JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

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.

Depends how they set it up if they have a spouse? Now take me for instance. I'm single. If I get in and croak just before I walk out the door, what was put into the pool stays in for others benefit. Now say I get in for 10 years, retire, and live another 30 years. Well now obviously I'm not the norm to the expectations of the plan in average life expectancy.

And of course the liabilities have been negligible if the plan only implemented the changes between 2011 and or 2014. It does take a little while for that to soak in. 

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

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.]
 
 
 

 

Sorry. I don't agree. You need to come to work to earn benefits. Unless you're a fan of YOUR Pension fund or the company being a Welfare program?

Years ago here in MIA I was asked to talk to a woman who was planning on retiring and taking whatever she was going to get in her Pension. Here's the problem with that lady. She was PT for 10 years (how much time she had in the company) and CS'd off as much as she could of her shift. I bet you can guess what's coming?

10 years Company time, 3 years vested!  She hadn't even made it to the 5 year vesting period because she never CAME TO WORK.

Again Tim right now that Pension fund is YOUR money. It's not a loose change jar for vagrants.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13864/Exhibit_2_Schedule_B.pdf
 
*A custom benefit schedule may apply based upon actuarial review to groups of 10,000 or
more employees.

And did you notice this above comment ever Tim? With us included into the mix I would expect a custom fitted benefit schedule that should be more than the current Schedule B?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Depends how they set it up if they have a spouse? Now take me for instance. I'm single. If I get in and croak just before I walk out the door, what was put into the pool stays in for others benefit. Now say I get in for 10 years, retire, and live another 30 years. Well now obviously I'm not the norm to the expectations of the plan in average life expectancy.

And of course the liabilities have been negligible if the plan only implemented the changes between 2011 and or 2014. It does take a little while for that to soak in. 

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13873/ParticipantsNotice.pdf
 
 
 
Sorry. I don't agree. You need to come to work to earn benefits. Unless you're a fan of YOUR Pension fund or the company being a Welfare program?

Years ago here in MIA I was asked to talk to a woman who was planning on retiring and taking whatever she was going to get in her Pension. Here's the problem with that lady. She was PT for 10 years (how much time she had in the company) and CS'd off as much as she could of her shift. I bet you can guess what's coming?

10 years Company time, 3 years vested!  She hadn't even made it to the 5 year vesting period because she never CAME TO WORK.

Again Tim right now that Pension fund is YOUR money. It's not a loose change jar for vagrants.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13864/Exhibit_2_Schedule_B.pdf
 
*A custom benefit schedule may apply based upon actuarial review to groups of 10,000 or
more employees.
And did you notice this above comment ever Tim? With us included into the mix I would expect a custom fitted benefit schedule that should be more than the current Schedule B?

 
Let me see if I understand what your position is.  You are saying that a part timer shouldn't have the same $1.15 per hour company contribution that a full timer receives?  If so, then it should naturally follow that you don't believe the 5.5% should be the same company contributions for similar seniority part time/full time employees.  The fact that they may only work 25 hours a week ought to have nothing to do with the actual contribution, but the credit ought to reflect the hours worked.  If we hammer part timers on credit, i.e., how many hours do they actually work?,  and on contribution, then I believe that is fundamentally unfair. 
 
regards,
 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Let me see if I understand what your position is.  You are saying that a part timer shouldn't have the same $1.15 per hour company contribution? 

No. The reason why is because I believe your payouts are based on essentially a Full Timers rate. How or why should a member who is putting in less work hours than you be able to get the same accumulations as you?

The lower payout I assume is calculated by the average percentage that a PT'er is given by the company in hours compared to you. You would have to tell me? Does the average PTer on the US side get 4 or 5 hours?
 
 

 
If so, then it should naturally follow that you don't believe the 5.5% should be the same company contributions for similar seniority part time/full time employees. 

Absolutely not. The 5.5% is part of an individual accounting. If the PTer makes the same wages as you do but only works 5 hours per day for the rest of his career, in comparison to you who worked 8. You're going to have a lot more money saved than he does.
 
 

 
The fact that they may only work 25 hours a week ought to have nothing to do with the actual contribution, but the credit ought to reflect the hours worked.  If we hammer part timers on credit, i.e., how many hours do they actually work?,  and on contribution, then I believe that is fundamentally unfair. 
 
 

 

If the scheduled payouts are on a set nonfluctuating amount, how are you supposed to do what you propose? Let me ask just in case I'm wrong? That $1.15 that's contributed for you. Is that a set amount? Meaning is $9.20 per day put in for you or if you work extra hours does the company contribute more to the Fund?

If it is a set daily amount put in then you should be able to understand why the PT guys have a lower amount. If I'm wrong then you would have to explain to me if your payouts from the IAMPF would not actually be a part of the multiplier exactly and could fluctuate? Yes Tim I am admitting I could be wrong?

 

[WeAAsles]

Tim if I join your club and the company chooses to give me exactly $2.00 towards the IAMPF and that amount never goes up. If I am Full Time and stay exactly 10 years. Will I receive under the current B schedule $854.60 per month in retirement?

If I work more hours than the average 40 per week for that entire 10 years, will my payout still be $854.60 per month? Or will it be higher?

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13864/Exhibit_2_Schedule_B.pdf

 

[ograc]

 
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,

 
Options are best on this issue IMO. Another critical issue that needs attention. Attention span is short these days. Thank you for staying on topic. The TA, whenever we get there, will be an interesting read. As it should be by everyone.

 

[Tim Nelson]

No. The reason why is because I believe your payouts are based on essentially a Full Timers rate. How or why should a member who is putting in less work hours than you be able to get the same accumulations as you?

The lower payout I assume is calculated by the average percentage that a PT'er is given by the company in hours compared to you. You would have to tell me? Does the average PTer on the US side get 4 or 5 hours?
 
 

Absolutely not. The 5.5% is part of an individual accounting. If the PTer makes the same wages as you do but only works 5 hours per day for the rest of his career, in comparison to you who worked 8. You're going to have a lot more money saved than he does.
 
 
 
If the scheduled payouts are on a set nonfluctuating amount, how are you supposed to do what you propose? Let me ask just in case I'm wrong? That $1.15 that's contributed for you. Is that a set amount? Meaning is $9.20 per day put in for you or if you work extra hours does the company contribute more to the Fund?

If it is a set daily amount put in then you should be able to understand why the PT guys have a lower amount. If I'm wrong then you would have to explain to me if your payouts from the IAMPF would not actually be a part of the multiplier exactly and could fluctuate? Yes Tim I am admitting I could be wrong?

 
It is a set amount per hour up to 40 hours a week.
However, if a part timer and a full timer have the exact same $1.15 then the retirement amount would be $51 a month for full timer, and $38 or so for a part timer, depending upon how many hours is worked during a year.

 

[Tim Nelson]

 
Options are best on this issue IMO. Another critical issue that needs attention. Attention span is short these days. Thank you for staying on topic. The TA, whenever we get there, will be an interesting read. As it should be by everyone.

 
IMO, for most workers,  the attention span will be fixated on the wage, moreso now than ever.  Unfortunately, not so much on retirement.
 
regards,
 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
It is a set amount per hour up to 40 hours a week.
However, if a part timer and a full timer have the exact same $1.15 then the retirement amount would be $51 a month for full timer, and $38 or so for a part timer, depending upon how many hours is worked during a year.

Ah. Ok I think I get where you're coming from? The amount of the reduction would be calculated by the IAMPF administrators when you went to collect and the max that can be collected for you currently would be that $51.00 per month per year of service? Am I correct?

So in that case you're right then and the PTer is receiving a double whammy. He's already receiving less put in per hour put into the fund than you and on top of that because he has reduced hours he may not even qualify to receive full benefits for the amount put in for him if he can't generate enough extra hours on top of what the company scheduled him.

So on the other hand too. If a Full Timer takes off enough hours he can also reduce his own benefits as well when everything is added up.

Now this comment makes more sense to me.

"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.]"

Ok no then that's absolutely NOT fair. Funny how people have accused the TWU of hating PTer's.

IAM US Pter's pay
Double for medical
Get less for retirement
Pay same dues

I took a quick glance and you are also correct that I don't see any difference in funding for either FT or PT under the UAL contract?

I'm going to assume that the whole PT hosing at your airline took place because of all the financial troubles? Let's hope that at least some of this can be rectified? 
 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ah. Ok I think I get where you're coming from? The amount of the reduction would be calculated by the IAMPF administrators when you went to collect and the max that can be collected for you currently would be that $51.00 per month per year of service? Am I correct?

So in that case you're right then and the PTer is receiving a double whammy. He's already receiving less put in per hour put into the fund than you and on top of that because he has reduced hours he may not even qualify to receive full benefits for the amount put in for him if he can't generate enough extra hours on top of what the company scheduled him.

So on the other hand too. If a Full Timer takes off enough hours he can also reduce his own benefits as well when everything is added up.

Now this comment makes more sense to me.

"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.]"

Ok no then that's absolutely NOT fair. Funny how people have accused the TWU of hating PTer's.

IAM US Pter's pay
Double for medical
Get less for retirement
Pay same dues

I took a quick glance and you are also correct that I don't see any difference in funding for either FT or PT under the UAL contract?

I'm going to assume that the whole PT hosing at your airline took place because of all the financial troubles? Let's hope that at least some of this can be rectified? 

Prior to IAMPF you are correct, pre bankruptcy, pt and ft 401k was same.  And you are correct on the other info.
 
Here is how the IAMPF break down the part time.   Credit goes by how many "Hours of Service" during a year. Remember, this is the same for full time as well, so if a full timer swaps off a lot, it will affect the credit, as well as it should.

Hours of service in a year for which contributions are required to be made on your behalf

Hours of Service Monthly credit
Less than 600 5
601-770 6
771-940 7
941-1,110 8
1,111-1,280 9
1,281-1,450 10
1,451-1,600 11
1,601 and over 12


So, to get full credit for the year, any employee, whether full time or part time, you must avg 32.5 hours a week. So, if a full timer swaps a lot and only works about 32 hours a week, his
$1.15 isn't necessarily going to be $51.

regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

Prior to IAMPF you are correct, pre bankruptcy, pt and ft 401k was same.  And you are correct on the other info.
 
Here is how the IAMPF break down the part time.   Credit goes by how many "Hours of Service" during a year. Remember, this is the same for full time as well, so if a full timer swaps off a lot, it will affect the credit, as well as it should.

Hours of service in a year for which contributions are required to be made on your behalf

Hours of Service Monthly credit
Less than 600 5
601-770 6
771-940 7
941-1,110 8
1,111-1,280 9
1,281-1,450 10
1,451-1,600 11
1,601 and over 12


So, to get full credit for the year, any employee, whether full time or part time, you must avg 32.5 hours a week. So, if a full timer swaps a lot and only works about 32 hours a week, his
$1.15 isn't necessarily going to be $51.

regards,

Ok so one day off per week for a FT would put him .5 hours per week below getting the maximum he needs for the $51 payout. But if he only takes off one day every other week, he's fine.

Understandable. Same thing with out now frozen pension. When it froze I had 17 years but my credited service I believe was only 16.3. Something like that. 

Thank you for the civil conversation today Tim. It was refreshing.

BTW in our BK our PTer's almost wound up paying double for their medical as well. What changed that was when the pilots ask went down from 20% to 17%. Our negotiators now had some money to play with and got rid of that PT idea. 

 

[ograc]

 
IMO, for most workers,  the attention span will be fixated on the wage, moreso now than ever.  Unfortunately, not so much on retirement.
 
regards,
 

 
How do you get through to someone in their 20s, or even 30s, how important this issue will become later in life? It's $$$ up front for sacrificed $$$$ later in life. It's a hard sell to a society of instant gratification and entitlement. A culture that spends today without much thought of future debt and consequences. Short sighted thinking for most members is your prediction? Have we learned nothing from the "first" UA agreement?  The company has already figured this out. I predict they double down, play the same strategy UA did, and throw out short term $$$ for long term and hidden concessions. This issue is certainly under the radar with the membership. Shame.  
 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
How do you get through to someone in their 20s, or even 30s, how important this issue will become later in life? It's $$$ up front for sacrificed $$$$ later in life. It's a hard sell to a society of instant gratification and entitlement. A culture that spends today without much thought of future debt and consequences. Short sighted thinking for most members is your prediction? Have we learned nothing from the "first" UA agreement?  The company has already figured this out. I predict they double down, play the same strategy UA did, and throw out short term $$$ for long term and hidden concessions. This issue is certainly under the radar with the membership. Shame.  
 

ograc have a little faith in your negotiating team standing firm against any hidden dangers. That's what they've been doing so far.

 

[WeAAsles]

IMO, for most workers,  the attention span will be fixated on the wage, moreso now than ever.  Unfortunately, not so much on retirement.
 
regards,

And eventually sometimes when it's too late. They learn the hard way that they should have funneled more from the front end onto the back end.

Like I've said before. That's all the Parker 3 really is. A little more in your pocket for you to figure out what to do with.

 

[Tim Nelson]

How do you get through to someone in their 20s, or even 30s, how important this issue will become later in life? It's $$$ up front for sacrificed $$$$ later in life. It's a hard sell to a society of instant gratification and entitlement. A culture that spends today without much thought of future debt and consequences. Short sighted thinking for most members is your prediction? Have we learned nothing from the "first" UA agreement?  The company has already figured this out. I predict they double down, play the same strategy UA did, and throw out short term $$$ for long term and hidden concessions. This issue is certainly under the radar with the membership. Shame.

Education and leadership. Our leaders are suppose to have our backs and they should know since I don't think anyone in negotiations has been employed here less than 25 years.

That said, it doesn't always work out that way. At $30, a TA will almost certainly pass, regardless of what else is contained unless it is really awful. I do think that the senior peeps in the smaller stations will have grandfather rights as the CWA folks do. That is important cuz nobody should lose work that survived bankruptcy twice.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

And eventually sometimes when it's too late. They learn the hard way that they should have funneled more from the front end onto the back end.

Like I've said before. That's all the Parker 3 really is. A little more in your pocket for you to figure out what to do with.

Let's face it, putting $6 more in your pocket is significant. I'm sure he is expecting a little love tax in return. Basically, if he gives us the $6 raise and then makes us pay for our bonus, like at United, then just about any contract will pass. It's important for our negotiation team to have enough wisdom to figure out what not to leave at the table. Obviously, me and you disagreed about United as I believe they left too early as I believe the money at United was already there and not going anywhere. As it is, we could actually see a pay raise before United since they front loaded a bonus by delaying their pay raises for 8 months. Either way, nobody can argue about the money much. But I'm assuming just about any TA will pass if you put a bonus check in front of peeps with a ratification sometime prior to thanksgiving. Not advocating it, but just saying.

regards,