IAM Fleet Service topic

[Dog Wonder]

Now self-important and boring on two threads.

 

[ograc]

Now self-important and boring on two threads.

Dog Wonder,
You seem to be very unsupportive of Tim's proposals/agenda. Could you expound? I'm trying to be mindful of my grammer and typos. lol
ograc

 

[Dog Wonder]

Dog Wonder,
You seem to be very unsupportive of Tim's proposals/agenda. Could you expound? I'm trying to be mindful of my grammer and typos. lol
ograc

Tim's agenda is Tim.

You should be more mindful of your 'grammer' after agreeing with Tim the current IAM proofreaders had a fourth grade education.

 

[baggage engineer]

Does anyone know if our negotiations team is trying to get more money put in our pension
I just read on another thread that UA customer service election if they lose we will lose another
9000 members. so like the same thing that happened after the NW-DL election all of a sudden
we get a dear john letter tells us we are going to go to a lower pay out schedule. History has a way
of repeating itself and I'm afraid anything we get added to our pension will be taken away AGAIN.
Please guys if your reading this stop screwing around with our future retirement its bad enough
we will lose almost half of our future contributions as soon as we sign a new deal dont make the same
mistake twice.I also have a question for our district leaders , someone at work told me that our officers
get another pension on top of what we get are they losing half of there pension as well or is it just
for the dues paying rank and file.

 

[necigrad]

No one 'knows' what the negotiating committee is looking for. What I have heard, however, leads me to believe that they are working predominantly towards improving what we have now. This would be things like the sick policy, overtime, and yes, pension.

I'd also like to bring up this whole "We lost our pension" thing. My understanding (and no one has provided evidence that I'm wrong short of "No, you're wrong") is that future contributions (from the start of our next CBA OR 2014) will be on a lower scale. We haven't lost anything. We won't lose anything. We WILL be getting less in future years unless there's a change to the current contribution in negotiations. We could come out with a contract that doesn't increase the contribution, lowering future accruals, a change that keeps the future as it is now, or (not likely) a change resulting in an increase in our pension benefit. My big point though, is that the money you've been putting in for the $80/month/year (or whatever it is exactly) is still worth that. If you quit now (and are vested) your pension won't be affected by the changes. If you're here when the changes happen, FUTURE payouts will be affected, but not the ones that were made in the past.

 

[Kev3188]

Does anyone know if our negotiations team is trying to get more money put in our pension
I just read on another thread that UA customer service election if they lose we will lose another
9000 members. so like the same thing that happened after the NW-DL election all of a sudden
we get a dear john letter tells us we are going to go to a lower pay out schedule. History has a way
of repeating itself and I'm afraid anything we get added to our pension will be taken away AGAIN.
Please guys if your reading this stop screwing around with our future retirement its bad enough
we will lose almost half of our future contributions as soon as we sign a new deal dont make the same
mistake twice.I also have a question for our district leaders , someone at work told me that our officers
get another pension on top of what we get are they losing half of there pension as well or is it just
for the dues paying rank and file.

I know I'm in the minority here, but "saving the pension" should be an item far down the list. For far too long we (organized labor) have had that sword held over our heads, and it's made it very easy for us to give just about everything else away. Most of us know it, and you can be damn sure the company does. That doesn't even touch on the issues many are having with the IAMNPF, and the changes they've made.

I'm not at US, but if I was, I'd say it's time to move to a 401k w/ a good match. Once that $$ is deposited in your account, it's yours. Period. No more being held hostage to some abstract payout that may or may not ever come. Being freed from that gives labor more room to move on things that matter *now,* like Scope, & medical.

 

[ograc]

Tim's agenda is Tim.

You should be more mindful of your 'grammer' after agreeing with Tim the current IAM proofreaders had a fourth grade education.

You missed the point. The task of proofreading the printed contract was the reponsibility of the Canale Team not the current District leadership. The former leadership team remained in office until October 2008. I believe the contracts were distributed in September 08.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Carry on.

 

[Tim Nelson]

No one 'knows' what the negotiating committee is looking for. What I have heard, however, leads me to believe that they are working predominantly towards improving what we have now. This would be things like the sick policy, overtime, and yes, pension.

I'd also like to bring up this whole "We lost our pension" thing. My understanding (and no one has provided evidence that I'm wrong short of "No, you're wrong") is that future contributions (from the start of our next CBA OR 2014) will be on a lower scale. We haven't lost anything. We won't lose anything. We WILL be getting less in future years unless there's a change to the current contribution in negotiations. We could come out with a contract that doesn't increase the contribution, lowering future accruals, a change that keeps the future as it is now, or (not likely) a change resulting in an increase in our pension benefit. My big point though, is that the money you've been putting in for the $80/month/year (or whatever it is exactly) is still worth that. If you quit now (and are vested) your pension won't be affected by the changes. If you're here when the changes happen, FUTURE payouts will be affected, but not the ones that were made in the past.

I don't believe the negotiations team has even started negotiating anything to do with your retirement at this point. Maybe so but I don't think so.

