If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   NY Times to former employees: "Yeah, about those pensions"   (deadline.com) divider line 67
    More: Sad, IAC, Barry Diller, pensions, present value, SEC filing  
•       •       •

4240 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Sep 2012 at 4:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 01:03:35 PM
This is how it works. The pensions promised were based on the company running into perpetuity. Union, Promise, Derpa, Herpa, doo - that company is failing. No more money.

Fark Dependents would like to pretend that the money is still there, but it's not. The federal pension rescue might be there, but it's another bailout, like GM and the banks. Fark Dependents would also like to pretend that isn't your money, but it is.

Get started, f**kers.
 
2012-09-14 01:57:15 PM
The Times has been run into the ground by its current owners. They could have adapted to the digital world and flourished. They failed to adapt and are now dying a slow death. It is hard to reconcile the liberal behemoth justifying shorting its pensioners. Its the sort of thing the paper rails at folks like Romney doing. -- Let me grab my pop corn.
 
2012-09-14 02:37:37 PM

Lsherm: This is how it works. The pensions promised were based on the company running into perpetuity. Union, Promise, Derpa, Herpa, doo - that company is failing. No more money.

Fark Dependents would like to pretend that the money is still there, but it's not
. The federal pension rescue might be there, but it's another bailout, like GM and the banks. Fark Dependents would also like to pretend that isn't your money, but it is.

Get started, f**kers.


It also follows the company's $300M sale of About.com to Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp. The Times' stock has appreciated about 25% in 2012.
 
2012-09-14 03:20:19 PM

Delawheredad: It is hard to reconcile the liberal behemoth justifying shorting its pensioners.


Farking over the retired pressmen is okay when the liberal behemoth does it.
 
2012-09-14 04:20:39 PM
Like so many US companies, the Times' management figured out they could loot the company then blame the pension obligations for their financial hardship.

Welcome to the kleptocracy.
 
2012-09-14 04:21:28 PM
Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?
 
2012-09-14 04:29:38 PM
FTA: "By November 2 they must decide whether they want a one-time payment by year-end that equals the present value of their pension benefit, or accept "a reduced monthly annuity." As a result of the change, the Times expects to take a charge on its Q4 earnings."

Hate to say it but... LAWYER TIME.
The pensioners signed up for this plan when they were hired, probably paid into it for 20, 25, 30 years or more, and performed their jobs well enough (or better) to keep them during that period, all in good faith that when they retired they would get this.

Pay them what you owe them, and what they signed up for. No, shareholders should not come first, the people who made/make your company money should come first.
 
2012-09-14 04:34:03 PM
Hey, New York Times, you built that pension program.

/now it's time for the federal government to step in and take up your responsibilities
 
2012-09-14 04:51:48 PM

Delawheredad: The Times has been run into the ground by its current owners. They could have adapted to the digital world and flourished. They failed to adapt and are now dying a slow death. It is hard to reconcile the liberal behemoth justifying shorting its pensioners. Its the sort of thing the paper rails at folks like Romney doing. -- Let me grab my pop corn.


For about the thousandth time, liberals don't give a damn about the poor or people in general. Both sides are in fact bad. Sure you can make a case to shack up with one over the other because they don't piss on you quite so much, but don't go to the mat fighting for the sake of slightly less piss and then moan and groan when your hair gets wet.
 
2012-09-14 04:54:12 PM

nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?


THIS

Holocaust Agnostic: Delawheredad: The Times has been run into the ground by its current owners. They could have adapted to the digital world and flourished. They failed to adapt and are now dying a slow death. It is hard to reconcile the liberal behemoth justifying shorting its pensioners. Its the sort of thing the paper rails at folks like Romney doing. -- Let me grab my pop corn.

For about the thousandth time, liberals don't give a damn about the poor or people in general. Both sides are in fact bad. Sure you can make a case to shack up with one over the other because they don't piss on you quite so much, but don't go to the mat fighting for the sake of slightly less piss and then moan and groan when your hair gets wet.


Please stop projecting your opinions on the so-called "liberals". You don't get to assume that just because that is the way that you think, then your opponent must have similar opinions.
 
2012-09-14 04:55:27 PM

Lsherm: This is how it works. The pensions promised were based on the company running into perpetuity. Union, Promise, Derpa, Herpa, doo - that company is failing. No more money.

Fark Dependents would like to pretend that the money is still there, but it's not. The federal pension rescue might be there, but it's another bailout, like GM and the banks. Fark Dependents would also like to pretend that isn't your money, but it is.

Get started, f**kers.


OK, its my money. I vote we use it to bail out the pension fund. Simply allowing breach of faiths like that erodes the ability of people to plan for the future and do buisiness. Also, its farming inhuman.
 
2012-09-14 04:56:04 PM
This is why pensions suck compared to 401K or other self directed retirement plans. Pensions are only a better deal if you work for someone who cannot go bankrupt.
 
2012-09-14 04:57:38 PM
Holocaust Agnostic

Yes it is true that in the end capitalists are capitalists despite their announced public politics. However the irony of the New York Times doing the very thing they rail about OTHER corporations doing in their editorial pages all the time is just delicious!

The pensions and the pensioners are NOT the problem. Greedy self-interested CEOs are the problem.

.
 
2012-09-14 04:57:50 PM
They still had pensions?
 
2012-09-14 05:03:53 PM

nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?


Because pigfarkers like someone who posted earlier than you think that corporations can do no wrong.
 
2012-09-14 05:04:57 PM
Why can they just cut pensions? Shouldn't they have to do this as part of a bankruptcy or something?
 
2012-09-14 05:15:41 PM

Arkanaut: They still had pensions?


Pensions used to be almost a given, even in the private sector. The story of the guy in his late 50's walking out of the office building or factory after a sendoff party with the stuff from his locker or desk and a gold watch or other gift was commonplace. That all changed with the rise of POS 401(k) plans, used by employers to fatten their bottom line, shareholders wallets, and wall street suits portfolios by cutting even more of their obligations to the people who actually make their workplace work. People who were pushed into these programs in the 80's are just coming up on their retirement now, and realizing that they don't have sh*t coming... the suits took it all.

It's gone rapidly downhill from there.
 
2012-09-14 05:19:37 PM

NickelP: Why can they just cut pensions? Shouldn't they have to do this as part of a bankruptcy or something?


Its America dude. Land of the free (to eat catfood)
 
2012-09-14 05:21:02 PM

Delawheredad: The pensions and the pensioners are NOT the problem. Greedy self-interested CEOs are the problem.


farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2012-09-14 05:26:30 PM

nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?


People can and do declare bankruptcy. Your comparison is invalid.
 
2012-09-14 05:27:18 PM

nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?


Duh. Banks are sacrosanct. You are a bad person if you renege on a contract with a bank. Corporations aren't people in this sense. They are only beholden to share holders, therefore they can renege on contracts and whatever else they like if it is in the best interest of the shareholder.
 
2012-09-14 05:43:28 PM

JohnAnnArbor: nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?

People can and do declare bankruptcy. Your comparison is invalid.


The Times is not declaring bankruptcy, they underfunded it and now don't want to pay.
 
2012-09-14 05:44:17 PM

karmaceutical: nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?

Duh. Banks are sacrosanct. You are a bad person if you renege on a contract with a bank. Corporations aren't people in this sense. They are only beholden to share holders, therefore they can renege on contracts and whatever else they like if it is in the best interest of the shareholder.


So all the rights of person-hood with none of the responsibilities.

Sounds like a sweet kick.
 
2012-09-14 05:46:32 PM

Arkanaut: They still had pensions?


I still hear from Time-Warner once a year about the pension fund that I won't get to draw from until 2022.

