3abn Employees Not Getting Annual Raises?, Does anyone know more? Options

[Shiny Penny]

...

Retirement: Seccular U.S. society is moving from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. This frightens some denominational employeees due to the responsibility that such places upon them to invest wisely. Personally, I think that this is the only prudent fiscal choice for the denomination. The problem with the denominational plan is that for many years, while a defined benefit plan, it was severely underefunded, due to a number of complex reasons. ...

Moving expenses: Denominational emploeyees other than clergy are moved at denominational expense. For example, teachers are so moved. Most denominational employees are required to self-pack, whereas in our society such would often be paid by the organization. The problem is that many who work for the denomination are not considered to be denominational employees. As such they typically have no benefits at all.

Thanks for amplifying on the terms of denominational moving expenses.

Underfunding of defined benefit plans is not just a problem of the church. A number of the airlines' pension funds were so severely underfunded that they turned over the assets and liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PGBC). A colleague of mine said his father, a retired pilot saw his pension from the airlines was cut in half at that point.

[beartrap]

All I have heard is that 3ABN does not offer a retirement plan to anyone, other than making the employer's contributions to social security. Does anyone else know differently?

To my knowledge they have always kept to the policy of not having a retirement plan. However, there are ways for a company to make sure that a person will have what they need to remain comfortable in retirement. Those could include the gifting of a large chunk of land to an employee. An innovative administrator can also create products himself, and use the company he runs to broadly distribute his products and make enormous sums of money off of the company, outside of salary, that can go toward retirement. This is not at all uncommon among televangelists.

[lowender]

Here's a simple explanation to this issue...

The average 3ABN donor who was once so pleased to send 3ABN a monthly check isn't opening their checkbooks anymore... The reason why is because they realized that Danny Shelton is faking his sincerity.

Who would believe a man who gets on TV & asks his viewers to pray his estranged wife will return to him, then a few months later marries a woman younger than his own daughter?

These donors see this stuff play out before their eyes & they don't send anymore checks...

Now the money's gone... 3ABN can't offer employees raises...

[Pickle]

So basically they were doing her a favor by paying her 250K to get lost.

I wonder if the portion of that amount that was intended to silence Linda from saying anything negative about her soon-to-be-ex-husband, I wonder if that amount might be considered private inurement. Danny as an individual would be expected to personally pay for such a benefit, but 3ABN covered it for him.

[Pickle]

Linda knew, she was far to involved not to know.

FHB,

I have been told repeatedly that Linda suffers from Battered Wife Syndrome.

If that is true, if she really does have Battered Wife Syndrome, and has been swayed over the years this way and that by Danny's incessant stream of talk, would that not make somewhat of a difference?

[calvin]

I wonder if the portion of that amount that was intended to silence Linda from saying anything negative about her soon-to-be-ex-husband, I wonder if that amount might be considered private inurement. Danny as an individual would be expected to personally pay for such a benefit, but 3ABN covered it for him.

It is typical and common practice in an employment separation agreement for the severed employee to agree to speak no ill will of the company and it's officers for a certain period of time. In return for this silence the company pays. Often there is a non-compete clause, can’t steal employees, etc. Nothing unusual here.

[awesumtenor]

Being a supporter of 3ABN does not make one automatically wrong, nor being an advocate of Linda make one right . . .

That door swings both ways... something your camp has been, at best, reluctant to admit...

What is the result of the work that 3ABN is doing? Are seekers being lead to the foot of the cross? Even within the 12 there was one disgruntled member, others who doubted, those who self-righteously sought the right hand of the Saviour . . .

1Co 9:27 But I keepunder my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Says the great apostle, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." We cannot maintain consecration to God, and yet injure our health by the willful indulgence of a wrong habit. Self-denial is one of the conditions, not only of admission into the service of Christ, but of continuance therein. Christ himself declared, in unmistakable language, the conditions of discipleship: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Yet how many who call themselves Christians are unwilling to exercise self-denial, even for Christ's sake. How often the love for some pernicious indulgence is stronger than the desire for a sound mind in a sound body! Precious hours of probation are spent, God-given means squandered, to please the eye or to gratify the appetite. Custom holds thousands in bondage to the earthly and sensual. Many are willing captives; they desire no better portion.

They are few who walk in the clear light of God's word, who maintain their freedom in Christ by daily self-denial. Yet none need fail in this work of self-renunciation. God will give help to every earnest seeker. He reads the intents and purposes of the heart. He marks every soul-struggle. If we sincerely seek his grace, our life will correspond with our profession of faith; our light will shine forth, in good works, to the world.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked." He knows whether our hearts are wholly devoted to his service, or given to the things of the world. We may profess what we will, but unless our life corresponds with our profession, our faith is dead." {R&H, June 15, 1886 }

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

Fearless Leader, I agree. When I had my separation interivew, one of the "conditions" of my severance is that at least for the six months of severance, I not say anything negative about the company. Now I happened to love working at Discovery and would still be there had they not closed the stores and laid us off.

However, we all know that Linda's situation is different. She and Danny are listed as employees for buisness purposes, but she IS co founder, and deserved consideration as such. It was uneithical and unChristian for 3ABN to rely ona loophole to cheat out of her rightful portion. Now, Danny is running around acting as if he did this all by himself in order to further support this lie. Sorry, but I am stil holding Danny and 3ABN to the stardard that they claim a "Leaders in Christian Living". Cheating your cofounder out of her due, is not living up to that standard.

It is typical and common practice in an employment separation agreement for the severed employee to agree to speak no ill will of the company and it's officers for a certain period of time. In return for this silence the company pays. Often there is a non-compete clause, can’t steal employees, etc. Nothing unusual here.

[Pickle]

It is typical and common practice in an employment separation agreement for the severed employee to agree to speak no ill will of the company and it's officers for a certain period of time. In return for this silence the company pays. Often there is a non-compete clause, can't steal employees, etc. Nothing unusual here.

In this particular case, speaking no ill about the company or its officers meant speaking no ill about her then husband who became her ex-husband three weeks later.

If Danny did not reimburse 3ABN for what could be considered his part of the portion of the payments that pertained to her not speaking ill of him personally, then this may be yet another example of 3ABN covering his personal, private expenses, another section 4958 excess benefit transaction.

In my opinion, if her speaking ill would have mostly concerned 3ABN business, then the amounts she received would have been mostly 3ABN's responsibility; and if her speaking ill would have mostly concerned Danny in regards to non-3ABN business, then the amounts she received would have been mostly his responsibility.

[Noahswife]

In this particular case, speaking no ill about the company or its officers meant speaking no ill about her then husband who became her ex-husband three weeks later.

Bob~

Do you know if LS ever consulted an attorney indepedent of any attorney ever directly or indirectly associated with 3abn as to whether the separation agreement prevented her from commenting on her personal relationship with DS?

Even after more than a year of reading here at BSDA and talking to people I am still unclear as to when she sought or received legal counsel in these matters.

Bob, I also have another question that I cannot post on the thread that has now been closed. My question to you is this:

Would you find it acceptable to have your personal/private emails that you had shared with a friend (never anticipating the possibility any one else would see them) and that you had specifically requested not be shared posted on the internet contrary to your request because someone else decided it was for either your own good or what they determine to be "the greater good"?

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Nov 7 2007, 11:21 AM

[princessdi]

I am with you on this one NW, and I have been here the entire time. Linda was way late in getting competent counsel on this one. I have always said she should have gotten Gloria allred, she likes high profile, errything would be skrate right about now.

Bob~

Do you know if LS ever consulted an attorney indepedent of any attorney ever directly or indirectly associated with 3abn as to whether the separation agreement prevented her from commenting on her personal relationship with DS?

