Quote:
I can't answer that...but the change in direction from the "many options" to the "best option" was pretty well explained in the previous couple communications from the MEC. Personally, I don't like that they changed their mind about that, but I don't see that change in plans as evidence of any under-handed intent.Originally Posted by pinseeker
CD also said that we would be presented with the pro's and con's of different options when this whole thing started. That wasn't true. How many other things has the MEC told us that turned out to not be true?
Just because they've changed their mind since CD spoke doesn't mean that he was telling a lie when he said it. Nor does a change in effort mean that datapoints discussed in those meetings are at all questionable. There were more than one MEC member in those Hub meetings who had the actual dirty details of the 4:1 ratio, and I'm sure if you were actually interested in knowing more of the mechanics behind that number, you could ask the MEC for specifics rather than casting doubt around on APC without specific basis.
Quote:
They were very clear that the extra money in that 4:1 ratio wasn't paid to the government, but that it was a required on-hand cash obligation for FX to have in their pension fund based on those government requirements.Originally Posted by pinseeker
Do I think that it is more expensive than a dollar for dollar expense, yes. But that is due to them dragging their feet in negotiations. My belief is that most of that expense is in catch-up contributions.
Again, instead of having an unfounded suspicion about what the root behind that 4:1 ratio is, why not actually ask the guys who saw the company's books? Repeatedly, the MEC has said, "if you have questions, ask us." So why not take 'em up on the offer if you are suspicious of the explanation?