by kpeavey » Wed 16 Jul 2008, 12:03:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', 'G')M should obviously cover occupational-related adverse health effects, but I see no reason that they should continue health insurance for those producing nothing for the company in return.
This was part of the pay/compensation package. They offered it, promoting long term employment. It was effective-GM had the benefit of a lifetime of dedicated labor from thousands of people. When it comes time to pay up, they skip out. BS in my opinion. I can see a lawsuit coming out of this. Papers are probably being filed as I type.
While I support the retirees in their endeavor to receive the benefits of employment which was promised, and to which they are legally and morally entitled, I would propose that this is only the first of many retirement benefit disappointments. In a declining economy, with retirement funds struggling to stay operational, and with declining sales, increasing costs and shrinking profit margins, benefits will take a pounding.
I have no retirement benefits at my job, although many of my coworkers do. I do not believe these benefits will be there when I am ready to retire. My retirement plan is a self sufficient homestead, close family and community, and local resources.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____
twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats