JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Jester]

Maybe it's like calling a fat guy slim or a tall guy shorty.



Then again, maybe not.

He has big hands and big feet... two out of three isn't bad.

 

[P. REZ]

So why are you afraid to post the info of the Ta articles as members we should be informed. I'm sick and tired of no info from the ass . We have the right to know it's our contract and we should be told.

conehead777,

I have a boss and I am not at liberty to share T/A's with the membership. We took surveys, walk our properties and live with the contractual language in our current CBA every day. By doing the aforementioned, we have a pretty good idea on what needs to get accomplished to get a solid CBA we can all live with. We have discussed with our TWU Brothers in negotiations what they believe needs to be achieved. Together, we have strived to leave no stone unturned.

P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

conehead777,

I have a boss and I am not at liberty to share T/A's with the membership. We took surveys, walk our properties and live with the contractual language in our current CBA every day. By doing the aforementioned, we have a pretty good idea on what needs to get accomplished to get a solid CBA we can all live with. We have discussed with our TWU Brothers in negotiations what they believe needs to be achieved. Together, we have strived to leave no stone unturned.

P. Rez

My understanding is that there wasnt one single survey filled out that solicited you guys to agree to increase our medical cost?

 

[Traymark]

Also Prez, you'd have to produce the survey that says LAA wants into the IAMPF instead of getting their 401K greatly enhanced. I don't believe it exits.

 

[P. REZ]

For arguments sake, let me try to explain why I'm a supporter of the pension versus a 401K. BTW, I have both and like both. Let's just say for this example that there is a choice for employees to either have a 401k match of 5.5% or the current pension being offered to the IAM employees. Let's further assume that Employee A from MIA has 3 years to go before retirement and has nothing saved in their 401k yet but chooses to take 5.5% match in their 401k. Employee B decides to take the pension accrual, plans on retiring in 3 years and has nothing saved yet either. Employee B decides to put 5.5% of their income into a 401k too. Let's say they both make $80000 each over the next 3 years and have the same deductions. Employee A would put $4400 into their 401k and get $4400 matched. Employee B would get $58.06 multiplier each year and would contribute same $4400 into their 401k but not get a match.

After 3 years, Employee A would have roughly $30,272 saved in their 401k, assuming 7% returns. Employee B would have $15,136 saved in their 401k and a monthly pension multiplier of $174.18 ($58.06x3). Let's assume they both take their 401k and spread the monthly payment over the next 20 years. Employee A would receive $126.13 per month for 20 years. Employee B would get $237.25 per month for 20 years ($174.18/mo. pension+$63.07/mo. 401k).

If both employees lived past the 20 years, Employee A would get nothing from their 401k and Employee B would get nothing from their 401k but would receive $174.18 per month until they passed away.

I am merely pointing out why I support the pension versus the 401k. Every individual should do the math regarding their particular circumstances and I believe you will see the positive of the pension.

DISCLAIMER, this is not indicative as to whether there will be a 401k or pension choice, it is purely an apples to apples scenario.

P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

For arguments sake, let me try to explain why I'm a supporter of the pension versus a 401K. BTW, I have both and like both. Let's just say for this example that there is a choice for employees to either have a 401k match of 5.5% or the current pension being offered to the IAM employees. Let's further assume that Employee A from MIA has 3 years to go before retirement and has nothing saved in their 401k yet but chooses to take 5.5% match in their 401k. Employee B decides to take the pension accrual, plans on retiring in 3 years and has nothing saved yet either. Employee B decides to put 5.5% of their income into a 401k too. Let's say they both make $80000 each over the next 3 years and have the same deductions. Employee A would put $4400 into their 401k and get $4400 matched. Employee B would get $58.06 multiplier each year and would contribute same $4400 into their 401k but not get a match.

After 3 years, Employee A would have roughly $30,272 saved in their 401k, assuming 7% returns. Employee B would have $15,136 saved in their 401k and a monthly pension multiplier of $174.18 ($58.06x3). Let's assume they both take their 401k and spread the monthly payment over the next 20 years. Employee A would receive $126.13 per month for 20 years. Employee B would get $237.25 per month for 20 years ($174.18/mo. pension+$63.07/mo. 401k).

If both employees lived past the 20 years, Employee A would get nothing from their 401k and Employee B would get nothing from their 401k but would receive $174.18 per month until they passed away.

I am merely pointing out why I support the pension versus the 401k. Every individual should do the math regarding their particular circumstances and I believe you will see the positive of the pension.

