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.

(BBC-US)   Boeing freezes pensions because fark you, that's why   (bbc.com) divider line 41
    More: Asinine, Boeing, Planet Money, Birmingham City, Kaspersky Labs, FTSE Group, personal finance  
•       •       •

1464 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:46 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-07 08:10:26 AM
Just another "entitlement" anyway.
A good partisan will just suck it up and work harder.
'Cause hard work is the key to success.

/simply get some fool to work hard for your profit
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-07 08:25:28 AM
Defined benefit pensions depend on honorable men who can make long term plans. So they're obsolete.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-07 08:29:20 AM
Pensions are for liberal union thug bosses.
 
2014-03-07 08:29:32 AM
Boeing said the move would curb the "unsustainable growth" of its long-term pension liability

This move should help sustain the growth of the CEOs unsustainable pay package.
 
2014-03-07 08:39:34 AM

ZAZ: Defined benefit pensions depend on honorable men who can make long term plans. So they're obsolete.


Honorable men who made long term plans all got their companies bought out from under them in the 80s and 90s, so people like Mitt Romney could loot the pension funds, buy elevators for their cars, and run for President on a platform of "47% of you are moochers".
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-07 08:55:07 AM
rumpelstiltskin

If we want to get partisan, we could also take a look at the public unions and their pet politicians handing out unsustainable awards.
 
2014-03-07 09:15:50 AM

ZAZ: rumpelstiltskin

If we want to get partisan, we could also take a look at the public unions and their pet politicians handing out unsustainable awards.


We could, but I meant that more as a personal attack on a scumbag than an attack on Republicans. And I don't even see how it applies to Republicans in general, since most of them are drinking beer and patting their bellies and most definitely not buying and selling companies.
 
2014-03-07 09:18:11 AM
It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-07 09:29:53 AM
TuteTibiImperes

As I understood the article, if you were 3/4 of the way through your career you would get 3/4 of your defined benefit pension, with defined contributions on top of that. The nonunion employees in this story are probably employees at will and could have been fired without receiving their full pensions.  But nobody wants to play that sort of hardball because the risks are high on both sides. The worker could end up 55 and out of work forever. The company could end up paying massive punitive damages and fines. Hence the negotiated settlement.
 
2014-03-07 10:19:25 AM

TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.


Unfortunately, if there is no money, there is no money, and that's the problem with agreeing to work for promises.
What I think the law should be is, if you don't have a pension fund that is fully funded, you can't promise anyone a pension. Which is sort of what Boeing is doing; they're saying, "We have enough to pay what we owe now, but we don't have enough to promise this to anyone else, so we're not going to. And if you don't like it, quit." I think that's far better than lying to their workers and giving them the shaft 20 years from now, even if what I'd really like to see is a more fundamental restructuring of how the earning are divided in the first place.
 
2014-03-07 10:24:59 AM

ZAZ: Defined benefit pensions depend on honorable men who can make long term plans. So they're obsolete.


And we're done.
 
2014-03-07 10:38:52 AM

ZAZ: TuteTibiImperes

As I understood the article, if you were 3/4 of the way through your career you would get 3/4 of your defined benefit pension, with defined contributions on top of that. The nonunion employees in this story are probably employees at will and could have been fired without receiving their full pensions.  But nobody wants to play that sort of hardball because the risks are high on both sides. The worker could end up 55 and out of work forever. The company could end up paying massive punitive damages and fines. Hence the negotiated settlement.


Pretty much correct.

All this really does is add another tier of benefits.  Short of bankruptcy, as long as the employee is vested in the older program, Boeing can not reduce the benefit already accrued. The newer tier will grow slower than the original tier would have.
 
2014-03-07 10:45:31 AM

ZAZ: Defined benefit pensions depend on honorable men who can make long term plans. So they're obsolete.


They also depend on replacement workers to continue the funding.  Hard to do that when they are replaced by machines and/or overseas slave labor.
 
2014-03-07 11:15:40 AM

rumpelstiltskin: TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.

Unfortunately, if there is no money, there is no money, and that's the problem with agreeing to work for promises.
What I think the law should be is, if you don't have a pension fund that is fully funded, you can't promise anyone a pension. Which is sort of what Boeing is doing; they're saying, "We have enough to pay what we owe now, but we don't have enough to promise this to anyone else, so we're not going to. And if you don't like it, quit." I think that's far better than lying to their workers and giving them the shaft 20 years from now, even if what I'd really like to see is a more fundamental restructuring of how the earning are divided in the first place.


