IAM Fleet Service topic

[700UW]

Wikileaks, you are correct, I was out of town the entire 2011 and most of 2010 spending my days in IAH and ATL organizing and missing Local meetings in ORD, so I can't run for a Local job. Sorry but I'm not much of a Robert's rule of order type of guy and I think the Local chairman in ORD is doing fine anyways. My focus is on changing this district. Hey sister, good luck with your election also, I hear you are running again.

regards,

Tim Nelson
cell: 224-234-5414

If you are on authorized union business, it should excuse you from the attendance requirements of the local lodge bylaws.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, just a few thoughts...

As far as the break room attorneys go… I will agree to an extent. Unfortunately, I’ve seen people practicing law that are worse than some of our best AGC’s. Just because someone has passed a bar exam, and is licensed to practice law, does not always mean that they will do a better job at representation.

Tim… are you telling me that not one single person from the original ND folks are getting your support? I think MF and MB should be an exception if that is the case.

I do agree that something should be addressed regarding the exorbitant salaries that are being paid by the membership to our AGC’s and officers. From my observation, this “pot of gold” salary promise makes the political process ruthless and flawed. I have seen entirely too many candidates that are focused on the gold, and not the Membership!

Lastly, Tim… when will we know who you have chosen for your ticket? How will that intermesh with the negotiations process? I’m pretty sure that we will not have an agreement of any kind for at least a year. Would that mean that the current team would be removed, and yours inserted? Would your team resume talks anew, or would you attempt to build on any progress that was made by the previous team? In other words… could this lead to a longer period without a tentative agreement?

Item 1: Current AGC's. I can't deny your comments about MB. Who can say anything bad about the guy? I would have liked to see some more leadership from MF and the others but for some reason they do not stand up against RD and have attached themselves to his hip. Hey listen, those guys aren't necessarily the bad guys and I understand being respectful to the President but when the President continually only sees UA, and is with management, I have a problem with that. I respect those guys and maybe under better direction from above they would be more useful but RD maintains control over them. I don't want to get into the various things that transpired against the US AIRWAYS membership that continues to make our US AIRWAYS members 'second fiddle' but I already mentioned one, i.e., RD not even bothering to show up for your negotiations to attend a ND10 meeting in ORD. The US AIRWAYS AGC's shouldn't allow that to happen. Sends a terrible image to management that US AIRWAYS members are placed behind United members.

All members of DL141 should be treated equal, from the web page to the negotiations table. Bottom line Roabilly, all the current AGC's are with RD and continue to give him unyielding support. None of them have been in contact with me. There was some mention that they wanted to be double slotted but, IMO, the membership needs to see where everyone is and that means no politics or double slotting. My ticket will be with a group of members who don't believe the normal and customary is good enough and who already realize that the RD team is inadequate.

Item 2: Lawyers. Roabilly, we will just have to disagree on this one. In arbitration or negotiations, I am convinced that having legal counsel at your side is better than having legal counsel 'just a phone call away'. Further, it reduces cost to have in house attorneys, as opposed to paying outside firms high hourly rates. The trade off is that there will be 'no more perks' for the DL141 officers from the 'qui pro quo' of the outside law firm. So, it not only provides more resources for the negotiations team and in arbitration but it also lowers cost.

Item 3: Negotiations. Changing leadership doesn't change what already is or has happened in negotiations. If it's a 9 inning game and you are already in the 4th inning then it's not going to hit a default button back to the first inning when you change pitchers. Legally, the new leadership is given the ball and will pick up where the negotiations left off at. I do want to be clear on one thing. I have heard that the IAM INTL has persuaded RD to focus on the IAM pension fund and get more of the members money into that. I can tell you flat out that I don't subscribe to increasing company contributions of ANY MORE OF YOUR MONEY into the IAM pension fund since YOU don't control it and it can be pimped off of you if the IAM loses more members. So, Roabilly, I think that is a different stance I have from ND10 and one that I am 100% going to take. I know the IAM is telling folks that the US AIRWAYS members can once again have their future pension rates bounced back up to the $70's per month figure if they negotiate and have the company juice up its contribution rate up to about $1.50 from the $1.10 that it is now, and that's true, but screw that bro when you have already seen that when the company gives YOUR money to the IAM that the IAM pimps it off on you. So, instead of having the company hand over .40 cents an hour more of YOUR money, I believe in cutting out the middle man [insert IAM here] and just have it go into your wage or YOUR benefits. The idea of the IAMPF is a good one but it's a 'pocket with a hole in it' when the IAM can just loot the future benefits whenever it wants. To be sure, the IAM says it isn't your money and it's really the company's money but that is just semantics, it's YOUR Money. You need to make sure you can control all of your money and not allow our union any MORE control over your health or retirement benefits. So, even though a change in pitchers doesn't default to the first inning, Yes, there are some changes, not all pitchers pitch alike, and increasing the IAMPF isn't a pitch that I'm going to throw since all the US AIRWAYS members that I have talked to are pissed off like hell about it. Does that mean we void out the IAMPF? No. Keep it where it's at and don't screw with the current retirement benfits, but shift any increases to wages, days off, or health benefits, and not the IAMPF since it is NOT GUARANTEED. Does any of that make sense?

