AMFA......read on

[700UW]

Under the M&R CBA, the contributions cease, there is no language saying US still has to pay or what to do with the money.
 
Unlike Fleet who has specific language what would happen with the funds.

 

[1AA]

Change of representation does not void or alter a cba. Why would the company stop contributing when the contract is still legally binding? Will the company stop matching my 401k plan as well? We all agreed in the past that contracts do not change if representation changes. So why would the company violate that particular article of the contract? Let's not go back to that dead horse issue.

 

[WeAAsles]

Under the M&R CBA, the contributions cease, there is no language saying US still has to pay or what to do with the money.
 
Unlike Fleet who has specific language what would happen with the funds.

Interesting. How much per hour does the company contribute into the fund for maintenance?

 

[WeAAsles]

Change of representation does not void or alter a cba. Why would the company stop contributing when the contract is still legally binding? Will the company stop matching my 401k plan as well? We all agreed in the past that contracts do not change if representation changes. So why would the company violate that particular article of the contract? Let's not go back to that dead horse issue.

So you think the IAMPF is obligated to continue to accept the funds of members that they no longer represent? I'm sure that the IAM has something legally binding that does not require them to do so. Unless you can show me in writing that they are legally required to do so?

 

[TRAVIS]

Why is it I think I feel cold blued steel at my knee caps?????

 

[Kev3188]

BOTTOM LINE is you don't have enough cards......how long does it take to get enough?...not that long if you are diligent. If so many are upset you should have had enough by now. AA outnumbers US. if you don't have the AA numbers then ur a boat w/o a rudder...Happy sailing captain

Apathy is a larger obstacle than we often think...
 
 

Change of representation does not void or alter a cba. Why would the company stop contributing when the contract is still legally binding? Will the company stop matching my 401k plan as well? We all agreed in the past that contracts do not change if representation changes. So why would the company violate that particular article of the contract? Let's not go back to that dead horse issue.

Agreed. Only way status quo changes prior to a new T/A is if the "change in representation" is a move to no union...

 

[WNMECH]

Change of representation does not void or alter a cba. Why would the company stop contributing when the contract is still legally binding? Will the company stop matching my 401k plan as well? We all agreed in the past that contracts do not change if representation changes. So why would the company violate that particular article of the contract? Let's not go back to that dead horse issue.

The contracts for each side (PMAA & PMUS) will remain intact until a JCBA is reached.
That is when I believe that the company will push to freeze the pension contributions and hold out for both groups to be on a 401k regardless of who is representing them (however if AMFA wins, the IAMPF may stop accepting contributions and freeze the plan right then).
Why would the new AA treat these two groups differently after a JCBA?

 

[WeAAsles]

Apathy is a larger obstacle than we often think...  Agreed. Only way status quo changes prior to a new T/A is if the "change in representation" is a move to no union...

Kev I agree 100% on everything except the IAMPF for those who are currently in it. Why would a fund administered by another union be required to continue accepting contributions if those members are no longer a part of that union? The 401k and the match of course continues on.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

You forgot that they would only if it was disputed.......MBA would not come into play if the association agreed to the same seniority system.

 
I have forgotten nothing - McCaskill/Bond covers all SLI in merger situations. Even if the parties agree amicably, and don't require arbitration, it still is accomplished under McCaskill/Bond provisions.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Under the M&R CBA, the contributions cease, there is no language saying US still has to pay or what to do with the money.
 
Unlike Fleet who has specific language what would happen with the funds.

 
While I'm sure the contributions to the IAMNPP would cease, the company doesn't simply get to keep the money.
 
Whenever that language was negotiated the agreed upon contribution was set aside in lieu of wages, thats the basic understanding. While I'm sure the company would hold that contribution until a new pension or other retirement plan was agreed to, they won't get to keep the money owed the membership.

 

[1AA]

Interesting. How much per hour does the company contribute into the fund for maintenance?

