|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 18, 2011 10:51:11 GMT -5
Everyone's personal financial situations are different, extended families, medical issues, or just plain bad luck, everyone has there own reasons.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 18, 2011 10:54:03 GMT -5
No one is claiming all Ford workers choose to live beyond their means...only they know and choose whether to ignore or acknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by fatnat on Oct 18, 2011 11:45:18 GMT -5
We weren't trying to lump all employees in the same group ktpelec. We were just stating out theories. That's all. You are right. Some people have no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck because of things out of their control but many of us choose to live well beyond our means and then are left to sacrifice our integrity in the end.
|
|
|
Post by reedycreekbuc on Oct 18, 2011 11:54:47 GMT -5
Not trying to negate the retiree's situation, but didn't most of them have the opportunity to prepare many years for retirement?
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 18, 2011 12:07:00 GMT -5
I'm sure the two-tier workers will tell us the same when our pension is gone and we only have TESPHE for retirement. The retirees should ALWAYS be protected in votes. They were promised things of their retirement under the contract in which they retired.
Why should we change this with our vote. It's easy to rationalize anything away when it does not directly effect you.
|
|
|
Post by fatnat on Oct 18, 2011 12:33:10 GMT -5
I can only answer your question reedycreekbuc with the information and an example that I only have. My dad is a retiree. My Dad was prepared. My Dad retired at 26 years of service. My dad is financially sound. Does this still mean I should vote to take away a benefit that was given to him under the contract he retired under? As I stated earlier, many people had no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck. Many had to retire not because they wanted to but were forced to because of health issues or other things beyond their control. I'm sure many have lived a lot longer than they expected after retiring. Whatever, those retirees deserve our respect regardless because without them many of us wouldn't have the rights and benefits we have today had it not been for them. I hope you are preparing for your future retirement and I'm not being sarcastic. I truly believe this has the cracked open the door to many losses in the future for retirees. How sympathetic do you think our future employees will be to our needs as retirees if we can't even stand together now as good paid employees with good benefits? I'll answer that for you. WE ARE SCREWED!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ktpgal89 on Oct 18, 2011 14:21:29 GMT -5
I can only answer your question reedycreekbuc with the information and an example that I only have. My dad is a retiree. My Dad was prepared. My Dad retired at 26 years of service. My dad is financially sound. Does this still mean I should vote to take away a benefit that was given to him under the contract he retired under? As I stated earlier, many people had no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck. Many had to retire not because they wanted to but were forced to because of health issues or other things beyond their control. I'm sure many have lived a lot longer than they expected after retiring. Whatever, those retirees deserve our respect regardless because without them many of us wouldn't have the rights and benefits we have today had it not been for them. I hope you are preparing for your future retirement and I'm not being sarcastic. I truly believe this has the cracked open the door to many losses in the future for retirees. How sympathetic do you think our future employees will be to our needs as retirees if we can't even stand together now as good paid employees with good benefits? I'll answer that for you. WE ARE SCREWED!!!! Great post Nat! My dad retired financially secure like yours, but why take something away that he was given during his retirement contract? Reedycreekbuc and several others on here don't understand how much our retirees fought for and the strikes they endured to get us our good benefits we have now. It is called "respect" and most of the younger workers-both UAW and outside-feel entitlement to the good life without having to give back anything in return. I can see the writing on the wall what our future is going to be like when the 2cd tier workers have our future in their hands. Maybe then it will hit home to people like him and they can finally see what we were talking about in the contract of '11.
|
|
|
Post by theycandothat93 on Oct 18, 2011 14:44:35 GMT -5
Problem is bout 65% of members only care for their own things, my income, my bills, my pension, and that number will rise under the new tier system. We should have stood our ground! One day they will be retired and wonder why they keep losing things, If are members don't care now, we don't have a prayer for our future.
|
|
|
Post by indyonce93 on Oct 18, 2011 14:59:57 GMT -5
And on that note....AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 19, 2011 6:54:49 GMT -5
They are called 2nd tier for a reason...they will need a 2nd job to get close to living like a middle class citizen....quite possibly a 3rd?
