IAM Pension Fund

[JABORD]

Discussing interests for representational changes amongst mechanics at AA and US, many of the US mechanics choose to digress in defense of the opinion that the IAMPF is sacred and no interests to consider anything else such as a 401K option. On numerous occasions, the guy I had a conversation with had fire in his eyes when this topic would be presented and the claim made as to how well the Fund is operating. But every now and then I hear of an opinion such as Tim (US fleet svc);
"Moving forward, with the association, my fight is going to be against the sole IAMPF as the only option for US fleet.  It's absolutely insulting in this day and age to not bargain for 401k contributions."
"The IAMPF sucks. I wish I could get the IAM's hands off of my money.  The IAMPF scammers already hijacked my future benefit schedule and slashed it in half.  I have absolutely no control over my retirement and the IAM will most likely have to whack the plan a 3rd time to keep it green once another event happens in this country. Anyone who wants to dump his money into a 3rd party that gives you NO CONTROL, and robs you blind is a moron.  But morons do exist and negotiation team members within the IAM continue to serve them.  We were told that our negotiation team would finally listen and instead of increasing IAMPF funds, it would listen to the members and get retirement increases through the 401k we already have. Well, that didn't happen, they just raised the IAMPF another dime."
So my question is; Is the management of the Fund as positive as many would like us to believe or have changes in the formula's and such been made to off set challenges to the Funds Managers in keeping with regulated contribution and funding requirements? If current and future sacrfices have been pressed upon the IAM members, why isn't that information being expressed to all? What changes have been made to the Plan over the years to make up for any negatives?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Discussing interests for representational changes amongst mechanics at AA and US, many of the US mechanics choose to digress in defense of the opinion that the IAMPF is sacred and no interests to consider anything else such as a 401K option. On numerous occasions, the guy I had a conversation with had fire in his eyes when this topic would be presented and the claim made as to how well the Fund is operating. But every now and then I hear of an opinion such as Tim (US fleet svc);
"Moving forward, with the association, my fight is going to be against the sole IAMPF as the only option for US fleet.  It's absolutely insulting in this day and age to not bargain for 401k contributions."
"The IAMPF sucks. I wish I could get the IAM's hands off of my money.  The IAMPF scammers already hijacked my future benefit schedule and slashed it in half.  I have absolutely no control over my retirement and the IAM will most likely have to whack the plan a 3rd time to keep it green once another event happens in this country. Anyone who wants to dump his money into a 3rd party that gives you NO CONTROL, and robs you blind is a moron.  But morons do exist and negotiation team members within the IAM continue to serve them.  We were told that our negotiation team would finally listen and instead of increasing IAMPF funds, it would listen to the members and get retirement increases through the 401k we already have. Well, that didn't happen, they just raised the IAMPF another dime."
So my question is; Is the management of the Fund as positive as many would like us to believe or have changes in the formula's and such been made to off set challenges to the Funds Managers in keeping with regulated contribution and funding requirements? If current and future sacrfices have been pressed upon the IAM members, why isn't that information being expressed to all? What changes have been made to the Plan over the years to make up for any negatives?

They have informed us.  They told us they had to rob us to put the fund into the green.  They like bragging it's in the green but leave out the letter where it said the fund would go broke, or close to it, if it didn't slash our future funds.  They blamed the economy and anything they do will be justified by them since there is no jury or vote by the members.  God forbid the stock market crash and they move to whack our monies again.  I am an IAM member and I sadly say that the IAMPF SUCKS BALLS. 

 

[P. REZ]

They have informed us.  They told us they had to rob us to put the fund into the green.  They like bragging it's in the green but leave out the letter where it said the fund would go broke, or close to it, if it didn't slash our future funds.  They blamed the economy and anything they do will be justified by them since there is no jury or vote by the members.  God forbid the stock market crash and they move to whack our monies again.  I am an IAM member and I sadly say that the IAMPF SUCKS BALLS. 

Tim,
 
The 3 legged stool of retirement requires a pension to be able to achieve that goal. It was a blow to see it cut but it still is a great asset to prepare for a comfortable retirement. For retirement it is still better than the 401k. Don't get me wrong, I support the 401k and have had one since 1989 but the best way to achieve one's goals for retirement, both the pension and 401k are necessary IMO. For someone who has touted the 3 legged stool yourself, I am surprised by your anti pension rant.
 
P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
The 3 legged stool of retirement requires a pension to be able to achieve that goal. It was a blow to see it cut but it still is a great asset to prepare for a comfortable retirement. For retirement it is still better than the 401k. Don't get me wrong, I support the 401k and have had one since 1989 but the best way to achieve one's goals for retirement, both the pension and 401k are necessary IMO. For someone who has touted the 3 legged stool yourself, I am surprised by your anti pension rant.
 
P. Rez

i have only touted the 3 prong because right now we are stuck with two prongs. Id like to have a choice for all members. I myself would definately opt out of the iampf if i could get the future contributions in my 401k.

People should have a choice.

 

[freedom]

The fund is worth having but personally I don't want to give them anymore money than I already am today...All future contact gains need to go into MY pocket, not the funds .

 

[robbedagain]

execpt freedom the company puts the money into the IAMPF  not you.   
 
