August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion

[ChockJockey]

If you're bored... go to bed... or stay off the thread...

The thread is interesting and I'm not tired. However some trolls keep trying to derail it with their tedious and predictable Nelson-hating.

 

[ChockJockey]

P.S --How did Tim enter the equation (I never mentioned him)… are you volunteering he’s your buddy?

Because you specifically mentioned him in the post I quoted and yawned at? I wouldn't consider him a buddy of mine any more than I would you.

 

[roabilly]

The thread is interesting and I'm not tired. However some trolls keep trying to derail it with their tedious and predictable Nelson-hating.

Hmmm… I suppose that would also be applicable to pro-Nelson trolls and their predictable IAM hating! Funny… you only pounce when your buddy is called out… like NOW!

 

[ChockJockey]

Hmmm… I suppose that would also be applicable to pro-Nelson trolls and their predictable IAM hating! Funny… you only pounce when your buddy is called out… like NOW!

Once again, when have I ever intimated or expressed that Tim was my buddy?

 

[roabilly]

OK CJ... Since you are bored... and awake... why don’t you provide us with some of your own wisdom regarding the discussion of 401k VS Pensions… a man as intelligent as yourself could make a difference in this argument!

 

[ChockJockey]

…a man as intelligent as yourself could make a difference in this argument!

Yeah, who knows?

 

[Kev3188]

...he claims I’m biased…

C'mon, Roa...

Go back and read what he wrote. He noted you were biased toward a pension simply because of how close you are to retiring. Dunno hop it is at US, but in my experience, senior people generally *are* "biased" (read: prefer) a pension, while junior people are "biased" towards a 401k. Different genrations, different opportunities available. You didn't have a choice for most of your career, wheras they do. That's all. Maybe a poor choice of words on his part, but certainly nothing warranting a pearl clutching...

 

[Tim Nelson]

Quote Tim Nelson: "As far as the young members. You must remember, that many quit before the 5 year mark. The IAMPF doesn't give them any realized credit for that if they don't participate for 5 years. In this age of migrant and transient workers, young people staying at a job for 5 years is becoming uncommon. Sorta like the IAM robbing them, wouldn't you say? "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson… WTF? What part of-- “Younger members tend to not participate in 401k’s don’t you understand?” It’s absolutely ludicrous that you would even suggest that "many members quit" before five years of service! The only one’s I’m aware of that “quit” that soon were fired! Further, it’s pretty damn hard for someone to take a 401k with then to another job if they don’t even contribute to one to begin with!

I guess now... you are saying Fleet Service is not career… hmmm… I heard that somewhere else… DP in fact-- Some Union Man you are!

As far as my bias, I have a substantial 401k… I achieved this with the advice of a great Financial Advisor over the course of several decades. Actually, I invested in equities outside of the retirement plan as well, which have performed incredibly well—So… NO… I’m not biased toward any pension over any 401k plan because of my personal situation!

What I post about the 401k sham perpetuated onto the Average American Worker in this country is acknowledged fact!

Roa, nothing to get worked up about. Geez. Yes, you are biased, we all are. Your bias' are well known with your support for the IAMPF. I think that is consistent with most who plan to retire soon. Nothing is wrong with that.
I am biased in favor of '3 prong' retirement planning.

As far as your personal attacks, they have become boring to me. Dunno, maybe my skin is thicker now. lol.

As far as the subject matter in this thread, I think it's good that most, if not all of us, are on the same page by sticking in section 6 talks, with a high priority on scope.

We've never taken care of scope. Not in bankruptcy or out of bankruptcy. I still have the first contract that had 82 stations listed. Most are gone now. Members like Diogenes [sp] are long gone. Scope should be the main feature. I will most likely be in CLT or PHL rather soon and I will fight against any TA signed that has a 'band aid' drop dead clause, or no increase in scope. I'm sick and tired of losing stations and wondering about April 5th every year.

 

[P. REZ]

Roa, nothing to get worked up about. Geez. Yes, you are biased, we all are. Your bias' are well known with your support for the IAMPF. I think that is consistent with most who plan to retire soon. Nothing is wrong with that.
I am biased in favor of '3 prong' retirement planning.

As far as your personal attacks, they have become boring to me. Dunno, maybe my skin is thicker now. lol.

As far as the subject matter in this thread, I think it's good that most, if not all of us, are on the same page by sticking in section 6 talks, with a high priority on scope.

We've never taken care of scope. Not in bankruptcy or out of bankruptcy. I still have the first contract that had 82 stations listed. Most are gone now. Members like Diogenes [sp] are long gone. Scope should be the main feature. I will most likely be in CLT or PHL rather soon and I will fight against any TA signed that has a 'band aid' drop dead clause, or no increase in scope. I'm sick and tired of losing stations and wondering about April 5th every year.

Tim and Roa,

I think that both of you make good points. I have long advocated for the 3 legged stool approach to retirement ( pension, 401k and soc. sec.). However, the best one is the pension if they would stop cutting the darn thing. I like a balanced approach, a little in the pension, a little in the 401k.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim and Roa,

I think that both of you make good points. I have long advocated for the 3 legged stool approach to retirement ( pension, 401k and soc. sec.). However, the best one is the pension if they would stop cutting the darn thing. I like a balanced approach, a little in the pension, a little in the 401k.

