July - IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[700UW]

Dont waste your time, when he cant prove you wrong on what you post, he resorts to personal attacks.

 

[roabilly]

Dont waste your time, when he cant prove you wrong on what you post, he resorts to personal attacks.

At this point in time... the current Fleet Service IAM Pension Plan has already matched the monthly earnings of approximately $200,000.00 saved, and conservatively invested into a 401k account!

Do the math... do you really think the younger folks coming into the workforce are going to sacrifice a portion of their earnings for a 401k? I have personally asked a many of the newer members this question... and some did not even know what a 401k was... much less actually contributing to one. I even had one guy say he didn't even know he was eligible for a pension!

The following website provides a number of scenarios illustrating the yields on 200k invested for retirement...

CNN MONEY

 

[Kev3188]

Do the math... do you really think the younger folks coming into the workforce are going to sacrifice a portion of their earnings for a 401k?

Good question...

I started mine when I was 23 on the advice of the senior guys on my crew...

 

[roabilly]

Good question...

I started mine when I was 23 on the advice of the senior guys on my crew...

I can tell you from my personal experience in speaking with a large number of junior Fleet Members... the answer is NO!

Actually... this is exactly why the the 401k plans were created to begin with! Smart Corporate Leaders knew full good and well that replacing pension obligations for "voluntary" investing in retirement plans would save them TONS of money... and it has!

 

[Kev3188]

I hear ya, but I still prefer the control it gives back to us (labor collectively).

 

[Kev3188]

Is it possible that your company is trying to increase employee responsibility or they get some kind of tax writeoff or both.

I honestly don't know what the tax implications are for them, but if there's an ulterior motive on their part, it wouldn't surprise me in the least...

 

[roabilly]

I highly recommend that all members educate themselves in retirement planning. Use a professional planer if you can afford it, or make use of some of the free advice you can get from Fidelity, or your Credit Union.

If you do your research, you will see that Fleet is currently sitting in a position of envy among many other workers in this country. We have the best of both worlds... a defined benefit pension plan AND a 401k! All of this political rhetoric that is getting thrown around in this forum has mislead the most vulnerable readers.

Do your own research... don't let these "armchair financial experts" influence your opinion on retirement benefits.

Here is an interesting read from reuters-money regarding 401k plans and how they are often inadequate...

401k plans fall short!

 

[bpsolo]

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.

My man,nobody can say it better than THAT! I know about it FIRST HAND and it"s SWEET!

 

[bpsolo]

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,

Settle down my man, your starting to GO OFF!

 

[P. REZ]

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,

Do you think before you post? DBP, 401k and SS are the 3 legs for which everyone should have for their retirement. The DBP was negotiated by the IAM and the 401k was kept as a savings tool for employees which IMO was a good thing for employees. There are some challenges with either and neither are perfect, but in the end it will allow for people to save for their retirement. Nothing is stopping you from investing in a 401k. Do everyone a favor and read up on retirement investing before you spew your garbage.

I am not stating anything but my opinion BTW before you reply.

P. Rez

 

[roabilly]

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.

Congratulations PSA...

You, along with P. Rez have come closer than any other posters to actually understanding the realities of retirement regarding OUR current social status and station in life!

Stay tuned... and proactive... remember how hard we fought in 2008?!

 

[Kev3188]

If you all collectively prefer a DB plan, so be it. I'm not in 141, so it's not my choice to make. I'm speaking only as a fellow ramper at another carrier who has a frozen pension, an IAMNPF pension that's in limbo, and a 401k.

For far too long we (labor in aviation) have deferred wages/benefits "today" for the promise of a pension tomorrow, only to see them either frozen, terminated, or had the multiplier(s) changed.

Worse, every time either Section 6 or BK roll around, the cries of "we gotta save the pension" roar up, and too much other language gets sacrificed to do so.

I'd rather have my retirement money now, to move where I see fit. I get the stool analogy, but the seat's no good when we use rotten wood for one of the legs.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I hear ya, but I still prefer the control it gives back to us (labor collectively).

The problem is that Roabily is comparing the $81 monthly level, which was decent. The reason why I was never for the IAM pension and Roabily screamed about how good it is, is because there is no guarantee. We learned with our first defined benefit from the company, and now our members been bitten twice with a defined benefit from the union. What is even more troubling, is that we can't even calculate future defined benefit levels since the $81 benefit level was whacked to a dreadful $48 and also subject to future cuts. Throw in the nasty pension level for part timers who only get half the full time level and everyone should be able to see how inadequate things are.

Never mind the huge spousal offset if our members, and other suspensions as it is fixed in concrete and can't be used for college, mortgages, etc.

regards,

 

[ograc]

The problem is that Roabily is comparing the $81 monthly level, which was decent. The reason why I was never for the IAM pension and Roabily screamed about how good it is, is because there is no guarantee. We learned with our first defined benefit from the company, and now our members been bitten twice with a defined benefit from the union. What is even more troubling, is that we can't even calculate future defined benefit levels since the $81 benefit level was whacked to a dreadful $48 and also subject to future cuts. Throw in the nasty pension level for part timers who only get half the full time level and everyone should be able to see how inadequate things are.

Never mind the huge spousal offset if our members, and other suspensions as it is fixed in concrete and can't be used for college, mortgages, etc.

regards,

There are no guarantees with either. One can have a 401K... make a few bad decisions on where they want their investments to go... and lose their arse. Additionally, 401 Ks are tied to the stock market which historically can be very volatile. Look at what happened to the value of the 401s after 09/11. If you were planning on retiring around that time your dreams went up in smoke. I witnessed this happen to a member in my station. IMO... a combination of the two is the best choice. We, collectively, still have the option to have both. To us "long toothed" senior agents this is an important contractual issue. Unfortunately, to the junior agents I believe this issue does not have the same importance. The reasons are too numerous to highlight in this post.
Contract negotiations are ongoing and there is much to be fixed. The negotiating committee must choose their battles based on a very diverse and divided membership.
ograc

 

[Jester]

There are no guarantees with either. One can have a 401K... make a few bad decisions on where they want their investments to go... and lose their arse. Additionally, 401 Ks are tied to the stock market which historically can be very volatile. Look at what happened to the value of the 401s after 09/11. If you were planning on retiring around that time your dreams went up in smoke. I witnessed this happen to a member in my station. IMO... a combination of the two is the best choice.

Frankly, that is the problem with just about any retirement plan... all tied to the long-term economic conditions, even Social Security. If the stock market tanks both 401K and pension plans take a hit, as the "lost decade" has left most US based stock market investments unchanged, and I don't think it is unrelated how our pension will be reduced, as well. One reason why investors have gone outside of the US to diversify risks and look for opportunities in emerging markets, but in foreign trading floors which are less than transparant and accounting standards that are far from ideal.

Personally, I see little difference between the investment opportunities between most pension plans and most 401Ks insofar as they invest in much of the same financial assets. In theory, a pension could invest with direct placements in relatively unregulated assets, as such building loans, privately held companies or look for companies to take-over and manage much like a venture capital firm, but risks would be huge with the possibility of corruption and the lack of expertise in managing operations.

So Hypothesizes Jester.