TWU,TEAMSTERS AND AA
- Thread starter 1airborne
- Start date
1AA
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 6,056
- 4,231
Teamsters at one time during negotiations tried to go after Continentals frozen pension fund without the members input. That did not go well with the members of Continental. The Teamsters backed off. Think it can not happen at AA? Think again. They tried it at UAL/CAL. Do not think they will not try it again at AA. Think about your pensions before voting for the Teamsters.
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
Teamsters head Hoffa tries to squash his own employees’ union
Posted By Patrick Howley On 1:24 AM 04/19/2013 In Politics | No Comments
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) general president Jimmy Hoffa Jr. is suspected by his members of trying to squash a union comprised of some of his own Teamsters organizers.
Hoffa’s battle with his own organizers’ union overlaps with a host of other problems for the prominent labor leader, including a pension crisis that is undercutting his support and a potential UPS strike that he might not be able to afford, according to insiders.
Hoffa still has not granted a contract to the Federation of Agents and International Representatives (FAIR), a union that represents Teamsters organizers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allowed FAIR to represent some Teamsters organizers last year in their negotiations with Hoffa, after organizers voted 18-16 to unionize in a Teamsters election.
The Hoffa administration’s battle with FAIR has been divisive, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller. Teamsters officials openly threatened their own organizers to discourage them from joining FAIR, leading to accusations that the Teamsters were union-busting their own employees’ union.
The growing Teamsters pension crisis, which has seen the union’s retirement fund spiraling toward insolvency, has been one of FAIR’s foremost issues in its opposition to Hoffa.
But instead of drafting a contract with FAIR, the Hoffa administration is believed to be planning to try to strip FAIR of its certification.
Teamsters can begin FAIR’s decertification process in late May by getting 30 percent of its employees to sign a petition to the NLRB to force a new election, where FAIR can be voted out.
Last year the Teamsters sent out a mailing to organizers, obtained by The DC, disparaging FAIR and asking members if they want to “betray” the Teamsters and “put what you currently have on the table” by joining or voting in favor of FAIR.
“Being disrespectful and making fun of your coworkers that do not agree with your stance is not the way to win friends and influence people. It is a direct reflection of those that are leading the FAIR campaign and the FAIR organization itself,” the mailing reads.
“Are you willing to betray the faith and respect given you by Teamster leaders?,” the mailing [pdf] reads. “Are you willing to put what you currently have on the table?…Choose to remain a Teamster.”
FAIR responded after the election with its own letter, obtained by TheDC, criticizing Hoffa’s union-busting tactics.
“We succeeded in the election…The continuing barrage of frivolous objections and appeals by our senior staff in order to stall and delay the exercise of our rights is appalling,” according to the FAIR letter.
“The use of Teamster member’s dues including yours and ours, to employ union busting tactics is not approved of by our membership or the labor movement at large. This shameful behavior is hypocritical to say the least,” according to the letter.
The FAIR letter [pdf] also accused the Teamsters of having “involved itself in the same unethical behavior as those employers we combat daily.”
TheDC reported this month that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was forced late last year to issue a notice, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the NLRB and posted as flyers in Teamsters offices, conceding that the Teamsters are not allowed to bust the organizers union.
“Federal law gives you the right to: form, join, or assist a union; Choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf;” according to the notice, dated August 29, 2012.
“WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights,” according to the notice. “The International Union has been required by the NLRB to post notices that the IBT will cease harassing union organizers for joining a union.”
But the flyers on the office walls have done little to cool tensions.
Insiders are concerned that the Hoffa administration will utilize the same tactics that it used in 2008, when Teamsters organizers tried to unionize after they were removed from the International Brotherhood’s pension plan. The Hoffa administration sent out letters requiring field organizers to sign an admission that they counted merely as “temporary” and “at will” employees — and thus were officially expendable.
The Hoffa administration engaged in “Making phone calls, sending emails and threatening the consequences if they were not signed (using direct and indirect methods),” according to a statement made by a Teamsters organizer posted to a private Teamster chat forum. The veracity of this statement was confirmed by an insider to TheDC.
“It is not any secret after the first wave were ‘terminated’ in November 2008, those that remained were harassed further by the administration and they either conformed or they were fired. Leaving only a hand full [sic] of people that could be used for their gain,” according to a statement by an organizer.
Hoffa’s problems with FAIR are exacerbated by upcoming UPS negotiations.
United Postal Service (UPS) is hoping for concessions once its current contract with the Teamsters expires on July 31. UPS is planning to ask for a new contract that would among other thigns require the International Brotherhood to contribute to its own members’ health plans, according to insiders. The proposed give-back contract would likely necessitate a strike by Hoffa.