DISCLAIMER, this is not indicative as to whether there will be a 401k or pension choice, it is purely an apples to apples scenario.

P. Rez

Or employee A could even put in an additional 5.5% of his own money like employee B did and come out ahead. But the problem with our pension is that you have to be reasonable and assume a cut in benefits is coming due to the underfunding. It has happened every 6 years and very hurtful and bad things have happened to our benefits.

That said, you really wont have to worry since you get 2 pensions so you bring a bit of bias with whatever sito has you selling.

Whatever the case, i hope people get a choice for where they can put their future benefits. Ill choose 401k but others may want iamnpf. And as a footnote, your example isnt necessarily correct if someone wants their spouse to participate in the pension formula. The spousel option has an additional benefit reduction.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Prez, the question remains, how many surveys came back that solicited you to agree to increase our health cost?

 

[P. REZ]

Or employee A could even put in an additional 5.5% of his own money like employee B did and come out ahead. But the problem with our pension is that you have to be reasonable and assume a cut in benefits is coming due to the underfunding. It has happened every 6 years and very hurtful and bad things have happened to our benefits.

That said, you really wont have to worry since you get 2 pensions so you bring a bit of bias with whatever sito has you selling.

Whatever the case, i hope people get a choice for where they can put their future benefits. Ill choose 401k but others may want iamnpf. And as a footnote, your example isnt necessarily correct if someone wants their spouse to participate in the pension formula. The spousel option has an additional benefit reduction.

Tim,

It was equal, Employee A put $4400 into 401k and so did Employee B. They both had $75,600 each after both putting into 401k. Apples to apples. As a matter of fact, if using 5.5% pension multiplier of top out, multiplier would be $74.10 per year to be more accurate. That would make Employee B receiving $285.37 per month for 20 years to Employee A's $126.13. I'm just doing the math, Tim. I just used current multiplier in scenario above.

P. Rez

 

[dfw gen]

not interested in IAM pension. period. can you say class action law suit?

 

[ATD]

if we get put into the IAM Pension, I predict the IAM/TWU will cease to exist from the lawsuit that will be filed. There better be a choice.

 

[WeAAsles]

not interested in IAM pension. period. can you say class action law suit?

If the IAMPF is included in our JCBA's and those JCBA's are passed by the Membership through majority under what basis do you feel a class action Lawsuit could be initiated? What would be your argument to the Courts?

 

[cltrat]

ATD, for the record I support you guys having a choice and you certainly should not be forced, but a lawsuit? you may be right but where's that money coming from? It would sure take a hellava lot of it too.
If as many of you are against it as appears here then a CBA with it in t should never pass.
good luck to us all

 

[WeAAsles]

if we get put into the IAM Pension, I predict the IAM/TWU will cease to exist from the lawsuit that will be filed. There better be a choice.

ATD I know that you're intelligent and know how the process works. If we received a JCBA TA and the only retirement vehicle offered was the IAMPF either then passed or failed as a collective vote again what basis would a Lawsuit be filed under?

If the votes went to the yes camp then that becomes our contract.

If the votes went to the no camp then the Negotiators are sent back to the table to continue on with Negotiations.

I'm trying to understand two things here? #1 what exactly would you be suing for and what would be the basis of your argument? And # 2 why is it that people when they don't like something always try to use the word "Lawsuit" as a threat when many times that threat is a completely hollow one?

 

[WeAAsles]

ATD, for the record I support you guys having a choice and you certainly should not be forced, but a lawsuit? you may be right but where's that money coming from? It would sure take a hellava lot of it too.
If as many of you are against it as appears here then a CBA with it in t should never pass.
good luck to us all

Our EBO retirees were able to come up with money to initiate a Lawsuit against our equity distribution. They actually even had a slight case that they were able to argue to the Courts. But that case was extremely weak and the Lawyer for the plaintiffs was not able to put forward a good enough argument against the Legal right of the TWU and that case was ruled against them with prejudice.

And that same case on appeal was ruled "Affirmed" that the lower court was not in error in its judgment.

Essentially the Courts ruled "unanimously" that the EBO case had no merit.

All frivolous Lawsuits serve to do is waste both sides time and money but do keep the Courts and the Lawyers in business.

 

[dfw gen]

clrat the history of the twu is to say one thing to calm the masses then do what they want. case in point the vote on the association. we have had votes on contracts where we voted it down and jim little signed it anyway.