JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

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.

Through any debateable faults we can claim Jim Little had I don't personally recall us ever voting down a contract that he just arbitrarily signed anyway against the will of the membership?

And if you say 2003 just for the topic of conversation, Jim Little was not International President. Sonny Hall was.

 

[Traymark]

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,

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

Nice try P.Rez, actually it was pretty weak.

First , lets just take your "example" for selling this thing.
A guy with 3 years left and not in the 401K at all= Zero.

Put your example in perspective and tell us all exactly how many twu/iam members fit that description.
I personally resent being sold something on the basis of the worst common denominator in our workgroups.
Everybody I know has been in the 401K since it was available to get into it. Your "example" is not even close to being relevant to the vast majority of the membership.
I would be able to tell you to "get that weak **** outta here" right now and win the argument, but I'll continue.

Next, if you plan on bringing back a TA that offers:
401k match of 5.5% or the current pension being offered to the IAM employees
Really, just quit now. Elmer F'n Fudd could negotiate a better option that in this economic environment.

The 401K "match" needs to be made into a "Contribution", and it needs to be increased to at least 10%.
If that number stays at 5.5% , NONE of you should be negotiating for ANYBODY.

Next, you make the assumption that Employee A will not make another penny on the retirement money they saved in their 401K, in fact you make the assumption for both, but both will still earn interest on it, except Employee A will earn more, double, in fact if invested equally.
So it won't be 0 after 20 years.

Next, you state "it was equal". No it was not.
To be in the IAMPF a certain dollar amount is taken from your wages, so employee A then puts that amount into his 401K and then they will be saving equally.

As T Nelson pointed out, you make very shaky assumption the IAMPF is going to be A-Ok from now on, WOW, again, get that weak **** outta here.

Comeback with an example that is more in line with the majority of folks you are trying to sell it to that have a hefty sum in their 401's and are looking to max it out in the coming 3- 5 -10 years with a much deserved and much enhanced match/contribution, just as the pilots and flight attendants achieved, in a very short period of time I might add.

Or, are you just trying to sell it to enough of the low information voters to get to 50%+1?

 

[WeAAsles]

Traymark your comment on everyone having a hefty amount invested into their 401k at a ripe age is inaccurate. I can point you to an individual on my Ramp named Andy who is 64 and only has 30k currently in his 401k. And the only reason he even has that is because I badgered and scolded him to start putting money away after our Pension was frozen.

There are tons of Andy's STILL out there right now. Guys who aren't even putting in the 5.5% and taking full advantage of the match. Always the same line even now after the raises "Dave I can't afford it"

 

[Traymark]

You say there are "tons", show me the real numbers.
I could say the same the other way.

To try and sell the pension on that example was about as weak as it gets on several levels.

I have kids in college, they all have 401K's , not much in them, they just started, but the mindset is there. Pay yourself first.

Maybe, if these unions would push their members to do more and better things for themselves, they'd be in much stronger positions down the road to negotiate better agreements for a membership that wasn't desperate for whatever crumbs they can get.

 

[psa8979]

AAL Forum Readers, Posters. and Trolls. The IAMPF was agreed to in a LOA when Ass. was formed.
My personal regret as a 40 yr. Ramper is that WE (PSA) CSA's were not in the Teamster PP like our M/R Brothers/Sisters . The on going argument among some should be based on ones time frame , former PP , income/tax base , marital status, trust and believes in the different retirement scheme's available to US . My bet is the IAMPF will continue to be the Union PP voted on when WE' LL ratify JCBA 's soon ???
I laugh when seeing Legacy AA Ass. Members complain about PP 's. Your's were frozen 2013 and not thrown into PBGC. We ALL ! deserve both options working for AAL/DP who are making billions $$$

 

[P. REZ]

Nice try P.Rez, actually it was pretty weak.

First , lets just take your "example" for selling this thing.
A guy with 3 years left and not in the 401K at all= Zero.

Put your example in perspective and tell us all exactly how many twu/iam members fit that description.
I personally resent being sold something on the basis of the worst common denominator in our workgroups.
Everybody I know has been in the 401K since it was available to get into it. Your "example" is not even close to being relevant to the vast majority of the membership.
I would be able to tell you to "get that weak **** outta here" right now and win the argument, but I'll continue.

Next, if you plan on bringing back a TA that offers:
401k match of 5.5% or the current pension being offered to the IAM employees
Really, just quit now. Elmer F'n Fudd could negotiate a better option that in this economic environment.

The 401K "match" needs to be made into a "Contribution", and it needs to be increased to at least 10%.
If that number stays at 5.5% , NONE of you should be negotiating for ANYBODY.

Next, you make the assumption that Employee A will not make another penny on the retirement money they saved in their 401K, in fact you make the assumption for both, but both will still earn interest on it, except Employee A will earn more, double, in fact if invested equally.
So it won't be 0 after 20 years.

Next, you state "it was equal". No it was not.
To be in the IAMPF a certain dollar amount is taken from your wages, so employee A then puts that amount into his 401K and then they will be saving equally.

As T Nelson pointed out, you make very shaky assumption the IAMPF is going to be A-Ok from now on, WOW, again, get that weak **** outta here.

Comeback with an example that is more in line with the majority of folks you are trying to sell it to that have a hefty sum in their 401's and are looking to max it out in the coming 3- 5 -10 years with a much deserved and much enhanced match/contribution, just as the pilots and flight attendants achieved, in a very short period of time I might add.