My perspective is that, since fleet service already has the IAM pension plan, as terrible as it will pay out in future years, you are stuck with it and it makes no sense to abolish the plan or the current contributions going into it from the company. That said, it would be like giving more of your money to a drunk if you actually increased the money your company puts into your pension when that additional money can instead be used to put into a 401k or even the wage. We have already seen how the IAM pension trustees have no other options than to steal from the active contributors to continue the current payouts to the big % of those who are already retired. It has become a true ponzie scheme like Social security where the actives are becoming alot smaller part than those who are presently benefitting. The future IAM pension trustee choices will either be to increase the IAM membership in the plan, or revisit the future payouts to suckers like us. I'm 100% against putting any more of YOUR money into increased contributions, although I wouldn't want to dabble with abolishing it either. IMO, we keep it with the same contribution, while at the same time, enhancing retirement options with any increased benefit, possibly a Roth or regular 401k where your money is your money and can't be stolen.

That said, and I hate to say this, the clear and present danger is a merger. IMO, it's merger season again. Primarily we MUST, obtain the same sacredity clause that the TWU has for its members otherwise ALL US AIRWAYS members will be adversely affected. Bottom line. Even in arbitration, any arbitrator will have to make a ruling based on the TWU contract which is far superior than the IAM contract regarding sacredity. Whether or not we can obtain such a clause before a merger is subject to opinion, but we do know that we can address this through a successful organizing campaign where we can apply the IAM's internal policies of Date of Hire.

The question would be, how can we get 3,000 cards from 7,000 active TWU represented employees to force an election [since the NMB rules will change this week and force us to get 50% of combined]? Leave that to me, that's what I do. Good luck to all of us if Delaney is in charge of an organizing campaign. Cripes, I can see him horse trading fleet service for the MX and working things out nicely with the INTL. Scary thought but very real on the horse trading possibilities. Heck, it isn't his seniority or his blood.

regards,

 

[Solidarity]

Nicigrad is spot on. Nothing changes until we have a new contract or 2014. And I think all the readers know that anything that has to do with money will be last on the list for negotiations.

 

[necigrad]

IMO, we keep it with the same contribution, while at the same time, enhancing retirement options with any increased benefit, possibly a Roth or regular 401k

First time in a while that I've agreed with you. There's too much polarization on the pension v. 401k issue. I say let's have both. Keep the pension where it's at (or maybe increase it a bit) and bring back a company match on 401k. Don't like the pension, too bad, but you get some 401k. Hate 401k, suck it up, but here's some pension anyway. There's positives and negatives to both, and different investment viewpoints will lean one way or the other.

Another option would be a choice: Pension or 401k with match, but I don't know how well that would work.

 

[Tim Nelson]

First time in a while that I've agreed with you. There's too much polarization on the pension v. 401k issue. I say let's have both. Keep the pension where it's at (or maybe increase it a bit) and bring back a company match on 401k. Don't like the pension, too bad, but you get some 401k. Hate 401k, suck it up, but here's some pension anyway. There's positives and negatives to both, and different investment viewpoints will lean one way or the other.

Another option would be a choice: Pension or 401k with match, but I don't know how well that would work.

exactly where have you disagreed with me at? Is there any part of the Occupy 141 platform that you disagree with and why?

regards,

 

[necigrad]

I pretty much disagree not with your platform (although I do have issues with some stuff) but more with how you've been handling yourself on this forum since announcing your candidacy. I don't think you're using it appropriately by using it as your main campaign vehicle and cringe most every time over the past few month I see a post from you. Rarely do you make a post that doesn't say (paraphrasing) "I'm Tim Nelson and this is why you should vote for me." or "This is why Rich Delaney is the wrong man for the job." or a combination of the two. It's not MY call I know, but that's the way I feel.

Since you asked however...

I think your gesture of returning pay is a noble but empty one. I don't expect most DL leaders to follow though on it if elected, and I don't see any way to guarantee that you will either. Please note that I am NOT saying you're lying, just that things change.

Wholeheartedly agree with 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9.

I think Item 6 (and with it for the same reasons Item 11) will be an epic failure when the company says "Nope."

 

[Kev3188]

First time in a while that I've agreed with you. There's too much polarization on the pension v. 401k issue. I say let's have both. Keep the pension where it's at (or maybe increase it a bit) and bring back a company match on 401k. Don't like the pension, too bad, but you get some 401k. Hate 401k, suck it up, but here's some pension anyway. There's positives and negatives to both, and different investment viewpoints will lean one way or the other.

You can have both, but the company will argue against a match because they'll be contributing to the pension at the same time.

Another option would be a choice: Pension or 401k with match, but I don't know how well that would work.

Could work fine. IIRC, AS gave their employees a one-time option to pick which they'd prefer. Anyone hired thereafter automatically had the 401k.

 

[john john]

Then Mechanic & Related had both 401K match and Defined-benefit plan the company had to give the Mechanic & Related the 401k plan because the IAM won a arbitration but latter gave up the 401k match arbitration during negotiations