Even after more than a year of reading here at BSDA and talking to people I am still unclear as to when she sought or received legal counsel in these matters.
Bob, I also have another question that I cannot post on the thread that has now been closed. My question to you is this:

Would you find it acceptable to have your personal/private emails that you had shared with a friend (never anticipating the possibility any one else would see them) and that you had specifically requested not be shared posted on the internet contrary to your request because someone else decided it was for either your own good or what they determine to be "the greater good"?

nw

[Shiny Penny]

The average 3ABN employee barely scraps by each month, at the very best. They have no retiremant plan nor do they have the funds to paraticipate in an individual retirement plan. Observer, I know you mean well when you say you have no problem with the salaries of the top employees at 3ABN, in fact you believe they should receive more. But I have a problem with it. This is supposed to be a ministry and should not be judged by the same standards as corperate America. The inequality of wages at 3ABN is a slap in the face of honest ministries.

... Most 3ABN employees earn so little that they qualify for public assistance.

Observer, Danny is very fond of saying that 3ABN is a ministry and the employees need to sacrifice for the ministry in regard to their pay. Why is it that Danny and a select few of his cronies in management positions are not asked to make the same sacrifices? This is a ministry, right? Or is it like George Orwell's novel Animal Farm? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals... The Bible says a workman is worthy of his hire. It appears that Danny is not aquainted with that scripture, perhaps he is too busy in his role as a "prophet".

...
"Most" employees qualify for assistance? What do you mean by this? What is the basis for your making this statement? Have you seen the payroll records? Have you seen them recently? What is the level of income that puts you into public assistance in West Frankfort? I suppose that if someone is making $7 per hour they would qualify for public assisance, especially if they were trying to support a family on that. But I would guess that with few marketable skills, that person would be glad for a job anywhere, includng 3ABN or Walmart.

Your comments drip with malice and bitterness...but please keep in mind that, according to what I have read here on BSDA, before she left Linda was making more than Danny, so she, according to your words, must have been one of those "cronies" as well. And if you will - what did Linda do while she was working there to get employees off of public assistance and making a living wage?

I know everyone here thinks I am a supporter of Danny. I am a great supporter of 3ABN since it is getting the good news out to the whole world. What annoys me is the criticism of 3ABN in the guise of criticizing Danny, when Linda apparantly did little herself when she was there running the day to day operations, taking the highest salary herself and evidently keeping the little people on below sustenance wages.

(I am prepared for everyone to come after me for these comments, but I would especially welcome Sister's responses to my questions).

Sister, by your silence are you admitting that you attempted to spread misinformation in your post? If you are willing to spread misinformation in this instance, why should those reading here believe that you havaen't done the same in other posts? Don't you see that this undermines your own credibility?

(I have liberally borrowed from PeacefulBe for the wording in my reply - http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry223020 - see Post #30).

[Observer]

I suppose that if someone is making $7 per hour they would qualify for public assisance, especially if they were trying to support a family on that. But I would guess that with few marketable skills, that person would be glad for a job anywhere, includng 3ABN or Walmart.

Is that how you see the typical employee at 3-ABN? One who has few marketable skills, and would be glad for a job anywhere.

Re. Walmart: I am not a big fan of Walmart, but I must comment on this. I have a relative who was in a serious automible accident. As a result, he spent 20 years in rehab. He smpent many years in a wheel-chair, with assistance in living and much more. NOTE: It was progress to get him into a wheel chair.

At one time, in a wheel-chair Walmart employed him to sit at ther entrance thank them for visiting Walmart, and ask if they needed any help.

I have to thank Walmart for doing that.

Today, you would never know that at one time he was unable to walk, as he walks today without assistance. He has completed a college degree, and works for a major corporation. He is married, a parent, and lives in a $500,000 dollar home.

Yes it took 20 years of rehab. and public assistance to bring him to that place.

Walmart had a place in that rehab. They hired him at a time when he could not stand on his feet and walk. They hired him to thank people for coming there to shop. They hilred him at a time when he could be siad to have no marketable job skills, and was glad for any income. Walmart gave hlim some motivation to continue his rehab. through what ended up to be 20 years of assistance.

NOTE: For thsoe who wonder about the serious accident, 20 years of rehab, and the untold story, here it is: At the time of the accident he was a teen, and a healthy male. Due to his health and his age, his body was able to recover functions that could not have been recovered in an older person.