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

 

[Harry Callahan]

FYI Tim all the UA folks I know here hate RD.

 

[mike33]

Yes, there are some changes, not all pitchers pitch alike, and increasing the IAMPF isn't a pitch that I'm going to throw since all the US AIRWAYS members that I have talked to are pissed off like hell about it. Does that mean we void out the IAMPF? No. Keep it where it's at and don't screw with the current retirement benfits, but shift any increases to wages, days off, or health benefits, and not the IAMPF since it is NOT GUARANTEED. Does any of that make sense?

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

Tim;

Its been awhile. Unfortunately the circumstances that surround postings on this board are rather concerning to me. I will have to research a little deeper but for RD to not show at the first day of our anticipated contract inauguration is very very disheartening to say the least. We have been through alot the past 8 or so years and this was a " Negotiations" that alot of the Usairways employees, who became US employees because of this merger , would not understand.

Hmm....Lots of thinking to do. Im gonna say it straight !!!! The former HP employees are getting " Punked " .


Just had to say it.

 

[robbedagain]

you are so right mike33. those hp folks all they saw was the raise right off the bat they didnt care thatthey were gonna lose cities upon cities and to lose a hub sure as he!! dosent speak much about the mgmt team as well either. I would like to see improvements in everything especially that scope language

 

[bagchucker]

If you want job security, get yourself to CLT, PHL, DCA, or PHX (in that order). Otherwise, you will sooner or later fall victim to the "chop-shop". I just did. Time to get to a hub. The membership is divided, because there is no leadership, therefore, people that can sway a vote (i.e.-hubs) will always vote for the money, not the protection. Simple equation that the Company knows quite well. Be careful what you wish for on the new contract! There won't be too many stations left to protect at the rate the "chop-shop" is going! Odds are there will be another round of station closures before there is even a contract proposal up for vote, watch! SAD.

 

[no more cuts]

is atl the only station that is over the minimum flight schedule or is there more citys out there and if so who is keeping up with that besides the
company obviously. Is there somebody in the IAM monitoring flight schedules or are we just suppose to believe what management says

 

[no more cuts]

bagchucker you are absolutely 100 percent correct on your post. the hubs could care less
about closing of small citys . what we need to do is get a committee together from a
few of the smaller cities and form an alliance to try and block the hubs from selling us
out yet again

 

[SparrowHawk]

nuff said

 

[roabilly]

Yes, there are some changes, not all pitchers pitch alike, and increasing the IAMPF isn't a pitch that I'm going to throw since all the US AIRWAYS members that I have talked to are pissed off like hell about it. Does that mean we void out the IAMPF? No. Keep it where it's at and don't screw with the current retirement benfits, but shift any increases to wages, days off, or health benefits, and not the IAMPF since it is NOT GUARANTEED. Does any of that make sense?

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

Absolutely… it makes complete sense… the IAM pension was touted as one of the best in the industry. I still think it is/was very good. Unfortunately, we were all under the impression that it was guaranteed. We have now discovered that this is not the case. However, a 401k is not guaranteed either… poor investment mixes or market volatility will always prevail in that regard.

I also think that the pension issue is a matter of demographics in terms of membership support. Obviously, the older vested folks that are within a few years of retirement are pro-pension.

On the other hand, most of the younger folks that have hired in within the last ten years or so, could care less about retirement, they want a cool car and a nice apartment… they live for TODAY!

So… we have two separate demographics with separate ideas about what to expect from an agreement in terms of retirement benefits. If one were a politician, one would identify which group comprised the majority within the aggregate, and appeal to their concerns.

I would like for my personal financial advisor Jester to comment on this Pension vs. 401k observation…

So, adamantly proclaims…

BroBilly

 

[BLUTO]

Absolutely… it makes complete sense… the IAM pension was touted as one of the best in the industry. I still think it is/was very good. Unfortunately, we were all under the impression that it was guaranteed. We have now discovered that this is not the case. However, a 401k is not guaranteed either… poor investment mixes or market volatility will always prevail in that regard.

I also think that the pension issue is a matter of demographics in terms of membership support. Obviously, the older vested folks that are within a few years of retirement are pro-pension.

On the other hand, most of the younger folks that have hired in within the last ten years or so, could care less about retirement, they want a cool car and a nice apartment… they live for TODAY!

So… we have two separate demographics with separate ideas about what to expect from an agreement in terms of retirement benefits. If one were a politician, one would identify which group comprised the majority within the aggregate, and appeal to their concerns.

I would like for my personal financial advisor Jester to comment on this Pension vs. 401k observation…

So, adamantly proclaims…

BroBilly

Dude... give it up... live for TODAY! You never know when the Germans will Bomb Pearl Harbor Again!

Cool avatar!