|
|
|
Post by reedycreekbuc on Oct 19, 2011 9:19:23 GMT -5
I can only answer your question reedycreekbuc with the information and an example that I only have. My dad is a retiree. My Dad was prepared. My Dad retired at 26 years of service. My dad is financially sound. Does this still mean I should vote to take away a benefit that was given to him under the contract he retired under? As I stated earlier, many people had no choice but to live paycheck to paycheck. Many had to retire not because they wanted to but were forced to because of health issues or other things beyond their control. I'm sure many have lived a lot longer than they expected after retiring. Whatever, those retirees deserve our respect regardless because without them many of us wouldn't have the rights and benefits we have today had it not been for them. I hope you are preparing for your future retirement and I'm not being sarcastic. I truly believe this has the cracked open the door to many losses in the future for retirees. How sympathetic do you think our future employees will be to our needs as retirees if we can't even stand together now as good paid employees with good benefits? I'll answer that for you. WE ARE SCREWED!!!! Great post Nat! My dad retired financially secure like yours, but why take something away that he was given during his retirement contract? Reedycreekbuc and several others on here don't understand how much our retirees fought for and the strikes they endured to get us our good benefits we have now. It is called "respect" and most of the younger workers-both UAW and outside-feel entitlement to the good life without having to give back anything in return. I can see the writing on the wall what our future is going to be like when the 2cd tier workers have our future in their hands. Maybe then it will hit home to people like him and they can finally see what we were talking about in the contract of '11. The so called $700 Christmas Bonus to retirees you refer to is actually entitled "Retiree Lump-Sum Bonus". A bonus is something given or paid in addition to what is usual or expected. We and the rest of the world don't always get bonuses. What I don't understand is that you come here and spout off how unfair the contract is, but you never offer any solutions, other than we should have everything back. Ford Motor Company told us before we got to the table that fixed costs would not be increased. You are not going to get any more than Ford wants to pay you or the retirees. The UAW does not run Ford, Alan Mullaly and the Ford family do. If you are unhappy with your settlement bonus, you could split it up and give it to 5 retirees for the "BONUS" they didn't receive. If you do, send me a picture of them getting the money. I would love to see it. You need to stop living in the past, because the UAW is not that strong anymore. They are in business to make money, not represent you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2011 9:24:43 GMT -5
^^^^LOL! @ this post^^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Ex-metalman on Oct 19, 2011 9:35:19 GMT -5
What makes me sick is how happy the co. is right now!!!!I can just see Bill Ford ,Alan Mulloy,and even BOB KING laughing their ass off!!This is a Major let down .For me any way.
|
|
|
Post by trinitus on Oct 19, 2011 10:01:31 GMT -5
I see a circle jerk with Bob as the pivot man.
|
|
|
Post by vengeance1 on Oct 19, 2011 10:54:14 GMT -5
New product is base on sales not scare tactics.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 19, 2011 11:35:05 GMT -5
Wait until you hear about the profit that was hidden 4 years ago.(Ammended this year avoiding profit sharing check to you) Wait until you hear the profit listed October 31st.
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 19, 2011 11:42:40 GMT -5
Wait until you hear about the profit that was hidden 4 years ago.(Ammended this year avoiding profit sharing check to you) Wait until you hear the profit listed October 31st. Then it counts under new profit formula.... NO?
|
|
|
Post by cletus on Oct 19, 2011 11:56:48 GMT -5
And then you'll see why they wanted the cap on profit sharing!
|
|
|
Post by Jr on Oct 19, 2011 12:30:32 GMT -5
Wait until you hear about the profit that was hidden 4 years ago.(Ammended this year avoiding profit sharing check to you) Wait until you hear the profit listed October 31st. Then it counts under new profit formula.... NO? Nope Will Not count
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 19, 2011 13:44:39 GMT -5
The cap is there for a reason...why do we need a cap? Are they expecting more than 12 billion profit all 4 yrs? There's always a reason...
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 19, 2011 22:54:49 GMT -5
In 2000, give or take a year, Ford showed no profit and no profit sharing was paid out. Four years later, Ford filed their amended return and revealed a profit to the IRS. No, we did not get anything then either.
Under corporate tax law, corporations have 5 years to file an amended return. No protections from this was put into the contract that I could find.
|
|
|
Post by crazycardz on Oct 21, 2011 21:09:27 GMT -5
Ok let me ask a question here...i have 11 yrs in ford mo co. and my question to you all is this...how come when the big executives get their bonuses they get ford stock along with cash...now if/when they were to cash in their stock, what tax would they have to pay on that...the point im tryn to make is our bonus gets taxed at a what 42% clip..so why not give us our bonus in stock then let us get taxed at the same rate the big wigs do...im sure its not at 40+ percent..someone correct me if im wrong on this...how come we nevr get the option to take stock or cash thats all im saying..can anyone explain to me.
|
|