[hatersgonnahate.jpg]
 
2012-09-14 05:47:48 PM

rewind2846: FTA: "By November 2 they must decide whether they want a one-time payment by year-end that equals the present value of their pension benefit, or accept "a reduced monthly annuity." As a result of the change, the Times expects to take a charge on its Q4 earnings."

Hate to say it but... LAWYER TIME.
The pensioners signed up for this plan when they were hired, probably paid into it for 20, 25, 30 years or more, and performed their jobs well enough (or better) to keep them during that period, all in good faith that when they retired they would get this.

Pay them what you owe them, and what they signed up for. No, shareholders should not come first, the people who made/make your company money should come first.


So much this.
 
2012-09-14 05:53:48 PM

Delawheredad: Holocaust Agnostic

Yes it is true that in the end capitalists are capitalists despite their announced public politics. However the irony of the New York Times doing the very thing they rail about OTHER corporations doing in their editorial pages all the time is just delicious!

The pensions and the pensioners are NOT the problem. Greedy self-interested CEOs are the problem.

.


If it were the CEO writing the newspaper's text, then it'd be "delicious". Unfortunately, the people writing for the paper are the same poor schmucks losing part of their pension.
 
2012-09-14 05:54:27 PM
I really wonder how the Times is going to cover this. When Bain Capital does it they are a heartless, evil corporation. If the Times does the SAME thing how can they criticize ANY corporation in the future and why should we accept their word about corporate evil if they report on it in the future?

The hypocrisy is stunning!
 
2012-09-14 05:59:02 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Lsherm: This is how it works. The pensions promised were based on the company running into perpetuity. Union, Promise, Derpa, Herpa, doo - that company is failing. No more money.

Fark Dependents would like to pretend that the money is still there, but it's not. The federal pension rescue might be there, but it's another bailout, like GM and the banks. Fark Dependents would also like to pretend that isn't your money, but it is.

Get started, f**kers.

OK, its my money. I vote we use it to bail out the pension fund. Simply allowing breach of faiths like that erodes the ability of people to plan for the future and do buisiness. Also, its farming inhuman.


So we should bail out every bad corporate promise? Time to create a corporation promising a million a year for life theBay get taxpayers to pay it.
 
2012-09-14 06:02:29 PM

rewind2846: Arkanaut: They still had pensions?

Pensions used to be almost a given, even in the private sector. The story of the guy in his late 50's walking out of the office building or factory after a sendoff party with the stuff from his locker or desk and a gold watch or other gift was commonplace. That all changed with the rise of POS 401(k) plans, used by employers to fatten their bottom line, shareholders wallets, and wall street suits portfolios by cutting even more of their obligations to the people who actually make their workplace work. People who were pushed into these programs in the 80's are just coming up on their retirement now, and realizing that they don't have sh*t coming... the suits took it all.

It's gone rapidly downhill from there.


It was changed because the time someone lives after retirement is an unknown creating huge liabilities on the books. 401k has yearly liability exits, easier to track and not lie on. See all the public pensions pretending 9% growth on funds is reasonable. Pensions don't work in long term budgets.
 
2012-09-14 06:02:47 PM
I'm not sure some of you understand how pensions work. They aren't typically funded from the takings of the company, but from a separate fund maintained for this purpose. It's a bit like a 401K, but run by someone who actually knows what he's doing, and with the risk spread across many people (some of who die before pension age, and thus help everyone else).

It has been known for companies to dip into the pension fund from time to time, which is a risky, immoral, and in some countries illegal, practice. The shareholders have no claim on the funds - it's usually to address cashflow matters. It's also been known for the company to top up the pension fund when it fails to meet performance targets. This is 'voluntary'.

Presumably the NYT pension fund isn't doing too well (for whatever reason) and the NYT is offering its pensioners two options:

Take a lump sum, which the pensioner can roll over into an annuity or IRA, and possibly do better than the professionals running the pension fund.
Stay with the program, and accept a lower monthly pension.

Option 3, I think, would be to consult an accountant followed by a lawyer.
 
