2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[737823]

Tim,
Wow, I go camping for a day and come back to pages of your BS rants and on top of that there were many good posts from WeAAsles, NYer, CB, PHXConx and others regarding the Health Care letter but you seem to refuse to educate yourself.

You sound just like 700 here!

Josh

 

[700UW]

You sound just like 700 here!

Josh

And you sound like your mancrush Tim

 

[P. REZ]

You sound just like 700 here!

Josh

Josh,
 
If you are saying I sound like I'm tired of BS you are right. Now get lost.  
 
P. Rez

 

[NYer]

the question that interest me is how much am i going to pay in 2018? Is it a big tsunami or a small one? Dunno but your boy obama to stop hosing the working folks. im not even a republican and only voted republican once but obama is killing us.
Well at least he was never questioned about mail theft or custom seals. Now go rip off some poor working guy with your real estate scams again. Thankfully you got your arse handed to you and we dont have to deal with your management pollyanna(ism).

HeHeHe....Avoiding the entire question. Classic response from someone pulling negativity straight from thin air.

On the other hand, you pretend anxiety against a TA for something to come AFTER two more rounds of negotiations because you don't know what may come in 2018. I suppose you're in favor of a 10 year contract so you know what happens... Then again, what would we do about year 11.

A quandary.

 

[NYer]

please quote the part of this ta that backs up what u are saying. Kindly let us all know what negotiayion rights we have other than making suggestions for 90 days prior to explosion? I want you to educate me.
Maybe the negotiation committee should have actually negotiated something. You ever hear of health care caps? Go review the terrible iam united contract but at least they limit yearly increases on health care. Please show me anywhere in this ta that restricts our health care cost from going higher over the next 3 years? And please share with us the language that backs up your statement that our union will negotiate changes? The members want to know.

Cap on what? Premiums, Co-pay..... what?

 

[NYer]

im not imputing anything assumed from joint talks in this ta. We do have good health care but the problem is that you guys shouldnt have walked away without getting a cap on yearly increases to prevent clear and future risk to our members. United negotiated a cap...so should you. The reality is that the health care letter protects the cost risk of management and the union cant even have any say other making some suggestions over 90 days. Without a cap or any stabilizing guidance you cant even tell me how much my deductible will be and you cant even guarantee that all the current plans wont be abolished. I keep asking for folks to point to the letter and show me what rights our union has other than making the initial suggestions over 90 days but all i get is opinion.
Please show me in that letter where the company has to agree with the union over anything in that letter, once this ta gets passed.

Don't give me your opinion.... But site me in the letter where your costs will go up, where it says management has a blank check. Where is it, show me the wording... Not your opinion.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Josh,
 
If you are saying I sound like I'm tired of BS you are right. Now get lost.  
 
P. Rez

 

Don't give me your opinion.... But site me in the letter where your costs will go up, where it says management has a blank check. Where is it, show me the wording... Not your opinion.

With a blank check, I can't tell you how high the cost will go up or what part of the cost will go up.  The letter is clear though, the company does NOT have to come to an agreement with the union over this matter, so the amount of cost will be determined by whatever the tax spillover is in 2018.  Nobody can tell anyone of us the cost,  how much the deductible will be,  etc., since there are no protections and no cap that was negotiated that limits any potential cost.  If the cost increase is too high then the company actually has the right to abolish all of the plans. I'm uncomfortable with that language since the union can only offer suggestions or plead mercy within a 90 day window. So, to answer your question,  any question about cost, etc. will have to wait to "See Management" in 2018.  There is no screen or protection for us IAM members if things are triggered.  That letter protects management from the real and future risk of Obama care.  Don't blame me for pointing it out to you, blame Obama and also blame the union for not at least providing a cap.  Nobody knows where the cost will end up, nothing is protected.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Josh,
 
If you are saying I sound like I'm tired of BS you are right. Now get lost.  
 
P. Rez

Again pat,  let's focus on reading that letter.  Please show me where the company has to agree with the union on anything regarding the excise tax which is a real and future cost?  Please answer the question and show me the language in that letter where the company has to agree with the union.  Thanks in advance.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
With a blank check, I can't tell you how high the cost will go up or what part of the cost will go up.  The letter is clear though, the company does NOT have to come to an agreement with the union over this matter, so the amount of cost will be determined by whatever the tax spillover is in 2018.  Nobody can tell anyone of us the cost,  how much the deductible will be,  etc., since there are no protections and no cap that was negotiated that limits any potential cost.  If the cost increase is too high then the company actually has the right to abolish all of the plans. I'm uncomfortable with that language since the union can only offer suggestions or plead mercy within a 90 day window. So, to answer your question,  any question about cost, etc. will have to wait to "See Management" in 2018.  There is no screen or protection for us IAM members if things are triggered.  That letter protects management from the real and future risk of Obama care.  Don't blame me for pointing it out to you, blame Obama and also blame the union for not at least providing a cap.  Nobody knows where the cost will end up, nothing is protected.

