Fedex Denies Pension Benefits To Gay Spouse

[It will be fine]

http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Same-sex-benefits-suit-against-FedEx-can-proceed-6747990.php
Another article on the case. Sounds like the survivor will end up getting the benefits since the facts are not in doubt and the marriage was legal. The law blocking the marriage was unconstitutional and benefits should be available retroactively.

 

[bbsam]

As far as I know the traditional pension ended for everyone, management included. Wouldn't shock me if managers still get a traditional pension, but there's never been anything public that would suggest that that I've seen. But if FedEx somehow got the gov't to limit retirement benefits to only the retiree it would have to be to every retiree in every company, not just FedEx. The resulting firestorm would effectively bring down the current administration, just as trying to eliminate Social Security would. That's why when FedEx eliminated the previous pension plan they replaced it with another, albeit not as good a one. In effect FedEx was already limiting retirement benefits by holding down pay. Not only were midrange employees having to live with much less income, but their lower pay was also stunting their future retirement. It's a catch-22 for employees. We're having the burden of retirement placed more on us, but we aren't getting paid enough to fund our retirement. A courier with a decent retirement will only have one by sacrificing as much as possible and probably working a second job too. Most in their earlier years don't seem to get what's going to happen down the road, but maybe distrust of the Social Security system will spur them to save more. There's always the alternative to live overseas in a much cheaper country, but given the news these days I doubt many will move abroad.

All that and still you are a republican?

 

[bacha29]

It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about a weak economy with several recessions over the decades. Right after something iis done about imigration the back channels around capital hill are saying that pension reform will be next. What was suggested was the employee throw in 4% and the employer 4% into a group of mutual funds the employee can choose from that are federally quaranteed. I know that I will regret mentioning this proposal to you guys.

 

[bbsam]

It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about a weak economy with several recessions over the decades. Right after something iis done about imigration the back channels around capital hill are saying that pension reform will be next. What was suggested was the employee throw in 4% and the employer 4% into a group of mutual funds the employee can choose from that are federally quaranteed. I know that I will regret mentioning this proposal to you guys.

Nothing will be done on immigration reform except for making campaign speeches and pension reform will benefit only one special interest: Wall Street.

 

[FedGT]

This is in regards to what bacha just posted not about the initial post.

Let's not make anyone responsible for their own lack of savings and retirement. Makes more sense for everyone to have the latest $650 cell phone every 3 months, cars that are traded every 1-2 years, hundreds if not thousands spent on clothes, and let's not for get keeping up with friends and neighbors so you don't look cheap. Going back two generations none of my family has worked for anyone, both sets of grandparents farmers/ranchers I was never brought up to assume anyone was going to take care of retirement for me or that the govt would bail me out if I didn't do what I needed to.
Do I agree that wages across the nation should raise, yes. Will they, hell no. In the meantime stop buying the latest and greatest and save/invest for your own damn future.

 

[bacha29]

Yep no question about it. President Bush brought up the idea of privatizing Social Security a few months before the market crash. However Wall Street was all for it except for the idea of having to manage small accounts. The answer? The smaller the account balance the larger the management fees. One thing to keep in mind guys. X owes it's entire existance to consumption. In fact 70% of the U.S.economy is private sector consumption of goods and services and X owes it's entire existance to what? Consumption.

 

[vantexan]

This is in regards to what bacha just posted not about the initial post.

Let's not make anyone responsible for their own lack of savings and retirement. Makes more sense for everyone to have the latest $650 cell phone every 3 months, cars that are traded every 1-2 years, hundreds if not thousands spent on clothes, and let's not for get keeping up with friends and neighbors so you don't look cheap. Going back two generations none of my family has worked for anyone, both sets of grandparents farmers/ranchers I was never brought up to assume anyone was going to take care of retirement for me or that the govt would bail me out if I didn't do what I needed to.
Do I agree that wages across the nation should raise, yes. Will they, hell no. In the meantime stop buying the latest and greatest and save/invest for your own damn future.

You're right to some extent but are you assuming we're all doing that? We have 1 2009 car and I use a $25 a month Net 10 cellphone. We get by better than someone making $10hr but we don't have the latest and greatest everything. I'm not expecting the gov't to take care of me but I have paid into Social Security and expect to get something back. My grandfather drilled water wells for 50 years and paid his own way but he had opportunities that most don't have today. The gov't should help business, not restrict it, and that's why I'm a Republican. Most people don't have the wherewithal or drive to run their own business, but they can take jobs businessmen offer in an environment where businessmen see opportunities for growth and profit. The gov't paying everyone's way will only lead to collapse.

 

[bbsam]

This is in regards to what bacha just posted not about the initial post.

Let's not make anyone responsible for their own lack of savings and retirement. Makes more sense for everyone to have the latest $650 cell phone every 3 months, cars that are traded every 1-2 years, hundreds if not thousands spent on clothes, and let's not for get keeping up with friends and neighbors so you don't look cheap. Going back two generations none of my family has worked for anyone, both sets of grandparents farmers/ranchers I was never brought up to assume anyone was going to take care of retirement for me or that the govt would bail me out if I didn't do what I needed to.
Do I agree that wages across the nation should raise, yes. Will they, hell no. In the meantime stop buying the latest and greatest and save/invest for your own damn future.

Some truth to that but...

Something happened in the 50's and 60's. The US economy exploded and it was very good for everyone. The "Baby boomers" had it all. Great jobs, great pensions, great benefits. So what happened? Those same boomers elected Reagan and a bunch of republicans/corporate democrats who have robbed the workers of America blind. They've taken care of themselves and expect future generations to find their own way. The problem is that the boomers have been spending their social security on wars and all other manner of idiocy.

People laughed at Gore and talk of a "lock box". We'd be better off now had that been taken seriously.

 

[bacha29]

Guys, want to know something. Who was the keynote speaker at the 1948 Democratic National Convention and who was the keynote speaker at the 1956 Democratic Nation Convention? The answer, 1948...... Ronald Reagan. 1956 convention .....Charleton Hesston. They were as liberal as it gets until they got rich. Oh as for Reagan's socalled "ranch" . it was nothing more than a desert too dry to grow anything on it but he was pulling down 4 million a year from Uncle Sam's crop diversion programs.

 

[bbsam]

Yes. The entire boomer generation was liberal...until they got theirs.

Then again, the 50's and 60's were the anomaly. All of history, in every socioeconomic system, the "HAVES" have screwed the "HAVE NOTS" and considered themselves fully justified in doing so.

 

[vantexan]

Yes. The entire boomer generation was liberal...until they got theirs.

Then again, the 50's and 60's were the anomaly. All of history, in every socioeconomic system, the "HAVES" have screwed the "HAVE NOTS" and considered themselves fully justified in doing so.

I seem to recall Clinton signing both NAFTA and welfare reform. I know it's not popular here, but unions demanding more and more was the major factor in driving manufacturing offshore. No, people shouldn't work for peanuts but demanding more and more will eventually make even the staunchest patriot say enough's enough, we're heading to Mexico. It's not one sided, most are greedy and look what it got us. My biggest problem with FedEx has been the lying to us, using us. Not surprised by the manipulations to protect themselves from a union, but the dishonesty is what eats at me. Be thankful we aren't peasants that the aristocracy routinely bludgeons to keep them in their place. Our wealthy either run over others to the top or are heirs to those who did. But unlike aristocrats of other countries if you're a big enough S.O.B. you can still grab your's in this country.

 

[bbsam]

I seem to recall Clinton signing both NAFTA and welfare reform. I know it's not popular here, but unions demanding more and more was the major factor in driving manufacturing offshore. No, people shouldn't work for peanuts but demanding more and more will eventually make even the staunchest patriot say enough's enough, we're heading to Mexico. It's not one sided, most are greedy and look what it got us. My biggest problem with FedEx has been the lying to us, using us. Not surprised by the manipulations to protect themselves from a union, but the dishonesty is what eats at me. Be thankful we aren't peasants that the aristocracy routinely bludgeons to keep them in their place. Our wealthy either run over others to the top or are heirs to those who did. But unlike aristocrats of other countries if you're a big enough S.O.B. you can still grab your's in this country.

In another post I referenced Reagan and corporate democrats. I'd say Clinton champions that group fairly well.

 

[bacha29]

When NAFTA came up for a vote in the House the majority of Democrat's voted against NAFTA but it wasn't enough to stop it. Yet to day Mexico is still exporting it's povery to the U.S. What I fully expect to see is a Republican elected president this year along with a strong and very hard line Republican Congressional majority. But when the American people get a belly full of that hard line conservatism it will turn hard left politically and another Republican president will be voted out of office.

 

[vantexan]

When NAFTA came up for a vote in the House the majority of Democrat's voted against NAFTA but it wasn't enough to stop it. Yet to day Mexico is still exporting it's povery to the U.S. What I fully expect to see is a Republican elected president this year along with a strong and very hard line Republican Congressional majority. But when the American people get a belly full of that hard line conservatism it will turn hard left politically and another Republican president will be voted out of office.

George W. wasn't voted out, neither was Reagan. The problem with what the Dem's have to offer is that they've already run the debt up so high that they have little left to offer. People want jobs, want security. If the Republicans win and fulfill those desires then it will only be moderate Democrats who'll turn the tide, not the far Left on offer today.

 

[vantexan]

When NAFTA came up for a vote in the House the majority of Democrat's voted against NAFTA but it wasn't enough to stop it. Yet to day Mexico is still exporting it's povery to the U.S. What I fully expect to see is a Republican elected president this year along with a strong and very hard line Republican Congressional majority. But when the American people get a belly full of that hard line conservatism it will turn hard left politically and another Republican president will be voted out of office.

P.S. It was only Democrats who crafted Obamacare, and only Democrats who voted for it. They hung themselves with that albatross.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

P.S. It was only Democrats who crafted Obamacare, and only Democrats who voted for it. They hung themselves with that albatross.

The insurance companies created Obamacare.

 

[bbsam]

The insurance companies created Obamacate.

And won't let it go anywhere.

 

[vantexan]

Guys, want to know something. Who was the keynote speaker at the 1948 Democratic National Convention and who was the keynote speaker at the 1956 Democratic Nation Convention? The answer, 1948...... Ronald Reagan. 1956 convention .....Charleton Hesston. They were as liberal as it gets until they got rich. Oh as for Reagan's socalled "ranch" . it was nothing more than a desert too dry to grow anything on it but he was pulling down 4 million a year from Uncle Sam's crop diversion programs.

Can't find anything about Reagan getting $4 million a year in subsidies. Care to prove that?

 

[MAKAVELI]

George W. wasn't voted out, neither was Reagan. The problem with what the Dem's have to offer is that they've already run the debt up so high that they have little left to offer. People want jobs, want security. If the Republicans win and fulfill those desires then it will only be moderate Democrats who'll turn the tide, not the far Left on offer today.

Did you forget it was a republican president that left this country in a total economic collapse and 2 unnecessary wars?

 

[vantexan]

The insurance companies created Obamacate.

What's this "Obamacate" you speak of White man?