JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[swamt]

1. Good luck. Every other work group was moved to AA insurance, the IAM and TWU are basically married to playing ball with the company. I'll explain later...

2. I'm also remembering the 3 different pilots unions, East, West and AA.
4 months later, they were all one and making a whole lot more money. Somebody is going to have to come with a compelling case that the pilots contract is not as complicated as ours before I'll believe it.

3. Might not be totally happy, but the pilots and F/A's got their money very quickly and recently got even more outside of the contract language, while we still remain with the absolute worst benefits in the industry. My heart bleeds for them, NOT.

4. They got the union to put it up for a vote, enough voters wanted the money, thats how it works and stay tuned on your #1, and #6 points, the exact same strategery is coming to a JCBA near you soon.

5. Welcome to the club.
You know what I don't see? International union leaders calling out the company for lack of negotiations and pi$$ poor pace.
Does anybody else ask themselves why not? Or are you good with the "it's complicated" line, which has basically been blown up.

My take:
Both of these unions are beholden to the company for even being on the property.
The company only had to dispute the forming of the "Association" to the NMB and there would have been a vote triggered for representation rights.
It was well within the companies right , they didn't need to give a reason.
Instead, there was no objection to the "Association" and the NMB slid it in without any of us getting to vote on our cool new representation. Awesome ,isn't it?

If you don't think that little maneuver by the company didn't come at a cost, you're not being intellectually honest with yourself.

There WILL be concessions.
You WILL be put on AA health insurance.
Your scope WILL be the LAA scope or worse for fleet and the LUS scope for M&R which is worse than LAA.
And, I believe, until I see otherwise, we will all be forced into the IAMPF if the JCBA is voted in, because they will try and make it fly, after a nice and lengthy delay.

Oh yes indeed, the "Association" is going to have to "pay up" in order enjoy the benefit of being on the property.
You see, both unions knew a representation vote was going to go very badly for at least one of them and most likely both of them in M&R so they made a deal with the devil.

They need 50% +1, that's the way the world works.

Final point.
Prove me wrong Association. Show me a JCBA that is truly industry leading in every facet and lets every single LAA member stay out of the IAMPF regardless of where they are in the system, be it TWU station or IAM station.
Don't forget, there are stations that will go all IAM after the JCBA and some that will go all TWU.
~ Will any current LAA TWU members in those stations be forced into the IAMPF simply because they will be in the IAM because of location, never getting to vote on that representation change?
~Will any current LUS IAM members in those stations that are TWU get to exit the IAMPF as they will no longer be IAM because of location, again, never getting to vote on that representation change?
Does anybody think this should be discussed with our negotiators before they put any IAMPF language in the contract for anybody?

I'd love to hear P.Rez's musings on my last point.
The silence from our NC on the IAMPF issue is deafening.
Actually, I only hear Rez say how much better a Pension is than a 401K, when nothing could be further from the truth.

I would not doubt your part about "if the company would have protested the asso. that there would have been a vote". I do believe you are correct that if the company did protest the asso coming in there it would have triggered a vote, as it would have to be one of the 3 parties involved to trigger that.
I also agree with your opinion that the negotiators should very well discuss the IAMPF with the membership before any language is final in the contract.

 

[swamt]

Traymark,

Thanks. Ok, here is the scenario, Employee A and Employee B work until December 31st, 2025, then retire. They both have $400,000 in their 401k's. For sake of rounding, both make $40 per hour, both make $80,000 for the year. They get a choice on January 1st, 2018 to either take 10% match for 401k or $4.00 per hour towards pension ($40x10%=$4). Employee A takes 401k and invests $8,000 and gets $8000 match. Employee B takes pension, invests $8000 into their 401k, doesn't get match because they took pension.

Employee A would have $860,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3583/mo.

Employee B would have $770,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3208/mo. Also, $150.41x8 years for pension would equal $1203/mo. That would total $4411/mo.

Employee B would make $828/mo. more than Employee A. If both outlived their 401k, Employee B would still receive $1203/mo. until death.

As for sitting in a room until this is done, not against that, not my call.

P. Rez

So why not make it your call by simply making a motion to be voted on by the NC? By all union rules this is easily accomplished, just gotta follow the rules and procedures.

I've got news, there are no LAA that will choose the IAMPF.
Your sunshine scenario that the pension fund will remain solvent is pie in the sky.
There is zero employee control of the IAMPF monies.
It simply does not work for LAA , the enhanced 401K is far far better.

