JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Tim Nelson]

Didn't know having a degree in Theology makes you an actuary and a pension expert

 
Transcribing the numbers on a handout for educational purposes doesn't make one an actuary expert.  The actuary expert is the one who came up with the numbers, due to the law.   If I said something inaccurate, kindly correct me.  Otherwise, no sense in you taking personal shots.  I know it's hard but try staying on topic and leave the personal shots behind.  This thread would be much more informative if you tried.
 
regards,
 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Transcribing the numbers on a handout for educational purposes doesn't make one an actuary expert.  The actuary expert is the one who came up with the numbers, due to the law.   If I said something inaccurate, kindly correct me.  Otherwise, no sense in you taking personal shots.  I know it's hard but try staying on topic and leave the personal shots behind.  This thread would be much more informative if you tried.
 
regards,
 

Let's see if I can make it easier for you. This took me a whopping 5 minutes to put together. First let's start with the IAMPF site itself of course that by Law must provide all of the information that is in the site.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/

Then let's put up the December 13, 2010 letter informing future service benefit schedule change for certain contributing employers.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13873/ParticipantsNotice.pdf

Now we'll put up this article from Marketwatch

The great majority of multiemployer plans have responded to the financial pressures by cutting future benefits for active workers and raising employer contribution rates, allowing them to navigate to relatively secure footing. A significant number of plans, however, could run out of money in the next 20 years. The PBGC, which guarantees pension benefits for insolvent plans, does not have the resources to solve the problem.

The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 creates a new plan status known as “critical and declining status” for plans likely to become insolvent in the next 15 to 20 years. Plans in this status can apply to the Treasury to suspend benefits for retirees and reduce accrued benefits for active workers. The sponsor must show that it has taken all reasonable measures to forestall insolvency and that the proposed benefit suspension will ensure solvency. A participant’s benefit cannot be reduced below 110% of the PBGC guarantee. Limitations to benefit reductions are provided for those 75 and older, and those 80 and older are exempt from reductions. Suspensions must first be allocated to a participant’s service for an employer that withdrew from the plan without paying its full withdrawal liability.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-law-allows-cuts-in-multiemployer-pensions-2015-01-07

Now some facts from the PBGC

http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/pg/mpra/kline-miller-multiemployer-pension-reform-act-of-2014-faqs.html

The full text of the Law

http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_text_bipartisan_multiemployer_pension_reform.pdf

Final regulations released on April 28, 2016

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-04-28/pdf/2016-09888.pdf

A Link to the US Treasury Department that provides updates on applicants including information and updates on the Central States Pension Plan that basically started this whole thing.
 

[SIZE=9pt]NOTICE[/SIZE]

 
[SIZE=9pt]If you are a participant in the Central States Pension Plan, the plan's Board of Trustees is required to provide notice of the application to reduce benefits to you.  That notice is also required to include an individualized estimate of the effect of the proposed benefit reductions on you.  If you have questions about how proposed benefit reductions will specifically impact you, please contact the plan administrator.  Contact information for the plan administrator is available in the Central States Pension Plan summary plan description.[/SIZE]
 

[SIZE=9pt]OTHER DETAILS[/SIZE]

 
[SIZE=9pt]Under Kline-Miller, Treasury is responsible for determining whether the application for a reduction of benefits meets [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]the requirements set by [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]Congress.  Benefits cannot be reduced until after the following actions take place:[/SIZE]
 

• [SIZE=9pt]The plan sponsor must notify participants and beneficiaries of the application for a benefit reduction and provide an individualized estimate of reduced benefits[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=9pt]Participants and beneficiaries must have an opportunity to comment on the application[/SIZE]
• [SIZE=9pt]Treasury must review and, if the application satisfies all of the Kline-Miller requirements, must  approve the application [/SIZE]
• [SIZE=9pt]Participants and beneficiaries must have an opportunity to vote on the benefit reduction[/SIZE]

 
[SIZE=9pt]Treasury has up to 225 days to approve or deny an application, and, if an application is approved, 30 days to administer a vote on the proposed benefit reductions.[/SIZE]

https://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Benefit-Suspensions.aspx

And this current piece of news in the continuing saga.

Kroger, UPS sue over Central States reduction plan
 
A pending plan to cut benefits to members as part of a rescue plan for the Teamsters Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Rosemont, Illinois, is facing challenges even before the U.S. Treasury Department acts on the fund’s application.
Current and former plan participants of Kroger Co., Cincinnati, last week sued the $17.8 billion Teamsters Central States over the rescue plan. And United Parcel Service Inc., a former participating employer, challenged the legality of the rescue plan, which would enable the fund to reduce benefits, including those of current retirees.
The Treasury Department is expected to rule early this month on the rescue plan.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20160502/NEWS03/160509984/ups-kroger-sue-teamsters-central-states-southeast-southwest-areas?tags=|62|63|80|82|307


 

 

[WeAAsles]

But I will admit that I would much prefer to be educated by Mr Nelson rather than all of these actual and factual links that were extremely easy to find.

SIGH......

 

[WeAAsles]

But, in fact the 401(k) plans that have become the primary source of retirement income for 60 million Americans were never designed to be retirement plans in the first place. They were created in the late 1970's as a savings plan and tax shelter for ordinary Americans.

The idea was that workers would make voluntary contributions and employers would match a portion of them. The taxes would be deferred until the employee reached the age of 59 and a half.

It was supposed to supplement the two traditional income streams for retirees - Social Security and pensions. One leg of a three legged stool that would support American workers into their golden years. But it didn't turn out that way.

"The three-legged stool, if you will, has gone to two legs and it's wobbly. And it's wobbling, and I'm not sure that it's gonna support anything. And that's the scary part and people are afraid," Brooks Hamilton, who has helped design retirement plans for some of the country's largest corporations, told Kroft.

Hamilton says 401(k)s turned out to be so much cheaper than funding pensions, that many companies decided to freeze their pension plans and replace them with 401(k)s. The decision created millions of new employee investors for Wall Street and the financial community. And they pounced on the opportunity.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-dreams-disappear-with-401ks/



"The fact is that the typical 401(k) investor is a financial novice. They don't know a stock from a bond. And we give 'em a list of 20 or 30 mutual funds with really, really powerful names, you know, they sound like, 'Gee, that's where I want to have my money,'" Hamilton said,

"What are the, generally, the quality of the mutual funds in 401(k) plans?" Kroft asked.

"Mediocre," Hamilton replied. "I'm being real honest with you, with half the funds on the list really dogs, what people would characterize as dogs shouldn't be on the list to start with."

"There clearly has been a raid on these funds by the people of Wall Street. And it's cost the savers and the future retirees a lot of money that would otherwise be in their account, independent of the financial collapse," Rep. George Miller [D-CA] said.


 

 

[Kev3188]

Hamilton says 401(k)s turned out to be so much cheaper than funding pensions...

They are cheaper. Problem is that labor has been really slow to take those savings and leverage them into improvements in other areas of their contracts...

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/04/20/one-of-the-nations-largest-pension-funds-could-soon-cut-benefits-for-retirees/
 
"What makes the cuts more painful, Miller said, is that she took pay cuts so that the company could continue making contributions to the pension."
 
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/04/28/1-treasury-decision-doesnt-figure-to-be-final-say-in-pension-fight.html
 
 
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/26/kroger-workers-retirees-sue-failing-pension-fund-trustees/83555888/
 
"A failing fund desperate to keep employers"
 
"Kroger participants will be trapped into a plan that is about to cut their benefits dramatically and still faces likely insolvency"
 
If you aren't currently chained to the IAMNPF you'd be a fool to willingly do so at this point.
 
The retired truck driver looking for a driving job to offset potential benefit cuts? In the IAMNPF he'd get boned harder for going to back to work in the field he retired from.
 
Give us (LAA) a choice.It works for you, fantastic.Enjoy.
I want no part of it.
 
That being said I'm sure we're going to get the opportunity to vote on it, just like the vote we got on the Ass right?

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Did you contact your congress person and sign the form to reverse the pension law that Obama hammered us with?  The IAM sent out a form and is the only union that is supporting and campaigning to reverse this awful law which will be the disastrous end to half of our IAMPF.  IMO,  we all should have an element of choice in this JCBA, i.e., TWU members ought to have a choice of IAMPF, but we ought to also have a choice, i.e., keep the $1.15 but put any increased retirement benefits in 401k.  For instance if the company proposes increasing its retirement contribution .90, I'd rather them fashion it as 3% in the 401k and keep the IAMPF at $1.15.  Putting $2.05 into the IAMPF with no 401k company contribution will just be more money that the IAMPF can steal from me a second time after I retire.
 
I'm working on an objective worksheet for the TWU peeps that explains the funding, history, and the pension laws, and IAMPF taxes like the spousal offset tax.  I almost have it done and I'll pdf it on most facebook sites and give it to key people in DFW, MIA, ORD to educate their members.
 
regards,

I wanted to come back to this after I did a little research and thoughts. I personally don't like Tim because I think he let's his emotions take over any ideas of good judgement. But I have sided with him when it comes to how his retirement benefit currently sits. In all honesty the current contribution to the PMUS ramp retirement is terrible. Absolutely horrendous.

$1.15 put towards the IAMPF only amounts to around $50.00 per month per year of service. So with my 10 years left till I retire if I was where the US guys are currently I would only gain $500.00 per month from the Fund. Essentially I had better make sure I'm contributing a substantial percentage of my pay towards the 401k or a IRA of some type since the company gives me no match. 

Now let's make a contrast again to the improvements that IAM UAL just secured for their members.

  http://www.iam141.org/united/docs/040416IAM-UA%20Limited%20Issue%20TA%20Info%20Guide%20FSE.pdf

UAL members in 2017 will receive a .20 cent increase to their IAMPF contributor from the company bringing them up to almost $80.00 per month. That's a $30.00 advantage over their US counterparts currently. AND they receive a 3% match if they contribute to the company 401k.

Now in November UAL ramp will be getting an 18.44% raise to $29.87 TOS. That raise is going to do 2 very big things for their retirement. #1 whatever they put into their 401k currently by percentage is going to dramatically increase their savings over time. And that's if they don't even raise their contribution percentage off that 18.44% (There choice of course) #2 their Social Security payouts are going to increase if they still have some time to go in the company before they pull that trigger on the SS.

If we go up to 3% above that UAL rate int he next few months, how much of that are people going to invest for their futures considering it will be a 28% increase from where we are right now? 

To summarize the debate or response to Tim though let me ask this. Is the IAMPF 100% secure? NO. Was your DBP secure? NO. Is your 401k assets secure? NO. Is your Social Security 100% secure? NO. Is hoarding cash secure? NO (Inflation) Is Gold under your mattress secure? NO. Is real estate secure? NO. So NOTHING is 100% secure.

Best option then? DIVERSIFY and invest in all types of different areas that you can.    

 

[WeAAsles]

They are cheaper. Problem is that labor has been really slow to take those savings and leverage them into improvements in other areas of their contracts...

Agree 100%. When companies transitioned away from or dumped their Defined Benefit Pensions they did so with the battle cry of they needed cost savings and stole those savings from our futures and passed them on to their top level management and the investors in many cases. Not always and in all cases of course. Some companies really did need the relief especially through the early 2000's.

But in many cases where the relief was not needed and it was just a siphoning away of promised benefits, organized Labor did a horrible job in mustering support from the public. They lost the sympathetic ear because people felt why should I support Labor Unions when I don't have the same benefits they do either?

Labor did a terrible job in conveying to these people "Why don't you have what we have"

They dropped the ball and lost focus.

 

 

[WeAAsles]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/04/20/one-of-the-nations-largest-pension-funds-could-soon-cut-benefits-for-retirees/
 
"What makes the cuts more painful, Miller said, is that she took pay cuts so that the company could continue making contributions to the pension."
 
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/04/28/1-treasury-decision-doesnt-figure-to-be-final-say-in-pension-fight.html
 
 
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/26/kroger-workers-retirees-sue-failing-pension-fund-trustees/83555888/
 
"A failing fund desperate to keep employers"
 
"Kroger participants will be trapped into a plan that is about to cut their benefits dramatically and still faces likely insolvency"
 
If you aren't currently chained to the IAMNPF you'd be a fool to willingly do so at this point.
 
