Angels stop pensions

[shellback]

y'all are GREAT BIG FAT RACISTS     wahhhhhhh

[Ohtaniland]

So does anyone actually know what the pension plan entailed ?

I'm sure everyone that has bashed this move knows. I just wish

they would share their knowledge with the rest of us so we're not

left in the dark.

It means that all future hires such as groundskeepers will be picked up at Home Depot

in the morning and forced to exit before game time..

[Mark68]

On the plus side, Arte has enrolled ALL eligible employees in the Jelly of the Month Club.

There goes the swimming pool.

[Mark68]

This may be "standard business practice" and all, since it is/has been happening in every industry, but it's amusing (ironic?) that when businesses and corporations say they need to cut costs, it always seems to be on the back of the everyday employee (whether it is ending pensions or cutting pay/benefits or layoffs) but the CEOs get paid ever more. Even when CEOs get canned for poor corporate performance, they have their nice big golden parachutes to cushion the blow.

[Blarg]

Nothing in the article mentioned Tony Reagins getting a pay raise.

[LAAMike]

Pensions, either defined benefits or defined contributions (401k), have to grow their portfolios in order to overcome inflation and pay future benefits for a population that is living longer.  They do this by investing in the securities or debt of publically traded and private businesses.  So we are all invested in the success of the business community. 

 

Are CEO's overpaid - yes, but they are only paid what the market says they are worth.  Not everyone has the skill set or the temperament to be a company president or CEO.  Having run companies that employ over 500 employees, I can say that being a company president is a stressful job.  You are responsible for the welfare of your employees and the employees of your subcontractors and suppliers.  A lot of people's lives depend on your management in an environment where you compete with other companies for the market that you are in. Controlling expenses is in the best interest of the employees and the shareholders (including pensions) as this is one of the ways that you keep your company viable. 

[yk9001]

Pensions are a long term drag on a company's profits

 

So are guys like Hamilton.

[yk9001]

Here's the link

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-angels-red-sox-pension-plans-20141218-story.html

 

I like this line from an Angels' lackey:

“This wasn’t a cost-saving move,” Angels President John Carpino said when asked how much money the team would save by eliminating pension plans. “It’s about flexibility for employees.

 

 

haha, every time I got a shittier health plan option, the HR person would always parrot that same exact thing:  This is about flexibility!

[Mark68]

Pensions, either defined benefits or defined contributions (401k), have to grow their portfolios in order to overcome inflation and pay future benefits for a population that is living longer.  They do this by investing in the securities or debt of publically traded and private businesses.  So we are all invested in the success of the business community. 

 

Are CEO's overpaid - yes, but they are only paid what the market says they are worth.  Not everyone has the skill set or the temperament to be a company president or CEO.  Having run companies that employ over 500 employees, I can say that being a company president is a stressful job.  You are responsible for the welfare of your employees and the employees of your subcontractors and suppliers.  A lot of people's lives depend on your management in an environment where you compete with other companies for the market that you are in. Controlling expenses is in the best interest of the employees and the shareholders (including pensions) as this is one of the ways that you keep your company viable. 

Then the market is the problem. It used to be that CEOs commonly got paid 50-100x the median salary of their employees, including large corporations. I have no problem with that, as it reflects the difficulties of running a business and individuals that have the ability to do so (well) should be compensated.

 

But in today's times, where they get 300-500x median employees' salaries (just reflecting actual pay, not stock options and other "perks") whether they help the business or crash an entire industry, is problematic.

[yk9001]

I had the wife of an LA City firefighter tell me they are looking to move out of state when he retires because the tax rates are too high here.

 

You cannot make this stuff up.

Edited December 23, 2014 by yk9001

[Angel Oracle]

Pensions, either defined benefits or defined contributions (401k), have to grow their portfolios in order to overcome inflation and pay future benefits for a population that is living longer.  They do this by investing in the securities or debt of publically traded and private businesses.  So we are all invested in the success of the business community. 

 

Are CEO's overpaid - yes, but they are only paid what the market says they are worth.  Not everyone has the skill set or the temperament to be a company president or CEO.  Having run companies that employ over 500 employees, I can say that being a company president is a stressful job.  You are responsible for the welfare of your employees and the employees of your subcontractors and suppliers.  A lot of people's lives depend on your management in an environment where you compete with other companies for the market that you are in. Controlling expenses is in the best interest of the employees and the shareholders (including pensions) as this is one of the ways that you keep your company viable. 

This I get.    But it's the stories of the $100 million payouts (granted partly from stock options cashed out) even when a company is struggling that leave me baffled.

Then again, one could say that anyone like that is just Hamiltoning it.

