Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Tim Nelson
Veteran
It doesnt concern you? Yet you posted 15,000 times regarding 141, most of which was in direct support of the establishment. Then when the establishment hoses the member, you wash your hands and blame the membership for voting for terrible anti union ta's.700UW said:
The leadership and representatives getting paid arent suppose to blow smoke and lie. The ua membership was bull s by ira gottlieb whowrote a opinion that pushed the ua ta based on the falsehood that ua members would be doomed if it voted against ta2. And the full time commitment letter had absolutely no commitment to full time as i explained although bartz and klemm took full advantage of ignorance and lied. I dont blame the membership at all.
More importantly, i am concerned over what will happen to the viability of the iampf if boeing workers vote to be stripped of it.
Harry Callahan
Veteran
Folks just found out that CLT was so short yesterday 23Dec. that they were using Express runners to run the Express bags. They were told to leave the bags behind the plane. Now what the .... is up with that & what's being done ? Even though I'm retired it makes my blood boil.
Harry
Harry
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
same to you orgac and to all on here and to all of our armed forces merry xmas if youre working be safe
Josh,737823 said:
According to financial experts, a 3 legged stool approach should be followed to save for ones retirement. Those 3 legs would include a pension, S.S. and personal savings(401k, savings, roth, etc.). I am a big supporter of getting a match on 401k to get people to save even more for their retirement.
As to your point above, it baffles me as to how you would think such things being that you are in the financial field. Google 3 legged stool approach to retirement or set up a meeting with an expert for confirmation. Our pension is not hurting leverage in negotiations.
Happy Holidays,
P. Rez
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I think he was referring to the negotiation politics that may protect iam interest but not necessarily the members interest. For instance, it was conceivable that the iam put its own entities interest ahead of the united airline members to get the dues of 7,500 quicker. Likewise, it is conceivable that the iam (not you) wouldnt mind bull rushing a quick contract at usairways so that it can start working on bringing in 16,000 twu members into the iampf.P. REZ said:
As far as the 3 prong, i think we all agree since we are already in deep with the iampf , whether we like it or not.
At any rate, i presume thats what josh meant. If true then the company, like united, would love the iam to team up with it with common interest which isnt necessarily in the best interest of the members.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
prez i agree with your 3 legged stool approach happy holidays
I talked to a PHL Agent yesterday, he said, AA has about 100 ramp guy's on layoff. He said, The company wants to bring them back and let them work our jets instead of hiring US employees off the street. I say thats bullshit. How does AGC O'Donnell feel about this? Phl is his station, right. Let's get some feedback from the district on this.
- Banned
- #839
First of all how would they hire US employees on the street when they all ready have the option to bid back to any openings?
Your misreading it, the IAM and the TWU plan on approaching the company on hiring laid-off employees from US or AA before going to the street.
Your misreading it, the IAM and the TWU plan on approaching the company on hiring laid-off employees from US or AA before going to the street.
I'm acutely aware of the three leg stool approach and what it means. Again with an $84 month multiplier and you consider that the employees here haven't even been in the plan for more than eight years (fleet) or five years (M&R) max, that's hardly something to be proud of. And how much can employees at US afford to save in 401ks and other investments based on your current pay rates? Unless upon employee already has substantial savings, earnings from other sources, spouse, etc I imagine there isn't much to tap into. Perhaps the membership would be better served with you securing generous 401k contribution and/or match. There is no telling that the IAMNPF will be around at retirement. It may be well soundly funded today but in a few years who knows especially if other participating employees begin dropping off. With a DC plan the money is yours, the company or plan administrator can't touch it.P. REZ said:
My point is, as others have said on here being in the IAMNPF does cost the company money and this cost is included in their analysis and negotiations of other items in the comprehensive contract. Although employees themselves do not see the money being deduced from their payroll of "putting the money in the envelope" it is and will be considered when determining your new base rates, health care contribution, work rules, scope, and other benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch other posters-Kev coming to mind-have remarked to this effect on multiple occasions in the past. If you truly are on the US negotiating committee it baffles me that you don't see how IAMNPF and the associated burden on the company of participating is precluding you from maintaining (and hopefully advancing) other elements of the CBA, particularly scope which the membership has identified as one of the most, if not the most important items for the contract.
I do agree with Tim that the IAMs interests in getting TWU employees in IAMNPF may prevail here but I don't know. Again you can insist all you want that what happened at UAL has zero implications for your group but you are only fooling yourself if that's the case. The UA agreement is now 'industry standard' that the IAM UA NC willingly agreed to, it's not as if it was court imposed or needed to be concessionary, fact is the IAM wanted the dues from sCO unorganized agents and was prepared to put aside the interest of the membership to do so. Again UA wanted to integrate the two sides-and they couldn't do so until a JCBA was ratified. Why the NC was so quick to settle for this BS? I dunno but I imagine the NC members were more concerned advancing their union careers with the district and international so they were quick to endorse this nonsense. And now people are seeing why that agreement is a joke but it's too late now.
Josh
- Status
Similar threads
