What's new

JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the end of the day, the IAM will basically tell our members that they had to give up to get a few things [cost neutral] even though we are in the context of a company making billions and the pilots and stews just bagging another $900 million after they showed solidarity and ALREADY had a JCBA.

To be sure, there is no reason to be anywhere close to cost neutral. LUS should gain significantly, due to the billions of dollars in company profits. Other groups have, and so should we.
 
I think the IAM could be waiting for the new enrollment to already be in the works but prior to the pension being cut again. October could be the year. Politically, Sito may try to disguise any medical cuts one year to give cover for a rerun election for the current officers. I admit I'm biased on this next comment but I'd say that the current officers won't fully disclose the IAMPF to our members and TWU members prior to a ratification, but it's bad. Hopefully, they prove me wrong and 'Fess up" about the plan and give us some cover with the 401k. I don't believe that will happen though. Worst case for LUS is if the current leaders sell a TA that coughs up our health care but package it as a pension enhancement [cost neutral] only for the Union Pension Fund Bosses to take that at the end of the day with another pension fund cut. That's prolly most likely imo, and that would be in the realm of intentional deceit. Anyone who reads the Actuarial Valuation Report of our IAMNPF [It is not handed out, must be requested] will necessarily conclude that a 3rd cut is coming.

Tim,

Total BS, I plan on selling the contract because it will better employees lives. I don't deceive people because it's wrong and employees deserve plain truth and facts. If I don't know, I say I don't know. You are bias on the subject.

P. Rez
 
At the end of the day, the IAM will basically tell our members that they had to give up to get a few things [cost neutral] even though we are in the context of a company making billions and the pilots and stews just bagging another $900 million after they showed solidarity and ALREADY had a JCBA.

To be sure, there is no reason to be anywhere close to cost neutral. LUS should gain significantly, due to the billions of dollars in company profits. Other groups have, and so should we.


Both of your comments are too far out there for me personally Tim. But hey if it's how your mind ticks who am I to say your gears might need a little oil.

Mr Ed wasn't really a talking horse you know. It was just an actor behind the curtain.
 
Tim,

Total BS, I plan on selling the contract because it will better employees lives. I don't deceive people because it's wrong and employees deserve plain truth and facts. If I don't know, I say I don't know. You are bias on the subject.

P. Rez
Of course I'm biased, don't say you aren't. I wouldn't have to put out all of this truth if you did. right?

I believe my biases are based on the IAM pension report and its 84% funded ratio. Don't tell me you don't know that the plan is only has a 84% funded ratio as of January, 2017. You ought to communicate these things to the membership, especially in light of negotiations. Doesn't make sense to ask the company to increase its contributions in our IAMNPF instead of a 401k when you know damn well the IAM Pension Bosses will have to take back and pull a "Robin Hood Reversed" on us again.

Let me see how biased you are. Yes or No Prez. If Sito signs a deal that increases the IAM pension fund contributions from the company yet the IAM Pension Fund Bosses come and cut our benefits once again, is that a good deal?

Since we are already in the IAMNPF and don't have any company contribution in the 401k, it makes perfect unbiased sense to allow any increased company contributions to be put in the 401k. The whole 3 legs model, yes? So what would be the fuss in that?

And kindly show me where I'm deceiving anyone???
 
Last edited:
Both of your comments are too far out there for me personally Tim. But hey if it's how your mind ticks who am I to say your gears might need a little oil.

Mr Ed wasn't really a talking horse you know. It was just an actor behind the curtain.
Your mind doesn't tell you, logically, that LUS should be far removed from any cost neutral JCBA situation?
 
Of course I'm biased, don't say you aren't. I wouldn't have to put out all of this truth if you did. right?

I believe my biases are based on the IAM pension report and its 84% funded ratio. Don't tell me you don't know that the plan is only has a 84% funded ratio as of January, 2017. You ought to communicate these things to the membership, especially in light of negotiations. Doesn't make sense to ask the company to increase its contributions in our IAMNPF instead of a 401k when you know damn well the IAM Pension Bosses will have to take back and pull a "Robin Hood Reversed" on us again.

Let me see how biased you are. Yes or No Prez. If Sito signs a deal that increases the IAM pension fund contributions from the company yet the IAM Pension Fund Bosses come and cut our benefits once again, is that a good deal?

Since we are already in the IAMNPF and don't have any company contribution in the 401k, it makes perfect unbiased sense to allow any increased company contributions to be put in the 401k. The whole 3 legs model, yes? So what would be the fuss in that?

And kindly show me where I'm deceiving anyone???

Tim,

Never said you are deceiving anyone, I said you were biased. Regarding the pension, I have said our pension status concerns me. However, when I do the math, which I've shown on here several times, the pension comes out better than the 401k. I've spelled it out for all to see, including how much the pension could be cut and still be better. How does me doing math and talking about cuts make me biased? I lean towards the pension for 2 reasons:

1. The math in my scenarios have shown to favor the pension.

2. If unsuccessful getting an automatic contribution, you leave money on the table.

As a reminder Tim, I have stated that because of conversations over the years with employees, I am for both like UA currently enjoys.

P. Rez
 
Tim,

Never said you are deceiving anyone, I said you were biased. Regarding the pension, I have said our pension status concerns me. However, when I do the math, which I've shown on here several times, the pension comes out better than the 401k. I've spelled it out for all to see, including how much the pension could be cut and still be better. How does me doing math and talking about cuts make me biased? I lean towards the pension for 2 reasons:

1. The math in my scenarios have shown to favor the pension.

2. If unsuccessful getting an automatic contribution, you leave money on the table.

As a reminder Tim, I have stated that because of conversations over the years with employees, I am for both like UA currently enjoys.

P. Rez
At least we agree that its better to have both in our situation but above all i believe in individual choice for those who may disagree.
Nobody is talking about leaving money on the table though. And the biggest problem with the pension may be the total elimination of the 30 and out and all unreduced plans. This will force rampers to work till they are 65.
 
Last edited:
Tim,

Total BS, I plan on selling the contract because it will better employees lives. I don't deceive people because it's wrong and employees deserve plain truth and facts. If I don't know, I say I don't know. You are bias on the subject.

P. Rez
Here is some math as well. Lets say the company either tosses in an extra $1 into the pension or 401k. If it tosses it into the pension then lets say that drives our future pension monthly up to $90 a month from that point. But then next year the iam pension bosses decide to cut benefits back down to $54 again instead of eliminating pre 65 retirements. Then the net gain would be $0. Even though the company is still providing the pension bosses extra money for me. On top of that, a benefit reduction is just a band aid. They still will have to come back 7 or 8 years later and take more pension.

This is very real and you dont have to defend the iam because its the way it will be for all union pensions. They are screwed. Imo you leaders need to stand up to sito and demand that any increase in retirement benefits oughtta go into 401k. It doesnt make any sense to toss in increased funds into a plan knowing its going to either be cut to the bone again, or eliminate all pre 65 retirement funding policies. One of the 2 is bound to happen either this january or the next.
 
1 iam multi employer pension bites the dust. That isn't our iam pension isnt far behind being funded at only 84%.
https://www.google.com/amp/freebeac...rs-retirees-risk-losing-pension-benefits/amp/

You guys better listen.

https://www.treasury.gov/services/P...on-of-Machinists-Motor-City-Pension-Fund.aspx
Tim, I too have posted many times in the past about how these pension plans are going by the waste side one at a time. UPS bought out all their pensions to get the employees out of a failing system. IAM has made one or two cuts in the past (may not have been this IAM's pension) and I believe those were on the retirees. There is currently several pensions on the chopping blocks getting ready to get frozen or at least will be chopped in half and in some cases some retirees will see up to a 33% cut on payouts. All these are documented cases. With the millions upon millions of pension workers laid off, fired, or just leaving their work the pensions are slowly dying away from the lack of participants. After 9-11 the airline industry lost hundreds of thousands of pension workers that were no longer participating once they were laid off or riffed, not to mention the many, many other workers that were released after 9-11. I can't believe the IAM side is still trying to push this pension fund into the AA'ers side. I too would much rather see you guys freeze the existing and get a heftier match in the 401K and other retire accounts increased. Plus the pensions die if the person dies, whereas the 401K can very easily out live the participant and be passed onto family, not so with the pensions. For that alone should be enough. They will have to cut the pensions again in the future, that's a fact...
 
Tim, I too have posted many times in the past about how these pension plans are going by the waste side one at a time. UPS bought out all their pensions to get the employees out of a failing system. IAM has made one or two cuts in the past (may not have been this IAM's pension) and I believe those were on the retirees. There is currently several pensions on the chopping blocks getting ready to get frozen or at least will be chopped in half and in some cases some retirees will see up to a 33% cut on payouts. All these are documented cases. With the millions upon millions of pension workers laid off, fired, or just leaving their work the pensions are slowly dying away from the lack of participants. After 9-11 the airline industry lost hundreds of thousands of pension workers that were no longer participating once they were laid off or riffed, not to mention the many, many other workers that were released after 9-11. I can't believe the IAM side is still trying to push this pension fund into the AA'ers side. I too would much rather see you guys freeze the existing and get a heftier match in the 401K and other retire accounts increased. Plus the pensions die if the person dies, whereas the 401K can very easily out live the participant and be passed onto family, not so with the pensions. For that alone should be enough. They will have to cut the pensions again in the future, that's a fact...


Too bad that people like you have been swindled into believing that you shouldn't have a defined benefit Pension paid for by the Company you work for.

Pensions are dying because people like you rolled over a long time ago and stopped fighting for them.
 
Tim, I too have posted many times in the past about how these pension plans are going by the waste side one at a time. UPS bought out all their pensions to get the employees out of a failing system. IAM has made one or two cuts in the past (may not have been this IAM's pension) and I believe those were on the retirees. There is currently several pensions on the chopping blocks getting ready to get frozen or at least will be chopped in half and in some cases some retirees will see up to a 33% cut on payouts. All these are documented cases. With the millions upon millions of pension workers laid off, fired, or just leaving their work the pensions are slowly dying away from the lack of participants. After 9-11 the airline industry lost hundreds of thousands of pension workers that were no longer participating once they were laid off or riffed, not to mention the many, many other workers that were released after 9-11. I can't believe the IAM side is still trying to push this pension fund into the AA'ers side. I too would much rather see you guys freeze the existing and get a heftier match in the 401K and other retire accounts increased. Plus the pensions die if the person dies, whereas the 401K can very easily out live the participant and be passed onto family, not so with the pensions. For that alone should be enough. They will have to cut the pensions again in the future, that's a fact...
Well, nobody is talking about wanting to see our pension frozen. It is what it is. But it is just stupid, Big League stupid, to negotiate any company contribution increase into our IAMNPF instead of 401k. The strong rumor is that the health care benefits will be cut, but we will get that cost imputed into the IAMNPF as a cost netural sorta thing. That's like giving extra money straight to a drunk.

That said, the IAMNPF is falling fast. Actually, it has been falling as all of these multi employer plans are a complete disaster now economically. Our plan was in very bad shape before the 2009 economic downturn and had to make a big league plan cut in 2003 to wish away future liabilities. Obviously, with an aging participant group, it was only a band aid slash and had to be slashed monstrously in 2011. That also was only a band aid as the math doesn't lie. Today, it is worse off than the 2011 whack job.

Yet not one union leader will stand up and educate our members about this. In fact, my guess is that our union leaders will keep doing what Prez is, i.e., saying it's better than a 401k even though whatever the company giveth to the IAMNPF, the pension bosses will taketh at this point from us. And they will have to take again in another 5 or 6 years after they take this time. Every 6 years, the plan will need some serious cut in benefits. It simply can't sustain and is burning tens of millions each year. Unlike some other plans that took on the full force of the great recession, the IAM pension bosses took advantage (as well they should) of a new law to save it and amortized the loss over 10 years, i.e., 10% a year. Otherwise, it would have already been a goner like some of these other pensions. But it still has to make a Big League cut soon, and then again a few years later. It's inevitable. Prez is the sales agent, he isn't going to shoot straight on this. Plus, his grand lodge pension (second pension off of his AGC gig) is fully funded. Dude gets like 2 pensions and 401k so he wants to keep that gig. I'm not surprised that the Grand lodge pension [extra pension that pays out big league to Prez and other union bosses] is fully funded.

And very few members will engage this issue as they close their eyes and bury their head and hope this problem goes away. Let it be said by me, that any JCBA that switches total compensation benefits from our health care to the IAMNPF is wrong and evil since you might as well just hand over those benefits to the IAM pension bosses right now and have them burn them up. Because that's what is going to happen.

We need the company to contribute more to our retirement and that means that any increase in company contributions need to go into our 401k and not be burned up by the IAM Pension bosses. Wake up people, you aren't in Kansas.
 
Last edited:
Too bad that people like you have been swindled into believing that you shouldn't have a defined benefit Pension paid for by the Company you work for.

Pensions are dying because people like you rolled over a long time ago and stopped fighting for them.
What you said is silly. Defined pensions were fantastic until the late 70s when pension laws changed and allowed the steel industry to shitcan pensions. Since then, bankruptcy laws have been changed to allow greater flex for companies. And now the pbgc is wunding down and there isnt any money so laws changed again to now eliminate retirees checks. Wake up weaasles. I doubt lus like me see much if any benefit after we retire.
 
What you said is silly. Defined pensions were fantastic until the late 70s when pension laws changed and allowed the steel industry to shitcan pensions. Since then, bankruptcy laws have been changed to allow greater flex for companies. And now the pbgc is wunding down and there isnt any money so laws changed again to now eliminate retirees checks. Wake up weaasles. I doubt lus like me see much if any benefit after we retire.


Again Timmy, DBP paid for and supported by the Corporations that people worked for became doomed when "We the People" stopped fighting for them. When "We the People" became fat, happy, soft, cowardly and complacent.

When "We the People" allowed those Laws to be changed to benefit Corporations and Wall Street and NOT us.

Cest La Vie I guess?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top