Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Pension fight on Capitol Hill

Pension top up called ‘reasonable’

September 12, 2013

Obama appointees said a decision to allow General Motors to cut salaried retiree pensions while topping up those of their hourly counterparts was reasonable and not an effect of political pressure....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(95)

MrDrone

Sep-14-13 12:10 AM

It's tge democrats!

(-:

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

XBuckeyeFledtoMI

Sep-13-13 9:44 PM

Well Molson, think we've about run this thread dry... LOL Guess we'll let the greater legal minds figure this mess out and hope for the best.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 7:58 PM

XBuckeyeFledtoMI

I yield to your superior knowledge on this matter. I did not follow the filing close enough to realize GM filed an 11.

That being said, there is no way government officials would want case law giving employees during any type of a bankruptcy proceedings something they are not entitled simply because they whine.

The case law from such a decision would impede the use of the bankruptcy code (as we now know it) on a catastrophic level.

You folks are not a large enough group to justify an overhaul in the code.

As I previously stated, I wish you folks all the luck in the world getting payment for something you are not owed. I just do not see it happening.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

XBuckeyeFledtoMI

Sep-13-13 7:04 PM

@Molson.... Oh great, another OSU lawyer in training.... I'm sure you just made a typo (NOT), but GM's was a modified Chapter 11 (should have been 7!!!) whereby, the new GM could still purchase (hand picked) assets they wanted to salvage from the old GM, including employee compensation, warranties, and customer service operations (dealers, etc.). While you're digging through your law books to attempt a rebuttal, look up ERISA... THAT is where everyone broke the rules. Was it engineered by the White House, Treasury, GM, or Delphi...? realistically, we'll probably never know. The fact is, the law was circumvented. End of subjective observation.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Annie53

Sep-13-13 6:28 PM

Management Mentality:

"GM vehicles are junk and I wouldn't be caught dead owning one."

"Whaaaaaa!!!!! GM went bankrupt and I lost my pension! WHAAAA!!!

BTW....I have a GM pension....and I always supported the company I worked for by buying their products.

Silly me.

I currently own a Chevy Impala....and I LOVE it! Great car!

:)

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 6:01 PM

reallytiredofit

DA, I feel no love on this board.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 5:40 PM

@XBuckeyeFledtoMI

“I hope you all understand that IF we were to lose this case (which we won't), there are corporations already lining up in the wings to follow suit and dump (they politely call it transfer) your pension funds (union and non-union) out with the trash. GM already shed theirs to Prudential (who, by the way, has no PBGC protection), and CAT, Boeing, and HP are already licking their chops. The UAW in MI is behind us; are the folks at Lordstucky really that narrow minded?

That is exactly why the courts will rule against you in this action. The top off of pensions you folks are not entitled to would create a case law situation. This is a situation the bankruptcy procedure could NOT LIVE WITH. In your wildest dreams do you really think the government wants case law showing a group of employees who were not entitled to compensation could manipulate the system to get compensation? This would void portions of current bankruptcy law.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 5:24 PM

reallytiredofit

The answer to your question is fairly simple; retired salary hopes to hit the lotto on this issue by whining.

If Delphi salary retirees, all of whom received $1300 monthly or more, were to be topped off that action would create case law and open a huge can of worms for any future corporate chapter 7 actions.

The salaried retirees posting they got screwed in this chapter 7 action are just hoping a squeaking wheel will get some grease and I can’t blame them

If you read these posts it appears they got no pension benefits which is not true. They received reduced pension benefits. They are still better off than the steel workers in Youngstown in the late 70's that received nothing for a year or so and then received a percentage of what they were to receive when retired.

The whole issue was secured and non-secured creditors. The union was secured, management was not. Secured creditors typically get more than non-secured creditors. Simple as that.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Sep-13-13 4:32 PM

THE ONLY issues here is the legality in the PBGC seizing the Delphi Pension fund, and their decision to settle the secured asset claim. DR knows this too as does Mr. Gump and Mr. Black.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Sep-13-13 4:29 PM

Delphi Folks, The Court in Michigan that has this case has ALREADY ruled that the claim of discrimination on the part of the Government is without merit and has been DISMISSED. The judge CLEARLY and CORRECTLY that a person or a group cannot claim discrimination for not receiving something they were NOT ENTITLED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why DR and his like continues to spew this claim of discrimination when they KNOW it has been set aside is a mystery.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 4:21 PM

DelphiRetiree

"Thanks for the curiosity and good luck!"

Now who would be the bonehead that would disagree with my last post to you? That statement was not tongue in cheek. This appears to be a part of salaried retirees problem. Some of the posts in this thread appear as if they were penned by members of a lower socio-economic class and some very uneducated members of Delphi's salaried workers.

Man this is a rough group.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 4:09 PM

DelphiRetiree

Thanks for the curiosity and good luck!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 2:37 PM

Exactly, Buckeye.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 2:36 PM

Molson - You are wrong on all accounts. Thanks for your input.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

XBuckeyeFledtoMI

Sep-13-13 2:33 PM

I hope you all understand that IF we were to lose this case (which we won't), there are corporations already lining up in the wings to follow suit and dump (they politely call it transfer) your pension funds (union and non-union) out with the trash. GM already shed their's to Prudential (who, by the way, has no PBGC protection), and CAT, Boeing, and HP are already licking their chops. The UAW in MI is behind us; are the folks at Lordstucky really that narrow minded? Wow!

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Molson

Sep-13-13 2:13 PM

DelphiRetiree

I tried to leave this topic alone as you are so bitter, but I could not.

“Let him ramble. He apparently has nothing better to do in life than argue over an issue that has NOTHING to do with him”

I agree this topic has nothing to do with him personally.

I believe he is just trying to explain to you and your cohorts why YOU DESERVE NOTHING - hey, if you can muscle the government into giving you something you don’t deserve, god bless you.

If memory serves, you were in procurement. Maybe your skill set will entitle you to an Obama phone as well in this package you HOPE to get but don’t deserve.

This court proceeding will be swift and will not give you money you do not deserve due to documents signed by management.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 1:19 PM

Let him ramble. He apparently has nothing better to do in life than argue over an issue that has NOTHING to do with him.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 1:10 PM

Does the Federal government use taxpayer funds to subsidize on lt UNION farmers, but not non-union? I think not.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 1:09 PM

No, the Federal government has NO business becoming a stockholder in private business, then use taxpayer funds to discriminate. That is what they did. AND, the Feds coerced the PBGC into violating their own charter, thereby forcing the PBGC to violate ERISA law. Not flimsy by any stretch of your imagination.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Sep-13-13 11:51 AM

So let me understand this, Since the Government ALLOWED or insisted that General Motors keep their commitment to the UAW and other Unions that even you and SIGTARP agree were in effect, then the Federal Government owes the Delphi Salaried retirees a top up also that both you and SIGTARP have already conceded that YOU do not have a right to expect. Is that your definition of fair and equal by the Government? That's like saying the dairy farmers got a tax break so every other American can deduct the same amount from their taxes. Just because the Federal Government becomes a stock holder in a company doesn't expand their obligations beyond any other stakeholder. By your logic the UAW owes you a top up too because they were a stakeholder. Pretty flimsy logic there DR.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 11:01 AM

GM had no legal obligation to top up our pensions. However, the Federal Government DOES! Since they controlled decision-making in the bankruptcy not GM (as testified by SIGTARP), the Federal government used taxpayer money to for the hourly top ups, & chose to discriminate against other retirees in the same company, Delphi. The Government has no business doing that with taxpayer funds.

To treat Americans equally, the Federal government has to either eliminate the funds topping up the hourly, OR they need to correct their unethical and unlawful choice to discriminate.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Sep-13-13 10:52 AM

If GM had no obligation to pay the Delphi retirees a top up prior to their (GM) filing bankruptcy, why would the government have an obligation after GM filed for bankruptcy? They wouldn't would they. That pretty much boils the case down to the propriety of the PBGC seizing the Hourly and Salaried pension plans in 2009. Should be a relatively simple and short trial.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 10:44 AM

I've only told you that countless times. Glad to see you finally get it.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Sep-13-13 10:43 AM

Thank you delphiretiree for your 9:42 a.m. post. See there really are things that You, I, GM, and the Federal Government all agree on. Progress it's a beautiful thing.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DelphiRetiree

Sep-13-13 10:31 AM

It means that $1-1.5 BILLION of YOUR tax dollars were used by the Federal government to top up the pensions of GM/Delphi hourly retirees, while discriminating against the salaried retirees.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 95 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for: