IAM Pension Fund

[WeAAsles]

 
Funny you should say that.
 
Hopefully you’ll see the similarities.

Somewhat similar.
 
Back before the T/A between USAirways and America West Maintenance and Related was ratified in April of ’08, we at US had $50 per week placed by the company into our company 401K plan.  It showed up every week in our paychecks for close to 3 years.
 
The second that contract was ratified, that addition to our paycheck stopped.  And there was a period there, and as I remember it was about 6 weeks, where we were not officially in the IAMNPF nor were we getting the $50 per week placed in our 401K.

Was it in the IAMPF documents that there was a 6 week enrollment lag? The $50 was done after you signed a new TA agreeing for it to be abolished as you went into the Pension instead. You wouldn't have been entitled to the $50.
 
Where was that money going?  Was it going to the IAMNPF that we weren’t officially in yet?  Was it going into our 410K?  Because it sure wasn’t showing up in our paychecks.

Was your enrollment date backdated? Meaning from the time you passed the TA to the time you show as a participant in the Pension is there a 6 week difference or are the dates the same? If not you should probably contact the IAMPF directly to inquire as to why?
 
We the union was asked that question, they didn’t have an answer, and as I remember, that’s just how they said it.  “We don’t have an answer for that.”
 
Well, due to the fact that your typical USAirways IAM member is apathetic, beaten down,  and tired of fighting, we never did pursue that answer, and never found out where the money went.

Trying to find out about something has no time frame.
 
So what would happen in your scenario, where we changed bargaining agents and the contract was still in effect?  You’ll never know.  The money would still come out, but only the company or the union would know where it went.
 

I'm 100% positive that the IAMPF wouldn't just take the money without you being told they still are unless people want to go to prison. The company is obligated contractually to put that money in the fund under your name, and nothing more. Best case scenario is that they just give you that money directly as a new line in your pay-stub (minus Taxes) I don't think they would manage that money for you because managing money, costs money. 

The honest issue is that you just don't know what would happen and the only one who would be able to tell you what they are going to do would be the company. Taking AMFA as the supposed replacement union some are looking at, the company is under no obligation to respond to them if they were to inquire and I'm sure they wouldn't. Not because of any collusion but because they are not legally bound to that organization.



 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I'm 100% positive that the IAMPF wouldn't just take the money without you being told they still are unless people want to go to prison. The company is obligated contractually to put that money in the fund under your name, and nothing more. Best case scenario is that they just give you that money directly as a new line in your pay-stub (minus Taxes) I don't think they would manage that money for you because managing money, costs money. 

The honest issue is that you just don't know what would happen and the only one who would be able to tell you what they are going to do would be the company. Taking AMFA as the supposed replacement union some are looking at, the company is under no obligation to respond to them if they were to inquire and I'm sure they wouldn't. Not because of any collusion but because they are not legally bound to that organization.



 

 
If AMFA were to become your CBA the company would indeed be obligated to respond to them as they are the certified agents administering the contract.
 
Further, while the IAMPF may indeed stop accepting pension contributions from AA if AMFA were to be certified as a new bargaining agent, the company doesn't simply get to keep the money. Per your CBA they are required to submit a set amount to the IAMPF, there is no existing language that states they get to keep the money if it is sent back.
 
Add to it, that ANY new union would have a PR field day with AA management if they tried to scam mechanics out of monies set aside as pension contributions simply because they used their legally established right to change union representation.
 
The more likely outcome is AA simply holds the funds til the new union negotiates a retirement plan in which to place said funds.

 

[700UW]

The IAMNPF will not take the money from US a condition of the plan is you have to be an IAM member, represented by the IAM or in a coordinated bargaining unit.
 
The M&R CBA has no provisions on what happens to that money of the IAM is no longer the certified bargaining unit, unlike Fleet who has specific language on what happens to that money if they arent in the IAMNPF anymore.
 
Look at what happened at NW with the DCO, the FA CBA with the IBT had specific language that the DCO was only for the IBT, when they were voted out and the PFAA took over NW wouldnt deduct nor turn dues money over to the PFAA, the PFAA took NW to court or arbitration and they lost.
 