The retired truck driver looking for a driving job to offset potential benefit cuts? In the IAMNPF he'd get boned harder for going to back to work in the field he retired from.
 
Give us (LAA) a choice.It works for you, fantastic.Enjoy.
I want no part of it.
 
That being said I'm sure we're going to get the opportunity to vote on it, just like the vote we got on the Ass right?

I'll admit that I HATE this part. Especially if I had a marketable skill like Aircraft Maintenance. When I retire I'm sure that I'd like to continue on with my trade and maybe fix small Corporate jet's or something part time. Of course you'd also be a fool to tell the Fund's administrators that you took another job though anyway and I certainly do not plan on going back to lift bags when I get out.

But I also don't like the idea of what I'm being compensated being invested into only one area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets

 

[Tim Nelson]

I wanted to come back to this after I did a little research and thoughts. I personally don't like Tim because I think he let's his emotions take over any ideas of good judgement. But I have sided with him when it comes to how his retirement benefit currently sits. In all honesty the current contribution to the PMUS ramp retirement is terrible. Absolutely horrendous.

$1.15 put towards the IAMPF only amounts to around $50.00 per month per year of service. So with my 10 years left till I retire if I was where the US guys are currently I would only gain $500.00 per month from the Fund. Essentially I had better make sure I'm contributing a substantial percentage of my pay towards the 401k or a IRA of some type since the company gives me no match. 

Now let's make a contrast again to the improvements that IAM UAL just secured for their members.

  http://www.iam141.org/united/docs/040416IAM-UA%20Limited%20Issue%20TA%20Info%20Guide%20FSE.pdf

UAL members in 2017 will receive a .20 cent increase to their IAMPF contributor from the company bringing them up to almost $80.00 per month. That's a $30.00 advantage over their US counterparts currently. AND they receive a 3% match if they contribute to the company 401k.

Now in November UAL ramp will be getting an 18.44% raise to $29.87 TOS. That raise is going to do 2 very big things for their retirement. #1 whatever they put into their 401k currently by percentage is going to dramatically increase their savings over time. And that's if they don't even raise their contribution percentage off that 18.44% (There choice of course) #2 their Social Security payouts are going to increase if they still have some time to go in the company before they pull that trigger on the SS.

If we go up to 3% above that UAL rate int he next few months, how much of that are people going to invest for their futures considering it will be a 28% increase from where we are right now? 

To summarize the debate or response to Tim though let me ask this. Is the IAMPF 100% secure? NO. Was your DBP secure? NO. Is your 401k assets secure? NO. Is your Social Security 100% secure? NO. Is hoarding cash secure? NO (Inflation) Is Gold under your mattress secure? NO. Is real estate secure? NO. So NOTHING is 100% secure.

Best option then? DIVERSIFY and invest in all types of different areas that you can.    

 
That $80 a month at United is 'future benefits' which can be altered overnight, as has been done to us.  Given the current trned of the IAMPF, which has been ongoing downward since the late 1990s, if TWU members are not grafted in to help our active participants out, then the IAMPF will have no choice but to either a) cut retirees current benefits, or b) cut future benefits of actives.  Im thinking a letter reducing benefits won't have to come out for 3-5 years.  The problem for many of us is that we may get nabbed with either a or b since many of us may actually be retired at or around that window.
 
Without a 401k to prop up that 3rd leg, LUS members will be eaten alive by their IAMPF. The math is on shifting sand so whether United or American, $80 could turn into $30.  Also, remember,  part timers at American LUS have half the pension contribution, or .65.  That's about $28 a month or around that.  With no 401k.
 
regards,
 

 

[Worldport]

At JFK days off rotate backwards every two weeks.You start the bid with Tu/We,in two weeks it goes to Mo/Tu,ect.
There are some spots that have STD days off, but the vast majority of them rotate.Everyone gets a piece of a weekend at some point.
 
