Kev3188
Veteran
That all seems a bit overwrought, but I hope you feel better.
On with the show...
On with the show...
Pensions Are Already Underfunded by $14.1 billion
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
signals
Veteran
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Well, Tim, as someone who was caught red handed in the cookie jar using duplicate ID's, you might want to see if you perhaps have multiple online personality disorder.
I don't use duplicate ID's since leaving AA, and I'm certainly not using them to vote you up or down as you've accused. Nor have I been voting you down in pattern voting the way that your "reputation given" history indicates.
But please, do keep trying to bloody me as a publicly disclosed figure while you pretend to be anonymous. I don't get to Paraná very often, but will be sure to look you up next time I do.
I don't use duplicate ID's since leaving AA, and I'm certainly not using them to vote you up or down as you've accused. Nor have I been voting you down in pattern voting the way that your "reputation given" history indicates.
But please, do keep trying to bloody me as a publicly disclosed figure while you pretend to be anonymous. I don't get to Paraná very often, but will be sure to look you up next time I do.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
(what's the deal with not being able to edit posts lately?....)
Maybe you can provide some valid proof of duplicate ID's used by others, or better yet, try and explain why someone would want to invest the time and effort in using one just to try and trash someone else's reputation?
Is there really any meat in that sandwich, or is it just another example of you doing a hit & run like you did on the claim that I was the last word of authority on the forums?
The reality and fact of the situation is that we earn our reputations not as much by what we say or write, but more in how we say it and respond to those who disagree with us.
Another fact is that you've intentionally tried to trash my public reputation here both in writing and in voting, and you've previously attempted to ensure that negative results show up if someone does a Google search on my name.
Seems to me that if you've got problems in the reputation department, you need to take a longer look in the mirror instead of trying to find others to try and hold accountable.
Maybe you can provide some valid proof of duplicate ID's used by others, or better yet, try and explain why someone would want to invest the time and effort in using one just to try and trash someone else's reputation?
Is there really any meat in that sandwich, or is it just another example of you doing a hit & run like you did on the claim that I was the last word of authority on the forums?
The reality and fact of the situation is that we earn our reputations not as much by what we say or write, but more in how we say it and respond to those who disagree with us.
Another fact is that you've intentionally tried to trash my public reputation here both in writing and in voting, and you've previously attempted to ensure that negative results show up if someone does a Google search on my name.
Seems to me that if you've got problems in the reputation department, you need to take a longer look in the mirror instead of trying to find others to try and hold accountable.
Personally I don't get all the strife about reputations and voting up/down posts. Like I have said before, I speak my mind on this forum and share my view points that are unpopular at times. Similarly, I also evaluate other posts through the tool provided. I'm not hung up my reputation score online on an anonymous message board with strangers. Not sure why this is such a tough concept for some to grasp on here. I come here to learn about AA and get away (at least virtually) from work and family matters.
Josh
Josh
USA, USA, USA! Yes we can!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/walker-survives-wisconsin-recall-effort.html?_r=1&hp
Walkers survives recall effort. Organized labor definitely feels worried now, probably even more do than in February/March 2011. Justice and democracy will be seved, we won't have a minority of over entitled government workers leaching off everyone who works hard, plays by the rules and pays taxes. This was their only hope, the general strike Bob was discussing last spring never materialized. Hopefully more states and municipalities will follow suit and public workers will be treated like everyone else.
The public has spoken, unions are all about democracy, free speech, etc except when it counters union efforts or agenda. Unions will continue to lose members and influence as they have for years now. Who knows if Romney gets elected we may even see a national right to work law.
Other states will undoubtably pursue similar restrictions and attack organized labor or in nice terms "reforms". Even here in Boston there were reforms, city hall went on an all out attack on the Boston Fire Dept, despite their rumored connections to the IRA, Mob, and other potentially violent confrontational organizations.
Josh
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/politics/walker-survives-wisconsin-recall-effort.html?_r=1&hp
Walkers survives recall effort. Organized labor definitely feels worried now, probably even more do than in February/March 2011. Justice and democracy will be seved, we won't have a minority of over entitled government workers leaching off everyone who works hard, plays by the rules and pays taxes. This was their only hope, the general strike Bob was discussing last spring never materialized. Hopefully more states and municipalities will follow suit and public workers will be treated like everyone else.
The public has spoken, unions are all about democracy, free speech, etc except when it counters union efforts or agenda. Unions will continue to lose members and influence as they have for years now. Who knows if Romney gets elected we may even see a national right to work law.
Other states will undoubtably pursue similar restrictions and attack organized labor or in nice terms "reforms". Even here in Boston there were reforms, city hall went on an all out attack on the Boston Fire Dept, despite their rumored connections to the IRA, Mob, and other potentially violent confrontational organizations.
Josh
Kev3188
Veteran
Ha!
(kev3188 likes these)
^I'll be damned... we agree on something...^
...And now it's back to business as usual...
I don't know if "worried" is the word you're looking for. I'd say disappointed, and certainly concerned, but I think what we saw in the last 18 mos. or so is both the evolution and return of grassroots organizing, not just in labor per se, but in population at large.
Walker wants to trounce people's 1st Amendment rights, and is actively working to do so. That's anything but justice or democracy.
These people work hard, play by the rules, and pay taxes too.
???
It's one state out of 50... And one election, for that matter. Lest we forget the backlash in OH over SB5. It's an uphill climb, but not always a one-way street.
Katrina Vanden Huevel (sp?) had an Op-ed in the Washington Post, and in it, she wrote, "Elections are over in a matter of hours, but movements are made of weeks, months and years."
I think that sums it up nicely.
Kinda like how the right uses buzzwords like "freedom," and "smaller government" while in practice doing the exact opposite?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
There are a lot of people who said they could care less about the post voting system and also don’t understand all the noise that is being made about it, esp. in a dedicated thread that was opened about the use of duplicate IDs by one member for voting.
But the post voting system is a PUBLIC feature of this board, in contrast to the PM system and other features which are not intended for all to see. Activity under the post voting system is public and changes to the board make it even more so. Thus, it becomes all the more necessary to ask questions about why certain posters have such high levels of voting activity for or against one person just as it would be expected that text responses have to be defended. No one has to defend why they vote but because the voting system is public, neither should it be a surprise when someone does ask. The board has built in accountability into all of the public actions on the board – exactly what I support.
The reason why I am making an issue of it is because it has been apparent for a long time – well before the new board came online – that there were a handful of people who were responsible for the vast majority of my negative votes. Some of those same people then turned around and used my negative vote count as a tool to argue against my credibility.
I chose to create a second user ID solely to counter the impact of the negative votes that were coming from a handful of users since the board provided about a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of positive to negative posts. Some of these same people then howled with protest that I was using a second ID despite the fact that it is not against board rules for any member to do so (hope the board is ready for a wave of new ID requests).
I chose to further push the issue because some of these same people wanted to throw accountability back in my face, even while they continued their practice of using multiple IDs and voting down my posts en masse, even while they made a public spectacle of the fact that I had multiple IDs – to counter their own voting massive negative votes.
I don’t care about the reputation score. I weigh my reputation on the accuracy of what I say about the airline industry and whether it stands the test of time to be proven to be right or not.
But some people, particularly those who have posted statements about the industry which turned out to be wrong want to define credibility by the number of times they can push a red button AGAINST someone else – in other words, if you can’t compete in the market place of idea, discredit your opponent using what was once a secret voting process. But it is public now.
Once again, it is not against board rules to have more than one user ID, including to vote on other posts. You might question WHY someone would have two IDs, though, and when the evidence supports that a person has multiple IDs, then the question becomes why that person had multiple IDs.
I’ve posted my reasons.
As I suspected, though, I’m not the only one who has ever used a multiple ID, even if it is to vote.
And as I suspected, Eric, you have just admitted that you have had more than one ID on this site. Why did you do that, Eric? Was it perhaps that because as an employee of American Airlines there were things that you wanted to say that could reflect on American Airlines, or more significantly, you as their employee? Apparently it was ok for you to maintain two identities, one public and one private, so that you did not prejudice your position as an American Airlines employee yet you felt it was wrong that other people who chose not to use two IDs but instead use only one and speak from a position of anonymity. You in fact tried to out some people who didn’t use two IDs, posting confidential material.
So, let’s be clear that you used two IDs to post, even if years ago, since the voting system was only relatively recently added BUT you had a field day pointing out that someone else was using two IDs to vote? Do I have that right?
Eric, could you tell us the user ID that you once used? Can you also testify that you have not used that user ID to post or to vote with since you left AA, which would also happen to coincide with the time frame in which I returned to this board after several years as an inactive user? To reiterate, you haven’t used that ID EVEN ONCE in the past say, two to three years?
Tell you what. We can make it a whole lot easier for all of us.
You and I can just make this whole little issue go away IF you will:
1. Forever cease and desist any commentary regarding the use of multiple IDs since it would be hypocritical to expect something of someone else which you weren’t willing to do for yourself.
2. Cease and desist using that second ID for all purposes – or be willing to stand up to the reality that it is connected to you, and ultimately your other name on this forum, which you do use for professional purposes.
3. Recognize that this board exists for the exchange of ideas from all users and that what is said and done on the board is public; what is not said or not done on the public features of the board are private and need to stay there.
In return, together we will work to exchange ideas based on the level of disclosure each participant wants to provide – which is what internet forums are all about - and recognize that some of us have expertise in some areas while others have expertise in other areas.
I’ll not point out the inaccuracies of what others have said and will also tone down my own bragging about being right.
Fair?
Now moving on…..
Analysis of the Wisconsin voting results will take a long time, but I believe what it shows is that American voters are in fact realizing that there is a limit to what we as a country can spend to maintain social benefits. Pension benefits are extraordinarily costly, esp. in a period when stock markets are weak. It was precisely the roaring stock market of the late 1990s that made defined benefit plans cheap for employers… and that same weak and retreating stock market over the past 10 or so years has meant that companies have had to fund the majority of their DB benefits with cash because stock market returns weren’t providing much if anything to help.
I suspect analysis of the election will show that Americans are willing to say that DB benefits, like costly social programs, were great when we could afford them but have to be cut now that the economy doesn’t support them. Europe has made a lot more social promises and has a weaker economy; they are facing enormous social upheaval because unwinding those social promises are a whole lot harder than they are in the US.
If those pension/social programs have to be unwound, then the question becomes how best to do it to minimize impact on those who were promised benefits in the past and future as well as on those who are left holding the bill.
Specific to the airline industry, when UA and US filed for BK, it was much more difficult to restructure and save pensions and like the steel industry before, terminating pensions wasn’t unexpected – companies paid insurance to the PBGC to ensure that pensions would survive should a company fail.
DL and NW proved that it was possible to freeze rather than terminate most pensions and it could turn out to be better for the other creditors not to terminate the pensions, reducing the size of the claim against the company. Plus, there was less of a burden on employees who would have to keep working for the company after the reorg was completed.
Enter AA whose creditors are now trying to freeze rather than terminate all of their pensions, including the pilot pension which has a similar lump sum distribution feature to what doomed PMDL’s pilot pension.
I hope that AA can save ALL of its pensions, just as I hope that the voters in WI and every other state can figure out how to change FUTURE benefits while protecting accrued benefits….essentially a freeze. (likely) Based on what Signals has said, that is apparently the approach North Carolina has taken… a tiered approach to benefits that brings today’s workers in line with reality.
Of course it means that ensuring that those accrued benefits will still be paid has a price to the companies/societies that will remain faithful to their word. UA and US don’t have an obligation which DL has and AA might very well join DL as having those same obligations, perhaps covering their entire workforce.
AA and DL will either have to be more efficient in other costs and/or generate higher revenues in order to ensure they continue to support their frozen pension plans, instead of expecting the PBGC to do it, which might require a government bailout if another large company or two’s pensions are added to it.
It is then up to AA and DL to figure out how to ensure their business plan can support their remaining pension obligations. DL is taking the approach of limiting the amount of additional debt it takes on. AA’s business plan is still being developed…. That’s what happens in BK as they are able to cut some things but have to continue to work through others and make adjustments based on what doesn’t get cut.
Remaining faithful to promises that have been made is not easy and often times is much more costly than expecting someone else to pick up the tab.
But the post voting system is a PUBLIC feature of this board, in contrast to the PM system and other features which are not intended for all to see. Activity under the post voting system is public and changes to the board make it even more so. Thus, it becomes all the more necessary to ask questions about why certain posters have such high levels of voting activity for or against one person just as it would be expected that text responses have to be defended. No one has to defend why they vote but because the voting system is public, neither should it be a surprise when someone does ask. The board has built in accountability into all of the public actions on the board – exactly what I support.
The reason why I am making an issue of it is because it has been apparent for a long time – well before the new board came online – that there were a handful of people who were responsible for the vast majority of my negative votes. Some of those same people then turned around and used my negative vote count as a tool to argue against my credibility.
I chose to create a second user ID solely to counter the impact of the negative votes that were coming from a handful of users since the board provided about a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of positive to negative posts. Some of these same people then howled with protest that I was using a second ID despite the fact that it is not against board rules for any member to do so (hope the board is ready for a wave of new ID requests).
I chose to further push the issue because some of these same people wanted to throw accountability back in my face, even while they continued their practice of using multiple IDs and voting down my posts en masse, even while they made a public spectacle of the fact that I had multiple IDs – to counter their own voting massive negative votes.
I don’t care about the reputation score. I weigh my reputation on the accuracy of what I say about the airline industry and whether it stands the test of time to be proven to be right or not.
But some people, particularly those who have posted statements about the industry which turned out to be wrong want to define credibility by the number of times they can push a red button AGAINST someone else – in other words, if you can’t compete in the market place of idea, discredit your opponent using what was once a secret voting process. But it is public now.
Once again, it is not against board rules to have more than one user ID, including to vote on other posts. You might question WHY someone would have two IDs, though, and when the evidence supports that a person has multiple IDs, then the question becomes why that person had multiple IDs.
I’ve posted my reasons.
As I suspected, though, I’m not the only one who has ever used a multiple ID, even if it is to vote.
And as I suspected, Eric, you have just admitted that you have had more than one ID on this site. Why did you do that, Eric? Was it perhaps that because as an employee of American Airlines there were things that you wanted to say that could reflect on American Airlines, or more significantly, you as their employee? Apparently it was ok for you to maintain two identities, one public and one private, so that you did not prejudice your position as an American Airlines employee yet you felt it was wrong that other people who chose not to use two IDs but instead use only one and speak from a position of anonymity. You in fact tried to out some people who didn’t use two IDs, posting confidential material.
So, let’s be clear that you used two IDs to post, even if years ago, since the voting system was only relatively recently added BUT you had a field day pointing out that someone else was using two IDs to vote? Do I have that right?
Eric, could you tell us the user ID that you once used? Can you also testify that you have not used that user ID to post or to vote with since you left AA, which would also happen to coincide with the time frame in which I returned to this board after several years as an inactive user? To reiterate, you haven’t used that ID EVEN ONCE in the past say, two to three years?
Tell you what. We can make it a whole lot easier for all of us.
You and I can just make this whole little issue go away IF you will:
1. Forever cease and desist any commentary regarding the use of multiple IDs since it would be hypocritical to expect something of someone else which you weren’t willing to do for yourself.
2. Cease and desist using that second ID for all purposes – or be willing to stand up to the reality that it is connected to you, and ultimately your other name on this forum, which you do use for professional purposes.
3. Recognize that this board exists for the exchange of ideas from all users and that what is said and done on the board is public; what is not said or not done on the public features of the board are private and need to stay there.
In return, together we will work to exchange ideas based on the level of disclosure each participant wants to provide – which is what internet forums are all about - and recognize that some of us have expertise in some areas while others have expertise in other areas.
I’ll not point out the inaccuracies of what others have said and will also tone down my own bragging about being right.
Fair?
Now moving on…..
Analysis of the Wisconsin voting results will take a long time, but I believe what it shows is that American voters are in fact realizing that there is a limit to what we as a country can spend to maintain social benefits. Pension benefits are extraordinarily costly, esp. in a period when stock markets are weak. It was precisely the roaring stock market of the late 1990s that made defined benefit plans cheap for employers… and that same weak and retreating stock market over the past 10 or so years has meant that companies have had to fund the majority of their DB benefits with cash because stock market returns weren’t providing much if anything to help.
I suspect analysis of the election will show that Americans are willing to say that DB benefits, like costly social programs, were great when we could afford them but have to be cut now that the economy doesn’t support them. Europe has made a lot more social promises and has a weaker economy; they are facing enormous social upheaval because unwinding those social promises are a whole lot harder than they are in the US.
If those pension/social programs have to be unwound, then the question becomes how best to do it to minimize impact on those who were promised benefits in the past and future as well as on those who are left holding the bill.
Specific to the airline industry, when UA and US filed for BK, it was much more difficult to restructure and save pensions and like the steel industry before, terminating pensions wasn’t unexpected – companies paid insurance to the PBGC to ensure that pensions would survive should a company fail.
DL and NW proved that it was possible to freeze rather than terminate most pensions and it could turn out to be better for the other creditors not to terminate the pensions, reducing the size of the claim against the company. Plus, there was less of a burden on employees who would have to keep working for the company after the reorg was completed.
Enter AA whose creditors are now trying to freeze rather than terminate all of their pensions, including the pilot pension which has a similar lump sum distribution feature to what doomed PMDL’s pilot pension.
I hope that AA can save ALL of its pensions, just as I hope that the voters in WI and every other state can figure out how to change FUTURE benefits while protecting accrued benefits….essentially a freeze. (likely) Based on what Signals has said, that is apparently the approach North Carolina has taken… a tiered approach to benefits that brings today’s workers in line with reality.
Of course it means that ensuring that those accrued benefits will still be paid has a price to the companies/societies that will remain faithful to their word. UA and US don’t have an obligation which DL has and AA might very well join DL as having those same obligations, perhaps covering their entire workforce.
AA and DL will either have to be more efficient in other costs and/or generate higher revenues in order to ensure they continue to support their frozen pension plans, instead of expecting the PBGC to do it, which might require a government bailout if another large company or two’s pensions are added to it.
It is then up to AA and DL to figure out how to ensure their business plan can support their remaining pension obligations. DL is taking the approach of limiting the amount of additional debt it takes on. AA’s business plan is still being developed…. That’s what happens in BK as they are able to cut some things but have to continue to work through others and make adjustments based on what doesn’t get cut.
Remaining faithful to promises that have been made is not easy and often times is much more costly than expecting someone else to pick up the tab.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
You jumped right on that red button, Mach85ER.
Wanna share with us what you find distasteful about the post - and the dozens of others that you have voted down without explanation?
Wanna share with us what you find distasteful about the post - and the dozens of others that you have voted down without explanation?
Kev3188
Veteran
... Susceptible to dog whistle corporate messaging, even when it means voting against their best interests...
BTW, the pension fund in WI was not "in trouble," and the state wasn't "broke." Walker manufactured a budget crisis to achieve a political end.
Kev3188
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
Since a much larger majority of people DO pay taxes than do belong to or benefit from public unions, then it would appear that people are indeed voting for their own interests.
Yes, I know the WI pension system was not in trouble. Only a very few public pensions are truly in trouble. I've never doubted that Walker et al are targeting public sector unions; headlines today across all kinds of media proclaim his victory at the expense of labor.
It would appear that the majority of people are more interested in protecting their own financial interests than in protecing the pay and benefits packages of a much smaller minority of the citizenry.
The result is not unexpected... and it validates that WI, like much of the US is very divided based on values. The challenge is then to speak honestly with each other and recognize that the winds of change can blow pretty rapidly.
Lots of people saw alot of policy changes based on the change in administration in Washington several years ago. GIven that there are such clear differences between political parties, those swings can be just as dramatic when they occur elsewhere. Americans need to figure out how to dialogue with each other and to make the best of situations that are not necessarily of their choosing. It is that kind of adaptability that defines winners, whether it be in the corporate world and is defined by retaining pensions or whether it is as citizens living in a country with rapid changes in public policy.
It is precisely because of that necessity to dialogue and give voice to one's concerns that I called out M85ER.