2012-09-14 06:24:37 PM
This reader to the NY Times: "Yeah, about my subscription."

Buh-bye.
 
2012-09-14 07:26:59 PM

MyRandomName: See all the public pensions pretending 9% growth on funds is reasonable. Pensions don't work in long term budgets.


They do if A) they're properly funded, B) the people who run the fund don't decide to play Vegas with the money (looking at you CALPERS) and C) the corporation doesn't dip into them for their own uses.

You don't need 9% growth if the company pays into it what they should, and manages it like they should.
Many of these corporations screwed the pooch, and it's the employee who gave 30 years of his/her life to making that company money - hired before the dog fu(kers were even in the game - who now have to deal with these corporate mistakes, greed and general ineptitude.
 
2012-09-14 07:32:53 PM

Mr. Eugenides: This is why pensions suck compared to 401K or other self directed retirement plans. Pensions are only a better deal if you work for someone who cannot go bankrupt.


No, pensions should be considered opex line item that gets paid before any "profit" can be realized. The fact that pension funds go unfunded fro year to year should be considered embezzlement.
 
2012-09-14 07:39:00 PM

rewind2846: MyRandomName: See all the public pensions pretending 9% growth on funds is reasonable. Pensions don't work in long term budgets.

They do if A) they're properly funded, B) the people who run the fund don't decide to play Vegas with the money (looking at you CALPERS) and C) the corporation doesn't dip into them for their own uses.

You don't need 9% growth if the company pays into it what they should, and manages it like they should.
Many of these corporations screwed the pooch, and it's the employee who gave 30 years of his/her life to making that company money - hired before the dog fu(kers were even in the game - who now have to deal with these corporate mistakes, greed and general ineptitude.


Unless the plan is already underfunded, someone like Bain will swoop in and loot it. It's impossible to have a fully funded pension plan in a free market, as we learned in the 80s and 90s.
 
2012-09-14 08:24:17 PM

nmemkha: Why are people expected to live up to their obligations but we give corporations a pass?


Because corporations are people who have rights, but no responsibilities, silly.

Boudica's War Tampon:
Hey, New York Times, you built that pension program.

/now it's time for the federal government to step in and take up your responsibilities


So you've heard of PBGC, then? Well done.

NickelP:
Why can they just cut pensions? Shouldn't they have to do this as part of a bankruptcy or something?

That sounds reasonable. Sharing the sacrifices is the Free Enterprise(TM) way: The executives share the pensioners' sacrifices.

/Happy New Year, farkdom.
 
2012-09-14 08:56:06 PM

rewind2846: Pensions used to be almost a given, even in the private sector. The story of the guy in his late 50's walking out of the office building or factory after a sendoff party with the stuff from his locker or desk and a gold watch or other gift was commonplace. That all changed with the rise of POS 401(k) plans, used by employers to fatten their bottom line, shareholders wallets, and wall street suits portfolios by cutting even more of their obligations to the people who actually make their workplace work. People who were pushed into these programs in the 80's are just coming up on their retirement now, and realizing that they don't have sh*t coming... the suits took it all.


If these people had 401(k)s instead of a pension they wouldn't be subject to the financial woes of their former employer -- they'd actually have their money and they couldn't get screwed over decades later. I think all these "pension fund raided" stories are an excellent argument argument for not having pensions in the first place, at least not until or unless we can structure them in a way that prevents them from being underfunded. I feel bad for the people that expected pensions and got screwed, but these days no sane person should be looking for their employer to take care of them in 50 years.
 
2012-09-14 08:57:46 PM

lohphat: Mr. Eugenides: This is why pensions suck compared to 401K or other self directed retirement plans. Pensions are only a better deal if you work for someone who cannot go bankrupt.

No, pensions should be considered opex line item that gets paid before any "profit" can be realized. The fact that pension funds go unfunded fro year to year should be considered embezzlement.


Ahh, so you see the US postal service as a model here.
 