Gerry Glass is who negotiated the language at NW and he is/was at US also.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

The IAMNPF will not take the money from US a condition of the plan is you have to be an IAM member, represented by the IAM or in a coordinated bargaining unit.
 
The M&R CBA has no provisions on what happens to that money of the IAM is no longer the certified bargaining unit, unlike Fleet who has specific language on what happens to that money if they arent in the IAMNPF anymore.
 
Look at what happened at NW with the DCO, the FA CBA with the IBT had specific language that the DCO was only for the IBT, when they were voted out and the PFAA took over NW wouldnt deduct nor turn dues money over to the PFAA, the PFAA took NW to court or arbitration and they lost.
 
Gerry Glass is who negotiated the language at NW and he is/was at US also.

 
 
And one has nothing to do with the other.
 
NWA dues collection language is not comparable to US pension contribution language.
 
One is directly related to COMPENSATION, and the other is not.
 
If AMFA were to win representation on AA, and the IAMPF refused to accept further contributions, AA would NOT get to keep the monies allocated to pension contributions

 

[TRAVIS]

With as many members as the IAM is losing each year the IAMNPF won't have enough members to fund the turd.
If the NMB puts this to a vote the IAM will more than likely be on the outside looking at what they lost and thinking they should have did a better job on the contracts than looking after them selfs as it would have shown the AA TWU members who are not that happy with them a union to vote for. BUT with this turd of a contract that is not going to happen.
 
Time is running out put your AMFA card in now! 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
If AMFA were to become your CBA the company would indeed be obligated to respond to them as they are the certified agents administering the contract.

IF and or AFTER. My comment was meant to say that they would not respond before that happens. The company has no legal obligation to respond to a perspective organization seeking to represent some of their employees, especially if they are already represented. They are only required to respond to the current representatives.
 
Further, while the IAMPF may indeed stop accepting pension contributions from AA if AMFA were to be certified as a new bargaining agent, the company doesn't simply get to keep the money. Per your CBA they are required to submit a set amount to the IAMPF, there is no existing language that states they get to keep the money if it is sent back.

I would agree that they ultimately wouldn't be allowed to just keep that money but there are no clear cut set guidelines as to what and how they "need" to release that money to the members. That question is left uncertain.
 
Add to it, that ANY new union would have a PR field day with AA management if they tried to scam mechanics out of monies set aside as pension contributions simply because they used their legally established right to change union representation.

I wouldn't say a PR field day but it could come down to having to go through a legal procedure? Since the language is specific as to what AA is "supposed" to do with that money they may need to seek legal clarity as to what they "can" do with those funds? It may not be as clear cut as simply giving it to you directly? 
 
The more likely outcome is AA simply holds the funds til the new union negotiates a retirement plan in which to place said funds.

Again "holding" those funds essentially means managing those funds, and those funds are not supposed to be on AA's books. You would have no agreement between your new Union and the company that obligates the company to incur the costs of managing or you to bear those costs for AA. It would more than likely be the first issue that your new union would have to come to an agreement with the company on. How long that could take is the open ended question?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
Again "holding" those funds essentially means managing those funds, and those funds are not supposed to be on AA's books. You would have no agreement between your new Union and the company that obligates the company to incur the costs of managing or you to bear those costs for AA. It would more than likely be the first issue that your new union would have to come to an agreement with the company on. How long that could take is the open ended question?

 
No, holding those funds means HOLDING those funds.
 
Again, those pension contributions were negotiated in lieu of wages, they are part of US mechanics compensation package and the company knows this. If the IAMPF no longer accepts the funds then AA management and the union would have to negotiate where those funds will be redirected - trying to make an argument about the possibility of incurring "managing costs" is absurd as the new union would have already asked for those funds to be distributed to the membership via another venue 401k etc. via LOA.
 
Of course this could take time, but the members will not lose that money.

 

[WeAAsles]

 
No, holding those funds means HOLDING those funds.
 