The post voting system is a public part of this board. Enough members said they want the transparency to know how people are voting; it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of us want to ask people who have a pattern of using their votes almost exclusively against one person with very little explanation or text.
If there are people who want to speak via the post voting system, then it shouldn't be a surprise that the results of the use of that system shouldn't find its way into the text portion of the forums.
Accountability and transparency is not a one way street.
Yes, I know the WI pension system was not in trouble. Only a very few public pensions are truly in trouble. I've never doubted that Walker et al are targeting public sector unions; headlines today across all kinds of media proclaim his victory at the expense of labor.
It would appear that the majority of people are more interested in protecting their own financial interests than in protecing the pay and benefits packages of a much smaller minority of the citizenry.
The result is not unexpected... and it validates that WI, like much of the US is very divided based on values. The challenge is then to speak honestly with each other and recognize that the winds of change can blow pretty rapidly.
Lots of people saw alot of policy changes based on the change in administration in Washington several years ago. GIven that there are such clear differences between political parties, those swings can be just as dramatic when they occur elsewhere. Americans need to figure out how to dialogue with each other and to make the best of situations that are not necessarily of their choosing. It is that kind of adaptability that defines winners, whether it be in the corporate world and is defined by retaining pensions or whether it is as citizens living in a country with rapid changes in public policy.
It is precisely because of that necessity to dialogue and give voice to one's concerns that I called out M85ER.
The post voting system is a public part of this board. Enough members said they want the transparency to know how people are voting; it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of us want to ask people who have a pattern of using their votes almost exclusively against one person with very little explanation or text.
If there are people who want to speak via the post voting system, then it shouldn't be a surprise that the results of the use of that system shouldn't find its way into the text portion of the forums.
Accountability and transparency is not a one way street.
Kev3188
Veteran
That's just it; through messaging they've come to believe they're doing just that, but that's not what is really occurring.
I think it's safe to say that a universal answer of what constitutes one's "best interests" would be jobs, & lower taxes. Neither are happening right now in Badgerland. In fact, WI is 50th out of 50 in job creation.
Speaking of jobs, and "job creators," companies don't create jobs solely because of tax breaks- which Walker has doled out in droves. They create them when the demand for their goods/services outstrips their capacity to deliver. Median wages in WI are now lower. Guess what happens when people have less income to spend? Of course, this won't hurt large industries as hard- after all, people still gotta buy gas/pay the mortgage/eat. Who affects most is the other pet of the Right; the small business owner. Adding further salt, a much greater proportion of income spent at their businesses stays in a state. Not so for dollars spent at BP, or Wells fargo. All this does is perpetuate the cycle...
Even after Act 10, the budget is *still* not balanced. All his budget does is paying interest on the current debt, while diverting $$ that would've landed back in the state's treasury to corporations & wealthy. BTW, before someone says it, I'm for FAIR taxation, regardless of tax bracket.
Not that I've seen.
What's your definition of "enough," and where is the thread that discusses this?
I've seen all of 2 people (and I'm one) say they like the system; most just make fun of it. No one has weighed in on how the feel about transparency specifically. The only other commentary I saw was when it was noted that having who-likes-what out in the open ala Facebook might influence how people post, or how they react to controversial topics (that's in thread asking for feedback on the board changes).
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
Deflect, dodge, deflect. Sure, I had a second ID. I didn't use it to stuff the ballot box or try to prop up my arguments.
I don't have a problem with second ID's.
I have a problem with people lying.
I have a problem with people saying they don't care about the reputation system while they're secretly engaged in trying to inflate their own score.
I have a problem with people lying about what I supposedly said, and dodging & deflecting when asked to back it up.
I have a problem with people deciding to take advantage of my public identity while vehemently trying to defend your right to be anonymous.
You can try, but dictating the terms of your own surrender isn't gonna happen quite that easily.
Contrary to what you think, I'm not disclosing information from PM's here. All the information I have regarding your true identity was voluntarily given to me by someone at DL HDQ who has no patience for you or the way you reflect on DL management past & present. The only private information you gave me was your initials and your new chosen profession. That just corroborated what my contact at DL gave me.
- Status
