More progress on the recent ratified CBA @ L3 Harris MAS up in Canada

[ThirdSeatHero]

How come AMFA didn’t contact the IAM or the IAMPF about remaining? Because the IAMPF Administrators would I’m sure tell them to pound sand and they know it.

With the current state of the IAMPF the group probably wanted something a bit more stable.

You still haven't answered the question,

- A group is in the plan

- A group wishes to remain in the plan after decertifying the IAM

- A group changes nothing in their agreements, and continues to follow the rules as set by the IAMPF

What VALID reason would the IAMPF have to refuse?

FYI ... spite isn't a valid reason

Just because AMFA didn't, doesn't mean they or any other new union couldn't.

 

[WeAAsles]

With the current state of the IAMPF the group probably wanted something a bit more stable.

You still haven't answered the question,



FYI ... spite isn't a valid reason

Just because AMFA didn't, doesn't mean they or any other new union couldn't.

I think you asked a question where I answered I’m not an IAM member nor a member of the IAMPF so I don’t know what they can/cant, will or won’t do. Was that your question?

Didn’t say another new union couldn’t. I’m pretty sure I can guess the answer however. And it’s not spite.

I’m currently the President of my Condo Board. That obliges me. If I’m ever voted out (I wish) or resign I’m no longer obligated for anything to the other owners. It’s as simple as that.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I’m currently the President of my Condo Board. That obliges me. If I’m ever voted out (I wish) or resign I’m no longer obligated for anything to the other owners. It’s as simple as that.

Your analogy doesn't fit - you keep trying to infer that throwing the IAM out is the same as throwing the IAMPF out - they are not one in the same, they are two separate entities. Participation in one (IAMPF) doesn't rely on membership in the other (IAM)

Its just that simple

 

[WeAAsles]

Your analogy doesn't fit - you keep trying to infer that throwing the IAM out is the same as throwing the IAMPF out - they are not one in the same, they are two separate entities. Participation in one (IAMPF) doesn't rely on membership in the other (IAM)

Its just that simple

Ok believe what you want to believe.

It’s just this simple to me,

“”””Additionally, after much collaboration with both L3 Harris MAS (L3) management and Edward Jones Financial Group, we are finalizing the final step to complete the transition from the IAM Pension Plan to an L3-funded, individually directed Retirement Savings Plan””””

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Ok believe what you want to believe.

Of course I will, my position being based on facts not spiteful rhetoric. It is just that simple.

 

[CorvetteMan]

I never understand why people can’t figure this out. The IAMPF has a responsibility only to what has been vested for IAM members. Again what has been paid into the plans. I “guess” if some group drops the IAM the IAMPF can negotiate with say AMFA to continue participation. But “WHY” would any of them do that? Why?

I “personally” have no clue how many non IAM members are currently putting continuing money into the IAMPF but I’m betting it’s extremely low if anyone at all? (Notice question mark)

Let’s make sure this is clear. My thought is this.

Someone is in the IAM and the IAM Pension fund for 20 years. The membership dumps the IAM for (whoever) the new union negotiates the continuing retirement contributions from X Company to go somewhere else. Member is now in (whoever) Union for another 10 years and retires. IAMPF begins paying for the 20 years member was in the IAM and the IAMPF and the other 10 years is paid out however it was invested.

The IAMPF has ZERO fiduciary responsibility to “continue” to accept funds for payments after the “collective” tosses the IAM to the curb.

The only ones I know/knew of are some IBT members at UPS who do coordinated bargaining with IAM represented members.

 

[SWAMECH]

Did the members actually request to leave the IAMPF? Membership in the IAM isn't an actual requirement to be a part of the pension plan.

At the very least they get to keep what ever benefits they had already vested in up to the point of transition.