+1

 

[Jester]

As self proclaimed Labor Leader… I’m appalled at how out of touch Nelson is. Let’s look at the hypocrisy here… he claims I’m biased… yet he has demonstrated bias toward the IAM for decades while ignoring actual facts and circumstances just to make his argument!

Roabilly,

I normally don't read the interloping pest from which you quote, but frankly, he is once again woefully ignorant of pension law, as there is no Federal law of a 5-year requirement. Tim's point is valid insofar that the IAM pension collected the money, but has no obligation with future pension benefits to those who do not become vested before 5 years of service.

Per U.S. Department of Labor website, "Beginning in 2002, there are two basic vesting schedules. Under the three-year schedule, workers are 100% vested after three years of service under the plan. The six-year graduated schedule allows workers to become 20% vested after two years and to vest at a rate of 20% each year thereafter until they are 100% vested after six years of service. Plans may have faster vesting schedules." http://www.dol.gov/e...ce_pension.html

What intrigues me is how "Plans may have faster vesting schedules", thus suggesting it could be something faster than 3 years, maybe fully vested after 1 year even? Given there are still a fair number of people who don't last 5 years in Fleet Service, the IAM pension is still reducing future benefits, even with this "free money". Company brought in a class of new PT hires to PHX about 6 months ago, and some didn't even make it that long, and now there is rumor of another round of PT hires in August coming heading into the slow time of the year, so see how long they last. I would be curious to know what percentage of new hires don't last 5 years, certainly more than before when AW's FSAs starting wage was $7.50/hour and one didn't earned even $10/hour after 5 years.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Roabilly,

I normally don't read the interloping pest from which you quote, but frankly, he is once again woefully ignorant of pension law, as there is no Federal law of a 5-year requirement. Tim's point is valid insofar that the IAM pension collected the money, but has no obligation with future pension benefits to those who do not become vested before 5 years of service.

Per U.S. Department of Labor website, "Beginning in 2002, there are two basic vesting schedules. Under the three-year schedule, workers are 100% vested after three years of service under the plan. The six-year graduated schedule allows workers to become 20% vested after two years and to vest at a rate of 20% each year thereafter until they are 100% vested after six years of service. Plans may have faster vesting schedules." http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/FAQs/faq_compliance_pension.html

What intrigues me is how "Plans may have faster vesting schedules", thus suggesting it could be something even faster than 3 years, maybe 1 year even? Given there are still a fair number of people who don't last 5 years in Fleet Service, the IAM pension is still reducing future benefits, even with this "free money". We brought in a class of new PT hires to PHX about 6 months ago, and some didn't even make it that long, and now there is rumor of another round of PT hires in August coming heading into the slow time of the year, so see how long they last. I would be curious to know how many new hires don't last 5 years, certainly more than before when AW's FSAs starting wage was $7.50/hour and one didn't earned even $10/hour after 5 years.

Many part timers were hired elsewhere as well. Regrardless of personal retirement preferences, it's unfair for our group to treat part timers different than full time. Part timers pay twice their health care, get half of the company IAMPF contributions per hour than a full timer, but pay full time dues. At United, part timers have the same health care and same IAMPF company contributions as a full timer. That's the only fair way.

 

[700UW]

There are two basic types of vesting (ask your benefits administrator which one applies to you):

Cliff vesting. This typically means that if you leave the job in five years or less, you lose all pension benefits. But if you leave after five years, you get 100% of your promised benefits.

Graded vesting. With this kind of vesting, at a minimum you're entitled to 20% of your benefit if you leave after three years. In each subsequent year, another 20% of your benefit vests. So if you stay for four years, you are vested in 40% of your benefit and so on; by the end of year seven, you are 100% vested in the plan, so you can leave the job knowing that you will get 100% of the pension benefits earned.



Pension Vesting Change

Published: October 15, 1988



To the Editor:
Those who anticipate switching jobs may not be aware of a change in vesting requirements for qualified pension plans for plan years beginning after Dec. 31.

The change will require only 5 years of service with the employer to be 100 percent vested in a plan. The old rule required 10 years. This does not apply to collectively bargained plans. Those with 5, but not 10, years of service who are anticipating a job change should consider the change in the law. Anyone considering a change in jobs should get in touch with his or her plan administrator about his or her vesting credits under the new law.

ERIC L. KRANKE President, American Society of Pension Actuaries Schaumburg, Ill., Sept. 28, 1988

 

[cltrat]

Many part timers were hired elsewhere as well. Regrardless of personal retirement preferences, it's unfair for our group to treat part timers different than full time. Part timers pay twice their health care, get half of the company IAMPF contributions per hour than a full timer, but pay full time dues. At United, part timers have the same health care and same IAMPF company contributions as a full timer. That's the only fair way.

part timers are getting fleeced in this deal, plain and simple.

 

[roabilly]

I have a simple exercise for everyone here in this thread--Ask everyone you know with ten or more years of service if they have over $200,000.00 accumulated in their 401k plans. If they don’t… the IAM pension has already out- performed their ability to invest wisely, and to be a satisfactory custodian of their own retirement.

Better yet… how many of you reading here have 200k or more… and If you do have that amount, or more… did you make it in less than ten years? If you answer no to either question… the IAMNPF has outperformed your wherewithal and investment strategy!