At LGA the days off rotated forward every four weeks.Start with a Tue/Wed,play it into a four day swing when you rotated from Thu/Fri to Sa/Su.Again,done to get everyone a piece of a weekend.PT'ers have STD days off there.
 
Vacation bidding is done in one fell swoop.You have X number of weeks, you go in, look at the sheets,pick your weeks and have a nice day.

A few people have set days off  art LGA I don't know how many shifts but I'll be int the top 5 or so, so I'm hoping. I'm also thinking about JFK airfreight I live in Valley stream so it's a stones throw

 

[Tim Nelson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/04/20/one-of-the-nations-largest-pension-funds-could-soon-cut-benefits-for-retirees/
 
"What makes the cuts more painful, Miller said, is that she took pay cuts so that the company could continue making contributions to the pension."
 
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/04/28/1-treasury-decision-doesnt-figure-to-be-final-say-in-pension-fight.html
 
 
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/26/kroger-workers-retirees-sue-failing-pension-fund-trustees/83555888/
 
"A failing fund desperate to keep employers"
 
"Kroger participants will be trapped into a plan that is about to cut their benefits dramatically and still faces likely insolvency"
 
If you aren't currently chained to the IAMNPF you'd be a fool to willingly do so at this point.
 
The retired truck driver looking for a driving job to offset potential benefit cuts? In the IAMNPF he'd get boned harder for going to back to work in the field he retired from.
 
Give us (LAA) a choice.It works for you, fantastic.Enjoy.
I want no part of it.
 
That being said I'm sure we're going to get the opportunity to vote on it, just like the vote we got on the Ass right?

 
Companies almost refuse to enter more employees into the IAMPF.  Consider Parker.  Why on earth would he want to agree to put all of the TWU peeps into the IAMPF?  In doing so, he realizes the risk of the old timers sticking around with a slashed pension is pretty high considering that another pension cut is likely, given the metrics of the multi employer ponzie schemes based on social security structures.   Many LUS can't afford to retire on the IAMPF, especially since their 401ks don't have the extra advantage of company contributions, so they stay a longer time.  I hope that Parker refuses to add additional amounts into the IAMPF without contributing to the LUS 401k.  The fact that the union refuses to do this is a very strong indicator that it just doesn't listen and hasn't listened.
 
regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

 
That $80 a month at United is 'future benefits' which can be altered overnight, as has been done to us.  Given the current trned of the IAMPF, which has been ongoing downward since the late 1990s, if TWU members are not grafted in to help our active participants out, then the IAMPF will have no choice but to either a) cut retirees current benefits, or B) cut future benefits of actives.  Im thinking a letter reducing benefits won't have to come out for 3-5 years.  The problem for many of us is that we may get nabbed with either a or b since many of us may actually be retired at or around that window.
 
Without a 401k to prop up that 3rd leg, LUS members will be eaten alive by their IAMPF. The math is on shifting sand so whether United or American, $80 could turn into $30.  Also, remember,  part timers at American LUS have half the pension contribution, or .65.  That's about $28 a month or around that.  With no 401k.
 
regards,
 

Tim I completely agree with advocating with you for you to gain that third leg as you call it. I personally have 4 legs right now and would obviously support having a 5th leg. My current 4 are Frozen Pension, 401k contribution (with match), Social Security, and my condo. I might even consider another leg if I decide to take an easy PT job in retirement? 

But I think that you aren't considering something in your math that I pointed out to you earlier. As people drop off the higher Schedule A disbursements the fund over time begins to shore itself up. Can it make it to that point absolutely needs to be a concern and be considered? If you notice I haven't been arguing with you on that. But you also need to realize as I stated that you and I have no such thing as a 100% secure retirement investment in anything whatsoever. 

Now will that new Pension Law continue to stand through all the Legal challenges and even then will the IAMPF ever fall into the trap of needing to file under it? Questionable? Will the IAMPF future trustees ever need to make cuts to people who are actively drawing from it in the future? Questionable again? But there is a process they need to go through to be able to qualify as we see in that other case. The one that UPS is fighting because they would have to make a 3 Billion payment if it happens by contractual agreement.

