Without a amfa filing I am almost certain the unions will or already did convince the nmb to sign off on the association without a vote. Too much at stake for the unions. The membership does not count in any consideration in all this mess. We will see the decision made by next week. Then we can all discuss what is really going to happen with our futures.
AMFA not filing
- Thread starter bigjets
- Start date
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
swamt,
We had the SK purchase option in the 2010 TA. The vote no coalition said that was a bad deal and that we should hold out for something better. We voted down the TA and got...
2010 TA
Retiree Medical:
o Current Retirees: No changes to plans for current retirees.
o Current Employees 50 or older (with either 120 months prefunding or who opted into prefunding when first eligible): No changes to current plans.
o Current Employees 49 or Younger
Pre-65: Employees may fund Pre-65 retiree medical coverage with sick bank hours at a rate of 20 hours per month of coverage for themselves and all eligible
dependents. Employee pre-funding does not apply and the Sick Leave article will be amended to accrue a maximum of 8 days per year and to change the maximum accrual to 250 days. If a retiree’s sick bank is insufficient to provide medical coverage until the retiree turns 65, the retiree will pay monthly premiums at the same rate as other groups that are post-funding for retiree medical coverage at that time (currently 25% of the cost).
Post-65: Retirees will have access to a guaranteed issue Medicare supplement plan with no company subsidy.
o Employer prefunding contributions will cease at date of signing.
o The Company and TWU will establish a joint committee as soon as possible to explore rollover options for employee prefunding balances. Absent an option identified, active prefunding balances will be refunded by 12/31/2010.
o Eliminate the provision providing a $25 per-sick-day payout upon retirement.
o Under both options, the plan design will be the same as management, which includes preventive care in-network.
o Increase medical life-time maximum from $300,000 to $500,000
o New Hires
Pre-65: New hires may fund Pre-65 retiree medical coverage with sick bank hours at a rate of 20 hours per month of coverage for themselves and all eligible dependents. Employee pre-funding does not apply and the Sick Leave article will be amended to accrue a maximum of 8 days per year and to change the maximum accrual to 250 days. If a retiree’s sick bank is insufficient to provide medical coverage until the retiree turns 65, the retiree will pay monthly premiums, actuarially based on family status and age bands at the retiree’s expense.
Post-65: Retirees will have access to a guaranteed issue Medicare supplement plan with no company subsidy.
We had the SK purchase option in the 2010 TA. The vote no coalition said that was a bad deal and that we should hold out for something better. We voted down the TA and got...
2010 TA
Retiree Medical:
o Current Retirees: No changes to plans for current retirees.
o Current Employees 50 or older (with either 120 months prefunding or who opted into prefunding when first eligible): No changes to current plans.
o Current Employees 49 or Younger
Pre-65: Employees may fund Pre-65 retiree medical coverage with sick bank hours at a rate of 20 hours per month of coverage for themselves and all eligible
dependents. Employee pre-funding does not apply and the Sick Leave article will be amended to accrue a maximum of 8 days per year and to change the maximum accrual to 250 days. If a retiree’s sick bank is insufficient to provide medical coverage until the retiree turns 65, the retiree will pay monthly premiums at the same rate as other groups that are post-funding for retiree medical coverage at that time (currently 25% of the cost).
Post-65: Retirees will have access to a guaranteed issue Medicare supplement plan with no company subsidy.
o Employer prefunding contributions will cease at date of signing.
o The Company and TWU will establish a joint committee as soon as possible to explore rollover options for employee prefunding balances. Absent an option identified, active prefunding balances will be refunded by 12/31/2010.
o Eliminate the provision providing a $25 per-sick-day payout upon retirement.
o Under both options, the plan design will be the same as management, which includes preventive care in-network.
o Increase medical life-time maximum from $300,000 to $500,000
o New Hires
Pre-65: New hires may fund Pre-65 retiree medical coverage with sick bank hours at a rate of 20 hours per month of coverage for themselves and all eligible dependents. Employee pre-funding does not apply and the Sick Leave article will be amended to accrue a maximum of 8 days per year and to change the maximum accrual to 250 days. If a retiree’s sick bank is insufficient to provide medical coverage until the retiree turns 65, the retiree will pay monthly premiums, actuarially based on family status and age bands at the retiree’s expense.
Post-65: Retirees will have access to a guaranteed issue Medicare supplement plan with no company subsidy.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
Overspeed said:
Those two areas that I red lighted I can see happening under the JCBA talks and actually wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it was. Also another reason that I haven't been hungry for the return of our match portion of the pre-funding trust.
If that matching portion is returned to us then we would no longer have an option to possibly roll it over and replenish our sick bank if a formula such as this were offered?
Everyone is always in a hurry for something without using their heads. (Usually vote no coalitions)
In a hurry for something?
You are kidding right?
They ended our prefund medical almost 3 years ago now, so when would it NOT finally be considered to be "in a hurry" to get our money back?
Tell you what, just give me my money back and I'll worry about my own sick bank, which is maxed out and not in need of replenishing.
You are kidding right?
They ended our prefund medical almost 3 years ago now, so when would it NOT finally be considered to be "in a hurry" to get our money back?