P rez  May I suggest if youre on the committee that may be in the JCBA  let the employees contribute to the IAMPF and/or have a 401k with match

 

[freedom]

Robbed , if the union bargains for an extra 5 dollar an hour to go into the fund you do understand that when the union then asks for wage increases the company will say they are already giving us more ...

Think total compensation package.

 

[robbedagain]

we cld have all the wage increases yet it is the company who is putting the money into the pension  

 

[JABORD]

Robbed , if the union bargains for an extra 5 dollar an hour to go into the fund you do understand that when the union then asks for wage increases the company will say they are already giving us more ...

Think total compensation package.
 
Hey all, thanks for your responding. My own experience with employer defined pensions leaves a bad taste. For 10 years back in the eighties I earned a vested pension with the IBT with promise that I would be able to receive it in my elder years. Unfortunately, Hoffa JR. couldn't deny himself the shenanigans that continue to this day. I regularly receive letters from the Central States Pension Fund that remind me of the threat of insolvancy that exists. At AA, we were denied a match to our 401K because the CBA had provisions for a defined pension. Now after 23 yrs of participation and having been frozen, my monthly check will be less than 2K per month at 60. Unfortunately, even though AMFA's own constitution includes the option to pursue a pension toward retirement benefits, the example we see at AA and now at Boeing where the IAM allowed the pension to be frozen is becoming the norm for corporate America. Much of our fustration here with AA mechanics was the inability of our pos TWBoo union to provide our group monies guaranteed to our 401K prior to any match as was obtained by our flight attendants (9%) and flight boys and girls receiving (17%) before being required to put one dollar in. We intend to fix that.
So my question is: Wouldn't a percentage contribution tied to total wages including CBA pay increases be more beneficial, along with the control provided to the individual, rather than a fixed rate as the present $2 per hour provides?

 

[blue collar]

we cld have all the wage increases yet it is the company who is putting the money into the pension  

No. It is the company putting it in there for you. It is part of your compensation. Don't buy into the BS that it's not your money.

 

[blue collar]

JAB-
I would say HELL YES it would be more beneficial. You get more control, and you can get more money towards your retirement. With a 401k match, it includes OT and raises. With the pension, they only put in $2/hr UP TO 2080 hours/year. No OT, and no increase with raises. If you guys are making around $36/hr, then 9% is $3.24/hr that they would be paying in (if your match was 9%).

 

[Tim Nelson]

JAB-
I would say HELL YES it would be more beneficial. You get more control, and you can get more money towards your retirement. With a 401k match, it includes OT and raises. With the pension, they only put in $2/hr UP TO 2080 hours/year. No OT, and no increase with raises. If you guys are making around $36/hr, then 9% is $3.24/hr that they would be paying in (if your match was 9%).

I got 35% return on my 401k this year, and last.  I'm sure the IAMPF made a ton off of my cash. You are right, 700 and the IAM say that it isn't your money.  The trouble is that a lot of members believe them.   
 
Unfortunately, my 401k savings was with contributed money prior to 2003 until the IAM braintrust decided to eliminate the 401k and its contribution rate up to 10%.  It was a $47 million concession but was sold as a gain. And exchanged that 10% contribution rate for a 5% for those topped out.  You are right, our 401k was a contribution that included OT.  What's even more terrible for fleet is that 40% part time only get a 3% contribution. 
 
At any rate, like any retirement plan, the plan is only as good as the % that is going in.  And having 3%-5% go in is a disgrace. Not that I want those thieves getting one more cent.

 

[P. REZ]

i have only touted the 3 prong because right now we are stuck with two prongs. Id like to have a choice for all members. I myself would definately opt out of the iampf if i could get the future contributions in my 401k.

People should have a choice.

Tim,
 
Huh, if you got the 401k and opt out of the pension, what do you have? 2 still. 
 
P. Rez

 

[WeAAsles]

This is how the APFA chose to negotiate their switch from the frozen Pension to the 401K.

Retirement: Pension plan frozen. Replaced with a 401(k) contribution. Current employees will receive automatic 401(k) contributions for 5 years, with no match requirement.  Contribution levels as follows: 9.9% age 50 +, 6.75% age 40  50, 5.5% age 39  below. At the conclusion of the 5 year period, all FAs would receive a 3% contribution with up to a 5.5% match.

I'm not sure if their CONTRIBUTION is based on ALL hours worked but I believe it is. This is the area that I want to see my negotiators concentrate on outside of continuing the IAMPF for those members currently in it or granting a possible one time only offer extended over to myself and my members IF we WANT to participate in the pension fund.

I like the idea of the tiered contribution or match into my 401k as I progress in age and up the pay scale. I also think it is a fair way of investing into our retirement future as all of us will obviously age and will reach the higher rates to shore up our future funding over time.
 

Read more here: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2012/04/what-us-airways-has-promised-american-flight-attendants.html#storylink=cpy

 

[blue collar]

I don't agree that the tiered system is good, what's to say it'll be there when those in their 20s and 30s reach 50?. I actually think that the same rate should be given to all represented groups. I know in the case of AA it is tied to the frozen pensions, that's why pilots are getting 17%; but going forward, shouldn't all groups be at the same rate?