Boeing is very profitable and a huge recipient of Federal welfare payments via the Pentagon.

Some pension plans are top loaded and benefits accrued in later years are higher.
 
2014-03-07 11:34:56 AM
To be honest, I don't want "benefits" from a company, pension included, partly because I don't trust the company to be able to pay. I just want to be paid enough to build my own retirement fund, buy health care, etc.

The nature of business and the tendency of best-laid plans to explode is why we have Social Security and why we keep hearing of pensions disappearing. Well, that and corporate raiders looting the funds, but still.
 
2014-03-07 11:37:45 AM
ooops,  should have joined the Union, dumbf*cks.

and you thought Boeing Owners/managment gave two sh*ts about you??  what were you thinking??

the Owners/Banks want their money back, dipsh*ts.


you deserve what you get for making dumb decisions.    bend over and take it like a good American.  maybe they'll use Lube this time.
 
2014-03-07 11:38:19 AM
And people want to trust these entities over the Government when it comes to retirement?
 
2014-03-07 11:39:11 AM

adamatari: To be honest, I don't want "benefits" from a company, pension included, partly because I don't trust the company to be able to pay. I just want to be paid enough to build my own retirement fund, buy health care, etc.

The nature of business and the tendency of best-laid plans to explode is why we have Social Security and why we keep hearing of pensions disappearing. Well, that and corporate raiders looting the funds, but still.



you have to look out for yourself in FreedomLand.    everyone is on their own now.   should turn out well over time........
 
2014-03-07 11:40:33 AM

Nadie_AZ: And people want to trust these entities over the Government when it comes to retirement?



you forgot your Proud American Motto:  Government is always bad and wants to hurt you. Business is always good and wants to treat you fairly and would never use/exploit you for a dollar and a cent.
 
2014-03-07 11:43:04 AM
Boeing just went Boing!!
 
2014-03-07 11:43:43 AM

vpb: Pensions are for liberal union thug bosses.



as you slowly bend over and spread your cheeks.............lol
 
2014-03-07 11:45:19 AM

mcreadyblue: rumpelstiltskin: TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.

Unfortunately, if there is no money, there is no money, and that's the problem with agreeing to work for promises.
What I think the law should be is, if you don't have a pension fund that is fully funded, you can't promise anyone a pension. Which is sort of what Boeing is doing; they're saying, "We have enough to pay what we owe now, but we don't have enough to promise this to anyone else, so we're not going to. And if you don't like it, quit." I think that's far better than lying to their workers and giving them the shaft 20 years from now, even if what I'd really like to see is a more fundamental restructuring of how the earning are divided in the first place.

Boeing is very profitable and a huge recipient of Federal welfare payments via the Pentagon.

Some pension plans are top loaded and benefits accrued in later years are higher.



you Socilaizissts!!!     lol
 
2014-03-07 12:18:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.


Business contracts with the poors are voidable at a whim because greedy parasites who don't deserve it.  It's the contracts within the executive suite that are sacred and inviolate.
 
2014-03-07 12:30:22 PM

Another Government Employee: ZAZ: TuteTibiImperes

As I understood the article, if you were 3/4 of the way through your career you would get 3/4 of your defined benefit pension, with defined contributions on top of that. The nonunion employees in this story are probably employees at will and could have been fired without receiving their full pensions.  But nobody wants to play that sort of hardball because the risks are high on both sides. The worker could end up 55 and out of work forever. The company could end up paying massive punitive damages and fines. Hence the negotiated settlement.

Pretty much correct.

All this really does is add another tier of benefits.  Short of bankruptcy, as long as the employee is vested in the older program, Boeing can not reduce the benefit already accrued. The newer tier will grow slower than the original tier would have.


But if the company fails to fully pay into the pension program, doesn't a federal agency end up paying the rest into the fund?
 