Tim I took a little time this morning to delve into your current CBA. If I have this right on page 139 Attachment A-1 it states exactly what you have been looking for. It says Contribution Base, Employee Contribution, Trend 12%.

The letter of intention as people have been telling you is meant to find a solution to the unknown of Taxes that will possibly be placed on a plan. But the original language of your CBA doesn't change that you pay 12% of the overall cost of the plan chosen. I believe we currently pay 17% which I think goes up to a max of 23% or something like that? (Have to get ready for work so can't look that up right now)

Your guys can elaborate further if I have that right about the 12%?

Actually I just looked again and it's 7% for the 80/60 14% for the 90/70 and 19.4% for the 100/80 plans.

 

 

[NYer]

With a blank check, I can't tell you how high the cost will go up or what part of the cost will go up.  The letter is clear though, the company does NOT have to come to an agreement with the union over this matter, so the amount of cost will be determined by whatever the tax spillover is in 2018.  Nobody can tell anyone of us the cost,  how much the deductible will be,  etc., since there are no protections and no cap that was negotiated that limits any potential cost.  If the cost increase is too high then the company actually has the right to abolish all of the plans. I'm uncomfortable with that language since the union can only offer suggestions or plead mercy within a 90 day window. So, to answer your question,  any question about cost, etc. will have to wait to "See Management" in 2018.  There is no screen or protection for us IAM members if things are triggered.  That letter protects management from the real and future risk of Obama care.  Don't blame me for pointing it out to you, blame Obama and also blame the union for not at least providing a cap.  Nobody knows where the cost will end up, nothing is protected.

So after all that, the answer is that your point isn't in writing and all those letters you constructed to make sentences are just opinion of what you believe may happen.

Good thing you're not debating yourself because you can't find language that makes your point like you expect from others.

BTW, they would be able to make changes and/or pass along the cost of the tax to you. That's the entire reason for the tax in the first place, to make these plans comply with the law. I guess that doesn't fit your agenda, so you'll just overlook that little detail. =/

The unions lobbied Congress to abolish this tax, but all they did was delay it's implementation to give unions time to deal with the upcoming issue. Ignoring it, as you seem to think is the alternative, isn't really an option.

I know, I know.... who's going to listen to me since I shot JR and helped Bernie Madoff with his Ponzi scheme. =|

 

[NYer]

Again pat,  let's focus on reading that letter.  Please show me where the company has to agree with the union on anything regarding the excise tax which is a real and future cost?  Please answer the question and show me the language in that letter where the company has to agree with the union.  Thanks in advance.

What is your calculation of how much the plan will cost per Member in 2018, which you seem to know WILL happen and WILL trigger an excise tax.

I suppose you want a no vote because of a letter that addresses a potential issue in the 4th year of a 3 year contract.... So you must have some pretty good numbers.... Share them.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim I took a little time this morning to delve into your current CBA. If I have this right on page 139 Attachment A-1 it states exactly what you have been looking for. It says Contribution Base, Employee Contribution, Trend 12%.

The letter of intention as people have been telling you is meant to find a solution to the unknown of Taxes that will possibly be placed on a plan. But the original language of your CBA doesn't change that you pay 12% of the overall cost of the plan chosen. I believe we currently pay 17% which I think goes up to a max of 23% or something like that? (Have to get ready for work so can't look that up right now)

Your guys can elaborate further if I have that right about the 12%?

Actually I just looked again and it's 7% for the 80/60 14% for the 90/70 and 19.4% for the 100/80 plans.

 

WeAAsles, the point of contention is at 2018.  Not now. The letter in the back gives the company the right to have a 3rd party decide any and all modifications to the current plans as necessary with the real and future tax risk for management.  The only part of 'the solution' participation for the union, according to the letter, is the first 90 days where it can offer up solutions.  However, the company is under NO OBLIGATION to agree with the union and can proceed to the arbitrator.  Notice:  and this is a pretty big second notice to you,  the scope of the arbitrator isn't to rule in union favor or company favor but to make the proper modifications to the plans and to guarantee to management that such modifications will PROTECT management from any future taxes.  If the arbitrator can not make such guarantees then the company is free to actually abolish any and all plans.  The current plan we have is irrelevant in context of a outside entity being able to modify it or terminate it.  Doesn't matter what the deductible is, what cap, if any,  contribution....NONE OF THAT MATTERS if these 40% taxes get triggered.  Although I would agree with you that it would have actually been nice if Prez was thinking about all of this and put a % cap in this letter. At United, they agreed to a 9% cap on any yearly increase of cost and that covers any year, even after 2018. They just signed their contract within the last 12 months and everyone over there knows how much their insurance can possibly go up in the future.  Where was this management protection letter over there?  Kindly show me.  Why toss our complete health care plans to a 3rd party and allow the 3rd party the exclusive right to make any modications and have to 'guarantee' to managmenet that it will protect management, OR allow management the exclusive right to terminate all plans and create a 'new one'.  WTF is that all about?  C'mon maaannnn,  we may work the ramp but we aren't stupid bro. 
 