However, a lengthy UPS strike would deplete virtually all of the Hoffa administration’s strike resources. Hoffa might be considering a mere two-week strike, which is likely all he can afford to wage, according to one insider.
Hoffa, then, will be going into his UPS negotiations from a position of considerable weakness.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters did not return requests for comment.
Follow Patrick on Twitter
​
Is this just one more examples what we will get if you decide to bring the IBT to AA?
.
I hope you are accurate in your statement and there is a vote and we the 9878 M&R here at AA get a ballot.
I will be using the write in option and witing in AMFA and I am making sure everyone here at my station know they have that option.
I guess we have to thank the IBT at least for getting us a ballot.
1AA
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 6,056
- 4,231
Travis it is obvious you do not work for AA and your information is flawed. Your number of 9878 is not accurate. I am not going to tell you the exact number but I can say that it is much higher than what you claim. If the Teamsters are going on that number which I doubt then they will be short and very short on cards. But I doubt they will use your number. OK put a spin on my reply.
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
VERNUCCIO: Riches for unions, but not their retirees
Labor bosses would cut pensions to fix insolvency
By F. Vincent Vernuccio
Friday, May 31, 2013
Organized labor has long pointed to pensions as a key reason to join their unions, but many of those promised benefits are now in serious trouble. After decades of promising a secure retirement, unions need to chip in and protect their members' pensions.
Certain union pension plans, known as multiemployer plans, are collectively bargained between a union and several private-sector employers. Many of these plans, however, are dangerously underfunded, and some could be headed toward insolvency.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in March released a report, "Timely Action Needed to Address Impending Multiemployer Plan Insolvencies," detailing that "many multiemployer plans have had large funding shortfalls and face an uncertain future."
The GAO noted that the resources of the government's pension insurance agency — the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) — dedicated to multiemployer funds "would be exhausted in about two to three years if projected insolvencies of either of two large plans occur in the next 10 to 20 years."
With some plans facing catastrophe, a coalition of employers and labor unions recently published a report, "Solutions, not Bailouts," making recommendations to fix these underfunded pension plans. Their solution: reduce retiree pensions.
The vast majority of the unions in the coalition, including the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, are affiliated with pension plans that are less than 65 percent funded
The committee recommended "No participant's benefit can be reduced to below 110 percent of the applicable PBGC guarantee level." The PBGC's yearly guarantee to multiemployer plan participants is $12,870 for someone with 30 years of service. If the proposal is enacted, this means that retirees could see their benefits reduced to less than $1,200 per month.
Multiemployer plans are run jointly by representatives from the union and the several businesses involved. While the union and the employers have equal representation, the union can vote in a bloc and if it sways only one employer representative to its side, it controls all of the decisions.
Despite that level of control, the unions generally do not give any financial support to the pension funds. Employers are assessed contributions, and in some cases, unions agree to contracts that call for employee contributions, too
Instead of these unions offering to help shore up their plans with their own assets, the main recommendation is to jeopardize the retirement of their current and former members. Union leaders like Teamster President James P. Hoffa are seeing discord within their ranks over the proposal.
But as Mr. Hoffa asks for sacrifice from employers, members and retirees, Teamster assets grow. According to financial data given to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April the Teamsters reported $226 million in assets, up almost $14 million from 2012. This included the building the union owns across the street from the Capitol in Washington valued at almost $46 million. Mr. Hoffa's total compensation in 2012 was $367,000 and 168 Teamster employees have six-figure salaries.
In multiemployer plans, every employer is responsible for the retirement of every employee in the plan, even those who do not work for them. If a business leaves, it has to pay its share of the liabilities of the plan, which can far exceed the retirement costs of the workers they actually employed.
George Kerver, president of Fastdecks Ex, a concrete form company in Walled Lake, Mich., may need to pay the Teamsters' pension plan $465,774. The reason is that Mr. Kerver could not afford keep a part-time driver as a result of a lack of business. By downsizing his part-time employee (the only Teamster who worked for him), Mr. Kerver triggered a process known as "withdrawal liability" from the Teamsters' pension plan.
While almost half-a-million dollars may seem like a lot to a small business, it pales in comparison to the $6 billion that United Parcel Service gave the Teamsters in 2007 simply for the ability to opt out of the union's pension plan and support its own workers' retirement.
Unions — in this case, the Teamsters — help govern these pension plans, making them in part responsible for their health, or lack thereof. But it is the employers and the employees who bear all the risk. Employers pay into the plan and must make up previous underfunding. Employees bear the risk of not receiving their promised retirement if the plans go under.
Before asking retirees to sacrifice, unions and their leadership should take financial responsibility for the underfunded pensions they help manage.
Voting in the IBT will put in jepordy our AA Pensions, Do YOU want to Take that chance.
