No to the Alliance!

Status
Not open for further replies.
scorpion 2 said:
Thanks again for posting!
Do you have any cards? 
Click to expand...


You're welcome. Maybe you also would like to read all of this information. If you chose to post any of the information you find in this link please remember to be specific and not just post any items you surmise might help your cause.

I think you DO need all of the help you can get.
 
President Obama Signs the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014



posted on: Thursday, December 18, 2014



New legislation is enacted to assist and fortify deeply troubled multiemployer pension plans.
On December 16, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law sweeping changes to the current law that governs multiemployer pension plans. He signed the omnibus government budget and spending bill recently passed by Congress, which included the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (the Pension Reform Act or the Act).
As an overview, the Pension Reform Act enacts the following:

  • Permanently extends certain Pension Protection Act (PPA) provisions that were expected to expire at the end of 2014 

  • Creates a new funding status labeled “critical and declining status,” and provides plan sponsors of plans in this status with tools to suspend benefits for both actives and retired participants

  • Amends current plan partition rules to permit the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to approve a partition without a bankruptcy requirement

  • Provides the PBGC with increased authority to facilitate plan mergers, including the statutory authority for the agency to provide financial assistance to do so

  • Increases PBGC premiums from the $12 per capita currently in effect to $26 per capita beginning in calendar year 2015

  • Includes numerous technical corrections and clarifications to the PPA and the Internal Revenue Code.
Most of the Pension Reform Act’s provisions become effective for plan years that commence after December 31, 2014. Throughout the Act, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is charged with primary oversight of many of the Act’s provisions and regulation promulgation, in consultation with the PBGC and the Department of Labor (DOL).
In the following sections, we provide a more detailed overview of the provisions set forth within the Pension Reform Act.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/president-obama-signs-multiemployer-pension-reform-act-2014
 
Though the reissue won’t be released for another month, we’re premiering an exclusive listen of the extended “####,” and you can listen below.

http://www.stereogum.com/1799033/the-rolling-stones-*****-extended-version/mp3s/
 
Some seem to be getting it now.  If they do not sign for what they put in writing, it means absolutely nothing.  They have not signed nothing they have put out as far as information moving forward.  Sign it TWU/IAM association or it means NOTHING...
 
WeAAsles said:
Better than continuing to support a group of 52 year losers. LOSERS!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
I'd rather be a loser trying to better my craft than being a good little union mouthpiece who supports whatever his beloved  TWU wants.  We all get it, you adore the TWU because your fleet service group is at the top. You fit right in where the bus driver union wants you to be. 
How many jobs has the TWU lost for your group? Remember cabin service? Facilities cleaners? Remember all the smaller stations staffed by fleet? 
 I'd rather be labelled a loser striving for to rid myself of a worthless union than being being TWU sheep who supports a union that screws some its members in favor of others.
 
MetalMover said:
 
I'd rather be a loser trying to better my craft than being a good little union mouthpiece who supports whatever his beloved  TWU wants.  We all get it, you adore the TWU because your fleet service group is at the top. You fit right in where the bus driver union wants you to be. 
How many jobs has the TWU lost for your group? Remember cabin service? Facilities cleaners? Remember all the smaller stations staffed by fleet? 
 I'd rather be labelled a loser striving for to rid myself of a worthless union than being being TWU sheep who supports a union that screws some its members in favor of others.
Click to expand...
 
Right... It would be better to go down fighting for a true democratic mechanics union, than live on your knees being used by the TWU!
 
WeAAsles said:
You're welcome. Maybe you also would like to read all of this information. If you chose to post any of the information you find in this link please remember to be specific and not just post any items you surmise might help your cause.

I think you DO need all of the help you can get.
 
President Obama Signs the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014



posted on: Thursday, December 18, 2014



New legislation is enacted to assist and fortify deeply troubled multiemployer pension plans.
On December 16, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law sweeping changes to the current law that governs multiemployer pension plans. He signed the omnibus government budget and spending bill recently passed by Congress, which included the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (the Pension Reform Act or the Act).
As an overview, the Pension Reform Act enacts the following:

  • Permanently extends certain Pension Protection Act (PPA) provisions that were expected to expire at the end of 2014 

  • Creates a new funding status labeled “critical and declining status,” and provides plan sponsors of plans in this status with tools to suspend benefits for both actives and retired participants

  • Amends current plan partition rules to permit the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to approve a partition without a bankruptcy requirement

  • Provides the PBGC with increased authority to facilitate plan mergers, including the statutory authority for the agency to provide financial assistance to do so

