By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 24 July 2013
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
Mr Khan said:

Hostess negotiated with their union in bad faith. They once told the workers to dodge a pay raise for the good of the company as a whole (to avoid bankruptcy!) the workers did so, the first time. Trouble was, Hostess took those savings and spent them on Executive Pay and the company continued to nosedive. So the *second* time Hostess came around and told the Union "pay cut or we go broke." The Union rightfully said "screw you."

On the part of the US Postal Service, aside from their collapsing revenue base (direct bulk mailing is what keeps them afloat now), the thing really crippling them is their "you must pre-fund your pensions for 75 years" thing, a law which was passed, by Republicans, specifically to cripple the USPS.

There are examples of greedy unions out there, but Hostess and USPS are both examples of right-wing malice and/or incompetence.

Yaknow, I just thought USPS was doing badly because they charge much less for the same service as any other carrier.

Boy was I wrong. In fact, it appears as if Congress is readressing this issue shortly. Man...having to pay 5.5B a year rather than pay what it actually owes. wtf? I'm with Khan on this. Stephen Lynch tried to fix this more than 2 years ago, and FL and CA republicans instead proposed that the usps workers fix it themselves, and said they would work against REPAYING 80B in overpaid pensions. 80B is a lot of fucking money.

The USPS hasn't overpaid their Pension plan.

Essentialy what happens is legally the USPS has agreed to prefund pension plans a lot more then most other companies/agencies.  Which almost  nobody else does.  Which coincidentally is why retirees like the ones in detroit are getting screwed.

 

http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2011/10/gao-no-refund-for-usps-overpayment-to-retirement-account/35150/

The USPS says they're overpaying based on what private companies have to pay.

The "overpayment" claim is made by them claiming a new formula more in line with what people pay into pension plans ahead of time now.  (Almost nothing... so they can screw over retirees whenever they have too.  Hence why people at GM lose value in their pension plans when they no longer even have a union vote for their contracts.)

 

Essentially they are trying to screw over retirees by making claims that make republicans look like the bad guys while they secretly raiding the pension fund.  It's essentially the EXACT kind of thing you and Khan would normally be against,(and should be!) clouded by blaming republicans. 

It's a hatchet job attempt to screw retirees in one of the few jobs where their pensions actually are mostly guranteed rather then false promises only honored when times are good.  Dumping retirees on welfare whenever times turn bad.

 

Jobs that have pension funds should require a sane level of guranteed pension funding to protect retirees form getting screwed whenever a company hits hard times and bosses and current union workers both agree THEY don't want to face immediate cuts.