More progress on the recent ratified CBA @ L3 Harris MAS up in Canada

[SWAMECH]

Nice to see the positive progress on the CBA. Also note folks, the IAM pension was NOT lost at all for changing unions, it was simply transfered and continued. So for those of you that like to use the scare tactics and tell people they will "lose" their pensions if they vote their current union out that has a pension are all full of crap, as most of us know, BUT they still try the scare tactics in order to save their arses.


MFA-L3 HARRIS MAS CBA UPDATE
March 9, 2023 -- AMFA and L3 have finalized housekeeping items in the recently ratified CBA and have required signatures from both parties to reach a final resolution. Additionally, after much collaboration with both L3 Harris MAS (L3) management and Edward Jones Financial Group, we are finalizing the final step to complete the transition from the IAM Pension Plan to an L3-funded, individually directed Retirement Savings Plan.
Read More

 

[CorvetteMan]

Meaning they lost future contributions to the IAMNPF, so they did lose it

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Nice to see the positive progress on the CBA. Also note folks, the IAM pension was NOT lost at all for changing unions, it was simply transfered and continued. So for those of you that like to use the scare tactics and tell people they will "lose" their pensions if they vote their current union out that has a pension are all full of crap, as most of us know, BUT they still try the scare tactics in order to save their arses.

Did the members actually request to leave the IAMPF? Membership in the IAM isn't an actual requirement to be a part of the pension plan.

At the very least they get to keep what ever benefits they had already vested in up to the point of transition.

 

[WeAAsles]

Did the members actually request to leave the IAMPF? Membership in the IAM isn't an actual requirement to be a part of the pension plan.

At the very least they get to keep what ever benefits they had already vested in up to the point of transition.

SWAMECH doesn’t understand. Yes they did lose their continuing participation in the IAMPF. My guess is they likely weren’t in it long enough to vest and their money would have been returned to them and they’ll get no payout.

The IAMPF is under zero obligation to continue to let anyone participate in their Pension fund who is no longer a member of the IAM. It’s actually silly to even think otherwise.

 

[WeAAsles]

Here’s some more information about this group. In 2020 they had only 51 members. They rejoined the IAM in 2014 after their Company was sold to L3.

If they were vested in the IAMPF that participation would be frozen and they would get the payouts they’re owed when they retire.

Second contract a winner at L3 in Trenton IAMAW

Trenton, ON – The 51 members of Local Lodge 717T have ratified their second collective agreement with L3 Technologies MASS, a subsidiary of L3 Harris Technologies Inc. The members gained wages and benefits across the board, mostly because of the dedicated work of the Negotiating Committee. “The...

iamaw.ca

 

[WeAAsles]

Nice to see the positive progress on the CBA. Also note folks, the IAM pension was NOT lost at all for changing unions, it was simply transfered and continued. So for those of you that like to use the scare tactics and tell people they will "lose" their pensions if they vote their current union out that has a pension are all full of crap, as most of us know, BUT they still try the scare tactics in order to save their arses.


MFA-L3 HARRIS MAS CBA UPDATE
March 9, 2023 -- AMFA and L3 have finalized housekeeping items in the recently ratified CBA and have required signatures from both parties to reach a final resolution. Additionally, after much collaboration with both L3 Harris MAS (L3) management and Edward Jones Financial Group, we are finalizing the final step to complete the transition from the IAM Pension Plan to an L3-funded, individually directed Retirement Savings Plan.
Read More

Explaining to you.

Let’s say this Company L3 was putting $500 per Month into the IAMPF when those 51 workers were still IAM Members. Once they signed off to leave the IAM and go with AMFA the IAMPF would no longer be obliged to accept that money and manage any continuing investments for them. That does not however mean the $500 per month isn’t still owed to them.

As AMFA wrote they now just need to find a new place for that money to go as they are doing.

But they still would no longer be “continuing” members of the IAMPF.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The IAMPF is under zero obligation to continue to let anyone participate in their Pension fund who is no longer a member of the IAM. It’s actually silly to even think otherwise.

While "you" may think it silly - in point of fact, membership in the IAM is NOT required to be a part of the IAMPF.

 

[WeAAsles]

While "you" may think it silly - in point of fact, membership in the IAM is NOT required to be a part of the IAMPF.

What I think is silly is two fold. # 1 if a group of people want to dump the IAM why would they want to continue with the IAMPF? Reality for many is they would rather have something else like a 401K Contribution/ Match.

