JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet. **New and improved 2.0 version**

[WeAAsles]

That’s the beauty of a communal board; no one gets to “own” a thread.

Yea but it also lets in and gives free reign to the absolute KOOKS out there.

 

[Traymark]

Let me connect the dots for you-- Airline Workers are comprised of a demographic that falls within the classification of "Average American". Over the last several decades Corporate America, which incidentally is a demographic that the Company falls within, has been unilaterally eradicating pension plans in lieu of the 401k.

Now, since almost half of the stated Average American demographic (Airline Workers included) fails to invest properly, or even at all... the Company (AA/LUS) escapes the entire cost of a once certain labor expense that they in the past incurred under pension plans. When a large percentage of workers do not invest, the Company simply pockets the match contribution, and escapes all administrative costs.

The 401k is essentially is a useless negotiated benefit if it is never used by the benefiting worker!
History has proven that many workers will NEVER use the benefit. This is the very reason Corporations lobbied Washington over the decades to eliminate defined pension plans to begin with... It saves them MONEY!

When the Negotiating Team accepts a compensation that may, or may not even be used -- we ALL lose by lowering the entire compensation equation value that was originally agreed upon. Thus, the ENTIRE Represented Group gets shortchanged, and not by f-ing "CHOICE"!

Understand?

>SPIT<

Simply brilliant, you sure you're not related to Einstein?

Look, anyone that does not put in at least the 5.5% to get the match then they are doing something severely wrong in their economic decision making, I can't help that, and , the membership shouldn't be encumbered to help that either.

But to your point of making the company pay for a benefit, YES,
so why do the Pilots get a 16% CONTRIBUTION?
Every workgroup should get a contribution, not a match. If you've read this forum in the past, everything I've posted has been to that point ~ contribution~ not match!

If they give a contribution, it destroys any argument for a pension, any argument for a pension run by a corrupt union is already destroyed.
Thanks for playing.

 

[The Watcher]

How is someone who isn’t topped out going to afford that?

 

[PIEDMONT784]

Not sure what “younger workers” you’re around, but I’m surrounded by ‘em, and they are far more financially savvy than most of us Boomers or X’ers give them credit for.

Kev-- Nothing personal, but I have to lend more credence, and validity to verifiable research, that comes from multiple reliable resources which have all been covered with links included over the past few pages here. The FACTS are... not everyone will contribute enough to a 401k to trigger a company match...

The argument that this is an "Individual Personal Decision" does not hold water, as these members that choose not use the benefit, ultimately LOWER the value of the originally negotiated compensation package for EVERYONE. The company counts the value of the 401k with 100% participation, not the reality of less when it crosses the table. That lost value could go to wages, scope, or other benefits for the entire work-group!

>SPIT<

 

[PIEDMONT784]

Simply brilliant, you sure you're not related to Einstein?

Look, anyone that does not put in at least the 5.5% to get the match then they are doing something severely wrong in their economic decision making, I can't help that, and , the membership shouldn't be encumbered to help that either.

But to your point of making the company pay for a benefit, YES,
so why do the Pilots get a 16% CONTRIBUTION?
Every workgroup should get a contribution, not a match. If you've read this forum in the past, everything I've posted has been to that point ~ contribution~ not match!

If they give a contribution, it destroys any argument for a pension, any argument for a pension run by a corrupt union is already destroyed.
Thanks for playing.

No, actually it reinforces the argument for a pension. If the company is contractually obligated to contribute a benefit at 100% to the work-group either into a 401k or a pension, it is no longer a compensation value issue. They will spend the same money either way!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Kev-- Nothing personal, but I have to lend more credence, and validity to verifiable research, that comes from multiple reliable resources which have all been covered with links included over the past few pages here. The FACTS are... not everyone will contribute enough to a 401k to trigger a company match...

The argument that this is an "Individual Personal Decision" does not hold water, as these members that choose not use the benefit, ultimately LOWER the value of the originally negotiated compensation package for EVERYONE. The company counts the value of the 401k with 100% participation, not the reality of less when it crosses the table. That lost value could go to wages, scope, or other benefits for the entire work-group!

>SPIT<

Look, the iam pension is retarded. Period.
Why dont you scram?
We dont want your chit pension and we are tired of you thugs stealing what lil we have.
In the meantime, i appreciate the company kind offer to give me $9,000 in my retirement per year instead of capping their contributions at $2700.

