AMFA getting it done

[swamt]

Dream on, Mis-information is a general rule with Amfa.

In Solidarity,

CIO

Here let me help you out. Here is an article posted by the ibt/teamsters below. I bet your willing to call this the AMFA mis-information too, huh? We need to keep this article alive guys. has anyone heard from the UPS mechs about this issue with the pensions? Happy reading CIO, Overspeed, realityck and all teamster supporters:

IBT Backs Plan to Allow Some Pension Cuts




February 26, 2013: The Hoffa administration has signed on to a joint employer-union proposal to allow "deeply troubled" pension funds to slash accrued benefits, even for Teamsters who have already retired.
This proposal, which could be aimed squarely at the Teamster Central States Fund, comes from the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, a committee of employers, unions and pension plans.
UPS is a prominent member of the group, which also includes several pension funds, employer groups, and some unions.
The group's proposal is to change federal law to allow "deeply troubled" plans, those in danger of going insolvent in the next 20 years, to drastically slash benefits.
These Pension Funds could slash benefits to as low as just 10% above the guaranteed rate set by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. For a retiree with 30 credit years, that rate is currently less than $1100 per month!
If new legislation along these lines is approved, the Central States Fund could eventually slash pensions by over 50%.
Under present law, that kind of cut in accrued benefits is illegal.
The Teamsters Union, the Central States Fund and the Western Conference of Teamsters Fund have joined with employers and some other unions to back this proposal.
The justification is to avoid having pension funds go insolvent down the road.
This is a worthy goal but the only "solution" put forward is to slash earned pensions.
Solutions Not Bailouts is the title of the full report issued by the pension committee. Many of its proposals are positive and reasonable. But the central proposal could be a dagger to tens of thousands of Central States Teamsters.
Consider the case of Greg Smith, an Ohio Teamster who retired from YRC after 29.5 years with a monthly pension of $3019.
If Central States goes bankrupt, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation would pay Smith a monthly pension of about $1100.
The "alternative" being backed by the Teamsters would allow the Central States to cut Smith's pension to as low as $1210!
"Our union should be fighting for legislation that protects our pensions. We all know that Central States is in trouble. No one expects miracles. But the whole point of having a union is to fight for a square deal. This is just a surrender," Smith said.
It's not too late for the Teamsters Union to change course. The pension proposal is in its early stages. But Teamster members and retirees need to make their voices heard.
Millions of workers, retirees and our families depend on union pensions. Our union should be working other unions and seniors' groups to increase PBGC protections for our pensions, not backing legislation so our own union pension funds can sock it to us. That's not a bailout, it's just common sense.

 

[Rogallo]

Dream on, Mis-information is a general rule with Amfa.

In Solidarity,

CIO

We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

 

[WNMECH]

We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

Hey, I didn't hear a Harrumph out of that guy.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Dream on, Mis-information is a general rule with Amfa.

In Solidarity,

CIO

Is that so? Democracy and accountability are two things that strike fear into your cowardly character it is sad.

twu misinformation total:

"fight like Hell" = really means "Now, AA, you better stop! Or else!"

"The best is yet to come!"= The best for the appointed, unaccountable sell outs that is.

"They can do that Brother."= Because the twu atd will let them. After all what do you expect us to do? Fight like Hell?

"Vote Yes- Save Jobs"= Well, at least our jobs in the twu atd.

"AMFA is bad!"= Because here in the twu atd democracy is bad and so is hold appointed officials accountable.

Kevin, you really are a tool.

Go AMFA!

 

[Just Another BK]

Here let me help you out. Here is an article posted by the ibt/teamsters below. I bet your willing to call this the AMFA mis-information too, huh? We need to keep this article alive guys. has anyone heard from the UPS mechs about this issue with the pensions? Happy reading CIO, Overspeed, realityck and all teamster supporters:

IBT Backs Plan to Allow Some Pension Cuts




February 26, 2013: The Hoffa administration has signed on to a joint employer-union proposal to allow "deeply troubled" pension funds to slash accrued benefits, even for Teamsters who have already retired.
This proposal, which could be aimed squarely at the Teamster Central States Fund, comes from the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, a committee of employers, unions and pension plans.
UPS is a prominent member of the group, which also includes several pension funds, employer groups, and some unions.
The group's proposal is to change federal law to allow "deeply troubled" plans, those in danger of going insolvent in the next 20 years, to drastically slash benefits.
These Pension Funds could slash benefits to as low as just 10% above the guaranteed rate set by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. For a retiree with 30 credit years, that rate is currently less than $1100 per month!
If new legislation along these lines is approved, the Central States Fund could eventually slash pensions by over 50%.
Under present law, that kind of cut in accrued benefits is illegal.
The Teamsters Union, the Central States Fund and the Western Conference of Teamsters Fund have joined with employers and some other unions to back this proposal.
The justification is to avoid having pension funds go insolvent down the road.
This is a worthy goal but the only "solution" put forward is to slash earned pensions.
Solutions Not Bailouts is the title of the full report issued by the pension committee. Many of its proposals are positive and reasonable. But the central proposal could be a dagger to tens of thousands of Central States Teamsters.
Consider the case of Greg Smith, an Ohio Teamster who retired from YRC after 29.5 years with a monthly pension of $3019.
If Central States goes bankrupt, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation would pay Smith a monthly pension of about $1100.
The "alternative" being backed by the Teamsters would allow the Central States to cut Smith's pension to as low as $1210!
"Our union should be fighting for legislation that protects our pensions. We all know that Central States is in trouble. No one expects miracles. But the whole point of having a union is to fight for a square deal. This is just a surrender," Smith said.
It's not too late for the Teamsters Union to change course. The pension proposal is in its early stages. But Teamster members and retirees need to make their voices heard.
Millions of workers, retirees and our families depend on union pensions. Our union should be working other unions and seniors' groups to increase PBGC protections for our pensions, not backing legislation so our own union pension funds can sock it to us. That's not a bailout, it's just common sense.