[yk9001]

My favorite part about all this is we all get up in arms in the hang out forum about pensions for cops, teachers and especially firemen and we want those to end. However the Angels decide to change their retirement model and Arte is cheap.

 

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of nuance.  A couple of things:

 

• California residents realistically don't have a choice in paying public sector pensions.  The politicians are bought and sold by the public sector unions.  Voting districts are gerrymandered. We are screwed.
• The amount of money that these low paid Angels employees are paid are a mere pittance compared to a) the cops and firemen; and the Josh Hamiltons.  Again, nuance.
• The dichotomy of wasting literally tens of millions of dollars a year on non-productive players, while cutting the pensions of the little people is a really bad optic. Thus, people express their opinions.

[Blarg]

Then the market is the problem. It used to be that CEOs commonly got paid 50-100x the median salary of their employees, including large corporations. I have no problem with that, as it reflects the difficulties of running a business and individuals that have the ability to do so (well) should be compensated.

 

But in today's times, where they get 300-500x median employees' salaries (just reflecting actual pay, not stock options and other "perks") whether they help the business or crash an entire industry, is problematic.

 

Mark, can you tell us what the Angels top brass make per year?

[Mark68]

I'm speaking of the "standard business practice" of eliminating pensions vs corporate CEOs (and I guess corporate earnings) and not specifically the Angels.

 

Although it is interesting that the Angels and White Sox are the "pioneers" of said practice in what is a very healthy industry.

[Guest]

I'm speaking of the "standard business practice" of eliminating pensions vs corporate CEOs (and I guess corporate earnings) and not specifically the Angels.

 

Although it is interesting that the Angels and White Sox are the "pioneers" of said practice in what is a very healthy industry.

 

That's true now but I doubt MLB will be nearly this successful 10+ years from now. The majority of the revenue from MLB comes from cable TV regional sports network contracts, which I believe are overpriced compared to their actual real-world value.

As more people cut the cord and discontinue cable TV subscriptions and we slowly migrate to more a la carte streaming type options, I don't think there are actually enough serious baseball fans willing to subscribe to non-blacked out streaming at a high enough price to actually sustain even close to MLB's current amount of revenue.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

Didn't Arte get several coats of untouchable bronzing when he lowered beer prices?

 

I thought he couldn't do any wrong when it comes to Angels fans.

 

Alcohol > everything else

[Adam]

Maybe they should get 401Ks like the rest o us

[Stradling]

Yes Adam but the players get paid a lot, and Arte is greedy, haven't you been paying attention?

[yk9001]

Maybe they should get 401Ks like the rest o us

 

 

Yeah, its all about the 'flexibility'.  Who WOULDN'T want it?

 

The additional annual cost of providing a defined benefit pension over a 401k is probably less than they paid for that asshat's accountability partner.

[Lou]

i really don't care about this

 

team employees don't care about my retirement either

[Mark68]

Didn't Arte get several coats of untouchable bronzing when he lowered beer prices?

 

I thought he couldn't do any wrong when it comes to Angels fans.

 

Alcohol > everything else

[Stradling]

Well I would assume a 401k would be more flexible than a pension

[ABC]

Then the market is the problem. It used to be that CEOs commonly got paid 50-100x the median salary of their employees, including large corporations. I have no problem with that, as it reflects the difficulties of running a business and individuals that have the ability to do so (well) should be compensated.

 

But in today's times, where they get 300-500x median employees' salaries (just reflecting actual pay, not stock options and other "perks") whether they help the business or crash an entire industry, is problematic.

 

You're fine with 50-100x but not 300-500x plus other compensation. How did you arrive at your line of acceptable multiples?

Edited December 23, 2014 by CF8

[IEAngelsfan]

Pension funds have to maintain proper funding for future retirement payments (benefits).  If the pension plan is 100% funded by the company, then the responsibility of maintaining proper funding lies solely with the company.  With 401k plans, the company pays for some company to administer the plan and by matching employee contributions.  Their responsibility basically ends there.  The cost to maintain pensions can be much more costly to the company than 401k plans.  Most companies make the switch to save money.

 

That all being said, as some have already mentioned, the employee has more flexibility with the 401k plan.  They can choose how much they can contribute and how to invest their account.  The downside is that most people really don't know what to invest in and some plans have lousy and costly investment options.

[Mark68]

You're fine with 50-100x but not 300-500x plus other compensation. How did you arrive at your line of acceptable multiples?

Because up until about 30 year ago, the former was commonplace, and had been for a long time, and in the last 30 years (especially the last 15 or so), it has all of a sudden skyrocketed even though the majority of people (let's call them the 99%) have seen their wages stagnate or even fall when accounting for inflation and the cost of living.

 

Also, you'll find the former still commonplace among other industrialized nations with a standard of living at least equal to (if not greater than) America's.