2014-03-07 12:34:31 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Another Government Employee: ZAZ: TuteTibiImperes

As I understood the article, if you were 3/4 of the way through your career you would get 3/4 of your defined benefit pension, with defined contributions on top of that. The nonunion employees in this story are probably employees at will and could have been fired without receiving their full pensions.  But nobody wants to play that sort of hardball because the risks are high on both sides. The worker could end up 55 and out of work forever. The company could end up paying massive punitive damages and fines. Hence the negotiated settlement.

Pretty much correct.

All this really does is add another tier of benefits.  Short of bankruptcy, as long as the employee is vested in the older program, Boeing can not reduce the benefit already accrued. The newer tier will grow slower than the original tier would have.

But if the company fails to fully pay into the pension program, doesn't a federal agency end up paying the rest into the fund?


The PBGC will pay the pensioners based on their own formula. Earlier retirees a(before 65) nd those with high pensions loose a lot.
 
2014-03-07 12:35:46 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.


Not exactly.
Exactly, it is stealing.
 
2014-03-07 12:36:59 PM

Linux_Yes: ooops,  should have joined the Union, dumbf*cks.

and you thought Boeing Owners/managment gave two sh*ts about you??  what were you thinking??

the Owners/Banks want their money back, dipsh*ts.


you deserve what you get for making dumb decisions.    bend over and take it like a good American.  maybe they'll use Lube this time.


Not even lube trickles down any longer.
 
2014-03-07 12:45:22 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It shouldn't be legal to reduce the pensions of those already receiving them or those who are within a few years of retirement.


Those workers signed on with the promise of defined compensation and benefits, and then held up their end of the bargain putting in their time to earn those benefits. Reducing those benefits after the fact is spitting in their faces.


Do you want to know how I know a) that you didn't read the article (or didn't comprehend it fully) and b) that you don't know much about pension law?

Because Boeing is not reducing any benefits that have been earned to date, only reducing future benefits earned through future service.  So to use your metaphor, no spitting.
 
2014-03-07 01:08:08 PM

Priapetic: Because Boeing is not reducing any benefits that have been earned to date, only reducing future benefits earned through future service.  So to use your metaphor, no spitting.


Yet.
 
2014-03-07 01:21:02 PM

Sliding Carp: Priapetic: Because Boeing is not reducing any benefits that have been earned to date, only reducing future benefits earned through future service.  So to use your metaphor, no spitting.

Yet.


Slowly I turned,,,, step by step,,,, entitlement by entitlement,
 
2014-03-07 01:23:31 PM
Pensions are a terrible idea.  They lock the company into long term liability and prevent them from ever being able to downsize to survive if their business plan doesn't work out on the scale they once hoped.  Then the employees who worked there for 20+ years don't get what they're promised, and they're screwed.

Immediate benefits that are under control of the employee, not the company, make much more sense.  Benefits like a 401k match.  It makes the company actually pay now and not pretend they're going to pay something later that they can't actually afford to pay.

It also doesn't force the worker into working for the same company for life.  They're free to take their 401k and move to a new job.  It is a system that is better for the workers, although right now there are not nearly large enough contributions...  In the field I work in a 2-6% 401k match is normal.  If you can get a 6% match and put in 6% of your own then it is a pretty good start towards retirement... and more reliable than pensions.
 
2014-03-07 01:28:54 PM

Sliding Carp: Priapetic: Because Boeing is not reducing any benefits that have been earned to date, only reducing future benefits earned through future service.  So to use your metaphor, no spitting.

Yet.


Gonna take a change to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act before they can retroactively change vested benefits without incurring punative tax effects.  Which isn't going to happen any time soon.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:44 PM
Really.  Consider all the companies in all the sectors that have reduced or flat out eliminated pensions.  Is anybody stupid enough to not realize that every company is going to do this?  Even government agencies are trying to crawl out from under their pension obligations.

This has been going on at least 15 years.  Yes, it is deplorable that this is happening.  You can shake your tiny fist all you want though, it will not stop this process.  If you haven't started saving money on your own by now, you're an idiot.
 
2014-03-07 02:40:54 PM
 

adamatari: To be honest, I don't want "benefits" from a company, pension included, partly because I don't trust the company to be able to pay. I just want to be paid enough to build my own retirement fund, buy health care, etc.

The nature of business and the tendency of best-laid plans to explode is why we have Social Security and why we keep hearing of pensions disappearing. Well, that and corporate raiders looting the funds, but still.