Tell you what, just give me my money back and I'll worry about my own sick bank, which is maxed out and not in need of replenishing.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
CMH_GSE,
How much longer? The point is you had it four years ago. We were advised by the vote no coalition to vote it down remember? Also SK balance increase and elimination of the 50% SK pay was in the 2010 TA. When you vote on your next deal remember what you were advised to vote down based on the advice of many of your current 591 E Board.
And before you say they were going to BK anyway, the contract would have been back up for negotiations in 2013 which was right when AMR filed BK.
How much longer? The point is you had it four years ago. We were advised by the vote no coalition to vote it down remember? Also SK balance increase and elimination of the 50% SK pay was in the 2010 TA. When you vote on your next deal remember what you were advised to vote down based on the advice of many of your current 591 E Board.
And before you say they were going to BK anyway, the contract would have been back up for negotiations in 2013 which was right when AMR filed BK.
- Sick Leave: Increase the sick leave accrual rate from 5 to 8 days per year and increase the maximum accumulation of sick time from 150 days to 250 days. This was made in conjunction with the Retiree Medical proposal. All SK days will be paid at 100%.
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2006
- 1,042
- 1,149
the question is why would the TWU international leadership allow the company to more concessions after voting "NO"? Was that punishment for not voting "yes"Overspeed said:
all because we vote "NO" does not mean that the owners of the contract lie down and throw their hands up. They never should have allowed the company to reduce the proposal. Being silent makes the TWU International useless to their members. They opened the contract voluntarily in 2003 for the company to gut our contract and now because we vote no they blame us! you guys really suck at representing your members!
- Dec 21, 2002
- 321
- 77
I have been on the outside since the layoffs of 2012, although I held out some hope of AMFA getting in for the mechanics I now see that will not happen anytime soon. It is apparent that a majority of the membership wants the TWU/IAM association regardless of the warnings that have been issued. In the spirit of H L Menken, if the association is what they want, then they deserve to get it good and hard!!
The Dissident
The Dissident
It's not that the majority want the association, it's that over at USAir they want their money and do not want to lose their future contributions on the iam pension. We at AA want no part of the iam pension and the local officers were spreading lies and rumors about AMFA and that we were not going to have our frozen pension turned over to the IAM. No one on the twu side would put it in writing. Then you figure we had less than 30 days to get somewhere around 4500 to 5000 cards signed on both sides with title 2 never showing interest. We did a pretty good job in getting as many cards as we did in less than a month but it was a monumental task from the start. Just because AMFA did not file it does not spell failure. In order for a successful drive to occur we need better communication and time to get the required number of cards. We all need to focus on changing unions and committing to one union. If guys believe the half truths and lies from the twu or iam then we will never move forward on our goal of ridding ourselves of the industrial unions and improving our profession for the future. If we want change then we all must be on the same page. I just don't understand why we as a group do not want to be in a craft union. Pilots and flight attendants are and we need to do the same.The Dissident said:
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Chuck the question is when will you own up to the fact you gave bad advice and we got screwed as a result of it?
The 2010 deal is far better than what we ended up with so punished by the Int'l? No. The fact is many people advised you and your buddies the company was angling towards BK and the NMB mediator was not going to release us any time soon. Look at UAL? NMB is dragging it out. SWA, same thing NMB is still holding them at the table as well. The IAM asked at US and they didn't get released either. Yeah the NLRA needs to overhauled but its not so you knew what the playing field is like and you recommended a no vote and we screwed.
Own it you got outplayed by the company. The facts speak for themselves, the 2010 TA was actually a good deal given the circumstances.
The 2010 deal is far better than what we ended up with so punished by the Int'l? No. The fact is many people advised you and your buddies the company was angling towards BK and the NMB mediator was not going to release us any time soon. Look at UAL? NMB is dragging it out. SWA, same thing NMB is still holding them at the table as well. The IAM asked at US and they didn't get released either. Yeah the NLRA needs to overhauled but its not so you knew what the playing field is like and you recommended a no vote and we screwed.
Own it you got outplayed by the company. The facts speak for themselves, the 2010 TA was actually a good deal given the circumstances.
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2006
- 1,042
- 1,149
nice try overpeed, no matter how you spin it, the owners of our contract sold us out and left us out to dry by not standing by the membership. Even us voting "NO" does not justify our international sitting back and let the company propose taking away our pay and benefits. The internationals job is to protect our careers. The proof has been shown under the TWU we have given up everything near and dear to a union job! that is a fact and very hard to defend even for you.
when will the owners of our contract admit they failed us
when will the owners of our contract admit they failed us
Overspeed
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2011
- 3,245
- 1,065
Owners? If the negotiations team is irrelevant then why show up? And the fact you attempt to blame others the Int'l did not make the videos. You did. So we "gave up" because why? Because you said you were going to push the company harder.
The 2010 TA had good items in it and instead of taking some of the stuff back we lost in 2003 you gambled on getting it all and then some. In the end we ended up with less. That's the facts.
Not to digress too far but hey, how's those cards coming?
The 2010 TA had good items in it and instead of taking some of the stuff back we lost in 2003 you gambled on getting it all and then some. In the end we ended up with less. That's the facts.
Not to digress too far but hey, how's those cards coming?
