It's time to sign a AMFA card

[WeAAsles]

And what does the IBT have to do with the IAM pension?
 
Nothing, so what are you going to try and deflect next?
 
And WeAA
 
Why did US, UA, the former NW say yes?

Because there pensions were thrown on the PBGC and they LOST there pensions. Ours thankfully were frozen. CO employees did not want there's rolled over but they kept and I think will continue to be harassed to do it.

Why don't you leave them alone as well? How many more times are they going to have to say NO?

 

[700UW]

Do you not understand in 1992 the non-union ramp at US had their pension frozen, and in 2002 they negotiated the IAMNPF?
 
In 2005 M&R had their pension terminated also the frozen ramp pension was terminated.
 
M&R didnt get the IAMNPF until the 2008 Transition Agreement with the former HP workers, who never had a pension at all.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.
 
You are incorrect once again.

 

[WeAAsles]

Do you not understand in 1992 the non-union ramp at US had their pension frozen, and in 2002 they negotiated the IAMNPF?
 
In 2005 M&R had their pension terminated also the frozen ramp pension was terminated.
 
M&R didnt get the IAMNPF until the 2008 Transition Agreement with the former HP workers, who never had a pension at all.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way.
 
You are incorrect once again.

Still not interested. Push as HARD as you like. I am not interested. But I hope it makes and pays out boatloads for you and you can come back and prove me wrong when some cute young nurse is wiping the spittle from my mouth when I'm in the nursing home.

 

[700UW]

You can use your own pre-tax money and gamble on wall street, either way you do know the match is a cost also.
 
Go ask UA people who lost their butts in their 401k due to the ESOP and Chapter 11, and your 401k is not protected a DBP is protected.

 

[WeAAsles]

You can use your own pre-tax money and gamble on wall street, either way you do know the match is a cost also.
 
Go ask UA people who lost their butts in their 401k due to the ESOP and Chapter 11, and your 401k is not protected a DBP is protected.

NO it is not. The IAMPF has reduced benefits in the past and will do so again in the future. Sell it to those who haven't read it. I am not interested. Get that through your head man.

 

[Kev3188]

I'd prefer to be paid a higher wage with a higher 401k match percentage personally.

Me too, though I think we have differing reasons.

 

I agree but I wish our 401K was a contribution instead of a match. 5.5% match is a good supplement to a defined pension that we had up to the point it was frozen.

An engaged membership should be pushing for both a high contribution & high match.
 
 

It is a multi-employer plan, it is not solely dependant on US Airways.
 
The plan is 105% funded.
 
The plan is backed by the PBGC as are all defined benefit plans.

Not for nothing, but 700's above post is accurate.
 
 

IMHO, there should be a security area where Josh and 700 can banter back and forth.
Another one for Eric and WT.
JMHO&PO...
B) xUT

Lol.
 
 

Because there pensions were thrown on the PBGC and they LOST there pensions. Ours thankfully were frozen. CO employees did not want there's rolled over but they kept and I think will continue to be harassed to do it.

Why don't you leave them alone as well? How many more times are they going to have to say NO?

Point of order:

NW's pensions weren't foisted on the PBGC. They were frozen during BK, and replaced going forward with the IAMNPF. Employer contributions on our behalf stopped shortly after the representation elections after the NW/DL merger.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Do you not understand the IAMNPF?
 
Its not controlled by the IAM, I have posted numerous times on the fund and how it is run.
 
It is a separate entity from the IAM and it made up of a board from the employers who participate and the IAM.
The board elects a trustee who overseas the plans.
 
It is quite clear SWAMT that you dont understand the difference between a single employer plan vs a multi-employer plan.
 
US doesnt control the plan nor does AA nor will it.
 
They contribute a dollar amount per hour for each employee in the plan.
 
AA nor US cant get out of paying for it without it being a major dispute, it is contractual language and AA nor US can terminate or freeze it as they dont control it.  And they under the law have to pay for it, and neither AA nor US are in bankruptcy so they cant force concessions upon the members.
 
It is contractual language, they have to pay it, you all really need to educate yourself.
 
