Tim Nelson
Veteran
I personally don't have a problem if they allow members to choose. I believe that is what happened in the last Alaska airline contract with IAM members. We have several IAM members who are uncomfortable investing the company contributions in a 401k, while myself and others would much rather divert the company contriubtions into my own 401k for me to invest, as opposed to the IAMPF. No wonder why my pension was whacked by the IAM due to poor investing, I now find out that they cut deals with fund managers and most likely tossed our funds in desperate funds that bottomed out, all while they had no problem partying on $2,000 bottles of wine. In any case, a choice would be nice. At Alaska I believe it was a one time choice. I'm ok with that.JABORD said:So in conclusion, I've been waiving a piece of cheese at the rodent 700 for quite some time and he has a coy strategy of giving partial answers. His "no one pass judgement" comment is an indication that he would be happy to see us take our foot off the pedal on this matter.
Let's be clear. In 2008 the IAM members would have had to reject, in whole, the CBA, no individual choice between IAMNP or 401k offered, and forego ANY small morsels of gain, $$ among other things. Human nature and financial struggles will not allow for that.This dis-interest of the Industry Unions to not pitch us things..on merit, perpetuate this balless attempt to 'back door us '.
Where do we go from here:
T.Nelson presents one option that will need some sharpie, and not on this forum-too many Wizards whipping up wind, that along with other things will hopefully convince the IAM to walk away on this issue.
I would encourage all to stay up on the DOL investigation and it will be interesting to see if anyone is able to connect the dots as to how Jim Little plays into this. Frigg'n Devil that guy.
regards,