Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Heard it on Rush, didn't find the source yet.
So much for their criticism of Scott Walker... oh wait... they're lieberals... that's just different somehow.
The New York Times Company has been negotiating with its newsroom employees since March 31, 2011. The company has offered a contract with a 35-hour work week, keeping the current medical plan intact. However, the company also wants to impose a "pension freeze"--which means no more payments into the current pension plan. Instead, the company would chip in money, equivalent to 3-5% of an employee's pay, into a 401K plan.Well what do you know? After promoting union riots in Wisconsin it seems the NY Times is now under assault by the unions for cutting pensions and union benefits. The reason? Lavish union benefits are causing the Times to run in the (no pun intended) red. Not much coverage (surprise, surprise) in the liberal media.
The New York Times Company has been negotiating with its newsroom employees since March 31, 2011. The company has offered a contract with a 35-hour work week, keeping the current medical plan intact. However, the company also wants to impose a "pension freeze"--which means no more payments into the current pension plan. Instead, the company would chip in money, equivalent to 3-5% of an employee's pay, into a 401K plan.Well what do you know? After promoting union riots in Wisconsin it seems the NY Times is now under assault by the unions for cutting pensions and union benefits. The reason? Lavish union benefits are causing the Times to run in the (no pun intended) red. Not much coverage (surprise, surprise) in the liberal media.
New York Times Reporters Face "Pension Freeze" - Ricochet.com
no wonder they are in trouble....for god sakes, great work if you can get it....and this is apt, from the link-
The New York Times Company has been negotiating with its newsroom employees since March 31, 2011. The company has offered a contract with a 35-hour work week, keeping the current medical plan intact. However, the company also wants to impose a "pension freeze"--which means no more payments into the current pension plan. Instead, the company would chip in money, equivalent to 3-5% of an employee's pay, into a 401K plan.Well what do you know? After promoting union riots in Wisconsin it seems the NY Times is now under assault by the unions for cutting pensions and union benefits. The reason? Lavish union benefits are causing the Times to run in the (no pun intended) red. Not much coverage (surprise, surprise) in the liberal media.
New York Times Reporters Face "Pension Freeze" - Ricochet.com
thx for the link.
so to be clear, they want to stop funding the present pension plan???Is the fund funded to the point it needs to be or are they going to NOT fund new employee pensions...I'd like to see more info.....
35 hour work week?
For me, the most laughable (and saddest) part comes at 4:15, where a staffer says that in a pension plan, "I at least have the safety of knowing that I have money coming in... at least, it's there for me." The union's line is that a 401K is much riskier because it depends on the market.
Do these people read newspapers? Have they ever heard of what happens to pension plans when companies go under, or when the stock market hiccups? Where do these people think pension plan money sits? In heaven?
yup, if the pension goes belly up it will get rolled into the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) they will be lucky to see 25 cents on the dollar...
