erichartmann
Freight Dog
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Posts
- 432
That's severence and retention pay. I realize that some of you who are about to be or already have been furloughed don't think those amoung us who are leaving for other jobs or going to hang on to the bitter end should get anything at all. After all, as your logic goes, they still have jobs. This is argueably true for those resigning to go to other jobs, but the truth is that those who stay, whatever their reason, may not have jobs either come July '09. They will, most if not all of them, have problems similar to your own. They will need something to help tide them over until the economy picks back up and they can find another job. If the jobs are gone because the company has filed bankruptcy some will be forced into retirement at substantially less than what had been promised. No amount of severence or retention will make up that loss, but that is no reason they should be excluded.
True. I can just imagine the laughter in the DPWN/DHL boardroom as they contemplate us squabbling with our management over this.
Again, true or somewhat true. As I understand it management wants part of the money to go to the pension fund. This would "free up" other funds to pay a portion of the debt load, and argueably make the difference between the company surviving and our having recall rights, no matter how unlikely for some,to a going concern.
Again, true. From the hotlines and meetings, as I understand it, money put into the pension fund at this late date could be pulled out by a bankruptcy judge. Further, the money would not be adequate to fully fund and close the pension, so putting it there on the possibility that the company might survive as a result is a huge gamble. If the gamble fails we all lose.
Again, once the dust settles none of us may have jobs. From that perspective alone I think all of us who are not leaving voluntarily for other jobs are entitled to a portion of the money in some fashion. The union's plan, as I understand it, was to treat it all as a form of severence with some of it being paid out to those who are furloughed and some being held in a form of escrow to be paid out if those remaining were to lose their jobs in the next 3 years. On the face of it, that solution begs some questions.
My optimum solution would be to fully fund and close the pension with some mechanism in place to allow those who need to use some of that money access to it. This would protect those about to retire and allow other to keep and use money they might otherwise never see. I don't know if that is even possible legally, and I doubt managment will agree, as it would require money from them, or additional funds from DHL to get the job done. That my perspective, I'm sure your mileage differs.
Since my optimum solution is DOA another will have to be found.
I think it totaly unreasonable that anyone should expect roughly twice their annual base pay to the exclusion of the rest of us in the event of a furlough.
I could, with some reservations, support a plan which provided a projected distribution based on annual base as of May 2008 with the actual distribution to occur when you lose your job.
The bottom line for all of us is that DPWN/DHL chose, for their own reasons, to pit our management against us over this money. In the end, there will have to be some compromise none of us will like or we may well risk all of the money going away. I, for one, would like to know exactly what the agreement between DPWN/DHL and our mangement specifies with respect to the money. Does it revert to DHL once they pull the plug? What happens to it if the company goes bankrupt?