  • Increases PBGC premiums from the $12 per capita currently in effect to $26 per capita beginning in calendar year 2015

  • Includes numerous technical corrections and clarifications to the PPA and the Internal Revenue Code.
Most of the Pension Reform Act’s provisions become effective for plan years that commence after December 31, 2014. Throughout the Act, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is charged with primary oversight of many of the Act’s provisions and regulation promulgation, in consultation with the PBGC and the Department of Labor (DOL).
In the following sections, we provide a more detailed overview of the provisions set forth within the Pension Reform Act.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/president-obama-signs-multiemployer-pension-reform-act-2014
Click to expand...
Love it thanks.
Provides increased authority to facilitate plan mergers and financial assistance to do so.
Provides plan sponsors of plans with tools to suspend benefits for active and retired participants. Thats a good one there.
Multiemployer plans have a lot of flexibility to screw your pants off.
 
thanks again for your post  
 
WeAAsles said:
 

I left nothing out. I merely posted the information that was presented. After doing some research you are correct by reading this link I found. The attempt was made and turned down by the PBGC who was asked to foot the bill for the underfunding.
 
The PBGC should have the authority and willingness to implement creative labor-management solutions to preserve pension benefits. At United Airlines, the IAM and United negotiated a proposal that would have included restoration funding by the PBGC and transferring United’s pension liabilities to the IAM National Pension Plan. It would have left United in substantially the same position as it is today, following termination, and would have saved the PBGC $500 million dollars while preserving pension benefits for our members. Unfortunately, the PBGC rejected the deal.

http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/rrtest060705.pdf

Now if you read the letter in full you'll see that the IAM had proposed to UAL in 2000 that they FREEZE the plan and transfer their members into the IAMPF going forward.

In 2005 from reading the letter rather than the pensions being thrown on the PBGC now that UAL had underfunded them, the IAM DID propose to take over the entirety of the pension plans. If you look at the financials of the PBGC it is almost catastrophically underfunded. There is a very strong future likelihood that absent a taxpayer bailout, substantial raising of the insurance premiums charged to companies or "Reduction In Payouts" the PBGC will likely one day become insolvent. Can you guess which one will likely take place one day?

So the way I look at it the IAM sought to preserve as much as they could of that Pension and the liabilities since it was going to be thrown into a riskier proposition anyway and take on that fund by putting it into the IAMPF.

Ours is currently frozen and is no longer at risk of being thrown on the PBGC. Plus the company made accelerated payments to the tune of an extra $700 Million dollars above obligations for 2014. Trying to compare Apples and Oranges against the two very different scenarios doesn't quite stack up.  

 
 
 
Click to expand...
bump
 
thanks again for your post
 
scorpion 2 said:
Love it thanks.
Provides increased authority to facilitate plan mergers and financial assistance to do so.
Provides plan sponsors of plans with tools to suspend benefits for active and retired participants. Thats a good one there.
Multiemployer plans have a lot of flexibility to screw your pants off.
 
thanks again for your post  
Click to expand...


Posting just the outrageous headline is something that Fox news likes to do without posting all of the relevant information available. Let's expand the headline you chose shall we.

 
Benefit Suspensions
Under the Pension Reform Act, plans that are deeply troubled and projected to be in the newly created “critical and declining status” may apply to the Treasury to voluntarily suspend pension benefits for participants in pay status and accrued benefits for participants not in pay status. The term “suspension of benefits” is defined in the Pension Reform Act to mean “the temporary or permanent reduction of any current or future payment obligation of the plan to any participant or beneficiary under the plan, whether or not in pay status at the time of the suspension of benefits.”
Retiree Representative. During the suspension approval process, the Pension Reform Act provides for a retiree representative for plans with 10,000 or more participants, which must be selected no later than 60 days from the plan’s submission of an application to the Treasury to suspend benefits. The plan sponsors are charged with selecting a retiree representative to be an advocate for the interests of the retirees and inactive participants in the application for benefit suspension process.
Suspension Conditions and Limitations. A plan in “critical and declining status” may suspend benefits only if the plan’s actuary certifies that, considering the proposed suspension, the plan is projected to avoid insolvency. The plan sponsor must determine that even though it has taken all reasonable measures to forestall insolvency, the plan is still projected to become insolvent unless the proposed benefits are suspended. 
 
A plan in “critical and declining status” may only suspend benefits subject to the following limitations:

  • A participant’s or beneficiary’s monthly benefit cannot be reduced below 110% of the PBGC guarantee.

  • Participants and beneficiaries ages 75 and older at the date of suspension have limitations on the suspension.