Not sure if requested by members or not.
Also not sure on the part about membership within IAM is required or not myself, but I a sure you know full well as you had them in the past.
I was mainly pointing out that never lost anything since it was all successfully transferred over and getting future installments in the new private funded pensions. Probably even a better funded installments or why else change if membership is not required. Still can't figure why most people all think they will completely lose it all if they vote out the IAM as representation, just used as a scare tactic like the teamsters still do about the pension they use for their members when they try to get new representation to replace the teamsters. Matter fact, we never had a teamster pension and they were telling use we will lose the pension funds if we vote them out. This is how much of out of touch the teamsters were with their memberships.

 

[SWAMECH]

I never understand why people can't figure this out either - The IAMPF is not part of the IAM, yet the IAM likes to try and scare departing members they will "lose" their pensions if they leave the IAM as members - Its easily dis-proven yet some continue to try and peddle this nonsense until an election is over and only then try to hide behind the line ... oh I meant "lose" future contributions. Why would they continue to do that? Why?



I "personally" don't know the number of contributing non-IAM members in the plan either, it maybe low, it may even be zero. That changes nothing as the IAMPF rules for participation remain for IAM members and non-members alike. (your question mark was duly noticed)



Correct - this is what seems to be happening at L3.




As IAM membership alone is not a dis-qualifier for IAMPF participation, if a group currently participating in the plan tosses the IAM to the curb, so long as they continue to comply with the plans requirements, would not be removed from the plan solely for having changed union representation.

This true, but they always still try and use the scare tactics when card drives are in the works, why people believe it is beyond me.

 

[SWAMECH]

Your analogy doesn't fit - you keep trying to infer that throwing the IAM out is the same as throwing the IAMPF out - they are not one in the same, they are two separate entities. Participation in one (IAMPF) doesn't rely on membership in the other (IAM)

Its just that simple

Of course I will, my position being based on facts not spiteful rhetoric. It is just that simple.

It really is that simple, you speak of facts not BS like the rest do.

I have tried and tried telling people these facts, and the IAM and teamster cheerleaders still use it as scare tactics.

 

[WeAAsles]

The only ones I know/knew of are some IBT members at UPS who do coordinated bargaining with IAM represented members.

I don’t know why sometimes I argue against people who don’t want to use simple common sense.

I used to date Jennifer Aniston and the sec was great. After we split up I told her that she still has to keep having sex with me.

She’s still laughing for some reason.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I don’t know why sometimes I argue against people who don’t want to use simple common sense.

I don't know why I sometimes bother with people who think rhetorical spite, and crap analogies somehow equate to a cognizant argument.

 

[SWAMECH]

I don't know why I sometimes bother with people who think rhetorical spite, and crap analogies somehow equate to a cognizant argument.

And now you know why I have these "certain" yahoo's on ignore. They will disagree with anything even when 100% true just for the fact of disagreeing or trying to make a certain union look bad. Amazing how much effort they put into it and make their own unions look worse, as well as themselves. Try the ignore feature TSH, it really does make it a lot more enjoyable.

 

[WeAAsles]

And now you know why I have these "certain" yahoo's on ignore. They will disagree with anything even when 100% true just for the fact of disagreeing or trying to make a certain union look bad. Amazing how much effort they put into it and make their own unions look worse, as well as themselves. Try the ignore feature TSH, it really does make it a lot more enjoyable.

And I’m trying not to go after you for being a continuing moron with every post you make but you make it incredibly hard to ignore because you’re so incredibly stupid.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't know why I sometimes bother with people who think rhetorical spite, and crap analogies somehow equate to a cognizant argument.

Your position thinking someone should continue to take care of you even after they’ve been fired is just plain stupid. I’ve tried to be nice about it but your responses are just plain dumb on the subject.

Maybe you have some kind of agenda tho?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Your position thinking someone should continue to take care of you even after they’ve been fired is just plain stupid. I’ve tried to be nice about it but your responses are just plain dumb on the subject.

And yet another splendid example of your particular brand of ignorance - Again, the IAM & the IAMPF are not the same, they are separate entities. Membership in one is not required for participation in the other.