Sounds like upper management got back at the union for tanking the company. When a company says "we don't even have enough cash flow to make your matching pension contributions" its probably not a good idea to go on strike. That decision cost them their jobs and their pensions too. The article was unclear though, on what exactly the company took. Was it just the matching contribution from the last couple of years?
Really they did? How'd they do that by agreeing to all the cuts to keep GM running?Originally Posted by coldair
[QUOTE=Big Battery;1114644]What does this have to do with union or anti-union? /QUOTE]
Oh, I dunno... maybe the first thread discussing this was : Thanks Unions....no more twinkies
I sometimes (often) laugh at your posts. I feel bad about it sometimes because I know you can't help yourself.
No product no profit no pay check, the unions won get over it.
Unless of course you are on the board . . then there are all kinds of bonuses regardless of profit.
How is that ROBBING PENSION FUNDS? More FACTLESS drivle from DBRYAN!
The company quit putting "COMPANY" money towards the pension plan, not "EMPLOYEE" contributions. THE "COMPANY" is not required to MATCH "EMPLOYEE" contributions.The maneuver probably doesn't violate federal law because the money Hostess failed to put into the pension didn't come directly from employees, experts said.
There was no profit anyway and it was just a matter of time before it happened, no matter what workers did. Now they file and draw unemployment.
Ask simon, he will explain it to you.
It depends on what is in the contract.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote