Cat person?
Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
23 17 46 11
edblysardCat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
ALL:
I am retiree of BNSF with 38 years of service. My wife and I receive railroad retirement and her teachers pension. We are in great shape. Social Security does not pay diddly.
Also, we belong to NARVE. Mergering SS and RRB is a bad move.
Ed Burns of Anoka, MN.
http://blog.historians.org/2014/10/flashback-friday-another-feline-friday/
tree68 CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it. Rather like Social Security...
CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Rather like Social Security...
I've always heard retirement was described has a three legged stool. You had a pension from where you worked, your own savings and Social Security. Over the years most of the pensions have gone away. Many people don't, or aren't able to, save as much as they should for retirement. That leaves Social Security as the last resort for many.
UP offers a 401(k) plan to agreement employees. They do not match the agreement employe's contribution.
Jeff
Ulrich Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting.
Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting.
Straight out the management "What to Say to Your Workers" handbook.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
Ulrich You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
The problem comes when he wants to take what you have away.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
That's different.. that's when you put up a fight.. hey.. that's where unions do a good job.
Ulrich Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
No. Your example is not analogous. If you don't know that many employees (union or not) compare wages with each other and get angry if they discover someone is getting a bigger raise or better pay for the same job, then you really.....
Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly....
edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
Y'all best tread lightly....
I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence...
edblysard Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly.... I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence...
Mookie edblysard Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly.... I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence... In that case, please do continue...
In that case, please do continue...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
jeffhergertI've always heard retirement was described has a three legged stool. You had a pension from where you worked, your own savings and Social Security. Over the years most of the pensions have gone away. Many people don't, or aren't able to, save as much as they should for retirement. That leaves Social Security as the last resort for many. UP offers a 401(k) plan to agreement employees. They do not match the agreement employe's contribution. Jeff
I am personally happy the pensions have gone away because their structure handcuffed people to a specific employer even if they did not like working there. Also, not much of a guarantee you will get all your pension if your employer goes bankrupt. So you should still invest in a 401k even if you have a pension because it is portable and can be taken to your next employer. Pension is frozen once you leave your employer.
Social Security even though it is intended as a suppliment is enough for some with lower costs to live off of and for others it is not needed all that much. I think we can survive with just 401k and SS......I know I can.
schlimm Ulrich Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting. Straight out the management "What to Say to Your Workers" handbook.
I'm in agreement with that but there are lots of shops that work that way. I've never felt the need to disclose my salary to those I supervise. They can discover that when I'm gone and they take over my job.
I will add that some employees who are not being paid what they think they are worth should be glad they're not.
Norm
schlimm Ulrich Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it. No. Your example is not analogous. If you don't know that many employees (union or not) compare wages with each other and get angry if they discover someone is getting a bigger raise or better pay for the same job, then you really.....
There's really no point to anger. If you feel you're not being compensated fairly or your benefits are insufficient it is best to speak to your supervisor or union rep about it. Maybe they made a mistake and overlooked you somehow.. or.. you learn why you're not getting what Bill or Jane gets. Sometimes there are valid reasons why two people doing the same jobs get different deals.
UlrichThere's really no point to anger.
Emotions are not rational, but they are real. Humans are not robots.
UlrichSometimes there are valid reasons why two people doing the same jobs get different deals.
And sometimes the reasons are not valid. Equal pay for equal work is an ideal in the US and probably Canada as well. [My grandfather emigrated from Ontario long ago.]
And sometimes the reasons aren't valid.. you're right.
CMStPnPI am personally happy the pensions have gone away because their structure handcuffed people to a specific employer even if they did not like working there. Also, not much of a guarantee you will get all your pension if your employer goes bankrupt.
You seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure.
For example, United Airlines.
In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer.
It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
schlimmYou seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure. For example, United Airlines.
PBGC, $88 Billion in assets and $164 Billion in obligations. Obligations growing faster than assets currently.
EuclidIn a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
schlimm Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
Unions have a contract between the workers and the employer, so yes the contract enforces equal pay because it defines the pay. But non-union work has no such contract. The only agreement is the rate of pay for hours worked. I don't know why thay would seem nonsensical to you. I also don't know why it would have anything to do with what I think of unions.
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer. It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
You really think so? Taking a non-union shop as an example: Employees A and B are equally capable but for lack of motivation employee B produces only half the Widgets employee A does. Their work stations are equal in capability but employee B has no personal motivation to be productive and does only what's necessary to keep his job. Who do you think management is going to favor?
And we can't forget simple longevity. Should the new hire get paid the same as the person who's been doing the job for 15 years?
For sake of argument, we'll assume that both are doing the same job, and that the newby has enough training/experience to perform the job at about the same level.
While there are certainly unfair disparaties between men and women doing the same job with the same longevity, experience, etc. - one reason that has been cited for a difference in pay that has been cited is that women often don't have the longevity, for a variety of reasons.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value
Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Electroliner 1935 Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value
Sully was already that good at five years.. it didn't take him 30 years.. he was already an exceptional pilot long before that. If you're not exceptional at five years in the job then you're not going to be exceptional at 30 years into the job either.. There's a good reason why fighter pilots are generally under 70 years old.
i am 84-1/2 and stilll quite capable of learning and have a proven abilitiy to adapt to new situations. Please do not insult me.
Not being political, but it seems that one Presidential candidate could learn that it is wise to consider what the listener will think before expressing one's immediate thoughts, and another still has to learn that admitting a mistake honestly may be better than a dishonest attempt to cover it up. I think I learned both those lessons a long time ago, and the specific candidates are younger than .me.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.