Also, people need to understand, that what we currently have in our pension is not affected. This only applies to future contributions after the year 2014, or until we sign another contract. So we need to wake up, because as far as Im concerned, we just became a lot pickier in our next contract negotiations. If we are going to take a hit in our pension as soon as we vote it in. Then it better be a pretty sweet deal to get my vote.
I was never an advocate of the IAM pension plan since it was not guaranteed and took the control out of the hands of the workers. Even though the IAM pension plan was a $43 million concession, the company still refused to sign on to it since it knew the defined benefit was not guaranteed. So to keep the company out of lawsuits, the IAM incorporated language in the contract that the company was not going to guarantee the benefit amount. I explained this to coworkers that this benefit was NOT guaranteed at all and explicitly written in the contract, however, the unseated AGC's told them it was guaranteed. Whether they intentionally lied to them or were ignorant is anybody's guess. As aside, the IAM goes to the mat for this pension plan and although it says there is nothing monetarily in it for them, I often wonder if that is really the case.
Unfortunately, the IAM pension plan can get even worse. This time they decided to cut back future benefit amounts, but remember there is nothing in the plan that prevents them from reducing previous accrual levels. Although it wasn't mentioned, I fully and entirely suspect that this future benefit cut was birthed from the loss of 15,000 members in the plan from Northwest. The timing is highly suggestive. In essence, the IAM pension took a direct blow from losing these participants and will take an even greater blow if it lost the United airline participants. Those left in the plan would have to make up the difference.
In future negotiations, I would think it is utterly unwise to throw more money into this plan. I would be doggedly against this.
Should we keep it? Yes, but leave it alone, it is what it is. Instead of negotiating that the company throw in another dime or quarter an hour into the plan, any monies should be thrown into the wage. The wage is the main thing, but not the only thing, that we understand.
As far as AGC salaries, These AGC's are very modest folks and not too removed from the membership. They would have taken a pay cut but there are bylaws that prevent that. So instead they refused a 2.5% pay raise. The District still gets the 2.5% from the INTL but it will use the money in more resourceful ways than throwing it into salaries.
As far as negotiations, I would think the first thing on the horizon will be a screening committee and a process whereby the membership can submit proposals. IMO, that process should start by February 15, 6 months before commencing negotiations. I severely doubt that a negotiations team has been established but if you use United as a model then it is highly suggestive that there will be more Local Chairpersons on the team than AGC's. IMO, 2 AGC's, and at least 8 Local Chairman. I don't remember but I think the last US AIRWAYS negotiations team had 18 participants, including the GLR, AGC's, LC, PDGC, etc. If I remember, I think the negotiations team comprised of the following persons, with AGC's in parenthesis: Pit guy, Pit guy [MW], Phl guy, Phl guy [PF], PHL guy [BC], CLT guy, CLT guy [JR], MCI woman, PHX guy, LAX guy, BWI guy, Bos guy, GLR, Canale, LAS guy, and at least two others I'm missing. I wouldn't wish negotiations on anyone, it's a huge commitment away from home. The main thing is that everyone sticks together and doesn't start drinking the kool-aid.