Labor bosses would cut pensions to fix insolvency
By F. Vincent Vernuccio
Friday, May 31, 2013
Organized labor has long pointed to pensions as a key reason to join their unions, but many of those promised benefits are now in serious trouble. After decades of promising a secure retirement, unions need to chip in and protect their members' pensions.
Certain union pension plans, known as multiemployer plans, are collectively bargained between a union and several private-sector employers. Many of these plans, however, are dangerously underfunded, and some could be headed toward insolvency.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in March released a report, "Timely Action Needed to Address Impending Multiemployer Plan Insolvencies," detailing that "many multiemployer plans have had large funding shortfalls and face an uncertain future."
The GAO noted that the resources of the government's pension insurance agency — the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) — dedicated to multiemployer funds "would be exhausted in about two to three years if projected insolvencies of either of two large plans occur in the next 10 to 20 years."
With some plans facing catastrophe, a coalition of employers and labor unions recently published a report, "Solutions, not Bailouts," making recommendations to fix these underfunded pension plans. Their solution: reduce retiree pensions.
The vast majority of the unions in the coalition, including the Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers, are affiliated with pension plans that are less than 65 percent funded
The committee recommended "No participant's benefit can be reduced to below 110 percent of the applicable PBGC guarantee level." The PBGC's yearly guarantee to multiemployer plan participants is $12,870 for someone with 30 years of service. If the proposal is enacted, this means that retirees could see their benefits reduced to less than $1,200 per month.
Multiemployer plans are run jointly by representatives from the union and the several businesses involved. While the union and the employers have equal representation, the union can vote in a bloc and if it sways only one employer representative to its side, it controls all of the decisions.
Despite that level of control, the unions generally do not give any financial support to the pension funds. Employers are assessed contributions, and in some cases, unions agree to contracts that call for employee contributions, too
Instead of these unions offering to help shore up their plans with their own assets, the main recommendation is to jeopardize the retirement of their current and former members. Union leaders like Teamster President James P. Hoffa are seeing discord within their ranks over the proposal.
But as Mr. Hoffa asks for sacrifice from employers, members and retirees, Teamster assets grow. According to financial data given to the U.S. Department of Labor, in April the Teamsters reported $226 million in assets, up almost $14 million from 2012. This included the building the union owns across the street from the Capitol in Washington valued at almost $46 million. Mr. Hoffa's total compensation in 2012 was $367,000 and 168 Teamster employees have six-figure salaries.
In multiemployer plans, every employer is responsible for the retirement of every employee in the plan, even those who do not work for them. If a business leaves, it has to pay its share of the liabilities of the plan, which can far exceed the retirement costs of the workers they actually employed.
George Kerver, president of Fastdecks Ex, a concrete form company in Walled Lake, Mich., may need to pay the Teamsters' pension plan $465,774. The reason is that Mr. Kerver could not afford keep a part-time driver as a result of a lack of business. By downsizing his part-time employee (the only Teamster who worked for him), Mr. Kerver triggered a process known as "withdrawal liability" from the Teamsters' pension plan.
While almost half-a-million dollars may seem like a lot to a small business, it pales in comparison to the $6 billion that United Parcel Service gave the Teamsters in 2007 simply for the ability to opt out of the union's pension plan and support its own workers' retirement.
Unions — in this case, the Teamsters — help govern these pension plans, making them in part responsible for their health, or lack thereof. But it is the employers and the employees who bear all the risk. Employers pay into the plan and must make up previous underfunding. Employees bear the risk of not receiving their promised retirement if the plans go under.
Before asking retirees to sacrifice, unions and their leadership should take financial responsibility for the underfunded pensions they help manage.
Voting in the IBT will put in jepordy our AA Pensions, Do YOU want to Take that chance.
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
Teamsters Multiemployer Pensions On The Brink: DOL Asked To Investigate.
5/13/2013 @ 2:40PM
Teamsters multiemployer pensions are particularly a risk. That means older blue-collar truck and bus drivers, warehouse and construction workers and others who are unemployable because they lack skills that employers seek today or who may, due to poor health or disability, be precluded from continuing to work, are out of luck. The elderly workers who have already retired may get hurt worst. With limited pensions and only Social Security to rely upon, these geriatrics will almost assuredly slip into poverty.
Some Teamsters want answers but aren’t getting them. What caused their pensions to plummet in the past decade? Was the demise of their pension entirely unforeseeable, due to unknowable market forces or was foul-play involved?
