TP, You seem hell bent on defending big business' actions and treatment of employees and that no wrong has been done, so we can just agree to disagree with each other on that subject.
No, I am not defending big business action... I am just saying that the words being used by many and the lies that the book has are wrong... but that does not sell books does it
I gotta agree with TP here, I don't see at all where he was 'defending' big business, just explaining it.
I just don't get you guys. You seem to view these practices as just ho-hum, business as usual. ...
As TP says, the book seems to twist things far too much. When I see that, it is a turn off. There was no 'heist', everyone got what was promised.
As if the decision to turn a pension plan into a profit center is no different than discontinuing a product line.
From the descriptions I've read - they didn't turn the pension plan into a profit center (unless you twist it to that). If the plan was over-funded, who over-funded it? GE did, so it was within their right to lock it at that point, pull out
their overages, and fund a new plan going forward.
To me, this is as if I agreed to put $10,000 into an escrow account to fix some problem that cropped up in the middle of a house sale, and the price to fix it could not be fully determined at closing. So the final bill comes to $4,000, and I get my $6,000 back. I didn't make a profit, it was
my money! I'm getting it back because the escrow account was over-funded. Seems simple to me.
In the case of employee pension plans, company efforts to skate around the intent of the law by searching for loopholes and hiding their practices should not, in my opinion, be viewed by us as just another business decision.
One man's loop-hole is another man's interpretation of the intent of the law. I could look at it as a failure of the lawmakers to do their job competently.
Back to
'I just don't get you guys.'...
It seems to be a matter of perspective. I'm not trying to be judgmental here, just trying to explain - it seems like some people look at things as if they have an entitlement at some level, just for existing. A company should provide $X wage, X level benefits, X level of security. Outside events don't matter, it should just be expected. I seem to be hearing this from the 'occupy' crowd - 'pay my student debt'. Why? 'Because I think everyone should be able to go to the school of their choice, study the field of their choice, and the external realities of job markets don't apply'. Just 'because'.
Others feel that life is a series of trade-offs and negotiations. I'll negotiate for the best deal I can get. If no one will give me what I want, there must be a reason. How can I adapt? We have global competition, that's a reality, how can I adapt? Companies (for good reasons, I think) don't want to be on the hook for future costs that are somewhat out of their control. How can I adapt? Maybe a degree in a technical field isn't as 'fun' as some other field, but it is a trade-off between 'fun' and what can lead to a good career.
Is the author of that book contributing to the pensions of everyone in the chain of getting that book out the door? Does that author want to be on the hook for someone's costs 40 years from now? I doubt it, I wouldn't want to be in that position. But it's so terrible when someone else does it? Gimme a break.
-ERD50
I'm guessing that guy has never created any value before, so cannot relate 