You people amaze me you can fix Hundred million dollar airplanes yet you all think you are lawyers, accountants and pension experts and you all have no clue.

On this side of the coin, you flip like a pancake. During the IBT campaign you said that IAM representation means you will lose your pensions if you go with the IBT.  Anyone who says that the IAM has NOTHING to do with the pension is a liar.  Just read the Association agreement and ask yourself why the IAM begged the TWU to negotiate the IAMPF?  I don't actually fault the IAM for that, nor would I fault the Teamsters for wanting to pursue negotiations with the Teamster pension.  Technically, you are correct that the IAMPF is NOT a collective bargaining agent, but it is associated with IAM 100%.  Mostly only IAM members in the fund.

 

[700UW]

How is that flip flopping?
 
If they dont remain with the IAM they lose any future pension accruals, nothing dishonest about that at all.
 
I said the IAMPNF is run by a plan director, who answers to the board of trustees, made up of union and employer chosen people.
 
And there are IBT and other unions that participate as they are coordinated bargaining units, for example some IBT members at UPS are in the IAMNPF and not the IBT plan.

 

[WeAAsles]

Here. For those of you who want to read up on these Multiemployer Pension Plans and read about the PBGC limitations for liabilities.

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McGowan.pdfhttp://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McGowan.pdf

And this comes in as the second part of the proposed fix. DIED (Referred to committee)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3157

 

[Tim Nelson]

I always liked the 3 stage thing..   401k pension and social security   

+1
 
I'm not sure why the IAM is insisting on more money being tossed into the IAMPF without first addressing a 401k match.  Most 401k's brought in 30% returns this year alone. 
 
If there is new leadership, it may need to look into giving employees a choice, much like at Alaska where individual members had a one time chance to go into the IAMPF or keep the 401k.  That should satisfy most TWU members as well, and allow sUS members the opportunity to have that 3 legged thing.  Actually, the IAM advocates the 3 legs with its defined contribution plan as well. 

 

[700UW]

So who insures your 401k?
 
Hint, no one.
 
And ALL US current or former employees who were around had our pensions terminated in 2005, except for the pilots who were 2002.
 
And I will be eligible for my pension when I hit 50 and I will draw money, if I lost money in my 401k, no one insures it and I am SOL.

 

[WeAAsles]

Read Question # 12 especially.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13876/Q_n_A_response_to_mailing_jan_2011.pdf

 

[Tim Nelson]

Is it possible with no new entrants into the IAM pesnion plan, more members collecting year over year and a down turn of the stock market could put the pension in a similar position of other pensions?  Can we agree it is not 100% long term safe?

The IAM trustees also agree with you.  I still have the "Drop Dead" letter they sent me telling me, not only "Tuffa Lucka", but also that my defined benefits can take another hit as well depending on the stock market and other variables like membership drops.  On December 10, 2010 when IAM lost delta members, the IAMPF trustees pumped out the "Drop Dead" letter on December 13.  As more and more members retire, the active members will most likely get their schedules reduced again.  The only difference between the IBT, IAM and other union funds is that the IAM's decided to slash benefits by 40% to push it in the green.  Whatever the case, it looks like the union pensions of those who are retired may be in jeopardy as well since most unions are pushing to cut the union pensions of retirees.  To the IAM's credit, it has thus far resisted this legislation.  But either way, the trend on union pensions shows that they are the last remaining dinosaurs in a brave new world that is eaten them alive.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Read Question # 12 especially.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13876/Q_n_A_response_to_mailing_jan_2011.pdf

At United,  the company refused to agree to bring in the former continental employees.  Most companies are bailing out on these sorta plans.  Southwest airlines wanted no part of this ponzie scheme.  Companies don't want any liabilities with these plans.

 

[WeAAsles]

At United,  the company refused to agree to bring in the former continental employees.  Most companies are bailing out on these sorta plans.  Southwest airlines wanted no part of this ponzie scheme.  Companies don't want any liabilities with these plans.

Of course not. They don't want to take the risk of being stuck with a workforce who's average age may wind up being 75 years old if these multiemployer plans collapse. Look at the PBGC maximums on them.