  • Participants and beneficiaries ages 80 and older at the date of suspension are exempt from benefit suspensions.

  • Disability pensions are exempt from benefit suspensions.

  • Benefit suspensions shall be reasonably implemented to avoid plan insolvency.
The Pension Reform Act includes a list of factors that a plan sponsor must consider to ensure that the benefit suspensions are equitable, including age, number of years to retirement, and the participants’ benefit histories.
Additionally, the Pension Reform Act provides for a special benefit suspension allocation rule. First, any reductions in the plan’s benefits must be allocated, to the maximum extent possible, to benefits attributable to a participant’s service for an employer that withdrew from a plan without paying its full withdrawal liability or the full amount agreed to with the plan. Second, all other benefits not attributable to service with the withdrawn employer may be suspended. Third, benefits under the plan attributable to a participant’s service with an employer that withdrew prior to the date of the Pension Reform Act’s enactment and that has paid its full amount of withdrawal liability would be suspended only after all other benefits have been suspended to the maximum extent allowable. 
Treasury Approval. To suspend benefits, the plan sponsors of a critical and declining status plan must apply to the Treasury and demonstrate that the plan meets the new statutory requirements. Concurrently with a plan’s submission of an application to suspend benefits, the plan sponsor must provide notice to participants, beneficiaries, contributing employers, and the respective union representatives. Within 30 days of the Treasury receiving the plan’s application, it must publish a notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments. The Treasury must approve or deny the application within 225 days, or the application is automatically deemed approved. If the Treasury rejects the application, the plan may challenge the denial through judicial review procedures.
Voting and Ratification. If the Treasury approves a plan’s application to suspend benefits, the suspension is subject to a vote of all participants and beneficiaries within 30 days of the approval. The proposal for benefit suspension is rejected only if a majority of all participants and beneficiaries (not simply a majority of those who vote) reject it. The plan sponsor may submit a new application if the suspension is rejected under the vote. Suspensions of benefits will not take effect until after the vote.
Systemically Important Plans. If the participants and beneficiaries vote to reject the proposed benefit suspensions, the Treasury, within 14 days after the vote, and in consultation with the DOL and PBGC, must determine whether the plan is “systemically important,” which is defined as resulting in $1 billion or more in projected PBGC liabilities if the plan’s suspensions are not implemented. If a plan is determined to be systemically important and suspensions were not approved by the participants, the Treasury, in consultation with the DOL and PBGC, has the discretion to either accept the proposal terms or modify the benefit suspensions in some other manner projected to avoid plan insolvency.
Withdrawal Liability. Benefit suspensions are ignored for withdrawal liability calculation purposes, unless the employer’s withdrawal occurs more than 10 years after the benefit suspension’s effective date.
Oversight and Judicial Review. The Pension Reform Act includes other technical amendments regarding implementation and oversight of the benefit suspension process, including judicial review. The Treasury is directed to publish guidance to implement the benefit suspension amendments within 180 days after the Pension Reform Act’s enactment.
 
Pension Plan Mergers
Under the Pension Reform Act, Congress has given the PBGC the authority to promote and facilitate the merger of two or more  pension plans. Upon request of a plan, the PBGC may step in and facilitate a merger with another plan if

  • The PBGC determines that the plan merger is in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries of at least one of the plans; and

  • The merger is not reasonably expected to be adverse to the overall interests of the participants and beneficiaries of any of the plans. The PBGC may provide assistance to a plan, such as training, technical assistance, mediation, communication with stakeholders, and support with related requests to other governmental agencies.
The PBGC may also provide financial assistance to facilitate a merger if

  • One or more of the plans participating in the merger are in critical and declining status;
    (Neither AA or the IAMPF currently meet this criteria)

  • The PBGC reasonably expects that financial assistance will reduce its expected long-term loss with respect to the plans involved;
    (Does not meet criteria for rule #1)

  • The PBGC reasonably expects that the financial assistance is necessary for the merged plan to become or remain solvent;
    (Neither AA or the IAMPF currently meet this criteria)

  • The PBGC certifies that its ability to meet existing financial obligations will not be impaired by providing the financial assistance; and

  • The assistance is paid from the PBGC’s fund for basic benefits guaranteed for multiemployer plans.
    (Neither AA or the IAMPF currently meet this criteria)

    http://www.natlawreview.com/article/president-obama-signs-multiemployer-pension-reform-act-2014
 
MetalMover said:
 
I'd rather be a loser trying to better my craft than being a good little union mouthpiece who supports whatever his beloved  TWU wants.