Or, are you just trying to sell it to enough of the low information voters to get to 50%+1?

Traymark,

I kept it simple to prove math. Do the math and you will see the reality of the situation. No money is taken from my wages, you make $30 per hour and so do I. At LAA, the Company automatically enrolled you at 3% and you can opt out, correct? At LUS, the Company adds 5.5% of top out wages to the IAMNPF, which is more than 5.5% if not topped out. You can't opt out. I have a problem with leaving money on the table. I am confident that if anyone does the math under most, if not all scenarios, they will see the value of the pension. I'm not telling anybody what to think, DO THE MATH.

One more thing, I'm former AWA TWU and have had my 401k since 1989. I'm happy with the 401k, the math makes the pension worthwhile.

P. Rez

 

[Traymark]

Personally P.Rez, I will not be choosing to give control of my retirement money to any union, regardless of how good you guys try to dress it up.

I noticed you haven't commented on the match amount, you ARE going to get the 5.5% number increased, right?
If not, tell us why not.

 

[wings396]

On the LUS side, there are many of us that will have to piece together 3 different forms of retirement income. First is our defined benefit plan that was frozen in 1992, then dumped on the PBGC during BK. After that is the 401K that ran from 1993-2003, which was dropped from a company contribution in favor of the IAMNPF. Many still have the 401K, but as posted above with no contribution from the company. Sadlyn, not enough time in any of the plans to be a large contributor.

 

[P. REZ]

Personally P.Rez, I will not be choosing to give control of my retirement money to any union, regardless of how good you guys try to dress it up.

I noticed you haven't commented on the match amount, you ARE going to get the 5.5% number increased, right?
If not, tell us why not.

Traymark,

Not dressing anything up, it's called math. Don't get me wrong, cuts worry me but so does the market. Give me a crystal ball. As to increasing the 5.5%, not a given considering f/a's goes back to 5.5% in 18 and pax has 5.5%. It is on the list to enhance.

P. Rez

 

[Albert]

On the LUS side, there are many of us that will have to piece together 3 different forms of retirement income. First is our defined benefit plan that was frozen in 1992, then dumped on the PBGC during BK. After that is the 401K that ran from 1993-2003, which was dropped from a company contribution in favor of the IAMNPF. Many still have the 401K, but as posted above with no contribution from the company. Sadlyn, not enough time in any of the plans to be a large contributor.

Who knows that might turn out to be a good thing all your eggs not in one basket

 

[WeAAsles]

You say there are "tons", show me the real numbers.
I could say the same the other way.

To try and sell the pension on that example was about as weak as it gets on several levels.

I have kids in college, they all have 401K's , not much in them, they just started, but the mindset is there. Pay yourself first.

Maybe, if these unions would push their members to do more and better things for themselves, they'd be in much stronger positions down the road to negotiate better agreements for a membership that wasn't desperate for whatever crumbs they can get.

"Maybe, if these unions would push their members to do more and better things for themselves, they'd be in much stronger positions down the road to negotiate better agreements for a membership that wasn't desperate for whatever crumbs they can get"

I highly agree with this comment. But I think Unions thanks to Lawyers and DFR charges have become scared chitless to give out any personal advice or even refer members to people who can? You can also lead horses to water but you can't make them drink.

And only the Company has those numbers. My research comes from "talking" to people. I've rarely run into anyone putting in anything near what I put in (I have an advantage though to be able to)

Traymark do you think most guys who live in NYC, ORD, LAX and places like that can afford the House, Car, Kids, College and Taxes and still be able to afford to bulk that 401k? Especially when we didn't see raises for a decade.

If you live in DFW or TUL I'm sure it's much easier (If you're not a spending nut) to make those future investments in yourself.

 

[Traymark]

So the F/A's get 5 years at 9.9% and we get none?

Why are you on the NC?

I would take the exact same language the F/A's got , to the letter, over the IAMPF.

 

[Traymark]

Traymark do you think most guys who live in NYC, ORD, LAX and places like that can afford the House, Car, Kids, College and Taxes and still be able to afford to bulk that 401k? Especially when we didn't see raises for a decade.

If you live in DFW or TUL I'm sure it's much easier (If you're not a spending nut) to make those future investments in yourself.

I get your point, I just don't think it's fair to the majority of the membership to negotiate from the stance that people don't have any money in their 401, so this will fix it for them.

 

[WeAAsles]

Personally P.Rez, I will not be choosing to give control of my retirement money to any union, regardless of how good you guys try to dress it up.

I noticed you haven't commented on the match amount, you ARE going to get the 5.5% number increased, right?
If not, tell us why not.

Traymark if you were earning 5.5% over the top paid Mechanic in the major US Airline industry would a match really matter to you then? It's all just a shell game on how you're compensated in the full pie chart.

How about if you have a family and were able to stay exactly where you are currently in wages but paid zero for medical?

Even your desire to grow a 401k Match from the Company to 10% means a capture of money that I'd prefer to have on the front end to manage myself over the back end. But unfortunately I know that's not going to happen because no, not everyone does take advantage of the match like I do and the Company knows that very well.

 

[P. REZ]

So the F/A's get 5 years at 9.9% and we get none?

Why are you on the NC?

I would take the exact same language the F/A's got , to the letter, over the IAMPF.

Funny how you throw crap out there. Run for office and bring your knowledge to negotiations. Where did I say we weren't getting anything? Saying what any realist would say. Show me any other givens in life other than death and taxes.

P. Rez