Correct. IAMPF no control what so ever including when they want to cut benefits for current employees OR retired employees as we all have seen 2-3 times in the past with pension programs.
401K- Employees have full control of their 401K accounts. In or out or even retrieve into the safe funds at say 50 or 55 for the ride out.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Traymark,

Thanks. Ok, here is the scenario, Employee A and Employee B work until December 31st, 2025, then retire. They both have $400,000 in their 401k's. For sake of rounding, both make $40 per hour, both make $80,000 for the year. They get a choice on January 1st, 2018 to either take 10% match for 401k or $4.00 per hour towards pension ($40x10%=$4). Employee A takes 401k and invests $8,000 and gets $8000 match. Employee B takes pension, invests $8000 into their 401k, doesn't get match because they took pension.

Employee A would have $860,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3583/mo.

Employee B would have $770,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3208/mo. Also, $150.41x8 years for pension would equal $1203/mo. That would total $4411/mo.

Employee B would make $828/mo. more than Employee A. If both outlived their 401k, Employee B would still receive $1203/mo. until death.

As for sitting in a room until this is done, not against that, not my call.

P. Rez

I gotta tell ya, you really want to make that IAMPF look good. But you should use numbers that are of this world, for example, the amount in the 401 they both have, 400k each? Not a chance. Maybe less than 1% of 1% might be in a position to save that amount, but in the real world, is in the clerks here at LAA have far less than that 400k you describe. Three examples come to mind, all with over 30 year employees of LAA, 2 of them have over 200k, and one less than 5k,

Second point, that 860k at 7% return is absurd, 401k generally over the lifetime yield 4% at most, and remember we are in a 11 year bull market run. Plus you have employee A start off with 400k, now suddenly he/she has amassed 860k, sorry but seems highly unlikly.

 

[anotherdelay]

Iampf is reporting having less than a billion in assets to liabilities. In reality their assests are probably less than 80 bill. Choke on that. employee a b,and getting credited for years, they haven't been in the fund. Are you kidding me? Muck you. Samuleson your being quiet on this makes you look weak. Trunka you hate labor too. Buncha elitist piggies you are.

 

[ATD]

I stand by my leaked memo or rumor or whatever you want to call it was posted on friday .....

 

[Traymark]

From the IAMPF "annual funding notice":

2 things that are very alarming to me

~the fund has 279,275 members
95,868 are working 183,407 are retired

~the funds assets went up by $100 million from 2015 to 2016
the funds liabilities went up by $722 million in the same time frame

The only difference between the Titanic and the IAMPF is, the Titanic had a band.

 

[anotherdelay]

those numbers are incredibly scary. The entire contract, scope, health insurance, are held hostage to those numbers. Again Muck you Trunka, Muck you. Its all about stealing from our labor and future labor. 401k or nothing. Its time to storm the ivory towers of the Internationals.

 

[WeAAsles]

Well I guess no one can accuse me of being the only one who hijacks threads around here anymore.

 

[Albert]

those numbers are incredibly scary. The entire contract, scope, health insurance, are held hostage to those numbers. Again Muck you Trunka, Muck you. Its all about stealing from our labor and future labor. 401k or nothing. Its time to storm the ivory towers of the Internationals.

Storm away

 

[WeAAsles]

From the IAMPF "annual funding notice":

2 things that are very alarming to me

~the fund has 279,275 members
95,868 are working 183,407 are retired

~the funds assets went up by $100 million from 2015 to 2016
the funds liabilities went up by $722 million in the same time frame

The only difference between the Titanic and the IAMPF is, the Titanic had a band.

Your numbers for those retired is disingenuous and you know it. About half are retired and half are no longer in the plan but have a right to some type of future benefits.

And I'm sure you also know the liabilities are an assumption based on life or death expectancy for the average participants. Liabilities DO NOT come due all in one shot and those liabilities could level off as well.

And the 2016 funding level status update is now up for public view BTW.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/81953/AFN for 2016.pdf

 

[Kev3188]

The entire contract, scope, health insurance, are held hostage to those numbers.

Man, I sure hope you're wrong, but experience tells me you're not.

Its all about stealing from our labor and future labor. 401k or nothing. Its time to storm the ivory towers of the Internationals.

An engaged labor force is a good thing. It's also a threat to the status quo. Look for a few crumbs (aka "a little cash in the members' pockets") to shut everyone up.

 

[FWAAA]

I gotta tell ya, you really want to make that IAMPF look good. But you should use numbers that are of this world, for example, the amount in the 401 they both have, 400k each? Not a chance. Maybe less than 1% of 1% might be in a position to save that amount, but in the real world, is in the clerks here at LAA have far less than that 400k you describe. Three examples come to mind, all with over 30 year employees of LAA, 2 of them have over 200k, and one less than 5k,

You're arguing about a constant - that is, an arbitrary number assigned to both hypothetical participants. If you're convinced that the typical clerk has less in their 401k right now, then substitute your number. It won't change the comparison between the 401k participant and the IAMPF participant in the example.

