Retirement issues for CWA members?

[usa1]

One of the biggest blows to my retirement plans came when Democrat Jim Oberstar basically blocked the US/UA merger in 2000, sending both companies into BK again. Based on UA's offer of 50 per share for USAir stock I ended up losing potentially 100,000.00. This was money I invested over and above my 401k contributions. The industry wasn't allowed to consolidate and and soon just about every pension in the industry ended up in the hands of the PBGC. All in the name of cheap tickets?

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/21/business/fi-2780



Now the tax payer via the PBGC is on the hook to pay whats left of just about every pension in the aviation industry ..... brilliant Jim!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/04/house-transportation/

Oh and by the way Mr Jim Oberstar, consolidation finally came anyway, ten years to late though to keep the UA/US pensions away from the PBGC and off the tax payers back. And your Northwest Airlines now belongs to non-union Delta? .... You're a big screw up? No wonder the industry and this country is in such a big mess. Thank goodness you were voted out this year?

Real Unemployment is at 17%. No one can retire, we'll all have to work until we drop. The young people can't get in because we can't leave.

 

[4merresrat]

This is an odd situation to say the least. The company has wanted to shed senior employees for years, yet they have made it nearly impossible for anyone to retire. Most of us will be hanging around until we are 70 years old, collecting the top rate of pay all the way till the end. I'm starting to think that bailing out at 55, and getting a P/T job elsewhere with medical benefits may be the way to go. Has anyone else noticed that what you can collect from the PBGC differs very little at 55 vs 62?
Any reductions in force will only eliminate lower wage employees, while the senior people hang around to suck every last dollar out of the company that they can. Just another design flaw in the way they look at things, just like the sick day policy that encourages people to burn a week instead of a day. Stupid is, stupid does...

You said not me! About the 70 year olds maning the ticket counters and sucking every last dollar! And that is about the truth. It seems some might be sticking around an extra year or two just to spite to company lol!

The ticket counter agents and flight attendants have been looking rather long-in-the-tooth for awhile now!

But you make it seem that they should offer a package to unload the senior people. The company has several times offered rather lucrative packages. I know someone who was layed off and got severance, plus unemployment then after a year or so went back to the counter and within a year or so took something like 12 or 13k to retire once again.

 

[tadjr]

But you make it seem that they should offer a package to unload the senior people. The company has several times offered rather lucrative packages. I know someone who was layed off and got severance, plus unemployment then after a year or so went back to the counter and within a year or so took something like 12 or 13k to retire once again.

12 or 13K to retire is lucrative? Only for those people who are retiring within the year anyway or have another job or inheritance coming soon.

 

[john john]

But you make it seem that they should offer a package to unload the senior people. The company has several times offered rather lucrative packages. I know someone who was layed off and got severance, plus unemployment then after a year or so went back to the counter and within a year or so took something like 12 or 13k to retire once again.

Getting layoff and receiving a bankrupt force reduce severance base on years of service and collect unemployment after years of service is lucrative? After management received a very lucrative and controversial bonus
Bankruptcy Judge admits employees think the $32 Million Management Bonus Plan is unfair and unjust…

US Bankruptcy Court Judge Stephens cut out the $18 Million Executive Bonus plan but he allowed the $32 Million Management Bonus Plan, along with the $5 Million discretionary "slush fund" to retain managers. But in his written legal decision he admits that employees are outraged by this giveaway:
"While management employees took some pay cuts and benefit reductions, the plain truth is that those cuts were significantly less than the cuts experienced by the non-management employees.
"It is hardly any wonder, therefore, that the rank and file employees have reacted to the proposal with considerable outrage, as evidenced, for example, by the petition that was admitted at the hearing signed by 2,209 members of the Communications Workers of America denouncing the proposed severance plan and urging this court not to approve it."

 

[4merresrat]

12 or 13K to retire is lucrative? Only for those people who are retiring within the year anyway or have another job or inheritance coming soon.

No, I never said to retire. I said it was a package to leave the company. Where did anyone say anything about retirement?
The package was not a retirement plan it was a separation from work package-you accept xxxx of dollars and you can leave-they did not have to be of retirment age but work x amount of years I believe.
People would leave with the understanding that they do not get retirement. It benefits both the company and the employee. I would assume the employee would have plans for their future but would not just accept it with no means of support.
Of course it is not forced on employee but is an option. Why do some on the forum always look for the negative spin. No one made anyone take it. The people I knew who took it were happy to get it.

 

[john john]

No, I never said to retire. I said it was a package to leave the company. Where did anyone say anything about retirement?
Why do some on the forum always look for the negative spin.

What is this thread/topic about?
Leaving the company and retiring …management has made that very difficult while funding their “lucrative packages”. If you think an employee not having a decent retirement is “negative spin” you must fit in with the strange

 

[john john]

No company is responsible for your retirment. And let it be a lesson to others who are not making plans for retirment.

Maybe in your world. So it is your belief that YOU as an employee of USAirways should not have a company contribution retirement plan that allows you to retired.How come it is ok for upper management?

 

[john john]

One of the biggest blows to my retirement plans came when Democrat Jim Oberstar basically blocked the US/UA merger in 2000, sending both companies into BK again. Based on UA's offer of 50 per share for USAir stock I ended up losing potentially 100,000.00. This was money I invested over and above my 401k contributions. The industry wasn't allowed to consolidate and and soon just about every pension in the industry ended up in the hands of the PBGC. All in the name of cheap tickets?

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/21/business/fi-2780



Now the tax payer via the PBGC is on the hook to pay whats left of just about every pension in the aviation industry ..... brilliant Jim!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/11/04/house-transportation/

http://www.teamster.org/content/airline-division-news-week-ending-september-17-2010
H.R. 4677 a Major Win for Airline Employees, Language Will Prohibit Airlines from Breaking Contracts, Dumping Pensions on PBGC and Taxpayers
Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger testified about airline bankruptcy and the effects it has on the professional pilot. More than 170 airline bankruptcies have cost over 150,000 jobs and 180,000 pensions. Captain Sullenberger said at the hearing, “For professional pilots to have their retirement commitment broken – in large part because they do not have the same rights during a business bankruptcy as every other organized employee in the United States – is an injustice that needs to be rectified.”
To little to late for US

 

[john john]

Maybe this for negotiations with the company

Here is what passengers service had 1999
The Company will contribute to the base account a percentage of the employee’s
pay (base pay, shift premium, shift differential, overtime, and bonuses) based
upon the following schedule:
4% for employees age 18 to 34
6% for employees age 35 to 44
8% for employees age 45 to 54
10% for employees age 55 to retirement
C. The 401(k) account is established to allow employees to defer pay on a pre-tax
basis. The employee contribution is voluntary and is limited based upon Internal
Revenue Service regulations.
D. The Company will contribute to the company match account at a rate of 50% of
the employee’s 401(k) contribution up to a maximum of 2% (e.g. the employee
contributes 4% to the 401(k) account, and therefore the company contributes 2%
to the company match account). This account is only established if the employee
participates in the 401(k) account.

http://www.cwa-union.org/pages/cwa_pensions_and_trusts

CWA/ITU NEGOTIATED PENSION PLAN (NPP)
The CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan (NPP) is a multi-employer, defined benefit pension plan that is available to any CWA bargaining unit. It is funded by employer contributions negotiated in the contract. The Plan was started in 1968 and has paid over $1 billion in benefits. For more information about NPP on our Web site, click here.
http://www.cwaitu.com/

Contact Information:
CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan
831 S. Nevada Ave., Ste. 120
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Toll-free (877) 429-2488

 

[tadjr]

No, I never said to retire. I said it was a package to leave the company. Where did anyone say anything about retirement?

Of course it is not forced on employee but is an option. Why do some on the forum always look for the negative spin. No one made anyone take it. The people I knew who took it were happy to get it.

4merresrat, on 07 March 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

But you make it seem that they should offer a package to unload the senior people. The company has several times offered rather lucrative packages. I know someone who was layed off and got severance, plus unemployment then after a year or so went back to the counter and within a year or so took something like 12 or 13k to retire once again.

Sorry if you didnt mean this highlighted section to actually mean retire. Thats the way I took it yes, since you said retire once again.
And I find it amusing if your looking for a negative spin remarks was for me. I am probably one of the most "glass half full" people on here, but there are times that even I cant get the rah rah going around here.

 

[usa1]

Whats going on here CWA?

For instance, most non-uniformed public employees who have worked in New Jersey for 30 years with an ending salary of $85,000 can look forward to retiring at 55 with an annual pension of about $46,000. Working until age 60 and a salary of $90,000 can bring a pension of $57,000. And many of the New Jersey's public-sector retirees have no or low premiums for their health insurance.

For a private-section worker who retires at 55, relying solely on a 401(k) without an employer match, it would take a $100 contribution to a plan every week for 30 years and getting an annual return over 7 percent to get to the same level of pension benefit as the public worker retiring at that age. Those benefits would run out after 25 years for the 401(k) retiree.

Hetty Rosenstein, the New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America, which represent New Jersey government workers in several fields, says gripes about her members’ pensions are misplaced.

“There’s pension envy because people who are working in the private sector, they’re being denied pensions,” she said.

http://www.newstribune.com/news/2011/mar/08/anger-brews-over-government-workers-benefits/

 

[usa1]

A little off topic but here's something to think about! Never given it much thought ..... but kiosk's don't need a retirement package ... you just deperseate them each year and eventually through them away! IM feeling more like one everyday!!!!!

Marshall Brain, founder of the website HowStuffWorks and author of Robot Nation, has a theory that in the future most of us will be out of work, replaced by robots.

According to Brain's projections, laid out in an essay, "Robotic Nation," humanoid robots will be widely available by the year 2030, and able to replace jobs currently filled by people in areas such as fast-food service, housecleaning and retail. Unless ways are found to compensate for these lost jobs, Brain estimates that more than half of Americans could be unemployed by 2055.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/08/59882