And 40% of our members are pt and you asshats only negotiated .65 an hour then you give them a 30% credit cut. A 5.5 hr pt only gets $230 a month after 10 years. And thats only if the kooks dont cut it again.

Get the pension the hell out.

 

[737823]

Well said. It's one thing when management treats you with disdain (that's their job - it's what they do), but these crooks are part of the union "family" that's paid to represent you.

An interesting tidbit from the complaint about the hiring of Graystone:

Cronyism at its best. This pension's board demonstrates more loyalty to Buffenbarger than to the participants they're paid to protect. I expect big city machine politics to function this way, but the IAM? Looks "teamsterish" to me.

About this "pension fund," it's not really a defined benefit pension from the employers' perspective; it's a defined contribution plan like a 401k, the management of which the workers have delegated to some fatcats in exchange for a "defined benefit" that can be reduced without a trip to bankruptcy court. The employer contributes a fixed amount per hour, making it a defined contribution plan, without giving the workers any of the upside generally possible with a defined contribution plan (the potential to invest well/prudently and possibly make for a more comfortable retirement).

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

Yea but it also lets in and gives free reign to the absolute KOOKS out there.

Well yeah; how do you think we got here?

The company counts the value of the 401k with 100% participation, not the reality of less when it crosses the table. That lost value could go to wages, scope, or other benefits for the entire work-group!

>SPIT<

Sure could. Shame labor keeps leaving that chunk of “ask” on the table, and insists on handcuffing people to DB plans- at the expense of their own membership!

 

[The Watcher]

You are brainwashed.

The man who invented the 401k has even stated it shouldn’t be your retirement.

Corporate America sold you a bag of beans.

 

[The Watcher]

I see the red mark brigade is out.

 

[WeAAsles]

Simply brilliant, you sure you're not related to Einstein?

Look, anyone that does not put in at least the 5.5% to get the match then they are doing something severely wrong in their economic decision making, I can't help that, and , the membership shouldn't be encumbered to help that either.

But to your point of making the company pay for a benefit, YES,
so why do the Pilots get a 16% CONTRIBUTION?
Every workgroup should get a contribution, not a match. If you've read this forum in the past, everything I've posted has been to that point ~ contribution~ not match!

If they give a contribution, it destroys any argument for a pension, any argument for a pension run by a corrupt union is already destroyed.
Thanks for playing.

Ok let’s say I own a business and I have a 16% increase I want to spend on your compensation package.

You got only two choices that I’ve decided where I’m going to give that to you. Either I give you that increase in wages or I can hand deliver it for you to Fidelity and manage your retirement. Oh kind of like what I used to do for you with your Pension.

So which one will it be? Thanks for playing.

BTW did you up your own contribution when you got that average 24% wage raise in 2016? (Pay yourself first)

 

[Traymark]

No, actually it reinforces the argument for a pension. If the company is contractually obligated to contribute a benefit at 100% to the work-group either into a 401k or a pension, it is no longer a compensation value issue. They will spend the same money either way!

The net value to us will always be more with a 401 contribution
There’s Zero administration Cost to the company compared to the cost of maintaining a pension.
Therefore we can and should demand a higher contribution
Everyone wins

 

[WeAAsles]

Well yeah; how do you think we got here?



Sure could. Shame labor keeps leaving that chunk of “ask” on the table, and insists on handcuffing people to DB plans- at the expense of their own membership!

You discount the economic moron that doesn’t have the ability to save for himself if he’s earning enough in reality to do so. That’s why we have/had Pensions

You know it’s your Children who are going to financially have to take care of them in the future through their taxes. Unless you want old homeless crows peeing on the side of your house?

 

[WeAAsles]

The net value to us will always be more with a 401 contribution
There’s Zero administration Cost to the company compared to the cost of maintaining a pension.
Therefore we can and should demand a higher contribution
Everyone wins

Hey Dude you ask the Company to take care of that option for you. You do know that 16% flat contribution would come from somewhere right?

Don’t ask me why the APA Pilots can’t put the money into their 401k’s themselves but I’d prefer that in wages instead frankly.

 

[Kev3188]

You are brainwashed.

The man who invented the 401k has even stated it shouldn’t be your retirement.

Corporate America sold you a bag of beans.

Nah; just tired of watching corporate America hold DB plans over labor’s head like a sword of Damocles. Labor needs to adapt if it wants to survive.