IAM Pension Fund

[WeAAsles]

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

Pat as part of a Total Value Compensation package a company chooses to place deferred compensation allocations to an individuals retirement account or retirement options depending on what is offered. The issue with most individuals is in being able to choose what they feel and believe are the best options for them? Those are and should be individual choices and not be left to the whim of the collective or the Union to make the ultimate choice as to how best to handle those options.

Although I personally believe it won't happen because losing participation put's the fund in jeopardy overall for those higher up who benefit the most from the members who contribute on the lower rungs of the pyramid. There should be an option for your members in the JCBA as to whether or not they wish to continue with being a part of the IAMPF or freezing their status in the fund and moving forward with that compensation being placed into the 401k options in the future.

Just as there can be a financial collapse that puts people's 401's at risk so too can the IAMPF be cut to maintain solvency and the green light status. People should be given a choice as to where they want to place either their retirement risks or fortunes.

 

[WeAAsles]

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?

So you want to make your decision on the possibilities that the option would not exist as you age? That doesn't make sense.

A member in his 20's and 30's has far more time to adjust to changes then someone over 50 and again we all age. 

Father Time doesn't discriminate because Wall Street and the Market say it should.

 

[blue collar]

So you want to make your decision on the possibilities that the option would not exist as you age? That doesn't make sense.

A member in his 20's and 30's has far more time to adjust to changes then someone over 50 and again we all age. 

Father Time doesn't discriminate because Wall Street and the Market say it should.

Sounds like you're a fan of the tiered system because you are about to be, or are 50. Of course it's all well and good since you would be receiving the top pay out- but why shouldn't that be the norm paid out to ALL age groups? How about the guy who retires from one career, and starts at AA at 50, he should be getting more from the company than the 20 year employee who is 38 years old? I still maintain that a set % contribution regardless of age is the best option.

 

[WeAAsles]

Sounds like you're a fan of the tiered system because you are about to be, or are 50. Of course it's all well and good since you would be receiving the top pay out- but why shouldn't that be the norm paid out to ALL age groups? How about the guy who retires from one career, and starts at AA at 50, he should be getting more from the company than the 20 year employee who is 38 years old? I still maintain that a set % contribution regardless of age is the best option.

Well if we go by your philosophy then why shouldn't someone just walking in the door as a new hire make $23.00 per hour then? Who needs to have a pay progression either?

That 50 year old new hire would still not make as much as a 30 year old who started at 18 since the 30 year old is at the top rate and that 50 year old new hire is only making maybe $10 per hour. Simple mathematics.

And just to clarify I also supported a COLA when I was living in DFW for those living in more expensive cities than I did. Those extra few dollars an hour to a guy living in NYC would really help him and certainly weren't needed by me where I was.

 

[WeAAsles]

Sounds like you're a fan of the tiered system because you are about to be, or are 50. Of course it's all well and good since you would be receiving the top pay out- but why shouldn't that be the norm paid out to ALL age groups? How about the guy who retires from one career, and starts at AA at 50, he should be getting more from the company than the 20 year employee who is 38 years old? I still maintain that a set % contribution regardless of age is the best option.

Let's take this one step further before I leave for work. I'm guessing that you're 38 and asking "What's in this for me" Well aside from the fact that Yes, believe it or not one day you will be 50 years old (ACK) As more senior people are able to AFFORD to retire you eventually get to have that wonderful Sat Sun off to be at home with your wife and children. (Lot's of value in that)

Even the IRS itself is cool with the idea of a tiered system since when you reach over 50 you are allowed to make catch up contributions over the current allowed amount if you are under 50.

Man when I was 18, drinking 40's and listening to Van Halen religiously I never even dreamed of 50 years old. Grey hair, glasses and balding. Trust me that road comes around faster then you can fly. 

 

[700UW]

IAM decided to eliminate?
 
Did the IAM unilaterally impose the IAMNPF on Fleet or was it voted on and ratified in the CBA after negotiations?
 
Come on Tim, tell the truth for once and stop misleading people.
 
And EVERYONE seems to forgot a 401k was not designed to be your pension, it was to supplement your defined benefit plan and Social Security.
 
You have all been hoodwinked by companies that its a pension, when its not.

 

[WeAAsles]

IAM decided to eliminate?
 
Did the IAM unilaterally impose the IAMNPF on Fleet or was it voted on and ratified in the CBA after negotiations?
 
Come on Tim, tell the truth for once and stop misleading people.
 
And EVERYONE seems to forgot a 401k was not designed to be your pension, it was to supplement your defined benefit plan and Social Security.
 
You have all been hoodwinked by companies that its a pension, when its not.

There is no such thing as a completely secure retirement option today my friend. You can even decide to sock all your extra money under your pillow but if inflation goes haywire and raises the price of bread from $3.00 to $30.00, your mattress just caught fire.

Multi tiered approach. Social security, Pension, 401k, property, changing your lifestyle and geographic location and getting rid of the woman who doesn't work and runs your accounts dry is the only viable solutions.

 

[700UW]

Why dont someone come clean and post the reality and the real history.
 
In 1992 non-union ramp had their pension frozen and terminated in 2005.
 
What was it replaced with?
 