This information is misleading. It doesn't say how old these people are when they retired ! If they retired before the full pension age of there plan then the PBGC would then have a negative consequence. Just like social security there are penalties for early retirement. These are choices people make when considering retirement. If Greg Smith retired at 55, yes he could be looking at a big hit. You have to tell the whole story not just part of it. That's misleading !

 

[Bob Owens]

If Mr.Smith retired at 55 he obviously had a reasonable expectation of what his income would be. Its still a broken promise.

 

[swamt]

This information is misleading. It doesn't say how old these people are when they retired ! If they retired before the full pension age of there plan then the PBGC would then have a negative consequence. Just like social security there are penalties for early retirement. These are choices people make when considering retirement. If Greg Smith retired at 55, yes he could be looking at a big hit. You have to tell the whole story not just part of it. That's misleading !

I am not the one telling the story. The ibt/teamsters are the ones posting this on their web sites. Either way about it, rather this man retired early or retired on or after the non-punishment date, this individual will be affected dramatically, as well as all retirees and any future retirees. It still does not change the fact that the teamsters just made a dramatic change to the pension funds that they have been bragging about in very recent card drives at UAL, AA and now US. The teamsters pensions that they were punping thru the memberships is failing miserably, all the while they (cagmpain organizers) were lying to everybody that they were still strong and positive. POOF!! Now they are in desperate repair status for the pensions, while only the employees will have to take another hit all due to the teamsters failure to manage a pension fund.
The key note here is they are still trying to push the pension issue with AA, and US during there card drives, all the while knowing how bad the pensions were, with the possibility of the pension plans going BK. Never Ever let a union run yor pensions...

 

[swamt]

Just currious if the AMFA Organizers are still recieving newly incoming cards? If yes, has the incoming cards picked up in pace in the past month or so? Secondary question, will the teamsters be put on the ballot? Or do they too have to have 50% + to get put on the ballot? If I understand correctly, Unless the teamsters get 50% plus cards, then only AMFA and TWU will be the two choices for unions. And of course we all are aware of the "company favorite" choice, non-union.

 

[enough already]

And of course we all are aware of the "company favorite" choice, non-union.

I think the compAAny would prefer the twu over non-union. Who else would they get to do their dirty work for them?

 

[1AA]

Just currious if the AMFA Organizers are still recieving newly incoming cards? If yes, has the incoming cards picked up in pace in the past month or so? Secondary question, will the teamsters be put on the ballot? Or do they too have to have 50% + to get put on the ballot? If I understand correctly, Unless the teamsters get 50% plus cards, then only AMFA and TWU will be the two choices for unions. And of course we all are aware of the "company favorite" choice, non-union.

. If the teamsters fails to get the required cards then they will not be on the ballot. But there will be a fill in choice and a no union choice. Unfortunately there will be idiots who will write in the teamsters. Hopefully enough guys will realize Amfa is the correct and only choice.

 

[swamt]

. If the teamsters fails to get the required cards then they will not be on the ballot. But there will be a fill in choice and a no union choice. Unfortunately there will be idiots who will write in the teamsters. Hopefully enough guys will realize Amfa is the correct and only choice.

With all the negative news about the teamsters, pension cuts, the Frontier debacle, and even some of the forum posters now getting what the real teamsters representation looks like. I honestly think with the fill in you are more than likely gonna get split votes for teamsters and IAM as well as the die hard TWU folks. With group split 4 ways, although the majority of ALL agreeing to rid themselves of the TWU, I don't think any of the others will get the 50% plus 1 as required. The fence sitters need to recognize this and pull the trigger to bring AMFA in at vote time. It will all be interesting to watch. I really do believe AMFA will prevail this time around. The organizers are extremely well prepared this time around that it will be a no-brainer when it comes to accepting and denying "eligible members". I also hope the membership should recognize they are definately going to want AMFA as their representational union for integration nego's period.

 

[Just Another BK]

With all the negative news about the teamsters, pension cuts, the Frontier debacle, and even some of the forum posters now getting what the real teamsters representation looks like. I honestly think with the fill in you are more than likely gonna get split votes for teamsters and IAM as well as the die hard TWU folks. With group split 4 ways, although the majority of ALL agreeing to rid themselves of the TWU, I don't think any of the others will get the 50% plus 1 as required. The fence sitters need to recognize this and pull the trigger to bring AMFA in at vote time. It will all be interesting to watch. I really do believe AMFA will prevail this time around. The organizers are extremely well prepared this time around that it will be a no-brainer when it comes to accepting and denying "eligible members". I also hope the membership should recognize they are definately going to want AMFA as their representational union for integration nego's period.

Someone quoted that the IAM and TWU need only 35% and raid Unions need 50+1%?
Good Seniority Article;
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

 

[WNMECH]

Someone quoted that the IAM and TWU need only 35% and raid Unions need 50+1%?
Good Seniority Article;
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

That 35% was needed to show intrest to get an election.
All unions would still need 50%+1 to win an election.

 

[Bob Owens]

That 35% was needed to show intrest to get an election.
All unions would still need 50%+1 to win an election.

50%+1 of the ballots cast, not 50%+1 of eligible voters.

 

[1AA]

50%+1 of the ballots cast, not 50%+1 of eligible voters.

That should be easy. The ones that care will vote. The ones that are fed up will not vote at all.