$2.00 per hour. The 401K just at base pay alone is more. 401K match pays base pay, overtime, extra hours worked (CSW) and holiday pay. The IAM pension does not include all the extras mentioned. 401K is your money and at 59 1/2 you can withdraw without penalty. The IAM plan has restrictions even after 65 years of age. Its your money but you have to walk a fine line to collect. Even if the IAM pension is frozen the 401K match at the puney 5.5% match contributes more than the IAM plan.  The IAM already mentioned that once the alliance is final they want to invite TWU members in the IAM plan. Why would we go into a plan that pays less and contributes less? We already discussed this and it has no support from the AA side.

 

[1AA]

Kev I agree 100% on everything except the IAMPF for those who are currently in it. Why would a fund administered by another union be required to continue accepting contributions if those members are no longer a part of that union? The 401k and the match of course continues on.

Because it is contractual. The IAM administers the pension contractually. The company can contribute to the meat cutters union if it was contractual.

 

[700UW]

So you know more than the fund's director and the lawyers, this has already been covered during the raid, if you are no longer an IAM member the plan will not take contributions from US on behalf of the former IAM represented employees.  Letters were put out and the IAMNPF people clearly stated it in all the meetings during the raid to provide factual information to the membership.

 

[IAM Member Here]

So you know more than the fund's director and the lawyers, this has already been covered during the raid, if you are no longer an IAM member the plan will not take contributions from US on behalf of the former IAM represented employees.  Letters were put out and the IAMNPF people clearly stated it in all the meetings during the raid to provide factual information to the membership.

I think this is one reason why workers should stay away from the IAM since it is of ill repute that the IAM effs over working people by effing their pension if they vote in another union.  The problem is that the IAM is so self centered and all about itself instead of those who it represents.  I think AMFA ought to copy all of your post about this and if it doesn't scare the hell out of all TWU members then something is wrong.  The Association has already said it will focus on the IAMPF.  Personally, as a member of the IAMPF I know it blows balls.  It's a scandal of the member, the trustees slash future rates, and the only reason why it is green is because the IAM trustees were the first union pension people who whacked future contributions, twice, to keep it green.  God only knows how many times in the future it will whack it, and I pray that all TWU members are spared from this terrible Nazi like pension fund that threatens workers, just like you did, by saying "F*ck" all of you if you don't keep the IAM.  What union worth its salt would tell workers and write letters to workers telling them they are going to Eff over the pension of the workers if they vote to get out of the IAM????    The reality is that what you have said is actually true as I see the IAM effing over the mechanics if they vote for amfa but I also see litigation from attorneys to recover any damages that the IAM may cause upon the working people.  Shame on you 700 and shame on the IAM for trying to take the retirement hostage.   That's the problem with these shitty unions today.  It's all about them and not the worker. If AMFA gets voted in then it is because of you and the shitty job that the TWU and IAM have done.

 

[IAM Member Here]

IAM Member Here, based on your last two posts I suggest you read up on the rules covering mergers and STS determinations at the NMB website as well as reading up on SLI under McCaskill/Bond. 
 
You seem to have based your opinion on a few inaccuracies ... for example:
 
 
Seniority Integration in Airline Mergers by law falls under the McCaskill/Bond Amendment. AMFA would be bound to it just as the Alliance is.
 
Seniority under AMFA is not "up for grabs"

Mike is actually right.  With the Association, all mechanics know where they stand since the MBA allows the Association the exception rule.  So everyone will now exactly where they stand on seniority with the Association. IMO, that is why I support the Association as an IAM member.  On the other hand, if AMFA gets voted in, then it could lend more weight towards the TWU members. To be sure, it will be up to AMFA, NOT the MBA since AMFA would represent all mx.  Again, the exception rule that you forgot about.  God forbid, in any case, that it goes to a 3rd party.  The MBA was invoked at Southwest and it gave TWU members privilege over IAM members in the same craft. Not as much as the TWU members wanted, but enough to make any USair member uncomfortable about screwing with the Association.  Whatever the outcome, make sure you stay away from the IAMPF. It sucks balls.