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.]
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 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...
In that case, please do continue...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
23 17 46 11
That's different.. that's when you put up a fight.. hey.. that's where unions do a good job.
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
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
http://blog.historians.org/2014/10/flashback-friday-another-feline-friday/
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.
edblysardCat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
Cat person?
Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
ACY For many years, the 401K option was available to Amtrak Management employees, but not Agreement covered employees. I understand the Company contributed a share to those Management 401K plans. When the option became available to Agreement employees, the Company declined to add an additional contribution to the Agreement employees' contributions. My 401K was supported 100% directly by me. I guess they weren't legally obliged to contribute anything more, but it added a little extra source of resentment to the whole mix. The people who got the matches were already making more money in the first place, and generally got to sleep almost every night in their own bed. Tom
For many years, the 401K option was available to Amtrak Management employees, but not Agreement covered employees. I understand the Company contributed a share to those Management 401K plans. When the option became available to Agreement employees, the Company declined to add an additional contribution to the Agreement employees' contributions. My 401K was supported 100% directly by me. I guess they weren't legally obliged to contribute anything more, but it added a little extra source of resentment to the whole mix. The people who got the matches were already making more money in the first place, and generally got to sleep almost every night in their own bed.
Tom
Arrangements like that are almost certain to cause resentment. One would think management would know that, but saving bucks and perhaps more so, feeding management's sense of superiority, often take priority.
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...
schlimmI agree. Sometimes in our younger years we have viable options that include better provisions for the future. But often, just to pay the rent and put food on the table, we must take jobs that do not have such great options.
I think he meant it the other way. My Sister has a pension but takes crap and low paying jobs not because she needs to financially but to stay busy and she feels she has more freedom to walk away from the job without causing a major hole. She could do a lot better pay wise but refuses to go for it.
UlrichAs an aside.. as I get older I wonder to what extent we're really the product of the choices we make. Is the 65 year old guy who works for minimum wage at a gas bar really there because he's made some bad choices in his life? Maybe... maybe not. I'd say more often maybe not..
I agree. Sometimes in our younger years we have viable options that include better provisions for the future. But often, just to pay the rent and put food on the table, we must take jobs that do not have such great options.
Regardless of where we live, we all pretty much have the same aspirations insofar as being able to retire comfortably in old age. RR pension verses SS is not the only option or even a true comparison. There are other options. My contribution to this thread in a nutshell: if you've got a pension then that's great... but if you don't then there are other vehicles available whereby you too can enjoy a comfortable retirement. I'm not dissing pensioners or pensions in any way. I don't have a pension. Lots of others on this forum don't have one either. As an aside.. as I get older I wonder to what extent we're really the product of the choices we make. Is the 65 year old guy who works for minimum wage at a gas bar really there because he's made some bad choices in his life? Maybe... maybe not. I'd say more often maybe not..
Ulrich Neither.. I'm fine. I'm simply not understanding why my being a Canadian nonrailroader is relevant to this discussion. I'm also a nonpracticing Catholic and a cat person.
Neither.. I'm fine. I'm simply not understanding why my being a Canadian nonrailroader is relevant to this discussion. I'm also a nonpracticing Catholic and a cat person.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread. I never intended any criticism of you. Only putting into perspective your perspective and knowledge base on US SS.
Folks like you in Canada have two government programs: 1. Canada Pension Plan (CPP). 2. Old Age Security (OAS).
Ulrich My reading comprehension is just fine...thank you.
My reading comprehension is just fine...thank you.
Apparently not if you actually thought I was saying you needed permission. Or perhaps you just have a communication gap as you did with Tom?
BaltACD My Grandfather was on the railroad when Railroad Retirement began in 1935. He retired in 1957 after almost 48 years of service. He had paid into RRB for 22 years, and he continued to collect benefits until his death in 1989 - 32 years after his retirement. While he didn't die broke, the last few years were financially difficult as 'cost of living' increases on retirement benefits was a new and challenging concept. Some background on Railroad Retirement (which also includeds Unemployment and certain sickness benefits for Railroad employees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board Not being sufficiently well versed, the usual Wiki caveats apply.
My Grandfather was on the railroad when Railroad Retirement began in 1935. He retired in 1957 after almost 48 years of service. He had paid into RRB for 22 years, and he continued to collect benefits until his death in 1989 - 32 years after his retirement. While he didn't die broke, the last few years were financially difficult as 'cost of living' increases on retirement benefits was a new and challenging concept.
Some background on Railroad Retirement (which also includeds Unemployment and certain sickness benefits for Railroad employees)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
Not being sufficiently well versed, the usual Wiki caveats apply.
Just a comment here. The pay in and pay out periods do not necessarily mean someone else is paying in for him if pay in < pay out. Could very well be that the pay in that he did for 22 years covered 32 years and then some. Depending on how the money is invested of course. Only mention as a FYI.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.