Again, those pension contributions were negotiated in lieu of wages, they are part of US mechanics compensation package and the company knows this. If the IAMPF no longer accepts the funds then AA management and the union would have to negotiate where those funds will be redirected - trying to make an argument about the possibility of incurring "managing costs" is absurd as the new union would have already asked for those funds to be distributed to the membership via another venue 401k etc. via LOA.
 
Of course this could take time, but the members will not lose that money.

All "contracts" are open to interpretation and I've said before I don't "believe" those members would lose their money. But what you are saying no matter what is still an "opinion".  Without something "In writing" it leaves an open hole on what could ultimately happen? Neither one of us have a crystal ball to see into the future and if we did the Powerball numbers would be what I would look for.

My Mother was the first one to impart upon me "Always get it in writing" This issue is not in writing. 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

All "contracts" are open to interpretation and I've said before I don't "believe" those members would lose their money. But what you are saying no matter what is still an "opinion".  Without something "In writing" it leaves an open hole on what could ultimately happen? Neither one of us have a crystal ball to see into the future and if we did the Powerball numbers would be what I would look for.

My Mother was the first one to impart upon me "Always get it in writing" This issue is not in writing. 

 
Okay, as you have said you dont "believe" those members would lose their money, then it becomes  a question on how credible is the threat that the mechanics in question could lose those pension contributions.
 
The agreed upon pension contributions are part of the US mechanics compensation package. If the IAMPF refused pension contributions for mechanics following an AMFA victory, and AA management refused to return those funds to the mechanics in the form of some new plan, then by definition it could rise to the level of a major dispute under the RLA.
 
Is it possible "anything" could happen? Yes.   Is it probable in this case?  No.
 
 
 
BTW, the IAM should be very careful how they choose to try and paint this, because if, for sake of discussion, the alliance is not allowed on the ballot and the NMB declares the TWU the stand alone representative.  If the possibilities you and others here keep alluding to, actually DO HAPPEN, and the US mechanics "lose" those contributions, the IAM will be tainted for the foreseeable future, as the blame will be laid -as it should- squarely at their feet.  It'll give every anti-IAM drive now and in the future a very big stick to beat the union with.
 
Just saying...

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Okay, as you have said you dont "believe" those members would lose their money, then it becomes  a question on how credible is the threat that the mechanics in question could lose those pension contributions.
 
The agreed upon pension contributions are part of the US mechanics compensation package. If the IAMPF refused pension contributions for mechanics following an AMFA victory, and AA management refused to return those funds to the mechanics in the form of some new plan, then by definition it could rise to the level of a major dispute under the RLA.
 
Is it possible "anything" could happen? Yes.   Is it probable in this case?  No.

I would assume something would be devised and decided on, yes. Just one guys opinion.
 
 
BTW, the IAM should be very careful how they choose to try and paint this, because if, for sake of discussion, the alliance is not allowed on the ballot and the NMB declares the TWU the stand alone representative.  If the possibilities you and others here keep alluding to, actually DO HAPPEN, and the US mechanics "lose" those contributions, the IAM will be tainted for the foreseeable future, as the blame will be laid -as it should- squarely at their feet.  It'll give every anti-IAM drive now and in the future a very big stick to beat the union with.

The NMB will not declare the TWU to be a standalone option on the ballot because the TWU governing body did not file for submission as such. They filed as a Joint association. Objections by a certain Maintenance President who doesn't hold the authority to challenge notwithstanding. The only ruling I see will be that either the association will require a vote or be certified outright? That's what we're waiting on.
 
Just saying...

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
The NMB will not declare the TWU to be a standalone option on the ballot because the TWU governing body did not file for submission as such. They filed as a Joint association. Objections by a certain Maintenance President who doesn't hold the authority to challenge notwithstanding. The only ruling I see will be that either the association will require a vote or be certified outright? That's what we're waiting on.

 

The NMB could quite easily refuse the alliance a position on the ballot, as whatever decision the NMB comes to, will coincide with the STS determination. I thought it was more than obvious that if the alliance was refused, and the 30 day clock started, that the TWU would not hesitate then to file on its own, and almost by default placed alone on the ballot as the IAM would not have sufficient numbers to trigger a showing of interest.
 