Second point, that 860k at 7% return is absurd, 401k generally over the lifetime yield 4% at most, and remember we are in a 11 year bull market run. Plus you have employee A start off with 400k, now suddenly he/she has amassed 860k, sorry but seems highly unlikly.

No, the assumed rate of return, 7%, is not absurd; it's reasonable. Since 1976, when Vanguard began the S&P 500 index fund, it has returned about 11% per year. It would be absurd to assume that contributions today would earn 11% over the next 8 years. It is not absurd to assume a 7% rate of return.

4%? That's absurd. If you've been investing over a lifetime and you've managed just 4% over that lifetime, then you should have outsourced your investing to someone who knew what they were doing. Defined benefit pensions are a perfect solution to someone who thinks that 4% is the proper assumed rate of return "at most" over a lifetime. That said, I'm not a cheerleader for the IAMPF.

The $400k grew to $860k because of the assumption of eight years of contributions of $16k per year plus the effects of compound earnings at 7%. If you do the math, the $860k checks out.

And no, we are not in an "11 year bull market run." The current bull market began in early 2009, after the approximate 50% drop in stock prices over the last half of 2008. That means we're currently about eight years into a bull market, not 11. As an aside, I don't pretend to know where the market is going, but eight years is a long time without a big decline. It's been eight years since our economic recovery began after the devastating recession, and recessions are typically more frequent than every eight years. We may be due . . .

 

[P. REZ]

BTW, the frozen AA pensions keep paying us if we outlive our 401K too.
We don't need a failed pension that gives you zero control, in fact it has many strings attached to it.
It ties you to the IAM for life, even if you don't like how they are representing you.
It limits what you can do after you retire from AA, I want zero limits.
The fund is poorly run by unqualified individuals and is on a failing vector.

No P.Rez, that math does NOT work for me, not now, not ever.
My 401K gives me total portability, I can invest as much or as little as I want to , in what funds I want to, when I want to.
I can move that money into something else if I want to when I retire, unlike the pension fund.

This is not even close. The fact that you continue to try and sell it, yes, you are selling it, to a work group that already has a pension that won't change one penny, tells me all I need to know about whats coming.

Traymark,

How does the math not work for you? Math is math, show me what's wrong with the math, you can't. How is showing math selling? Keep to the facts if you want to debate something. "The math doesn't work for me", is not a good argument. Portability is a good point.

P. Rez

 

[Albert]

Traymark,

How does the math not work for you? Math is math, show me what's wrong with the math, you can't. How is showing math selling? Keep to the facts if you want to debate something. "The math doesn't work for me", is not a good argument. Portability is a good point.

P. Rez

P REZ all the back and forth adds up to they should have a choice and I think you know that. Are the powers to be worried the LUS people will complain they don't have an option and given an option would chose to leave?Another question for me would be we were almost cut in half if they were to do that again would our qualifier be as low as $20 and at what point would the contribution me more than the benefit?

 

[swamt]

I gotta tell ya, you really want to make that IAMPF look good. But you should use numbers that are of this world, for example, the amount in the 401 they both have, 400k each? Not a chance. Maybe less than 1% of 1% might be in a position to save that amount, but in the real world, is in the clerks here at LAA have far less than that 400k you describe. Three examples come to mind, all with over 30 year employees of LAA, 2 of them have over 200k, and one less than 5k,

Second point, that 860k at 7% return is absurd, 401k generally over the lifetime yield 4% at most, and remember we are in a 11 year bull market run. Plus you have employee A start off with 400k, now suddenly he/she has amassed 860k, sorry but seems highly unlikly.

$400K Not a chance? Really?? Are you kidding??? If you are at a company and have a matching 401K with a contribution by employee and you are not at or above 200K you are a freakin idiot, period. Not to mention that 500K is also easily and reasonably reachable, even 750K by 20 years employment. I will tell you I am between 600K and 700K (both 401K and profit sharing accounts only) not yet at 20 years, and will attack the catch up phase here very soon. My total goal of 1.5 mil should be reached by 2025 not counting the IRA's and separate savings. Point being here is, if you do not have at least 500K by your 20th or 25th year at a company then you may not be very well off at the same pay that we all make currently. If you are at a lower pay scale then run the %'s in difference accordingly. But if someone, as you state is at 5K or even 200K after 20-25 years, maybe that's enough for them, but not for me. The 401K will bring in a lot more financial freedom than any pension plan that will be hacked all the way to the end and including retirees.