Pangloss Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 This United Airlines pension plan bailout really bugs me. I don't have a problem with temporary assistance, perhaps, and in theory that's what's going to happen here -- they'll be expected to rebuild their pension plan once they work out their problems. But the whole idea seems really dangerous to me. For one thing, that scribbling noise we're all hearing is the sound of every lawyer at every Fortune 500 company making notes on how to dump its pension plan on the American taxpayer as soon as humanly possible. Which really begs the question of what the point of this is at all. When did pension plans become a god-given right? That's the part that really gets me -- this idea that pensions are some kind of guarantee, and therefore they should be backed by the government. As if that actually makes some kind of sense. What are these people thinking? Why would this sound like a good idea to anybody? Pension plans are a company benefit. That's it, nothing more. If the company isn't doing well, guess what? You don't get your pension anymore! Hello, where's the mystery here? Now I realize that some pension plans are based on external investment and some companies have tapped into those funds in unethical manner. Absolutely, victims of that kind of abuse need to be helped. That's what the pension bailout agency was set up for. But note: It was NOT set up to save companies that are going through financial difficulties! This strikes me as a really bad, bad precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted May 12, 2005 Author Share Posted May 12, 2005 No really they worked for a long time at a compnay in hopes to retire on a nest egg, then bam it's not there and the time (intent) is gone. What about all the people who worked for a company that didn't have a pension plan? And does anybody in their right mind think that bailing out pension plans for companies who are floundering is going to act as a *deterrent* of some kind? United stands to save over $600 million with this move, and it's only $1.1 billion in the red -- that's half the company's debt. Investors and management are *overjoyed* about this news. Why the heck won't they just do the same thing NEXT time? I understand where you're coming from, but can we (as a society) at least dig a LITTLE beneath the surface emotions here before we leap onto a bandwagon that's going to make the savings and loan crisis look like a quick trip to Publix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now