And # 2 You are correct that being a member of the IAM is not a requirement to participate in the IAMPF. But dumping IAM membership also means the IAMPF is under no obligation to continue participation. So it works both ways.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

What I think is silly is two fold. # 1 if a group of people want to dump the IAM why would they want to continue with the IAMPF? Reality for many is they would rather have something else like a 401K Contribution/ Match.

While I would certainly agree that with the track record certain union pensions have, that most would indeed, opt for a 401K with a matching contribution. That said, in all the drives to remove the IAM as a bargaining agent that I have ever heard of, I don't remember any that were driven over the pension issue. Which is why I asked my original question.

And # 2 You are correct that being a member of the IAM is not a requirement to participate in the IAMPF. But dumping IAM membership also means the IAMPF is under no obligation to continue participation. So it works both ways.

As you freely acknowledge that membership in the IAM is indeed NOT required to participate in the plan, how would simply switching unions alleviate the IAMPF of their fiduciary responsibilities? As long as a group maintained all necessary requirements (a fore mentioned membership not being one) if the former IAM members wanted to remain in the plan, the IAMPF administrators couldn't and wouldn't kick them out just for spite.

 

[WeAAsles]

While I would certainly agree that with the track record certain union pensions have, that most would indeed, opt for a 401K with a matching contribution. That said, in all the drives to remove the IAM as a bargaining agent that I have ever heard of, I don't remember any that were driven over the pension issue. Which is why I asked my original question.



As you freely acknowledge that membership in the IAM is indeed NOT required to participate in the plan, how would simply switching unions alleviate the IAMPF of their fiduciary responsibilities? As long as a group maintained all necessary requirements (a fore mentioned membership not being one) if the former IAM members wanted to remain in the plan, the IAMPF administrators couldn't and wouldn't kick them out just for spite.

I never understand why people can’t figure this out. The IAMPF has a responsibility only to what has been vested for IAM members. Again what has been paid into the plans. I “guess” if some group drops the IAM the IAMPF can negotiate with say AMFA to continue participation. But “WHY” would any of them do that? Why?

I “personally” have no clue how many non IAM members are currently putting continuing money into the IAMPF but I’m betting it’s extremely low if anyone at all? (Notice question mark)

Let’s make sure this is clear. My thought is this.

Someone is in the IAM and the IAM Pension fund for 20 years. The membership dumps the IAM for (whoever) the new union negotiates the continuing retirement contributions from X Company to go somewhere else. Member is now in (whoever) Union for another 10 years and retires. IAMPF begins paying for the 20 years member was in the IAM and the IAMPF and the other 10 years is paid out however it was invested.

The IAMPF has ZERO fiduciary responsibility to “continue” to accept funds for payments after the “collective” tosses the IAM to the curb.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I never understand why people can’t figure this out. The IAMPF has a responsibility only to what has been vested for IAM members. Again what has been paid into the plans. I “guess” if some group drops the IAM the IAMPF can negotiate with say AMFA to continue participation. But “WHY” would any of them do that? Why?

I never understand why people can't figure this out either - The IAMPF is not part of the IAM, yet the IAM likes to try and scare departing members they will "lose" their pensions if they leave the IAM as members - Its easily dis-proven yet some continue to try and peddle this nonsense until an election is over and only then try to hide behind the line ... oh I meant "lose" future contributions. Why would they continue to do that? Why?

I “personally” have no clue how many non IAM members are currently putting continuing money into the IAMPF but I’m betting it’s extremely low if anyone at all? (Notice question mark)

I "personally" don't know the number of contributing non-IAM members in the plan either, it maybe low, it may even be zero. That changes nothing as the IAMPF rules for participation remain for IAM members and non-members alike. (your question mark was duly noticed)

Let’s make sure this is clear. My thought is this.

Someone is in the IAM and the IAM Pension fund for 20 years. The membership dumps the IAM for (whoever) the new union negotiates the continuing retirement contributions from X Company to go somewhere else. Member is now in (whoever) Union for another 10 years and retires. IAMPF begins paying for the 20 years member was in the IAM and the IAMPF and the other 10 years is paid out however it was invested.

Correct - this is what seems to be happening at L3.

The IAMPF has ZERO fiduciary responsibility to “continue” to accept funds for payments after the “collective” tosses the IAM to the curb.

As IAM membership alone is not a dis-qualifier for IAMPF participation, if a group currently participating in the plan tosses the IAM to the curb, so long as they continue to comply with the plans requirements, would not be removed from the plan solely for having changed union representation.

