2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

Does anyone realize this is the same guy who said this an that about the TA coming out and him and wiki said all that crap, and yet they were both wrong, are you all going to give him a pass or are you going to make him admit, he was totally wrong?

"Make Tim admit he was wrong?" 700 is that really you or did someone steal your passcode?

 

[Kev3188]

You guys are going to have to deal with this issue regardless of how you vote. The Multi-employer health plans are in flux because of the ACA.

Maybe the NC (and labor in general) oughta get out in front of the issue, then? It'd probably help prevent a lot of jumping to conclusions...

Just a thought...

 

[737823]

Will Dave admit he was wrong about Tim having other signins?

Josh

 

[737823]

Actually he doesnt.

When is he calling me about the alliance agreement? Back in early December just before the merger you said:

I mean do you want me to get the man who wrote it call you?

Josh

 

[700UW]

Will Dave admit he was wrong about Tim having other signins?

Josh

 
 

When is he calling me about the alliance agreement? Back in early December just before the merger you said:


Josh

 

[NYer]

Maybe the NC (and labor in general) oughta get out in front of the issue, then? It'd probably help prevent a lot of jumping to conclusions...Just a thought...

They have been, for years.

 

[charlie Brown]

Page 38 of the T/a doesn't give up anything. Please everyone read what it says instead an individual trying to spin the negative part of it his way for some reason. The ACA that goes into effect in 2018 for plans that reach " Cadillac status" will receive the excise tax of 40%. They have set this rate at 27,500.00. Any plan that cost more than that is subject to this tax in 2018. This is congress doing this by the way. Not the company. If your plan doesn't exceed 27,500 for the year. Then this letter on page 38 doesn't even apply to it. Currently none of our plans are considered " Cadillac status" we are pretty sure that by 2018 our 100 % policy will. If our 100% policy does, then it, and only it would be subject to this letter. This letter also states that if any other union with a contract 3 years or more doesn't have the same like terms in it. Then this letter shall not be effective. In other words. Every union group is going to be faced with this. Again only the policy that would go over the set amount of 27,500 for the year would be subject to this policy. If it doesn't go over that amount then nothing happens to the policy. I respect everyone's opinion on this, as well as anyone's right to vote yes or no. But let's state the facts and let people make a true educated decision, instead of half truth trying to influence someone's decision.

 

[WeAAsles]

Page 38 of the T/a doesn't give up anything. Please everyone read what it says instead an individual trying to spin the negative part of it his way for some reason. The ACA that goes into effect in 2018 for plans that reach " Cadillac status" will receive the excise tax of 40%. They have set this rate at 27,500.00. Any plan that cost more than that is subject to this tax in 2018. This is congress doing this by the way. Not the company. If your plan doesn't exceed 27,500 for the year. Then this letter on page 38 doesn't even apply to it. Currently none of our plans are considered " Cadillac status" we are pretty sure that by 2018 our 100 % policy will. If our 100% policy does, then it, and only it would be subject to this letter. This letter also states that if any other union with a contract 3 years or more doesn't have the same like terms in it. Then this letter shall not be effective. In other words. Every union group is going to be faced with this. Again only the policy that would go over the set amount of 27,500 for the year would be subject to this policy. If it doesn't go over that amount then nothing happens to the policy. I respect everyone's opinion on this, as well as anyone's right to vote yes or no. But let's state the facts and let people make a true educated decision, instead of half truth trying to influence someone's decision.

Ok and Tim wants your job yet can't even understand what you just wrote or do the research BEFORE he flies of the handle.

Tim, next?

 

[charlie Brown]

Ok and Tim wants your job yet can't even understand what you just wrote or do the research BEFORE he flies of the handle.
Tim, next?

Lol. He didn't want my job. I'm just a VP. He wanted the AGC position. I don't think he would ever stoop to VP status.

 

[WeAAsles]

Lol. He didn't want my job. I'm just a VP. He wanted the AGC position. I don't think he would ever stoop to VP status.

Well I think he wants any job personally? For Gods sake can't you guys give him a desk in a corner somewhere? I'll even chip in for the potted plant.