2012-09-14 09:07:35 PM
1. Seize company assets to fund pension obligations
2. ???
3. Problem solved
 
2012-09-14 09:14:00 PM

Mr. Eugenides: lohphat: Mr. Eugenides: This is why pensions suck compared to 401K or other self directed retirement plans. Pensions are only a better deal if you work for someone who cannot go bankrupt.

No, pensions should be considered opex line item that gets paid before any "profit" can be realized. The fact that pension funds go unfunded fro year to year should be considered embezzlement.

Ahh, so you see the US postal service as a model here.


The USPS is not a business and the pre funding of 70 years worth of funding pensions over 10 years was a intentional GOP move to sink a very effective public service -- like the US highway system -- serves the greater good of the country's commerce for a fraction of the total cost compared with other developed countries.

So take your boot-strappy derp elsewhere freeloader.
 
2012-09-14 09:18:21 PM

lohphat: Mr. Eugenides: lohphat: Mr. Eugenides: This is why pensions suck compared to 401K or other self directed retirement plans. Pensions are only a better deal if you work for someone who cannot go bankrupt.

No, pensions should be considered opex line item that gets paid before any "profit" can be realized. The fact that pension funds go unfunded fro year to year should be considered embezzlement.

Ahh, so you see the US postal service as a model here.

The USPS is not a business and the pre funding of 70 years worth of funding pensions over 10 years was a intentional GOP move to sink a very effective public service -- like the US highway system -- serves the greater good of the country's commerce for a fraction of the total cost compared with other developed countries.

So take your boot-strappy derp elsewhere freeloader.


There you go, spreading your hippy Liberal "historical facts" and practicing your high-flouting "objective reality".
 
2012-09-14 09:44:24 PM
Ironic tag would have worked better here.

Lib rag abandons pensioners! ...... Bwaaaaaahahahahahaaa
 
2012-09-14 09:49:55 PM

Tillmaster: I'm not sure some of you understand how pensions work. They aren't typically funded from the takings of the company, but from a separate fund maintained for this purpose. It's a bit like a 401K, but run by someone who actually knows what he's doing, and with the risk spread across many people (some of who die before pension age, and thus help everyone else).

It has been known for companies to dip into the pension fund from time to time, which is a risky, immoral, and in some countries illegal, practice. The shareholders have no claim on the funds - it's usually to address cashflow matters. It's also been known for the company to top up the pension fund when it fails to meet performance targets. This is 'voluntary'.

Presumably the NYT pension fund isn't doing too well (for whatever reason) and the NYT is offering its pensioners two options:

Take a lump sum, which the pensioner can roll over into an annuity or IRA, and possibly do better than the professionals running the pension fund.
Stay with the program, and accept a lower monthly pension.

Option 3, I think, would be to consult an accountant followed by a lawyer.


It's something along these lines, although not exactly. First, to clarify a few things as the article had some bad information and/or NYT's press release was not phrased well:

- this is an offer to former employees who haven't yet retired. It's not for current pensioners -- it's the 30 and 40 year olds who worked and were vested in their pension at the time they left, but weren't old enough to begin payments.

- they're offering these people 3 choices: 1) do nothing and receive the same exact pension as before under the same terms, 2) take a one-time lump sum payment now in lieu of a future pension, or 3) begin receiving their monthly annuity now (instead of at 65) but it will be significantly reduced because of the period of time the pension can be expected to be paid versus the current conditions.

- NYT likely doesn't want anyone to elect option 3. They're only offering it because federal law requires that if an immediately-payable lump sum is available, an immediately-payable annuity must also be available. They want people to take option 2.

- Once someone is vested in a pension, the only way it could be taken away is in a bankruptcy (or divorce proceeding). Even then, as noted, the PBGC guarantees the majority of "normal" benefits -- when you hear stories of pensioners losing their benefit in a bankruptcy, it always involves excessive pensions which the company didn't fund. Your typically working class non-union person isn't in that situation. That is why this is voluntary -- option 1 must be on the table.