Apologies for not being more precise.
 
 
While union alliances in merger situations are not new, as others have pointed out on many other threads, in the cases of those certifications, the respective memberships were polled beforehand.  That hasn't happened in this case.

 

[WeAAsles]

 

The NMB could quite easily refuse the alliance a position on the ballot, as whatever decision the NMB comes to, will coincide with the STS determination. I thought it was more than obvious that if the alliance was refused, and the 30 day clock started, that the TWU would not hesitate then to file on its own, and almost by default placed alone on the ballot as the IAM would not have sufficient numbers to trigger a showing of interest.

I can't say what my Union leaders would do if this were to happen? Since they signed an agreement with the IAM they may be legally bound to at least attempt to try and honor that, which would mean going back to an internal union vote to see if we support the association? If the TWU attempted to circumvent the agreement with the IAM they could be sued for breach of contract?

But I am just a FSC so what do I know?
 
 
Apologies for not being more precise.


 
 
While union alliances in merger situations are not new, as others have pointed out on many other threads, in the cases of those certifications, the respective memberships were polled beforehand.  That hasn't happened in this case.

Correct. And that's where the NMB will decide if it's legal or not?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
I can't say what my Union leaders would do if this were to happen? Since they signed an agreement with the IAM they may be legally bound to at least attempt to try and honor that, which would mean going back to an internal union vote to see if we support the association? If the TWU attempted to circumvent the agreement with the IAM they could be sued for breach of contract?

 
Perhaps. Although one might also conclude that the initial filing with the NMB would be enough to satisfy the contract between the unions.
 
Once STS is determined, and the 30 day clock started that doesn't leave much time for both unions to conduct internal votes, nevermind the fact that more than a few members will be outraged that they only got a vote on the subject after the union was forced to conduct one.
 
It'll definitely be interesting watching this play out if it goes down this way

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Perhaps. Although one might also conclude that the initial filing with the NMB would be enough to satisfy the contract between the unions.
 
Once STS is determined, and the 30 day clock started that doesn't leave much time for both unions to conduct internal votes, nevermind the fact that more than a few members will be outraged that they only got a vote on the subject after the union was forced to conduct one.
 
It'll definitely be interesting watching this play out if it goes down this way

Outraged, angry, pissed off, disappointed lots of words that people use to describe themselves these days. I don't know but I consider myself fortunate, lucky, mildly satisfied and a little blessed. I guess everything is up to individual perspectives? 

I just don't get all the fuss? So many people out there want what we have and we don't even appreciate that sometimes. I do wind up shaking my head sometimes and wonder what's in people's heads? I'm just going to ride whatever wave comes my way and hope I don't fall off the board. "I want" I want" I want" just doesn't matter that much to me I guess. Can't have everything so just enjoy what you got and let the dust settle.

And if nothing else it's always interesting. 

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

From the IAMNPF plan description:

"The maximum benefit that the PBGC guarantees is set by law. Under the multiemployer program, the PBGC guarantee equals a participant’s years of service multiplied by (1) 100% of the first $11 of the monthly benefit accrual and (2) 75% of the next $33. The PBGC’s maximum guarantee limit is $35.75 per month times a participant’s years of service. For example, the maximum annual guarantee for a retiree with 30 years of service is $12,870."

"The Trustees may terminate the Plan and Trust Fund by a document in writing executed by all of the Trustees, if in their opinion the Fund is not adequate to carry out the intent and purpose of the Plan. The Plan and Trust Fund may also be terminated if there are no individuals living who can qualify as participants or beneficiaries under the Plan or if there are no longer any collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to the Fund. The Plan is considered terminated by law if it is amended to provide that no further benefits will be earned by employees for employment with employers, if every employer withdraws from the Plan within the meaning of Section 4203 of ERISA, upon the cessation of the obligation of all employers to contribute under the Plan, or if the Plan is amended to become a defined contribution plan."

No friggin way I would trust the IAM with Roach as a trustee of the plan.