Also. Just saw a blip on Fox Business that retiree pensions are underfunded by 49.6 Billion, that's Billion with a "B". I did not catch the entire story. Someone out here has posted that the US IAM pension is funded 105% (I think). Can anyone verify that your pensions (mechanics) are actually up to date? Can anyone verify that they are 105% funded? With the pensions at a short fall of 49.6 billion I would be concerned of the truth of the funded portions of the IAM pension. Anyone can say they are funded, where is it documented?? Other co's have said their pensions and retirements are fully funded and that they were reporting false profits while all the time they were in the tank and bone dry of any true monies, profits and pensions. If I can get a hold of the article I will post later. If this was the only reason you guys held onto your IAM then someone needs to do some homework and investigate. You guys really would be better off with a 401K with a good match then a union controlled, operated and very restrictive pension fund. It would be worth while to look into guys. While the pensions were removed at other carriers (rather frozen or dumped all together) why in the world would the AA guys even consider something that will just get stripped away once again? Think about it...swamt said:
IAM M&R CONTRACT UPDATE AUG-2013
- Thread starter TRAVIS
- Start date
- Banned
- #362
The IAMNPF filed the paperwork the government its on their web page, it is 105% funded and its a multi-employer plan, it is not underfunded, go look it up, its right out there.
It is not controlled by the IAM, it has a board of half of IAM picks and half of employer picks, the plan has a fund director and trustee, that is Steve Sleigh.
Do you understand the difference between a single-employer plan vs a multi-employer plan?
And personally if I had vote on this CBA it would be a no.
It is not controlled by the IAM, it has a board of half of IAM picks and half of employer picks, the plan has a fund director and trustee, that is Steve Sleigh.
Do you understand the difference between a single-employer plan vs a multi-employer plan?
And personally if I had vote on this CBA it would be a no.
blue collar
Veteran
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,241
- 901
Same here.700UW said:
Topcat187
Senior
- Jun 25, 2012
- 346
- 170
700UW said:
Yes you are correct, it is a well funded plan at this point. It is beyond our control if it remains that way, also dont they have a clause that if you work after retiremnet, you cant collect your pension?
Im also no fan of having my pension tied to the union. If the union doesnt perform, they will threaten that your pension will stop if you leave them.
Everyone appears to say they would vote no, we will see when the results come out.
I didn't directly mean the IAM may be in control of the pension, my bad. What I meant was that when a union controls your pension simply by what union you are represented in order for continuational funds being applied to an individuals account.700UW said:
Does not mean that the pension fund will remain funded at 105% can you promice that? Didn't think so.
Surprised but glad to hear you "would be" a no vote "if" you had to vote on it. Would you care to relay any reasons why you would be a no vote???
Yes. These are the restrictions I was talking about. Matter fact it doesn't even have to be within the airlines, it cold very well be in related fields and there are plenty of restricted "other" fields as well. I know for a fact if you were to continue employment after retirement within any of the fields the ibt covered, you would violate the conditions and lose benefits. I know that the restrictions do in fact filter to outside of airlines, it IS NOT just restrictive to airline jobs, it's also within the "field" or related jobs. Read the fine print and you will see. And once again folks out here need to do their own homework especially when it concerns YOUR futures, not mine, for God sakes...TopCat870 said:
- Banned
- #373
No.
The company threw us a final offer the night before the abrogation took place in court.
We were at CCY until about 4am that night.
They threw it at us, the judge abrogated the CBA that morning in court and forced the IAM to vote on the final offer.
The company threw us a final offer the night before the abrogation took place in court.
We were at CCY until about 4am that night.
They threw it at us, the judge abrogated the CBA that morning in court and forced the IAM to vote on the final offer.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Look, I don't know why 700 is making this difficult. Yes, the MX voted on and ratified everything. Only time they didn't, 700 rallied the higher ups at the INTL and proclaimed that his peeps were confused.john john said:
- Banned
- #375
You are lying once again Timothy.Tim Nelson said:
I voted no in 2002 and 2003 in the first and second round of concessions in Chapter 11 part one.
I wasnt on the NC nor involved with what was going on in that case.
In bankruptcy part 2, Judge Mitchell abrogated our CBA and forced the IAM to vote on the company's final offer, which like I said, was a moot point as he was going to impose it anyhow.
So you are saying the court records are lies?
The only liar is you once again.
And in Bankruptcy part 2, I also voted no on the final offer and campaigned against it.
So keep up the lies timothy.
How are those escorts in IAH doing?
