JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[ograc]

If I recall this now correctly and I'm not even sure anymore because I hate rehashing the old crud over and over and over. (Gets confusing)

Wasn't the agreement before either of the TA's (#1 voted down, #2 passed) a Bankruptcy agreement? As such (Again if I recall correctly) they had no Station protection for a whole slew of Stations? TA #1 less $$Payola$$ added Station protection "REJECTED"////// TA # 2 more $$Payola$$ less protection "THEY LOVED IT, PASSED"!!!!!!

Yes they DID sell that TA # 2. And Tim Nelson takes credit for it cause as he says "He stuffed a dime into "OUR" Pockets" As I recall TA #1 was the TA they needed but the GREED wouldn't let em take it?

There are no lessons to be learned in our case. A completely different set of circumstances here. And Sito and Klemm are not the sole deciders in that room anyway Brother. The big 4 in alphabetical order are Alex, Mike, Mike and Sito. And from there, your AGC's and our Presidents.

I am hopeful lessons have been learned by both leadership and membership. You are right though... ultimately the membership passed it by a 70%margin. As a result; many members lives have been adversely affected. Blood money imo. But how long has that been going on? GREED.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

I guess that's a NO on the beer AANOTOK?

 

[Racer X]

NOWHERE in the post I qouted from you do you advocate for the LUS scope, NOWHERE. I haven't seen you advocate for anything LUS has that is currenty better than LAA. The medical for example, your stance is that the LUS folks better get ready for the LAA medical costs because it is a foregone conclusion. How do you know this as fact exactly? You spout off as you know exactly what the scope flight threshhold will be as fact, yet offer no proof to back your "facts" up. Why don't you start advocating for the best? Instead of just accepting as "fact" that the worst will come to pass? Do I think that the scope will remain at 1 flight a day? No I do not, but I do not believe it will be anywhere close to the 15 a day that LAA currebtly has. I think somewhere about maybe 5-7 flights a day would be reasonable. I wouldn't like it, and it is a HUGE concession, but it is also a HUGE gain for LAA, so it would be a good comprimise. The medical is another story. There is absolutly no good reason we should give up our medical for yours. None. And you can't offer up a good enough reason either. The reasoning of "everybody else on the property has it" is a straw man arguement at best. And that is the only one you got. Our medical has survived 2, yes that is 2 bankruptcies. To give it up now for a "few pieces of silver" would be a travesty and I would have to say, it would be a HUGE dissappointment from the IAM to do so. I choose to have faith that the NC and the executive NC will do right by ALL the members.

I'm wondering if you would consider it a HUGE concession if the flight threshold went from 7 a week ( not 1 a day ) to 35 a week if by doing that another 10 stations were opened.

 

[AANOTOK]

I guess that's a NO on the beer AANOTOK?

I can't "Get over" the Association trash yet, hog. Until I'm either over it or they fold, the beer would be extremely bitter. You guys who claim to be over it, better be very very careful...by the way, WeAAsels seems to think of you as a winner, not sure if that's the Jekyll or the Hyde part of him, but maybe you and he can hash out all the AMT problems, you already know he has answers. 🙂

 

[Albert]

http://www.twulocal513.org/docs/Tarrant County Labor Council Supports TWU.pdf

Diddly- squat, nice gesture though. You have to understand the man was publicly ostracized and reamed by senior senators and didn't blink an eye. A large part of his work force was piss for years and he took it everyday.We'll get a contract when we get a contract no picketing or letters from counsels are going to matter

 

[Deleted member 14439]

I can't "Get over" the Association trash yet, hog. Until I'm either over it or they fold, the beer would be extremely bitter. You guys who claim to be over it, better be very very careful...by the way, WeAAsels seems to think of you as a winner, not sure if that's the Jekyll or the Hyde part of him, but maybe you and he can hash out all the AMT problems, you already know he has answers. 🙂

Make no mistake. I'm in no way shape or form happy with the illegitimate, unelected association or the twu. There is a time and place for everything. Right now I'm more concerned with getting our families the jcba we all deserve. After that, it will be time to turn our attention to ridding yourself of this association and hopefully actually vote on our representation. My offer stands, I hope to shake your hand on the 26th. I'm looking forward to meeting new folks.

 

[WeAAsles]

I can't "Get over" the Association trash yet, hog. Until I'm either over it or they fold, the beer would be extremely bitter. You guys who claim to be over it, better be very very careful...by the way, WeAAsels seems to think of you as a winner, not sure if that's the Jekyll or the Hyde part of him, but maybe you and he can hash out all the AMT problems, you already know he has answers. 🙂

Go have a beer with the guy will ya? Make him sign a NDA and you can "I don't know NOTOK" on here till we can figure out how to use cow flatulence as Jet Fuel.