Louis J. Alimena, former President of the Local 707 Teamsters, a trucking and warehouse workers union, and former trustee of the Local 707 Pension Health Welfare Funds IBT says, “Many of these Teamsters multiemployer pensions could have locked in an 8% return for fifteen years on assets when the pensions were already overfunded in 2000. Instead they chose to take unnecessary risks hiring equity investment managers. That worked just fine for Wall Street but killed our pensions. I’ve asked the Department of Labor to investigate but the DOL is doing nothing.” (Since publication, I have been informed that DOL is conducting a review of the Local 707 Teamsters pension, apparently in response to Mr. Alimena’s concerns.)
: “We depend upon the Department of Labor to have oversight responsibilities and to at least inspect the failure of these trustees and advisors to secure these funds. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no DOL audit of these funds since 1997. In light of the lack of response from all parties to the fund, and my concern for the integrity of the fund’s management, I am requesting a fiduciary breach investigation by your department. All retirees including myself look forward to your help in this matter.”
Alimena’s concerns may be justified. I have conducted fiduciary breach investigations on behalf of pensions that retain conflicted “gatekeepers” to make recommendations regarding asset allocation and money management hires. My investigations have proven that conflicts of interest involving these advisers cause substantial, quantifiable harm. There are no harmless kickbacks.
Pervasive investment industry scamming may not be the sole reason our nation’s pensions are failing but, in my opinion, it is a significant contributing factor.
This is from a Forbes article LQQK it up yourself.
5/13/2013 @ 2:40PM
Teamsters multiemployer pensions are particularly a risk. That means older blue-collar truck and bus drivers, warehouse and construction workers and others who are unemployable because they lack skills that employers seek today or who may, due to poor health or disability, be precluded from continuing to work, are out of luck. The elderly workers who have already retired may get hurt worst. With limited pensions and only Social Security to rely upon, these geriatrics will almost assuredly slip into poverty.
Some Teamsters want answers but aren’t getting them. What caused their pensions to plummet in the past decade? Was the demise of their pension entirely unforeseeable, due to unknowable market forces or was foul-play involved?
Louis J. Alimena, former President of the Local 707 Teamsters, a trucking and warehouse workers union, and former trustee of the Local 707 Pension Health Welfare Funds IBT says, “Many of these Teamsters multiemployer pensions could have locked in an 8% return for fifteen years on assets when the pensions were already overfunded in 2000. Instead they chose to take unnecessary risks hiring equity investment managers. That worked just fine for Wall Street but killed our pensions. I’ve asked the Department of Labor to investigate but the DOL is doing nothing.” (Since publication, I have been informed that DOL is conducting a review of the Local 707 Teamsters pension, apparently in response to Mr. Alimena’s concerns.)
: “We depend upon the Department of Labor to have oversight responsibilities and to at least inspect the failure of these trustees and advisors to secure these funds. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no DOL audit of these funds since 1997. In light of the lack of response from all parties to the fund, and my concern for the integrity of the fund’s management, I am requesting a fiduciary breach investigation by your department. All retirees including myself look forward to your help in this matter.”
Alimena’s concerns may be justified. I have conducted fiduciary breach investigations on behalf of pensions that retain conflicted “gatekeepers” to make recommendations regarding asset allocation and money management hires. My investigations have proven that conflicts of interest involving these advisers cause substantial, quantifiable harm. There are no harmless kickbacks.
Pervasive investment industry scamming may not be the sole reason our nation’s pensions are failing but, in my opinion, it is a significant contributing factor.
This is from a Forbes article LQQK it up yourself.
Voting in the IBT is a Mistake, think Long and Hard before you vote them in.
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
There are just so many more articles that I as well as others could put here for you all to read.
But you must decide what information you really want or care about.
But most important to us all is our Pension. So if you want to read more here is another article from the
Wall street Journal dated, April 4 2013.
LQQK it up your self and read that one as well.
Pass on to your fellow workers this info I have provided, since most don't even read this forum.
Then ask them if this is what they want to have happen to our Pension if we vote the IBT in at AA?
But you must decide what information you really want or care about.
But most important to us all is our Pension. So if you want to read more here is another article from the
Wall street Journal dated, April 4 2013.
LQQK it up your self and read that one as well.
Pass on to your fellow workers this info I have provided, since most don't even read this forum.
Then ask them if this is what they want to have happen to our Pension if we vote the IBT in at AA?
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
TRAVIS
Veteran
?????ask the NMB http://www.nmb.gov/activ-rpts/od.html#1
TRAVIS
Veteran
SPIN 
AMFAinMIAMI
Veteran
SPIN
Travis if this is SPIN as you say then why is it being done by NON AA employees?
These articles are from Newspapers Posted on the internet, Anyone can find them if they try.
This is information that the Teamster supporters as well as others should know here at AA before
the NMB says we will vote.
Don't you think everyone should make a informed decission before they cast a vote?
The only way to do that is to read any and ALL info provided.
No matter what the source.
TRAVIS
Veteran
??? the post was for 1AA. RANT AWAY