Not always. I have voted no in my career.

We all get it, you adore the TWU because your fleet service group is at the top.

Have you seen the current Fleet BASE rates of UAL, DL and SWA. Comparing ourselves only to them, we're at the bottom. But thankfully I also don't work for any subcontracting company who's employees are well below me. 

You fit right in where the bus driver union wants you to be. 

What do you have against Bus drivers? Sounds rather elitist again?
 
How many jobs has TWU (All the issues since the 1978 deregulation act)  lost for your group? Remember cabin service? Facilities cleaners? Remember all the smaller stations staffed by fleet?

I remember all those jobs quite well.
 
 I'd rather be labelled a loser striving for to rid myself of a worthless union than being a TWU sheep who supports a union that screws some its members in favor of others.

So why do you support AMFA then?
Click to expand...
 
You dont know what you are talking about. First off the PBGC has nothing to do with this as our plan is frozen. The AA plan where we can retire at 60 without penalty and at 55 with a 15% penalty is obviously a more expensive plan than the IAMNPF where the retirement age is 65 with a 4.5% penalty per year prior to 65. Its likely that if transfered, under the IAM terms the funds in the AA plan there would be no shortfall, instead a surpluss.
Click to expand...
first, I do not know the specific funding status of the AA/TWU pension plan but AA's DB plans are underfunded in general.

If the AA/TWU pension is fully funded, then that is a big bonus - but perhaps you can tell me what the funding status of each of AA's DB plans and which one is not funded.

AA's DB plans even if frozen are still guaranteed by the PBGC just as are DL/NW's.

second, it is because of pension underfunding that the PBGC can and does have the right to determine the disposition of DB plans including transfer to other entities.

It is easier to recover underfunding from a company than it is from a union. Even though the law might allow a pension rescue by a union based fund, it is far more difficult to recover pension losses from a union than a company.

if the AA/TWU pension is fully funded, then that is a different story - but my statement is still correct that the PBGC is highly unlikely to allow an underfunded single airline pension to be transferred to a union based multi-employer pension.

It isn't a certainty that they would allow a fully funded single airline pension to be transferred given the present pension environment either but an underfunded pension most certainly will be much more difficult if not impossible
 
Quote
The asset values in the chart above are measured as of the first day of the Plan Year. They also are “actuarial values”.
 
Actuarial values differ from market values in that they do not fluctuate daily based on changes in the stock or other markets.
 
Actuarial values smooth out those fluctuations and can allow for more predictable levels of future contributions. Despite the fluctuations,market values tend to show a clearer picture of a plan’s funded status at a given point in time.
 
As of December 31, 2014, the fair market value of the Plan’s assets was estimated at $3,747,000,000.
 
On this same date, the Plan’s liabilities, determined using market rates, were estimated at $5,610,000,000.
 
For this purpose, liabilities were calculated based on a discount rate of approximately 4.19% as mandated by ERISA. This liability calculation is not the same methodology provided by Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) airline relief rules which is the basis for the funded status calculated on page one of this notice.
 
Click to expand...
 
http://c.hub.aa.com/...61_apfn_twu.pdf
 

 
Quote
AMR By the Numbers
Plans: 4
Total workers and retirees: about 130,000
Estimated pension assets: about $8.3 billion
Estimated benefits owed: about $18.5 billion
Estimated amount Insured by PBGC, if pension plans fail: About $17 billion
Premiums paid to date from AMR to PBGC: about $260 million
 
Click to expand...
http://www.pbgc.gov/...r-pensions.html
 
and the AA TWU plan is fully funded only because AA was able to freeze its plans under the Pension Protection Act which was provided to airlines to discourage termination.

In the last two years before AA's exit from BK, the AA/TWU plan was funded at 85%.

and as a reminder, the disbursement rules for PBGC terminated pensions are not the same as those if the sponsoring company retains them.

It isn't certain that the IAM could qualify for the reduced funding provided to airlines under the PPA or if they would be free to change the disbursement rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

proAMT
  • Locked
Who is the TWU/IAM Alliance accountable too?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Eagle
Eagle
B
Amfa States That They Will File At Aa
Replies
3
Views
814
Bob Owens
B
gonzo
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF I SIGN A UNION CARD?
7 8 9
Replies
123
Views
11K
smmech
S
7
  • Locked
Representation-Alliance
Replies
8
Views
2K
cltrat
cltrat
P
Amfa Will Win Its Appeal
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Stop the Bus..I Want Off!!
Stop the Bus..I Want Off!!

Latest posts

Back
Top