The question was simple, show us the law that would prevent the Alliance from negotiating a deal to roll our pension, and all the funds backing it, into the IAMPF. You said it can't happen, well what did you base that on?
Alright even though I'm not an elected official just to try and dispel this idea once and for all I contacted the PBGC today. I spoke to a lady who was of course not able to answer my question but she did put me in touch with someone who probably could? I left a message on that man's answering machine and will try to get in touch with him again next week.
You could make that call too you know Bob.
Wasn't it said that should we roll into their plan that we would not have to wait five years to be vested? Well sure, we won't have to wait because we will get the years credited under the AA plan and they will get the funds.
Roll or Entered?
The way I see it just the fact that we can't retire without penalty till 65 under the IAMPF vs 60 under the AA plan, plus the IAMPF exacts a larger penalty to retire prior 65 than the AA plan does prior to 55 (five years older) means that the shortfall on what the AA pension is short would be considerably reduced because it means that a lot of people would start collecting 10 years later under the IAMPF than the current AA plan and the expectation would be that they would collect much, much less over their lives.
Another reason why I support the "choice" of entering the Pension or keeping my 401k match? Either way I'm still going to be contributing 25% to my 401 for my last 10 years.
The fact is the IAMPF could see hundreds of millions of dollars added to it at our expense and I am very concerned about that, to be clear, I know what we will get with the AA plan, even if it ended up in the PBGC, but we can't be sure of what will happen if we get stuck in the IAMPF except we will be trapped at AA till 65 instead of 60. Forget about the option of leaving AA at 55 and going somewhere else because they would take away your pension. Lets face it we are talking about putting our retirement with a Union that eight years after US leaving BK the best they could do is get pay rates equal, not to non union Delta, or UAL, (don't even think about WN, Fed Ex or UPS) but fresh out of BK AA, and not even get profit sharing!!! The fact is the $2/hr that they negotiated is less than the 5.5% 401k match, especially when you factor in the 12% overtime, and as the wage increases the gap increases. Its a concession where hard cash is replaced with a conditional promise, a promise that the IAMPF will provide you a pension but only if you stay with the IAM and their bottom of the industry contracts for the rest of your career. To insure thats the case they have the clause that bans you from working.
True, with some stipulations.
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/74774/SMM_Aug_2014and_Cover_ltr.pdf
Management simply couldn't ask for a better deal for management than the IAMPF, throw in $2/hr, but only for the base 2080 hours, so OT hours are cost free as far as the pension, the more OT the more they save, saving millions more, they end up with a captive workforce that no matter how poorly they treat them can't leave the company, or the Union that negotiates bottom of the industry contracts with no profit sharing. They can't leave for better employers, what company wouldn't love such a plan.
So everyone down from the company, the unions, the negotiators and the members who are the ultimate decider are in collusion to place you into indentured servitude?
The IAMPF is good for the IAM, not so good for us.
Given the choice between the two options as they are currently I would more than likely chose to remain with the 401k match myself.