In any case, SP, my main thrust is your implication that those who work for 3-ABN are people with few markatable job skills who should be glad for the very few bread crumbs that 3-ABN distributes. You may be entitled to think that of the 3-ABN employees. But, I will suggest that you have misjudged them.

NOTE: How do I know the truth about the person I have mentioned? HIs mother is my sister. I took the telephone call the day he was in the accident. I have closely followed that story for the many years that it has unfolded.

[Shiny Penny]

Is that how you see the typical employee at 3-ABN? One who has few marketable skills, and would be glad for a job anywhere.
...

In any case, SP, my main thrust is your implication that those who work for 3-ABN are people with few markatable job skills who should be glad for the very few bread crumbs that 3-ABN distributes. You may be entitled to think that of the 3-ABN employees. But, I will suggest that you have misjudged them.

NOTE: How do I know the truth about the person I have mentioned? HIs mother is my sister. I took the telephone call the day he was in the accident. I have closely followed that story for the many years that it has unfolded.

You have misjudged my point. Sister stated (as if were fact and I have no way to determine if what Sister stated was a fact) that most of 3ABN employees were paid so little that they qualified for public assistance. My point was there is probably some truth to what Sister said - some low skilled workers will earn wages that will, in all likelihood, not be very high. But Sister's sweeping statement included most employees at 3ABN.

Did I say anything about the "typical" employee at 3ABN having few marketable skills? God forbid. I have seen the product that 3ABN airs, the programming, the producing, the graphics, the lighting, the engineering and who knows what all else goes into TV programming is very professionally done and those persons, clearly, are highly skilled.

It is now 5 or 6 days since I replied to Sister's post. I have checked and she has been on BSDA since I posted my reply, so I am assuming she read my reply and questions. So it iinteresting that she has not yet backed up her claims with any hard data/facts. (I'm betting that she won't!)

[Pickle]

Bob~

Do you know if LS ever consulted an attorney indepedent of any attorney ever directly or indirectly associated with 3abn as to whether the separation agreement prevented her from commenting on her personal relationship with DS?

I believe that Brian Drew saw at least one of the agreements Linda signed on June 4, 2004, but what exactly his advice was I cannot say.

Personally, since the agreement explicitly says that she cannot say anything critical of any 3ABN officer in public or in church buildings, I do not see how she could have done so. And that's how Danny interpreted it in the fall of 2005. And when I talked to Nick about this specific issue, he seemed to acknowledge my point, and didn't tell me different.

But someone has suggested to me that since Danny and the rest did not reciprocate, the agreement could be considered void, for even though there is no reciprocation explicitly stated, it is implied. I am not an attorney, so I can't say, but that possibility is interesting.

Bob, I also have another question that I cannot post on the thread that has now been closed. My question to you is this:

Would you find it acceptable to have your personal/private emails that you had shared with a friend (never anticipating the possibility any one else would see them) and that you had specifically requested not be shared posted on the internet contrary to your request because someone else decided it was for either your own good or what they determine to be "the greater good"?

nw

First of all, if you are referring to Linda's emails, while she did not want a couple others to give me some of what I have, which is different than requesting that they not be posted, she appreciated what was done with some of them. Her concern was that there might be something in them that would make her look bad, but she has appreciated it when they made her look good. That's my understanding.

Secondly, while I may not like someone else publishing my correspondence against my wishes, including the secular press, they have a right in the USA to do so, unless, perhaps, one invokes copyright infringement. Are there other legal grounds for preventing that kind of thing?

Since I have surrendered such correspondence pertaining to the Shelton debacle in my automatic discovery materials, including correspondence that could be miscontrued, and since I have not sought a protective order, there is always the possibility that AppleTree will post some of it here, or someone will get it to Alfred Smith so he can start a SavePickle blog. And I will just have to live with that.

And I'm fine with that. I've called for openness and transparency when dealing with serious allegations, and if I'm unwilling to reciprocate, I'm a pretty big hypocrite. If I was concerned about my reputation or future, I wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

But I do think it in the best interest of the other side not to miscontrue anything they might find in my correspondence. Because that kind of thing will not happen without rebuttal.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 8 2007, 07:07 AM