortly after issuing this analysis prospective went belly up themselves, filing chapter 11:TR10driving03:
so if you really want to participate in a company controlled 401k then join the abf 401k currently in existence and then ask them to contribute a little something weekly or monthly on your behalf
when you ask that all you will hear is more than likely a prolonged silent pause
but i thought they really cared for you brother!!!!
i rest my case counselor