July - IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[The Bagfather]

OK I think too much, but what if the company agreed to a 401K, and the union, after the contract was signed put on an unprecidented campaign for employee participation thereby costing the company millions over the term of the conctract? What happens then at the next negotiations? You don't have to take this question seriously. But it's at least ammusing.

 

[Kev3188]

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.

It's not a given that they would be willing to just trade straight across. What *is* a given is that they will know the exact cost of one option over the other, and if the 141 negotiators have done their due diligence, they will too. The critical move then becomes a balance between listening to what the membership actually wants, and if it is in fact the cheaper option, using those savings to "get" something in return from the company.

 

[Kev3188]

OK I think too much, but what if the company agreed to a 401K, and the union, after the contract was signed put on an unprecidented campaign for employee participation thereby costing the company millions over the term of the conctract? What happens then at the next negotiations? You don't have to take this question seriously. But it's at least ammusing.

Beats me, but what I can tell you is that my group is currently non-union, and the company is constantly pushing us to increase our contributions (which therefore increases their match amount)...

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.

Once again 700, you have no idea what you are talking about and I can certainly understand how you yourself negotiated your job away without reading the fine print.

Again, our US AIRWAYS members had a match but it also had a 401k that the company also contrbuted in up to 6 % automatic. Throw in a 2 % match and 2% for profit sharing and it was 10%. The CWA also has a 401k separate from match and it is the company's money. In fact, if our USAIRWAYS members leave the IAM pension plan then the company, by contract, is suppose to make the same monetary contributions to the existing 401k.

I don't know why I have to continue explaining to you and I don't know why I do since you continue to insist that 401k's are strictly funded by employees.

At any rate, hopefully your boy and the democrats can finally get the economy moving enough for you to find meaningful employment. Until then, I don't mean to be crude but IMO you should focus moreso on applications instead of spending your time on your computer regarding things that you just can't shake from 10 years ago.

Sheesh!

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.

It has already been negotiated in your contract and it is not complicated at all. If your group leaves the IAM pension plan, then the company is obligated to put the $1.10 per hour into your existing 401k account.

Most likely you will become TWU, whether we like it or not. And whether you stay IAM or TWU, one thing will be sure....you will get screwed again.

regards,

 

[ograc]

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....

As I stated earlier... the seeds of dissention are already being planted for a possible future representation election.

 

[ograc]

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

From what I have heard the District and the DOL spent the first days of the week resolving challenged ballots (there were many). After this process was completed they would begin to officially tally the vote count. The last update from the DOL stated they hoped to have it wrapped up by the end of the week. When the DOL is involved it can be a long process.
ograc

 

[john john]

The USAirways passengers service agents automatically get 3% put into a 401k without any employee contribution

 

[Kev3188]

Thanks. What (if any) kind of matching is there?

 

[john john]

There is no company match NOW

 

[The Bagfather]

Beats me, but what I can tell you is that my group is currently non-union, and the company is constantly pushing us to increase our contributions (which therefore increases their match amount)...

That's kind of the opposite of my scenario where the union promotes it. I don't remember how HP used to promote or not our 401K. I know the match went from something like 6% down to 3.5 around '98.
Is it possible that your company is trying to increase employee responsibility or they get some kind of tax writeoff or both.

 

[The Bagfather]

It's not a given that they would be willing to just trade straight across. What *is* a given is that they will know the exact cost of one option over the other, and if the 141 negotiators have done their due diligence, they will too. The critical move then becomes a balance between listening to what the membership actually wants, and if it is in fact the cheaper option, using those savings to "get" something in return from the company.

I kind of suspected something like that, but I have no negotiating experience. It's obviously very complicated.

 

[psa8979]

My $.02 worth. The BIG ! difference between a Defined Pension Plan and a 401k is the Pension you receive for the TERM of your LIFE. 401k and Roll-Over IRA can go to $0.00 before the end of your life. The three legs of the RETIREMENT STOOL is DPP, 401k, and SS. Knock out one of the legs and you could find yourself eating DOG FOOD if you live to long. WE at LCC should have both negotiated in OUR CBA.

 

[P. REZ]

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,

 

[P. REZ]

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,


Do you remember a conversation at the District 141 Lodge that we had? The one where you stated that you knew I was the leader in PHX. What is your problem? Are you bitter? Get a grip and stop hating. You mention I am pro management and a nice guy. You don't have a f#####g clue who I am. Pro management is not even close, pro employee all the time no matter who the person is. Nice guy, not a nice guy either. Back the f%%k off and come to PHX and I will walk the property and you can pick random employees and ask them if I represent. I am not perfect but I fight like a son of a gun to help people and always have. Get over me. Move on.

Sheesh,

P. Rez