American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[swamt]

Actually there are dates on every article some date back to 2017

Pretty sad isn't it. I never have understood why this asso. has been keeping the membership in the dark this whole time, and still asking for the membership to stand behind them and support the NC.

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW if the Company really wants out of the IAMNPF they are required by Law to pay the Withdrawal Liability Fee.

That Fee currently is 320 Million and rising the longer the Company waits to make a decision.

https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/multiemployer/withdrawal-liability

 

[swamt]

Yes I know. I had already wrote those dates out.

Fleet related.

View attachment 14383

See there. And the membership would still be in the dark if the co. did not release the info. And still asking for support. Now the question is, what will the membership do next? Will they stand behind the NC and allow them to not bring it out? Or will they demand it come out for a vote?? This could be the decision by the asso. that makes them or breaks them...

 

[conehead777]

Brian Parker spoke as a representative of the Association at the last SOTA event and asked for the FULL language to be released by the Company.

Now it’s out. Good.

I expect next for the Association to release the details of where they stand and what exactly we are asking for on those outstanding issues.

We do know on Scope all that is now being asked is to keep all the work we currently own and do.

The fact that the Company did publicly release what they are asking for sets up a whole new ballgame that has never been seen before in the Airline Industry.

Well most members have been asking the association to release both proposals to its members it failed to do so. The company was asked and they did. We pay dues to the unions they work for us not for them. So they need to release there proposal now and let the members look at them. And listen to us for a change. We need to see the proposals so we can voice what needs to be changed for us. Not for the unions future .

 

[Rogallo]

Well Robbed I voted yes on our first offer last year, because we maintained scope, that's more important to me than money, but we voted it down, because guys wanted their full back pay. Now with this second T/A we still maintained scope, and are getting our full backpay.

Who's your bargaining agent again? 😀

 

[Jester]

BTW if the Company really wants out of the IAMNPF they are required by Law to pay the Withdrawal Liability Fee.

That Fee currently is 320 Million and rising the longer the Company waits to make a decision.

https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/multiemployer/withdrawal-liability

Pretty much confirms the IAMNPF to be a Ponzi scheme, as it couldn't pay future actuarial retirement benefits claims on existing fund assets, even accounting for future expected investment returns. The union pension mismanages the fund, it goes bad (as with the IAMNPF) it demands more company money, and if the company wants to leave the pension, then the "withdrawal liability is based on its allocated share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits." $320 million???

Corporate CFO's see this type of nonsense, and I can understand as to why pensions have been eliminated over the decades. The corporations are on the financial hook for the promises and mismanagement of a 3rd party who has been exposed as corrupt and incompetent, even as the corporations have continued to make the required union employee payments to the fund.

 

[Rogallo]

Fake news. All our work is under scope except catering and a couple seasonal deicing stations.
They will stay in constant hiring mode or call in OT.
Who is going to do ramp work in phx if someone calls out sick? Pbi? Fll? tpa, jax?
This contract is something i can recommend for a vote, if i were twu i would recommend if i got the $3000 matching.
Then let the members decide.
I could care less who gets credit, if the committee signed the fleet with recommendation then a job well done.
Stop the lies and stop this retirement block.

Who's OUR?

 

[Rogallo]

how does the scope look? Is it as bad as the union made out to believe??

 

[WeAAsles]

Well most members have been asking the association to release both proposals to its members it failed to do so. The company was asked and they did. We pay dues to the unions they work for us not for them. So they need to release there proposal now and let the members look at them. And listen to us for a change. We need to see the proposals so we can voice what needs to be changed for us. Not for the unions future .

The Association is in the process of doing just that I’ve been told.

Now before you throw more rocks remember that just like it took a few days for the Company to put it together to get it out to all of us through Computer, it could likely take a little time for our guys to do the same?

I don’t think they should need to put out the already TA’d stuff as that could confuse people?

 

[Tim Nelson]

BTW if the Company really wants out of the IAMNPF they are required by Law to pay the Withdrawal Liability Fee.

That Fee currently is 320 Million and rising the longer the Company waits to make a decision.

https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/multiemployer/withdrawal-liability

The iam pension is a problem because the union isnt allowing the company to ta this article by asking for substantually more. Read the union update today.