As far as all of the fuss and talk about "It aint going to happen",  "Nelson doesn 't know ####",  "Obama will fix this",  "The letter is for the protection of the members".....that's all bull shitt.  The reality is that the exact opposite is true, the company insisted that it would NOT sign ANY TA without this letter protecting management from the real and future risk associated with your boy Obama..   Now, you should know, you will not convince me that these excise taxes will not become real, so you are wasting your time.  I mean, Prez likes telling us to stop worrying because these taxes will not apply to us, but he couldn't convince management.  In fact, the exact opposite was true. Again, management told Prez, no way in hell will we sign a TA without protecting management against these real and future tax risk.   If he couldn't convince management, then how can he convince anyone else? 
 
Something is wrong and me thinks management knows a thing or two.

 

[737823]

Josh,
 
If you are saying I sound like I'm tired of BS you are right. Now get lost.  
 
P. Rez

 

 

 

You should really go educate yourself, because you make yourself look foolish.

 
 

Once again, better go educate yourself.
 

 
 

 
Better go educate yourself on the differences and then maybe you will get it.

 
Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

WeAAsles, the point of contention is at 2018.  Not now. The letter in the back gives the company the right to have a 3rd party decide any and all modifications to the current plans as necessary with the real and future tax risk for management.  The only part of 'the solution' participation for the union, according to the letter, is the first 90 days where it can offer up solutions.  However, the company is under NO OBLIGATION to agree with the union and can proceed to the arbitrator.  Notice:  and this is a pretty big second notice to you,  the scope of the arbitrator isn't to rule in union favor or company favor but to make the proper modifications to the plans and to guarantee to management that such modifications will PROTECT management from any future taxes.  If the arbitrator can not make such guarantees then the company is free to actually abolish any and all plans.  The current plan we have is irrelevant in context of a outside entity being able to modify it or terminate it.  Doesn't matter what the deductible is, what cap, if any,  contribution....NONE OF THAT MATTERS if these 40% taxes get triggered.  Although I would agree with you that it would have actually been nice if Prez was thinking about all of this and put a % cap in this letter. At United, they agreed to a 9% cap on any yearly increase of cost and that covers any year, even after 2018. They just signed their contract within the last 12 months and everyone over there knows how much their insurance can possibly go up in the future.  Where was this management protection letter over there?  Kindly show me.  Why toss our complete health care plans to a 3rd party and allow the 3rd party the exclusive right to make any modications and have to 'guarantee' to managmenet that it will protect management, OR allow management the exclusive right to terminate all plans and create a 'new one'.  WTF is that all about?  C'mon maaannnn,  we may work the ramp but we aren't stupid bro. 
 
As far as all of the fuss and talk about "It aint going to happen",  "Nelson doesn 't know ####",  "Obama will fix this",  "The letter is for the protection of the members".....that's all bull shitt.  The reality is that the exact opposite is true, the company insisted that it would NOT sign ANY TA without this letter protecting management from the real and future risk associated with your boy Obama..   Now, you should know, you will not convince me that these excise taxes will not become real, so you are wasting your time.  I mean, Prez likes telling us to stop worrying because these taxes will not apply to us, but he couldn't convince management.  In fact, the exact opposite was true. Again, management told Prez, no way in hell will we sign a TA without protecting management against these real and future tax risk.   If he couldn't convince management, then how can he convince anyone else? 

Tim you wanted to know what the intention of the letter was and that was told to you. You say you wanted to understand what the possible implications were and that was told to you. You wanted to know if there was still a cap and I (A TWU member who has nothing to do with your CBA) gave you the information in your CBA to answer your question. Now you say that the company wanted the letter after it was told to you that it was the Union who wanted it to protect YOU.

It's amazing to me that you want to be in a position to represent your members but CANNOT understand anything in writing. You even want to IGNORE the link I provided that explains the ACA law and it's intention. 

How do you really expect to represent someone if you don't understand and don't want to understand your own contract? I'm just a clerk for another company and I have to explain it to you!!!!! Are you kidding?

 

[700UW]

Finally someone gets it! Good job WeAA!