- The reason these offers are being made by NYT and others is due to the change in how the lump sum in option 2 is calculated. Prior to 2008, it was based on US treasury interest rates which created a lump sum payment higher than the accounting liabilities on the balance sheet. Now, US law requires lump sums to be based on corporate bond yields. The lump sum is now equal to the company's accounting liability, so it's cost-neutral. In fact, with timing arbitrage there may be cases where it is cost-favorable for the employer.

So why is this being offered? NYT likely wants to reduce the risk these benefits have on the compamy's business. If it's cost-neutral, as a participant would I accept the offer? I'd consult a financial planner, but at the end of the day the question is would I be willing to accept the risk of outliving the money, or the risk of not getting enough benefit out of it ( i.e. dying with 100k left as a single person -- I could have spent more instead).
 
2012-09-14 11:27:50 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Delawheredad: The Times has been run into the ground by its current owners. They could have adapted to the digital world and flourished. They failed to adapt and are now dying a slow death. It is hard to reconcile the liberal behemoth justifying shorting its pensioners. Its the sort of thing the paper rails at folks like Romney doing. -- Let me grab my pop corn.

For about the thousandth time, liberals don't give a damn about the poor or people in general. Both sides are in fact bad. Sure you can make a case to shack up with one over the other because they don't piss on you quite so much, but don't go to the mat fighting for the sake of slightly less piss and then moan and groan when your hair gets wet.


I think you meant dems, not liberals, there in your shenanigans.

Everyone is either liberal, conservative, or perfectly on the fence.
 
2012-09-15 12:13:40 AM
How's that socialism working for you, New York Times?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*bre a th*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
2012-09-15 12:35:57 AM

Lsherm: This is how it works. The pensions promised were based on the company running into perpetuity. Union, Promise, Derpa, Herpa, doo - that company is failing. No more money.

Fark Dependents would like to pretend that the money is still there, but it's not. The federal pension rescue might be there, but it's another bailout, like GM and the banks. Fark Dependents would also like to pretend that isn't your money, but it is.

Get started, f**kers.


Pro-tip: Like many other investment vehicles....pension funds can be federally insured.

/I THOUGHT they were REQUIRED to be, for just such an event like this......
 
2012-09-15 01:00:37 AM

rewind2846: No, shareholders should not come first, the people who made/make your company money should come first.


ts1.mm.bing.net
Capitalism does not work that way!
 
2012-09-15 01:42:21 AM
Seize assets or force stock sales to pay pension obligations. Treat them as outstanding liabilities in default, and the fast-and-loose game would stop REALLY fast.
 
2012-09-15 03:45:39 AM

sendtodave: rewind2846: No, shareholders should not come first, the people who made/make your company money should come first.

[ts1.mm.bing.net image 194x146]
Capitalism does not work that way!


No, our brand of Capitalism doesn't work that way. Stocks (as we know them) are a contrivance that have only been around about 150 years. Maybe it times to try something else.
 
2012-09-15 03:56:59 AM

beta_plus: How's that socialism working for you, New York Times?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*bre a th*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


teapartyviews.com
 
2012-09-15 09:27:56 AM

rewind2846: MyRandomName: See all the public pensions pretending 9% growth on funds is reasonable. Pensions don't work in long term budgets.

They do if A) they're properly funded, B) the people who run the fund don't decide to play Vegas with the money (looking at you CALPERS) and C) the corporation doesn't dip into them for their own uses.

You don't need 9% growth if the company pays into it what they should, and manages it like they should.
Many of these corporations screwed the pooch, and it's the employee who gave 30 years of his/her life to making that company money - hired before the dog fu(kers were even in the game - who now have to deal with these corporate mistakes, greed and general ineptitude.


It is pretty clear you have no idea how pensions work. How can you tell if a pension is properly funded if you don't have some expected growth target? Traditionally this is around 8-9%.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report