I belong to an employer pension, and I generally agree from my point of view.   My pension won't be all that different than if I had just removed the same percentage out of my paycheck myself and had put it into a tax shelter drawing compounded interest in a low fee index fund  until Im ready to retire.  I probably would have drawn a better rate of return, since my pension fund is required by law to be extremely risk averse.

However, there is safety in being in a pool as opposed to be a party of one (thus the entire concept of carrying insurance).  On your own, your extremely vulnerable to up and down cycles of the market and how they time in accordance to when you're ready to retire.   On your own if the market and your 401k take a massive dump 6 months before your retirement date, you are screwed if you had planned on living on the interest of your savings.  (aka Sequence of Return Risk).   2008 meltdown happens, and people who had found themselves planning on living on the interest of $500k suddenly found out they would have to live on the interest of $250k overnight.      When you belong to a pension pool, it's one less thing to keep you up at night.
 
2014-03-07 02:53:15 PM

Priapetic: Because Boeing is not reducing any benefits that have been earned to date, only reducing future benefits earned through future service.


That's good.  Because reducing previously accrued benefits is really no  different than what Bernie Maddoff did.
 
2014-03-07 03:02:26 PM

InmanRoshi: adamatari: To be honest, I don't want "benefits" from a company, pension included, partly because I don't trust the company to be able to pay. I just want to be paid enough to build my own retirement fund, buy health care, etc.

The nature of business and the tendency of best-laid plans to explode is why we have Social Security and why we keep hearing of pensions disappearing. Well, that and corporate raiders looting the funds, but still.

I belong to an employer pension, and I generally agree from my point of view.   My pension won't be all that different than if I had just removed the same percentage out of my paycheck myself and had put it into a tax shelter drawing compounded interest in a low fee index fund  until Im ready to retire.  I probably would have drawn a better rate of return, since my pension fund is required by law to be extremely risk averse.

However, there is safety in being in a pool as opposed to be a party of one (thus the entire concept of carrying insurance).  On your own, your extremely vulnerable to up and down cycles of the market and how they time in accordance to when you're ready to retire.   On your own if the market and your 401k take a massive dump 6 months before your retirement date, you are screwed if you had planned on living on the interest of your savings.  (aka Sequence of Return Risk).   2008 meltdown happens, and people who had found themselves planning on living on the interest of $500k suddenly found out they would have to live on the interest of $250k overnight.      When you belong to a pension pool, it's one less thing to keep you up at night.


Forgot to add that belonging to a pension pool eliminates the risk that I outlive my savings if I live an exceptionally unexpected long life.

A reason why it might be a good idea to look into a Single Premium Immediate Annuity (SPIA)  with at least a  portion of your nest egg if you retire without a pension plan, to lock in a standard of living for the rest of your life regardless of how long you live.
 
2014-03-07 04:55:07 PM

InmanRoshi: On your own if the market and your 401k take a massive dump 6 months before your retirement date, you are screwed if you had planned on living on the interest of your savings.


If your 401k has that much exposure to the stock market 6 months before you retire, you are doing it very, very wrong.
 
2014-03-07 05:32:01 PM

snocone: Just another "entitlement" anyway.
A good partisan will just suck it up and work harder.
'Cause hard work is the key to success.

/simply get some fool to work hard for your profit


Well, why don't you and those of a similar mind invest in your own company and show the world how there's a better way than exploiting the proletariat?
 
2014-03-07 05:55:52 PM

Another Government Employee: ZAZ: Defined benefit pensions depend on honorable men who can make long term plans. So they're obsolete.

They also depend on replacement workers to continue the funding.  Hard to do that when they are replaced by machines and/or overseas slave labor.


I believe you're thinking of Social Security, which is an unfunded pension, like most state-administered pension plans.

Funded defined benefit pensions require the company to make periodic deposits from current revenues based on their employees' ages and earnings. They get into trouble when the deposits are delayed or deferred for short-term savings, which forces future contributions much higher (thanks, time value of money!).

/is this where I brag about having both a pension and 401(k) at my current employer?
 
2014-03-08 03:01:08 AM
Maybe the employees can put a 'freeze' on torquing those bolts down to the right foot-lbs.
 
2014-03-08 06:25:38 PM
I blame baby boomers. They got their's. Fark all y'all younger generations.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report