Wasnt it as 3% DCP/401k?
 
And you got into the IAMNPF in 2003 correct?
 
So for 11 years you funded your own retirement.
 
And you all fail to realize that a 401k is NOT a PENSION, its a supplement retirement fund.
 
You have all let corporate America make you fund your own retirement.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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

No.  I still have the IAMPF, just not wasting any more contributions in it.  I want OUT!   Whatever the case, let's stop making this hostage.   The next NC needs to be more considerate of the membership and allow choice. Hopefully, with TWU influxes this can happen.  The IAMPF SUCKS BALLS.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Why dont someone come clean and post the reality and the real history.
 
In 1992 non-union ramp had their pension frozen and terminated in 2005.
 
What was it replaced with?
 
Wasnt it as 3% DCP/401k?
 
And you got into the IAMNPF in 2003 correct?
 
So for 11 years you funded your own retirement.
 
And you all fail to realize that a 401k is NOT a PENSION, its a supplement retirement fund.
 
You have all let corporate America make you fund your own retirement.

700, no, it wasn't a 3% 401k. Stop lying.  The company put up to 8% into the 401k of TOTAL earnings, and also put in an additional 2% for profit sharing in profitable years [only received this one time]. The IAMPF was a $47 million concession in 2003.  And, defined pension plans are dying due to more advantageous retirement options offering more portability, control, tax savings, accessibility that better match a person's life.
 
Whatever the case, there should be a choice.  I want my money.  I want it now.  And I don't want to see the IAMPF trustees mail me yet another letter saying "Tuffa Lucka....because of the recent stock market declines we have to slash your future benefits to keep this green for our retirees."  
 
I realize some folks like dumping THEIR MONEY into the IAMPF but I don't.  There should be a choice.  And no matter what you say, the IAMPF totally sucks balls for part timers who only contribute 3% of their money into the plan. Then they get hammered with a credit penalty.  Hopefully they aren't married otherwise they will also get billed for the spousal offset.   And suspensions if they actually want to get another job.  Thanks 700! 

 

[700UW]

Tim,
 
The only liar is you.
 
I asked a question, I didnt make a statement, so learn to read and comprehend what is asked.
 
And dont worry I will speak to Tommy later today and get the rundown of history.
 
As where are the supporting facts that is was a $47 million concession.
 
And who voted in the IAMNPF?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
The only liar is you.
 
I asked a question, I didnt make a statement, so learn to read and comprehend what is asked.
 
And dont worry I will speak to Tommy later today and get the rundown of history.
 
As where are the supporting facts that is was a $47 million concession.
 
And who voted in the IAMNPF?

$47 million concession.  I was there at the meeting in PIT.  I asked Canale and he balked on the question but I continued to stand and I believe I asked Tom Roth, if this was a concession, and if so, how much.  The obvious answer was , "yes",  and $47 million.   Then Canale hem hawed and said something like it is better for those who will be hired and for those who are recently employed.  That was because the $1 was for everyone, whether I was making $19 or $8.  But it was the second biggest concession. 
 
The reality is that most fleet service, and practically all committeepersons were ignorant and didn't have any clue as to what questions to ask, etc.  They just stood up like dummies and applauded.  I remember shaking my head and realizing how some folks are just willingly ignorant applauding to one of the biggest concessions.  In these meetings, most if not all committemen have no balls and dont' stand up and are scared to ask questions.   Of course, then the IAM decided to toss the profit sharing back during later negotiations and proclaimed, "Well, hell, it's not guaranteed anyways."
 
Whatever the case, I want out!  I want CHOICE!   I want  MY MONEY GOING INTO MY 401K NOT INTO SOME IAMPF ARSEHAT WHO DICTATES TO ME WHAT TO DO.  I WANT MY MONEY NOW.
 
And 700, trust me, you don't want me pounding the hell out of you and the IAM if AMFA comes along.  Don't get me started on this crusade.  I want the Association to win but I'm not going to put up with your arsehat bull crap.

 

[700UW]

Hearsay, where is the proof.
 
And you can put on an AMFA  Cheerleader uniform as far as I care, and AMFA mechanics or mechanics who want to be AMFA dont care what a ramper has to say.
 
So go for it Timothy.
 
And you campaigned to get the TA voted down that contained profit sharing and the Board said tuff lucka in the second TA.

 

[BLUTO]

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

NIELSUN MUS
HAV UZED TH 2
LEG STOOL IDEA
IN HIZ CAMAINZ>
CUZ THY BOTH
COLLAPSE> THN
HE FALL ON HIZ
A55!

 

[blue collar]

Well if we go by your philosophy then why shouldn't someone just walking in the door as a new hire make $23.00 per hour then? Who needs to have a pay progression either?

That 50 year old new hire would still not make as much as a 30 year old who started at 18 since the 30 year old is at the top rate and that 50 year old new hire is only making maybe $10 per hour. Simple mathematics.

And just to clarify I also supported a COLA when I was living in DFW for those living in more expensive cities than I did. Those extra few dollars an hour to a guy living in NYC would really help him and certainly weren't needed by me where I was.

I wouldn't be against one pay rate. Many of the people in my department come with years of experience, and I would support them starting 'topped out'. I also support GEO pay.