Bla Bla bla, "Bob blames everyone" "Bob thinks he's a genius", "You guys worship Bob" sounds like Fox News where all you guys (NYer, Bigjets, Overspeed, WeAAsles etc) pick up a catch phrase and repeat it over and over again desperately hoping it will stick. I already answered those lies, I don't blame everyone, just those who voted YES to concessions that destroyed our profession and even more so those who told them to vote that way, nobody worships me and I never claimed I'm a genius, (if I was I would have left this industry a long time ago) these are all strawmen you guys pull out when I write something that resonates with my peers and you don't know how to respond or spin.
I have a stake in this, I have to live with the outcome, why are you here? You already have your Pension right? You get one check from the PBGC that cant be reduced and one from the IAMNPF that can. If the IAMNPF received hundreds of millions from AA that would likely bolster up the plan long enough for you.
I plan on getting one check from AA and the rest from my 401K and if I lose it then I lose it and will have to go back to work, I can live with that. What I'm concerned about is having my AA pension rolled into the IAMNPF then 15 years from now getting a notice in the mail that they are cutting my pension to $700/month and if I go back to work because I cant live on $700/month they will cut it completely. Is that likely, probably not but its more likely than me losing deposits I put in the 401K. I never made a whole lot but there was never a time when my balance was below my contributions because I only gamble with the earnings.
You claim that our Single employer Pension will not be rolled into the IAMNPF, I see no such claims from the Association, what I do see is where the TWU agreed that they will seek to put us all in the IAMNPF. Its in a letter posted on the 591 website.
Ok so the average age is 55+, how much of a pension can we expect to get with the IAMNPF that we cant collect from until 65 and cant work if we are collecting with just 10 or less years in the plan? Careful now, if you make big promises it makes it that much more likely they will be broken. Do you really think the plan administrators want a slew of old people coming into the pension with contributions for at best 10 years and collecting on average 19.3 years?? Younger workers would rather have a portable and well funded 401k than a multi-employer plan that only guarantees a Mx of $12,000 a year, this way they dont get tied to one employer and end up giving away more than the pension is worth trying to save either the company or the pension. So we should not expect that they will opt to stay in the plan after we are no longer here. (Maybe thats why you are here?) They could end up working 30 years and be left with a pension thats only worth $228,000, whereas with a 9% 401K like they have at SWA(and a wage that hasn't been reduced to "save the pension") and a 20% of their own wages they would have around $1million, and be able to work, or change Unions if they don't like the job they are doing. Are there risks? Well that depends on where they put their money, if they want $2 million they would have to take a higher risk, if they will settle for one million they can be a hell of a lot safer than a multi-employer plan thats dependent on a Union that has lost half its membership.
Why would we want to agree to less money being put away for our pensions? Even at our current rates of pay, which we all agree will likely go up, I get hundreds of dollars more from AA than I would get put into the IAMNPF. I believe the selling point to get us interested in the IAMNPF will be that we will be given credit for all the years we have in th AA plan, and the only way they can do that is if all the assets from the AA plan are put into the IAMNPF. Your claim is they would not want that because the AA plan is underfunded, but the AA plan allows us to retire at 60, without reduction to our benefit, this makes the AA plan more expensive and would likely eliminate any shortfall there is. So AA would be able to clear hundreds of millions off their books and the IAMNPF would receive hundreds of millions of dollars plus twenty thousand more captive members that are trapped both at AA and in the IAMNPF pretty much till they die.
I have a stake in this, I have to live with the outcome, why are you here? You already have your Pension right? You get one check from the PBGC that cant be reduced and one from the IAMNPF that can. If the IAMNPF received hundreds of millions from AA that would likely bolster up the plan long enough for you.
I plan on getting one check from AA and the rest from my 401K and if I lose it then I lose it and will have to go back to work, I can live with that. What I'm concerned about is having my AA pension rolled into the IAMNPF then 15 years from now getting a notice in the mail that they are cutting my pension to $700/month and if I go back to work because I cant live on $700/month they will cut it completely. Is that likely, probably not but its more likely than me losing deposits I put in the 401K. I never made a whole lot but there was never a time when my balance was below my contributions because I only gamble with the earnings.
You claim that our Single employer Pension will not be rolled into the IAMNPF, I see no such claims from the Association, what I do see is where the TWU agreed that they will seek to put us all in the IAMNPF. Its in a letter posted on the 591 website.
Ok so the average age is 55+, how much of a pension can we expect to get with the IAMNPF that we cant collect from until 65 and cant work if we are collecting with just 10 or less years in the plan? Careful now, if you make big promises it makes it that much more likely they will be broken. Do you really think the plan administrators want a slew of old people coming into the pension with contributions for at best 10 years and collecting on average 19.3 years?? Younger workers would rather have a portable and well funded 401k than a multi-employer plan that only guarantees a Mx of $12,000 a year, this way they dont get tied to one employer and end up giving away more than the pension is worth trying to save either the company or the pension. So we should not expect that they will opt to stay in the plan after we are no longer here. (Maybe thats why you are here?) They could end up working 30 years and be left with a pension thats only worth $228,000, whereas with a 9% 401K like they have at SWA(and a wage that hasn't been reduced to "save the pension") and a 20% of their own wages they would have around $1million, and be able to work, or change Unions if they don't like the job they are doing. Are there risks? Well that depends on where they put their money, if they want $2 million they would have to take a higher risk, if they will settle for one million they can be a hell of a lot safer than a multi-employer plan thats dependent on a Union that has lost half its membership.
Why would we want to agree to less money being put away for our pensions? Even at our current rates of pay, which we all agree will likely go up, I get hundreds of dollars more from AA than I would get put into the IAMNPF. I believe the selling point to get us interested in the IAMNPF will be that we will be given credit for all the years we have in th AA plan, and the only way they can do that is if all the assets from the AA plan are put into the IAMNPF. Your claim is they would not want that because the AA plan is underfunded, but the AA plan allows us to retire at 60, without reduction to our benefit, this makes the AA plan more expensive and would likely eliminate any shortfall there is. So AA would be able to clear hundreds of millions off their books and the IAMNPF would receive hundreds of millions of dollars plus twenty thousand more captive members that are trapped both at AA and in the IAMNPF pretty much till they die.
