July - IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[psa8979]

Brothers and Sisters at LCC has any one heard what the delay is on D-141 posting election results ?

 

[Tim Nelson]

No, only if you work in the airline industry or another IAM job, as most pensions are, the IBT is the same way.

How is that CWA pension?

Oh wait, you dont have one, you have a 401k where you have to use your own money.

and why would they want one? That's the point. Whether IAM or IBT pension, the union trustees are in control and either have to whack benefits or default since the unions, particularly the IAM, can not sustain the membership levels. I'd much rather have a 401k AND profit sharing like the CWA negotiated instead of an 'out of date' defined benefit plan that is NOT so defined after all. At least in that way, our members can decide and control their own money for college cost, mortgage, etc., and have that extra $1,000-$2,000 paycheck handed to them in the first quarter that could be used for many things.

Defined benefits worked last century when they were the only game in town, but even then, whether the defined benefit was company driven or union driven, the funding was always inadequate. Throw in the spousal offsets, as many of us choose this option to take care of our spouses, and it gets whacked again.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

You and I both know that IAM fleet does not have any of those things, not because of the new leadership, but because of canoli, and YOU. Were you not a big proponet for a no vote on the first T/A, stating something to the effect of "we could do better", or something like that anyway? Heck I think even I was against the first T/A that was offered. And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the first T/A have some snapbacks, and a pension increase in it? Not that the pension increase was really worth it, but it was something. And I don't think there was any profit sharing in either T/A, though I can't remember exactly. The first one that was voted against may have had it, I really don't know.Yet you come on here throwing stones at the people that were elected in 2008 trying to place blame on them. They had nothing to do with the train wreck of a T/A that we voted in and you know this. But somehow, it's not your fault, it's the ND's fault. How exactly is that? You had a major hand in the first no vote, yet you claim no responsability? That's low even for you. Still bitter for losing are you? Blame everybody but yourself. You are really a piece of work. You want all of the credit, but none of the blame. You would be a great manager for US, you fit their M.O. to a T.

Both T/A's were pathetic. Sorry, PJ, those of us who voted no on both of them are not to blame. CLT and PHL voted No twice by VERY large margins and that included all of the 141 rising AGC's also. You are thinking like a moron if you think otherwise and your fascination with me has apparently gotten the best of any 'clear' thinking on your part.

I haven't been bitter ever as an IAM member so I have no idea what you are talking about. If I were bitter I'd be a dues objector or not be able to talk to any of my friends in 141 rising. I get along fine with FO, NH [although we have had our moments] and MF, and still do. And MM has always been a friend of mine. You can keep ur boy Prez though as I have always felt that he was way too close to management. Nice guy but very very pro management.

Going back to what I said is that the AGC's have proven insignificant and that isn't necessarily a remark about their personhoods. How significant is it when your negotiations team is meeting with the company this week, and if they are lucky RH, but Doug Parker met with the TWU leadership this week in Chicago? That isn't the fault of the negotiations team, it's just a very cruddy perdicament that they are in. Why would management even bother other than doing the absolute minimum in negotiations?

It doesn't mean that MF sucks in negotiations and doesn't mean that Delaney is at fault for the action of US AIRWAYS upper management but it is quite insignificant when our union is only able to meet with at most RH, as Parker meets in Chicago with the heads of the TWU this week.

IMO, if this merger goes through, there is a great chance that our US AIRWAYS members will be TWU, thus my immediate concern is seniority.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Brothers and Sisters at LCC has any one heard what the delay is on D-141 posting election results ?

No delay.

The DOL said from the beginning that it would go over all the challenged ballots during the week of July 8th. The DOL has been at the District offices going over each challenged ballot to get an official tally. The challenged ballots are few in number and won't change the outcome. Other than a couple double slotted candidates who lost by hundreds, all other challengers lost by over 1,000 votes and it became the most lopsided election over the past decade. Personally, I tried my hand at politics but I proved to suck real bad at politics so it will be someone else's turn next time. I only hope that Robyn and Karen finally can put their emotions aside and do the math. They got clobbered 3 times in a row and, IMO, they ought to think about supporting others instead of penciling themselves on ballots every time.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.

You are incredibly ignorant. I have been over this and over this with you but everytime you see "401k" you can't comprehend that we are talking about the company contributions that would go into a 401k. I remember when fleet had up to 10% company contributions going into its 401k and you insisted that it was NOT company contributions and that 401k's were personally funded.

700, I know this won't help but at some point, maybe later in life, you need to discover that there are really retirement plans where a company puts money into for their employees. I really have a hard time understanding how you continually fail to realize that.

regards,

 

[pjirish317]

Tim,

You really are a piece of work. You blame the IAM for no snap-backs or profit sharing, when the first T/A had snapbacks in it. I am pretty sure there was no profit sharing in either T/A, so we can blame canoli for that one. And if you recall, I am not a Prez fan, and really never have been. You yourself were very vocal about a no vote on both the T/A's that were presented, as was I, but somehow, it's the IAM's fault for no snap-back's? How is that possible when the first T/A had snap-back's in it? The membership can thank canoli for the no profit sharing though. And if you treat your "friends" the way that you did in the past 3 months, I would hate to be one of yours. But typical for the spin-master, you redirect from your original statement when BS is called on you. Typical.