I can hear Tim now, "I got a plant"

 

[charlie Brown]

A little bit more about this excise tax.
It will only be the amount that's over the 27,500 that gets taxed. In other word, let's say in 2018 it cost the company 28,000 for our 100% policy. Then the 500 dollar difference is what would be taxes at 40%. So it's all gonna be based basically on the price of the policy. If a policy only exceeds the alloted amount by only 500 or so like above example, then adjustments can probably be made pretty easily to bring the cost down below 27,500 so the tax wouldn't apply. If the cost is way over 27,500, then it will make it harder to make the right adjustments. This letter is not a bad thing. It actually gives us the chance to go in and make adjustments and if we can't, then we argue those adjustments to a arbitrator. If we didn't have a contract, then the 40% would just be imposed on us by the company. Which is what they wanted to do, and we said no way. That's why this letter came about. Because we wouldn't agree to let our members eat the 40% excise tax.

 

[cltrat]

I have a 100% policy and I am not sweating it and plan on voting yes

 

[Tim Nelson]

Page 38 of the T/a doesn't give up anything. Please everyone read what it says instead an individual trying to spin the negative part of it his way for some reason. The ACA that goes into effect in 2018 for plans that reach " Cadillac status" will receive the excise tax of 40%. They have set this rate at 27,500.00. Any plan that cost more than that is subject to this tax in 2018. This is congress doing this by the way. Not the company. If your plan doesn't exceed 27,500 for the year. Then this letter on page 38 doesn't even apply to it. Currently none of our plans are considered " Cadillac status" we are pretty sure that by 2018 our 100 % policy will. If our 100% policy does, then it, and only it would be subject to this letter. This letter also states that if any other union with a contract 3 years or more doesn't have the same like terms in it. Then this letter shall not be effective. In other words. Every union group is going to be faced with this. Again only the policy that would go over the set amount of 27,500 for the year would be subject to this policy. If it doesn't go over that amount then nothing happens to the policy. I respect everyone's opinion on this, as well as anyone's right to vote yes or no. But let's state the facts and let people make a true educated decision, instead of half truth trying to influence someone's decision.

Good grief Charlie Brown, well, let's just stick with telling the truth first before half truths, ok?  If page 38 doesn't give up anything then it wouldn't exist since it concedes things that we currently enjoy and won't lose unless this TA passes, which it will.    The reality is that ACA will hit us and this LOA will become active, leaving us wide open. 
 
At any rate, I want you to answer, is this LOA a concession or a benefit?  Yes or No?
 
Carry on.

 

[PHXConx]

Good grief Charlie Brown, well, let's just stick with telling the truth first before half truths, ok?  If page 38 doesn't give up anything then it wouldn't exist since it concedes things that we currently enjoy and won't lose unless this TA passes, which it will.    The reality is that ACA will hit us and this LOA will become active, leaving us wide open. 
 
At any rate, I want you to answer, is this LOA a concession or a benefit?  Yes or No?
 
Carry on.

talk about half truths...
 
this letter of agreement is in force whether we vote yes to this TA or we dont... The negotiations committee didnt negotiate this. that was delaney.  so you can vote no on a TA that you seem to  agree with everything except this letter of agreement.. 
 
or you can vote yes and stop being a thorn in everyones side or you can vote  no and sit there and sulk but whatever you do.. this LOA is in force
 
and it does nothing till 2018... when the ACA affects us...
 
so stop being a blow hard about something you are blowing way way out of proportion... 

 

[Tim Nelson]

talk about half truths...
 
this letter of agreement is in force whether we vote yes to this TA or we dont... The negotiations committee didnt negotiate this. that was delaney.  so you can vote no on a TA that you seem to  agree with everything except this letter of agreement.. 
 
or you can vote yes and stop being a thorn in everyones side or you can vote  no and sit there and sulk but whatever you do.. this LOA is in force
 
and it does nothing till 2018... when the ACA affects us...
 
so stop being a blow hard about something you are blowing way way out of proportion...

you are incorrect. The loa itself is part of the agreement that is being asked to vote on. Did a union leader tell you othwrwise? If so, which one.