The company is not holding back checks. As I understand it he has paid the employees for the time they were alive, he has just said that he is not going to continue to pay their salaries now that they are deceased.
While I feel for the women I saw on the show, having lost loved ones and all, I just thought they came off as being overly concerned with getting their husbands paychecks. At least in my opinion they seemed to think they were owed that because they had lost someone in the tragedy.
I agree with the people who have called out 20/20 as being sensationalists, it seemed like they were really trying hard to stir up some controversy. The ceo had apparently already had plans in place to do something for the families, setting aside 25% of future profits, 20/20 seemed like they were sort of doing a hatchet job on the ceo by not saying anything about that till the very end of the segment.
You don’t really need to. 60 Minutes has been a farce of carefully edited sensationalism for over 20 years and they are the best of this breed of schlock. Basically, if it appears on one of these infotainment shows masking as “investigative news” it requires a second (or third) look. (Or, to save time, just ignore these presentations and go enough news sources to counter-balance any one group’s sensationalism and slant.)
The company was Malden Mills, and the owner was Alan Fuerstein, or something similar. He was a graduate of my high school and gave a speech at our school’s National Honor Society convocation and awards ceremony shortly after the event.
As he would. He can’t pay people who no longer exist for work they’re not doing. Would that be fair to other CF employees whose offices weren’t in the WTC? They’re going to have a helluvan increase in workload for the forseeable future. Or are you suggesting that they forgo overtime pay, maybe even take a pay cut, out of the goodness of their hearts?
**
Which form of insurance? Perhaps he meant that he would pay out the life insurance for the deceased employees, but had to cancel their health insurance because they were no longer employees.
**
different post**
Again, would it have made sense to have kept paying insurance for people who were deceased? Profit sharing I can’t comment on, because I don’t know the details of the deceased employees’ contracts. As far as your husband’s contract, was there a clause about acts of war negating the other terms? If so, I deeply sympathize, but contracts are tricky things. A lot of people, even if they do read before signing, think, “Oh, that’ll never happen,” and then it does.
**
How do you know what his grief should look like? Want him to wallow in it, so he’s not in a state to regroup at all?
**
So he still had employees to rehire. Totally different.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to other situations, like Malden Mills or anything else. There has never been a situation like this. It puts the Triangle Shirtwaist fire on the same level with a termite infestation*. It’s simply not possible to accomodate everyone’s needs and still maintain the business. It might not be possible to accomodate everyone’s needs at all.
*not belittling the victims of Triangle Shirtwaist, or their families; just using perspective.
As he would. He can’t pay people who no longer exist for work they’re not doing. Would that be fair to other CF employees whose offices weren’t in the WTC? They’re going to have a helluvan increase in workload for the forseeable future. Or are you suggesting that they forgo overtime pay, maybe even take a pay cut, out of the goodness of their hearts?
**
Which form of insurance? Perhaps he meant that he would pay out the life insurance for the deceased employees, but had to cancel their health insurance because they were no longer employees.
**
different post**
Again, would it have made sense to have kept paying insurance for people who were deceased? Profit sharing I can’t comment on, because I don’t know the details of the deceased employees’ contracts. As far as your husband’s contract, was there a clause about acts of war negating the other terms? If so, I deeply sympathize, but contracts are tricky things. A lot of people, even if they do read before signing, think, “Oh, that’ll never happen,” and then it does.
**
How do you know what his grief should look like? Want him to wallow in it, so he’s not in a state to regroup at all?
**
So he still had employees to rehire. Totally different.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to other situations, like Malden Mills or anything else. There has never been a situation like this. It puts the Triangle Shirtwaist fire on the same level with a termite infestation*. It’s simply not possible to accomodate everyone’s needs and still maintain the business. It might not be possible to accomodate everyone’s needs at all.
*not belittling the victims of Triangle Shirtwaist, or their families; just using perspective.