 

[Tim Nelson]

A 401k is taxable when you start withdrawing the funds.

700,

The IAM pension fund is not guaranteed. And the IAM pension trustees have made it very clear by letter that they had to whack benefits 40% because of 'issues', and that it may have to make further reductions in the future.

Since the IAM lost another 20,000 members in 2011 and is now down to under 350,000 for the first time in decades, I can hear the violins from the IAM pension trustees playing again. Yikes!

regards,

 

[700UW]

Let me explain a 401k to you as you dont get it.

If you didnt contribute pre-tax income to it, yes your own money the company wouldnt match anything as you werent in it.

Bottom line is it is your own money coming out of your paycheck where as a DBP isnt.

And dont try to confuse and deflect, just because the IAM loses members, it doesnt mean they were in the IAM pension plan, now does it?

The plan is overfunded now to a level a 106%.

Educate yourself Tim instead of trying to muddle the truth.

From the WSJ, read it and educate yourself.

A 401(k) is a retirement savings plan sponsored by an employer. It lets workers save and invest a piece of their paycheck before taxes are taken out. Taxes aren’t paid until the money is withdrawn from the account.

http://guides.wsj.co...what-is-a-401k/

You try to deflect and change the issues and facts.

 

[rockit2]

It should be the day you started in the Class or Craft.

Your right pj, That what i was thinking but it didn't connect to my fingers

 

[rockit2]

Let me explain a 401k to you as you dont get it.

If you didnt contribute pre-tax income to it, yes your own money the company wouldnt match anything as you werent in it.

Bottom line is it is your own money coming out of your paycheck where as a DBP isnt.

And dont try to confuse and deflect, just because the IAM loses members, it doesnt mean they were in the IAM pension plan, now does it?

The plan is overfunded now to a level a 106%.

Educate yourself Tim instead of trying to muddle the truth.

From the WSJ, read it and educate yourself.




http://guides.wsj.co...what-is-a-401k/

You try to deflect and change the issues and facts.

If it is overfunded then why are they cutting the monthly multiplier and i know you posted some crap about it but why. If it's some accounting rule it should not effect my set rate unless US starts contributing at a lower rate.

 

[The Bagfather]

and why would they want one? That's the point. Whether IAM or IBT pension, the union trustees are in control and either have to whack benefits or default since the unions, particularly the IAM, can not sustain the membership levels. I'd much rather have a 401k AND profit sharing like the CWA negotiated instead of an 'out of date' defined benefit plan that is NOT so defined after all. At least in that way, our members can decide and control their own money for college cost, mortgage, etc., and have that extra $1,000-$2,000 paycheck handed to them in the first quarter that could be used for many things.



regards,

 

[700UW]

You would have to ask the plan trustees, I posted the reason I found on the District web page.

 

[The Bagfather]

Tim, is that a sure thing that the company would trade the pension contribution directly over to another part of the contract dollar for dollar? The accounting could get mixed up during negotiations. But take the simple example of giving up the pension for a wage hike. Is their no motivation (monitarily) for the company to go for one or the other? Is it the same expense for them both ways? It would seem so unless there's some different tax thing for them.

A trade of a pension with a matched 401K is more complicated. Both the company and the union would have to come up with figures as to what that would cost/pay. Those figures could be different.

I'm not really making an argument here, I'm just pointing out that it could get complicated and that one possibility is that the company pays less money and that the Union and membership are happy.

 

[700UW]

If you look at it, its a set dollar amount they pay per member to the IAMNPF.

The 401k match would probably cost more as each member would be contributing a different amount from their check, if the company has to use the maximum match, its probably more than the IAMNPF.

And some members cant afford to lose income from their check, as the 401k would cost them earnings and the IAMNPF doesnt.

 

[Kev3188]

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.

This is an absolutely valid point, and in the quest to sh*t on 700, I think it's getting missed. As many of you know, I'm absolutely a fan of a 401k over a pension, but I think people need to be aware of where the money is coming from vs. going to.

To me, it is worth having a 401k, in that

A] The $$ is mine right away
B] I can control how risky/safe I want to be w/it, and
C] Maybe most importantly, "saving the pension" isn't held over everyone's head in order to force give backs somewhere else.

It's also important to note the difference between a "match," no match, and a "fixed contribution. For example, at NW, we had no fixed contribution and no match- the rationale being that we also had a pension. At the Widget, they contribute a fixed 2%, and match a portion as well. My point? If you collectively decide to go with "only" a 401k, make sure the fixed contribution language is solid. Same with the match, and make sure any finance people on the neg. committee know the *exact* amount of ask the pension is vs. going to a DC plan.

I'm also well aware that a 35 yr. employee has much different needs than a 4 yr. employee. With that in mind, I still contend the fairest option going forward is to give everyone a one time choice; either stay w/a DB, or go to a DC. IIRC, the IAM at AS negotiated that, though I'd need to go back and look to be sure...

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.

I know you probably just used $2.00 as an example, but FWIW, that'd make for a much larger multiplier than I think US would be willing to pay? Our IAMNPF contribution amount was 5% of top of scale rate, or a little less than half of what you note.

A 401k is taxable when you start withdrawing the funds.

True, though you do get a tax break in the interim. Also, there other retirement vehicles as well that aren't such as a Roth IRA.