July - IAM Fleet Service Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were to retire in aug my pension for 4 yrs of pt service would be $130/m. If I live 20 yrs that's a total of $21,200. A 401K plan at 3 1/2 % would net me about 60 cents an hour. It would come out to about the same. Look at your own case, Which is better for you.

Now that you've thought about it and decided which is better for you, I have no idea how the membership would split on this. Many probably have not thought about it. But if your in the group that wants a 401, and if thiere were a large majority of the membership wanting a 401k they're voice could have been heard via the questionaire prior to negotiations. Maybe something could have been organized to get everone to put that in,

So it looks like were stuck. Unless of course we accept the TWU. In that regard it's hard for me to believe that some on this board are not just using this and several other red herring issues as part of some sort of campaign which will probably get really hot when a merger becomes a sure thing. (or at the time the IAM officially starts a card drive.)
 
That's the bottom line, the day you walk on the property is your seniority date

And I am going to respectfully disagree, and here's why... I do not think I should be punished because some corporate poobahs are trying to make a quick buck by merging with another airline and I am to take a hit in my seniority at my station? I am not saying that DOH shouldn't be eventually recognized, but only after some time with fences to provide some protections for those with much lower average seniority.

So Deems Jester.
 
Seniority should be date you started in the classification.

You want a 10 year employee who was a secretary come in on the ramp and be senior to an employee who has put in say 9 years or less on the ramp?
 
If I were to retire in aug my pension for 4 yrs of pt service would be $130/m. If I live 20 yrs that's a total of $21,200. A 401K plan at 3 1/2 % would net me about 60 cents an hour. It would come out to about the same. Look at your own case, Which is better for you.

Now that you've thought about it and decided which is better for you, I have no idea how the membership would split on this. Many probably have not thought about it. But if your in the group that wants a 401, and if thiere were a large majority of the membership wanting a 401k they're voice could have been heard via the questionaire prior to negotiations. Maybe something could have been organized to get everone to put that in,

So it looks like were stuck. Unless of course we accept the TWU. In that regard it's hard for me to believe that some on this board are not just using this and several other red herring issues as part of some sort of campaign which will probably get really hot when a merger becomes a sure thing. (or at the time the IAM officially starts a card drive.)
The seeds of dissention already being planted. The official election results have not even been announced and on we go to the next false prophecy. When will we learn?
ograc
 
Do people not understand the 401k is your own money coming out of your paycheck?

So if you choose a 401k only option you are actually reducing your take home income.

A DBP is the company putting money into a pension for you, not your own cash coming out of your paycheck.
 
Do people not understand the 401k is your own money coming out of your paycheck?

So if you choose a 401k only option you are actually reducing your take home income.

A DBP is the company putting money into a pension for you, not your own cash coming out of your paycheck.

Yes, it is money out of your check. I was a staunch believer in pensions, and I am still to a degree. However, I saw what was done to the MTC trainers, and to the ramp, and I know that can happen to any of us. One problem with the way the IAM pension was set up is that you can't contribute your own money to increase your multiplier. With a matching 401k you can, depending on the match. While it is nice I wouldn't have had to worried about my own retirement plans with a pension, I think I would rather have the extra $2/hr in my paycheck.
 
You can still have a 401k it is an option, there isnt a company match anymore.

And many people have taken some serious hits in their 401Ks since wall street was down.

I doubt the company would agree to put that $2 in your check.
 
The pension is good and so is a 401 with a match. Its the individual who thinks one is better than the other. The 401 lets you decide how and where the money goes to some extent, and all money that you vest personally is tax exempt. A pension has a guarenteed payout as an end result. Both have their pros and cons. Its not dissention but rather opinion. Unless your a financial advisor or an expert in the market. I like them both and vest in my 401, as I'm sure a lot of you out there do also. I'll bet not one is the same or has done the same. Some better than others. I would not want to lose my pension either. In the end what do you do? Bagfather said it best, whats best for you. Maybe we should be given options,IMO.
 
You can still have a 401k it is an option, there isnt a company match anymore.

And many people have taken some serious hits in their 401Ks since wall street was down.

I doubt the company would agree to put that $2 in your check.

Why? $2 is just $2. It costs them either way. The pension has taken hits just like 401ks. I can't believe how you defend ANYTHING iam. Yeah, it's a good idea, but poor implementation.
 
And a pension can be changed. Look at how ramp and MTC trainers are going to the b scale when they ratify new contracts. I like both pensions and 401ks, and I think it's smart to have both. When I'm 55 I'll draw few hundred a month from my iam pension, but I also have a 401k with a healthy company match.
 
You can still have a 401k it is an option, there isnt a company match anymore.

And many people have taken some serious hits in their 401Ks since wall street was down.

I doubt the company would agree to put that $2 in your check.


What I find interesting, is that Nelson criticized the IAM for NOT having a pension. That was one of the drivers that lead to the pension and 401k option we have now! He will deny this... but I was there when he and MP were campaigning FOR the pension!

Now, he criticizes them because they DO have a pension!

It’s very clear that the intent of these malcontents is to divide, distract, and satisfy personal agendas.

You guys LOST... get over it....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top