The proof? Ask a retiree of GM, or a steelworker, or a retired paper industry worker... is that proof?

If what I just wrote regarding the fact the GM has discontinued retiree benefits(which are a contractual obligation of the company), does not constitute proof that a contractual obligation between an employer and it's employees has no legal weight and can be altered by the company at it's will, then perhaps another case in point would help...

There are laws in place which, during times of financial distress allow a company to take whatever measure it deems necessary to ease the financial burden of operating. The measures which are taken in times like this are always at the expense of the employees, either by pay cuts, benefit cuts, deferrment of vacation time, deferrment of salary raises(bonuses), etc. while the padded bank accounts of the executives (which resulted from the prosperous times in which the contracts were drawn) remain healthy. The owners keep the benefits of prosperity while the employees lose possibly everything through the legal loopholes.

With this in mind, the bonuses which are in question by these two lending institutions are said to possibly have been a contractual obligation. This seemed to defend a position which supported the idea that those bonuses were somehow unavoidable as a result of a binding contract.

With the precedent of finding a union contract null and void for whatever reason set by Reagan, followed by every administration since, and reinforced as recently as three days ago with UAW retiree benefits being changed, why should a contractual obligation to award bonuses by an irresponsible lending institution which happens to have been bailed out of bankruptcy at the expense of taxpayers, be honored?

Why not now find that contractual obligation(to award bonuses) null and void?

Why not now?

A MESSAGE TO UAW GM RETIREES

http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm07.php

a good friend of mine was telling me thursday night that he is suffering with his retirement. he worked for GM all his life (not sure if he was union or not) and now he has been going through surgeries on his heart. he got the precedure before they wanted to cut his benefits...but his follow-ups and meds will cost him more than he can afford

http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/gm07.php