 

[Tim Nelson]

If I recall this now correctly and I'm not even sure anymore because I hate rehashing the old crud over and over and over. (Gets confusing)

Wasn't the agreement before either of the TA's (#1 voted down, #2 passed) a Bankruptcy agreement? As such (Again if I recall correctly) they had no Station protection for a whole slew of Stations? TA #1 less $$Payola$$ added Station protection "REJECTED"////// TA # 2 more $$Payola$$ less protection "THEY LOVED IT, PASSED"!!!!!!

Yes they DID sell that TA # 2. And Tim Nelson takes credit for it cause as he says "He stuffed a dime into "OUR" Pockets" As I recall TA #1 was the TA they needed but the GREED wouldn't let em take it?

There are no lessons to be learned in our case. A completely different set of circumstances here. And Sito and Klemm are not the sole deciders in that room anyway Brother. The big 4 in alphabetical order are Alex, Mike, Mike and Sito. And from there, your AGC's and our Presidents.

That was funny. I was 100% against TA2 however the increase in wages was a direct result of the corporate campaign i raised against managements TA1.

Yes, it was also responsible for indirectly negotiating more money in n our pockets.

 

[WeAAsles]

That was funny. I was 100% against TA2 however the increase in wages was a direct result of the corporate campaign i raised against managements TA1.

Yes, it was also responsible for indirectly negotiating more money in n our pockets.

Maybe you should have just stayed out of their business in the first place.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Maybe you should have just stayed out of their business in the first place.

View attachment 11845

Saved 12 stations and secured a bigger wage, so even though ta2 was lacking, it was better than ta1 so it is always rewarding to negotiate more out of management and to help a brother out.

 

[P. REZ]

It is this case. And we aren't talking about traditional defined benefit plans. We are talking about multi employer plans. Big difference. Read up on union pensions as opposed to traditional defined pensions and you will have a different perspective. You would have to.

If TWU peeps are confronted with the choice of having the company contribute 9% to a 401k, or a conversion of that % into a hourly dollar amount, the question won't be why would the company offer a choice but rather which choice is more beneficial and what is the health or potential of each choice. That's what each member will have to process individually.

Tim,

You didn't answer my question the other day about whether Union leaders or advocates should walk away from pensions. Current pensioners will certainly suffer if Unions stayed away from pensions. That includes us, so what do we do? Fight for everyone or fold? If more people stood up and fought for pensions including non-Union employees, pensions wouldn't be more solid for all Americans? For the following reasons, I personally find it tough to give up wanting more for all:

1. Pensions were still given to employees during the Great Depression. If they had them then, they can now.
2. 401k's were established to supplement pensions. Corporate America has sold Americans on a bad deal. Do we just sit back and accept?
3. If you don't get an automatic contribution for a 401k and it is a match or Company allows an opt out, you are leaving money on the table.
4. Company has always wanted us all in a 401k instead of a pension. This alone should signal to anyone a red flag. Why don't companies want to offer pensions anymore? They don't want you to stay.

I understand the concern that people have with a Union pension plan based on all the negative publicity, but gosh dang it, it is wrong to not fight for pensions for everyone. I find it morally and ethically wrong not to advocate for this right to have a good retirement. The 401k alone is not sufficient for the majority of Americans. Does anyone read up on what the average American has saved for retirement? It's not good.

P. Rez

 

[AANOTOK]

Ok Prez, exactly how beneficial will it be for me to join to the IAM pension. I have 34 years and have an eye on retiring in the next 5-7 years.

 

[FWAAA]

I understand the concern that people have with a Union pension plan based on all the negative publicity, but gosh dang it, it is wrong to not fight for pensions for everyone. I find it morally and ethically wrong not to advocate for this right to have a good retirement. The 401k alone is not sufficient for the majority of Americans. Does anyone read up on what the average American has saved for retirement? It's not good.

The IAMPF isn't really a defined benefit pension. It's a defined contribution retirement plan where the trustees promise to pay a fixed lifetime annuity. Unlike a defined benefit pension, the IAM has no ability to force the employer to contribute more money to cover the obligation. In a defined benefit pension, the employer has to contribute more money to ensure that the monthly obligation can be paid to the recipients.

Has the IAMPF showed superior investment experience or does the IAMPF have any expertise in managing money at low cost?

If the employer is willing to contribute $2 or $3 or $4 per hour, with no real guarantee that the promised benefit will be paid (since the pension fund cannot force AA to contribute any shortfalls), why hire the IAMPF to serve as an intermediary or middleman? Why not force the company to contribute that amount to a 401k, where the employee can buy their own annuity from a top-rated insurance company or where the employee can invest in anything the employee wants?

The IAMPF is not really a pension; it's a way for friends of the IAM leadership to charge investment expenses against the employees' money with an empty promise of a retirement annuity.

The other day, I asked how the IAMPF can afford to pay such a high monthly benefit (from your example):

About the bolded parts:

$8,000 per year of contributions to the IAMPF pension ($4/hr x 2000 hrs) for 8 years at 7% equals $85,500 of total contributions. But your post says that at retirement, the pension will pay a monthly annuity of $1,203/mo. If that worker is 65 years old, then that annuity has a present value (at 7%) of about $141,000. How can the IAMPF afford to pay a retirement benefit worth $141k to a retiree whose company contributed just $$85,500? No wonder the IAMPF has had money trouble.

http://www.airlineforums.com/thread...ates-for-aa-fleet.59784/page-525#post-1266932

I'm still curious; how can the IAMPF pay a lifetime annuity worth $141k when their employer contributed just $85,500 (including pre-retirement investment returns)? The math does not add up.

 

[P. REZ]

The IAMPF isn't really a defined benefit pension. It's a defined contribution retirement plan where the trustees promise to pay a fixed lifetime annuity. Unlike a defined benefit pension, the IAM has no ability to force the employer to contribute more money to cover the obligation. In a defined benefit pension, the employer has to contribute more money to ensure that the monthly obligation can be paid to the recipients.

Has the IAMPF showed superior investment experience or does the IAMPF have any expertise in managing money at low cost?

If the employer is willing to contribute $2 or $3 or $4 per hour, with no real guarantee that the promised benefit will be paid (since the pension fund cannot force AA to contribute any shortfalls), why hire the IAMPF to serve as an intermediary or middleman? Why not force the company to contribute that amount to a 401k, where the employee can buy their own annuity from a top-rated insurance company or where the employee can invest in anything the employee wants?

The IAMPF is not really a pension; it's a way for friends of the IAM leadership to charge investment expenses against the employees' money with an empty promise of a retirement annuity.

The other day, I asked how the IAMPF can afford to pay such a high monthly benefit (from your example):



http://www.airlineforums.com/thread...ates-for-aa-fleet.59784/page-525#post-1266932

I'm still curious; how can the IAMPF pay a lifetime annuity worth $141k when their employer contributed just $85,500 (including pre-retirement investment returns)? The math does not add up.

FWAAA,

I'm not an actuary but when you factor not everyone makes it 5 years with a company to get vested, not everyone retires at the same time, some maybe forget they have it, those monies contributed are invested and should earn a return over time, not everyone takes spousal benefit and some do, some people die too early, some take lump sums, etc. are a few things off the top of my head. These and other factors come into play when actuaries decide on the numbers.

If you look at my post, I talk about the greater good of getting all employees in pensions like in the past and supplementing that with a 401k(which the 401k was originally intended to do). I'm not just looking at AA, I'm looking at all Americans. What I'm having a hard time with is walking away and letting corporate America win. If we walk away from a pension and every other Union does the same and non-Union employees don't strive for it, where are we in 10, 15 or 20 years? I believe worse off as Americans and the middle class will continue to die.

Like I've said before, I don't have all the answers, but I know walking away isn't the answer.

https://www.actuary.org/pdf/pension/fundamentals_0704.pdf

P. Rez

 

[P. REZ]

Ok Prez, exactly how beneficial will it be for me to join to the IAM pension. I have 34 years and have an eye on retiring in the next 5-7 years.

AANOTOK,

First, some assumptions. LAA will be given a choice. You and a buddy both have $200,000 in your 401k's at the end of 2017, both are working until December 31, 2024 and retiring. You both earn $80,000 each year until retirement, the company match is 5.5%, you both put 5.5% of earnings into your 401K each year($4400), 5.5% of $30.81 =$74.10 pension multiplier in B schedule and there are no increases to pension multiplier between now and when you both retire. You stick with 401k match and your buddy takes pension, 401k averages 7% returns each year, your buddy doesn't take spousal pension benefit.

At retirement, you would have $402,642 in your 401k and your buddy would have $361,898 plus pension multiplier equaling $518.70. You take out 4% per year and your buddy takes out 4% per year from your 401k's. You would get $1342.14 per month and your buddy would get $1725.03 per month.($1206.33 401k+$518.70 pension).

The pension would have to take a 74% hit for your buddy to make the same $1342.14 per month.

That is why giving up on the pension is so hard for me. I'm just trying to do what's best. Nobody is telling me what to say, if you notice, nobody else is talking about it. If I shut up and said nothing, my boss wouldn't say anything to me. Give me a crystal ball and I may adjust my thoughts, but until then, this is how I feel.

P. Rez