 

[WeAAsles]

I never understand why people can't figure this out either - The IAMPF is not part of the IAM, yet the IAM likes to try and scare departing members they will "lose" their pensions if they leave the IAM as members - Its easily dis-proven yet some continue to try and peddle this nonsense until an election is over and only then try to hide behind the line ... oh I meant "lose" future contributions. Why would they continue to do that? Why?



I "personally" don't know the number of contributing non-IAM members in the plan either, it maybe low, it may even be zero. That changes nothing as the IAMPF rules for participation remain for IAM members and non-members alike. (your question mark was duly noticed)



Correct - this is what seems to be happening at L3.




As IAM membership alone is not a dis-qualifier for IAMPF participation, if a group currently participating in the plan tosses the IAM to the curb, so long as they continue to comply with the plans requirements, would not be removed from the plan solely for having changed union representation.

I don’t know why the IAM, IAMPF or any IAM Members would do or say anything. I’m not in the IAM.

As far as your last paragraph. The IAMPF does not have to continue to collect and why would/ should they anymore? This is one of those WTF kind of comments.

To me again this is simple “IAM”/ “IAM” Pension fund. Not AMFAPF or IBTPF or even TWUPF.

Why would/should they manage ANY type of retirement funds for people who kicked them to the curb? Are you arguing this point just for the sake of arguing?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

As far as your last paragraph. The IAMPF does not have to continue to collect and why would/ should they anymore? This is one of those WTF kind of comments.

Why would/should they manage ANY type of retirement funds for people who kicked them to the curb? Are you arguing this point just for the sake of arguing?

Arguing for the sake of arguing??? I could ask you the same thing as your position makes ZERO sense beyond simple spite.

If an IAM group decides to remove the union as representation, but has no issue with the IAMPF as they have managed to negotiate it in their respective CBA, their new representatives, whoever it maybe, decides to leave the CBA pension language unchanged, and other than representation the group continues to satisfy all other rules of participation, there is no hindrance to them remaining in the plan.

Your question of ... Why would/should they manage ANY type of retirement funds for people who kicked them to the curb? ... is flawed on its premise ... the group didn't kick the IAMPF to the curb, only the IAM - Again, the IAM and the IAMPF are NOT the same. They share a name in part, but they are separate entities.

- A group is in the plan

- A group wishes to remain in the plan after decertifying the IAM

- A group changes nothing in their agreements, and continues to follow the rules as set by the IAMPF

What valid reason would the IAMPF have to refuse?

 

[WeAAsles]

Arguing for the sake of arguing??? I could ask you the same thing as your position makes ZERO sense beyond simple spite.

If an IAM group decides to remove the union as representation, but has no issue with the IAMPF as they have managed to negotiate it in their respective CBA, their new representatives, whoever it maybe, decides to leave the CBA pension language unchanged, and other than representation the group continues to satisfy all other rules of participation, there is no hindrance to them remaining in the plan.

Your question of ... Why would/should they manage ANY type of retirement funds for people who kicked them to the curb? ... is flawed on its premise ... the group didn't kick the IAMPF to the curb, only the IAM - Again, the IAM and the IAMPF are NOT the same. They share a name in part, but they are separate entities.

- A group is in the plan

- A group wishes to remain in the plan after decertifying the IAM

- A group changes nothing in their agreements, and continues to follow the rules as set by the IAMPF

What valid reason would the IAMPF have to refuse?

Do you understand that a Union is a collective? So who decides they want to stay in the plan? Does the new Union who essentially took the membership away tell the old unions plan that they want to stay with them? What sense does that make in the real world?

So maybe immediately after the new union was certified they should have another vote to keep their asses tethered to the old Union through their retirement club? That sounds absolutely ridiculous. But let’s play with your notion.

AMFA update # 1

We have reached out to the IAMPF to petition to remain invested in their benefit plans. As of the last 2 weeks we have yet to receive a response and are considering a Lawsuit to force them to answer. In the meantime be assured that L3 Harris will keep your retirement investments secure until we can sort out this situation.

😂 😂 😂 😂 Ridiculous……..

 

[WeAAsles]

“”””Additionally, after much collaboration with both L3 Harris MAS (L3) management and Edward Jones Financial Group, we are finalizing the final step to complete the transition from the IAM Pension Plan to an L3-funded, individually directed Retirement Savings Plan””””


How come AMFA didn’t contact the IAM or the IAMPF about remaining? Because the IAMPF Administrators would I’m sure tell them to pound sand and they know it.

😂 😂 😂 😂