Tim what puts you into the most anguish about being in the Fund is that it cut YOUR future benefit accumulations. Understandably you were put into a situation of once bitten twice shy. But if they had not done what they did when they did it, further down the line the cuts would have been much much worse. The Fund may have put itself into the same position that the Southern States Pension finds itself in right now?

Today you are not in that bad of a position for sure.

As far as the Part Timers though. If they are only working say 60% of the hours that a Full Timer is working do you really think it's fair that they gain the same benefits? And if you say it's not fair then you are putting the fund in more jeopardy because it's giving out freebies to people that haven't earned them. (But they also shouldn't pay the same in dues if they are not receiving the same benefits IMO)

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Companies almost refuse to enter more employees into the IAMPF.  Consider Parker.  Why on earth would he want to agree to put all of the TWU peeps into the IAMPF?  In doing so, he realizes the risk of the old timers sticking around with a slashed pension is pretty high considering that another pension cut is likely, given the metrics of the multi employer ponzie schemes based on social security structures.   Many LUS can't afford to retire on the IAMPF, especially since their 401ks don't have the extra advantage of company contributions, so they stay a longer time.  I hope that Parker refuses to add additional amounts into the IAMPF without contributing to the LUS 401k.  The fact that the union refuses to do this is a very strong indicator that it just doesn't listen and hasn't listened.
 
regards,

You're making a total assumption here. The negotiations haven't even reached the stage yet where they have begun to discuss retirement compensation. And although it's 100% apparent that you do not trust your side of the fence that is negotiating for you, I trust my side to protect me there 100%. Because whatever they bring back they have to live with as well.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim I completely agree with advocating with you for you to gain that third leg as you call it. I personally have 4 legs right now and would obviously support having a 5th leg. My current 4 are Frozen Pension, 401k contribution (with match), Social Security, and my condo. I might even consider another leg if I decide to take an easy PT job in retirement? 

But I think that you aren't considering something in your math that I pointed out to you earlier. As people drop off the higher Schedule A disbursements the fund over time begins to shore itself up. Can it make it to that point absolutely needs to be a concern and be considered? If you notice I haven't been arguing with you on that. But you also need to realize as I stated that you and I have no such thing as a 100% secure retirement investment in anything whatsoever. 

Now will that new Pension Law continue to stand through all the Legal challenges and even then will the IAMPF ever fall into the trap of needing to file under it? Questionable? Will the IAMPF future trustees ever need to make cuts to people who are actively drawing from it in the future? Questionable again? But there is a process they need to go through to be able to qualify as we see in that other case. The one that UPS is fighting because they would have to make a 3 Billion payment if it happens by contractual agreement.

Tim what puts you into the most anguish about being in the Fund is that it cut YOUR future benefit accumulations. Understandably you were put into a situation of once bitten twice shy. But if they had not done what they did when they did it, further down the line the cuts would have been much much worse. The Fund may have put itself into the same position that the Southern States Pension finds itself in right now?

Today you are not in that bad of a position for sure.

As far as the Part Timers though. If they are only working say 60% of the hours that a Full Timer is working do you really think it's fair that they gain the same benefits? And if you say it's not fair then you are putting the fund in more jeopardy because it's giving out freebies to people that haven't earned them. (But they also shouldn't pay the same in dues if they are not receiving the same benefits IMO)

As those members die, who are collecting the benefit from schedule A, the liabilities lessen. Thus far those liabilities have been negligible in funded percentages.
Part timers should get the same as full time. That's how it is at United and most IAMPF contracts.  As far as hours worked, I think you are getting the employer contribution mixed up with the actual plan that regulates the credited service which is based on hours worked.  For instance, a part timer must work at least 32.5 hours a week to get full credit for the year.  If a part timer works 4 hours a day x 5 days for 20 hrs a week, that is 1040 hours which is only 60% credit for that year.   So, if you take the initial schedule of .65 and see that as $28 a month, but only 60% credit due to working 4 hours a day,  the actual benefit is about $16 a month.   [I didn't go and actually check the credit but I'm assuming the scale is around 60%, maybe less or more, and I don't have the schedule B laying around but I'm assuming it's about $28 but could be a bit higher or lower.]
 
regards,