 

[WeAAsles]

Pretty much confirms the IAMNPF to be a Ponzi scheme, as it couldn't pay future actuarial retirement benefits claims on existing fund assets, even accounting for future expected investment returns. The union pension mismanages the fund, it goes bad (as with the IAMNPF) it demands more company money, and if the company wants to leave the pension, then the "withdrawal liability is based on its allocated share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits." $320 million???

Corporate CFO's see this type of nonsense, and I can understand as to why pensions have been eliminated over the decades. The corporations are on the financial hook for the promises and mismanagement of a 3rd party who has been exposed as corrupt and incompetent, even as the corporations have continued to make the required union employee payments to the fund.

I don’t think it’s quite as dramatic as you make it out to be for all Multiemployer plans but I will concede that there are some out there that engaged in some shady chit.

I’m not going to listen to you say that any of us should feel sorry for the poor little Corporations though who lobbied and got away with underfunding their own liabilities in their in house Pensions.

BTW I think having to pay that fee is a part of that 2006 PPA Law meant to make sure you have some security if any Companies want to back out of that obligation maybe leaving the Taxpayers on the hook to take care of people?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Brian Parker spoke as a representative of the Association at the last SOTA event and asked for the FULL language to be released by the Company.

Now it’s out. Good.

I expect next for the Association to release the details of where they stand and what exactly we are asking for on those outstanding issues.

We do know on Scope all that is now being asked is to keep all the work we currently own and do.

The fact that the Company did publicly release what they are asking for sets up a whole new ballgame that has never been seen before in the Airline Industry.

Not so fast! I just got a mailing from the union that rebuked the company for sending out the full proposal. To be sure, we asked the union for the full proposal but the union told us "Cant show ya". We ought to be thankful that the company shared with us and flushed out the lies that Mr Baskett and you were stirring about bag rooms not being protected.

Here is the deal. The union is focused on future headcount and the IAM Pension. The company has offered a snapshot and station and status protection for all current employees and this is UNHEARD of. But the company is also subsidizing this protection by refusing to allow future stations to be insourced. That's what pisses off the union. But currently we don't have either. So if we want IAH and maybe BNA, are you willing to give up station protection for current employees?

I'm not. But not in any case can we get "Both/And". Especially since we have neither now.

It's time to put down your drum weez and finally come over to the side of the masses. You fought a good fight with all of your lies and convinced a lot of people but you been outted by Doug Parker. It happens.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Pretty much confirms the IAMNPF to be a Ponzi scheme, as it couldn't pay future actuarial retirement benefits claims on existing fund assets, even accounting for future expected investment returns. The union pension mismanages the fund, it goes bad (as with the IAMNPF) it demands more company money, and if the company wants to leave the pension, then the "withdrawal liability is based on its allocated share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits." $320 million???

Corporate CFO's see this type of nonsense, and I can understand as to why pensions have been eliminated over the decades. The corporations are on the financial hook for the promises and mismanagement of a 3rd party who has been exposed as corrupt and incompetent, even as the corporations have continued to make the required union employee payments to the fund.

This isn't resolved yet. There may be negligence involved as well but the withdrawal fee can also be disputed. Weez says that the company botched its valuation of the IAM Pension. That isn't true. The company is smarter and has all the necessary financial documents that I attained.

The IAM is fighting against us on this. If we could, we would choose to opt out of this pension. Because even if the company is stuck paying the 10% surplus, we still go down to $39. The company doesn't have to withdraw at all if it negotiates $0 or .02 in the plan and then a 401k for 9%. The only change would be the contribution %. The problem is that the IAM still has the 5% IAM Pension on the table.

 

[1AA]

The company did not post the full proposal. Just the juicy stuff. When is the membership going to wake up? The association needs to post our full proposal to the company with notations of counters and rebuttals. Too bad they won't. So here we wait as another year goes by.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The company did not post the full proposal. Just the juicy stuff. When is the membership going to wake up? The association needs to post our full proposal to the company with notations of counters and rebuttals. Too bad they won't. So here we wait as another year goes by.

The company posted the entire proposal. Please go to Jetnet