 

[Jester]

I would like for my personal financial advisor Jester to comment on this Pension vs. 401k observation…

My Dearest Mister Roabilly,

As you invoked my name as your personal financial advisor, allow me this gracious opportunity.

You are essentially correct in your views about a pension vs. a 401K. You touched about something in which all 401Ks and pensions share in common... the reliance upon the various world stock markets in which the dollars are invested. Often times pensions attempt to reduce their exposure to the markets by looking for direct investments in private debt offerings or investments in privately held companies. For example, the Teamster's Central States Pension fund built much of the early days of Las Vegas casinos, and actually did reasonably well in terms of returns out-performing the stock market during that time. However, that in itself becomes part of the problem as would the investment decisions be based upon financial considerations or cronyism and kickbacks, as not all mob influenced investment choices were either sound or prudent back in the 1960's.

Allow me to digress further on the Big Picture of retirmement funding, having been an employer and manager, and an observer of people's attitudes towards savings. In a phrase... "Saving isn't sexy." Too often and too many people would not save with a 401K, even with an employer matching part of the contribution. Frankly, I think that is one of benefits of Social Security and pensions. Those retirement plans happen automatically, as they are deducted from the employees' wages or the employer makes the contributions, as well. My concern is that we could have fleet service agents who after 30 years of work and eyeing retirement would have little more than their SS check. We could argue that was their choice, but I think we all want more for those people, and ourselves. Pensions, in theory, are to be expertly managed by professionals, and unfortunately, I am certain there are a good number of fleet service agents would not be comfortable in figuring their 401K allocations, and even handling the neccessary portfolio changes to manage the risk better based upon their individual time horizons. As such, I lean more towards a pension plan due to the aforementioned reasons.

I think a better way would not make it an issue of pension vs. 401K, but rather to have better control on the pension investment decisions. As far as I know, I have not been privy to the investment portfolio of the IAMPF, so I cannot say as if the reasonings for the reduction in future retirment benefits were the result of a bad economy affecting the stock markets or suspect investment choices. I will admit that when the reduction in the pension benefit was announced approximately a year ago, I noticed what I considered to be questionable rates of returns, based upon the various employers' hourly contributions. To summarize, the more an employer paid in hourly contributions, the lower the rate of return, which seems hardly fair for those employees enjoying higher contributions earn less of a return than those with a smaller employer contribution, and the percentage difference was not small. Would not all investments from the contributions be treated the same? Or maybe the pension managers are attempting to cover mismanagement by bleeding-off some of the higher end employer contributions to the lower end employer contributions? Someone who is promised $500/month per year of service is not as likely to ask as many questions as to rate of return, than someone who is entitled to just $50/month per year of service, as both cases it was 'free money' paid by the employer and nothing out of pocket by the employee. Pay me $500/month per year of service with a pension, and I won't care to ask if it could have been invested better, and I think most people are like that.

I hope someone from our IAM leadership (Tim?) does begin to ask questions as to the pension's investment portfolio, and to explain the substantial reduction and lack of security in our pension.

So Recommends Jester.

 

[roabilly]

My Dearest Mister Roabilly,

As you invoked my name as your personal financial advisor, allow me this gracious opportunity.

Allow me to digress further on the Big Picture of retirmement funding, having been an employer and manager, and an observer of people's attitudes towards savings. In a phrase... "Saving isn't sexy." Too often and too many people would not save with a 401K, even with an employer matching part of the contribution.

Jester... again we AGREE! The observation that "Too often and too many people would not save with a 401K" is essentially why the entire premise of the 410k was created! Corporations knew that leaving investment for retirement completely up to employee participation and management would result in huge cost savings when compared to the traditional pension plans... because they would dump the administrative, and legal costs.

To top it all off, a lot of the participants that were actually willing investors chose to contribute only to the employers stock, that was offered at a discount in the employers own plan!

Good Job!

 

[Jester]

The observation that "Too often and too many people would not save with a 401K" is essentially why the entire premise of the 410k was created! Corporations knew that leaving investment for retirement completely up to employee participation and management would result in huge cost savings when compared to the traditional pension plans...

I am not sure it was the "entire" reason, as I think the biggest problem was the pension exposure of defined pension obligation. If the market goes bad for a decade (like the last one), then the employer would be obligated to make up the difference. With a 401K, the employee assumes the risk of a suffering economy.

However, I think there is valid economic reason as to why 401K would be cheaper, and let's use some realistic figures... let's say someone's hourly rate is $20/hour, and the company plan would match up to half the employees contribution, but up to 3%. So the most a company will pay is 60 cents an hour, versus our pension, I think now pays $1/hour? Then throw in that many employees will not take advantage of the 401K as it requires them to contribute 6%. It is a great deal for the company, and another reason why I lean towards a pension plan.

So Concurs Jester.

 

[BLUTO]

Are you guys really baggage handlers? I’ve been hanging in the pilots thread, and I’ve read more intelligent conversation in just a few pages here, than I have in three months there!