TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[TRAVIS]

The IAMNPF will be gone along with the IAM soon, As we enter into 9 weeks with out the NMB going along with the flem flam association BS.
I feel a vote coming....As it legally should be.    

 

[Real tired]

The PBGC does not takeover multiemployer plans if they fail, like it was stated by some post here, they just may give the plan some loans with conditions of benefit cut. http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/fact-sheet/facts-about-multiemployer-pension-plan-funding

Sure they do.
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf
 
Page 39.
 
Anytime a plan defaults to the PBGC, the benefits are reduced.  Big time.
 
Just ask about 30,000 of your new coworkers from the US side.

 

[WeAAsles]

Sure they do.
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf
 
Page 39.
 
Anytime a plan defaults to the PBGC, the benefits are reduced.  Big time.
 
Just ask about 30,000 of your new coworkers from the US side.

 

PBGC's Multiemployer Insurance Program
If a multiemployer plan runs out of money, PBGC steps in to pay benefits up to about $13,000 per year (for retirees with 30 years of service). Unlike its insurance of single-employer plans, PBGC does not take over the plan and become responsible for benefits; instead the agency funds the plan's ongoing costs and audits to ensure they are reasonable.
 
In addition to providing financial assistance to insolvent plans, PBGC runs a specialized multiemployer unit staffed with experts that can help preserve plans and protect pensioners. The multiemployer program offers technical assistance on issues such as potential mergers and alternative withdrawal liability methods proposed by plans to help attract new employers and retain existing employers. Although PBGC has limited authority to intervene with troubled plans before insolvency, PBGC seeks to provide flexibility to enable plans to deal with the challenges they face, restoring fiscal balance and long-term stability. We encourage multiemployer plans to visit our Multiemployer plans page, and contact us with questions.

http://www.pbgc.gov/about/annual-reports/multiemployer-plan-news-and-info.html

 

[scorpion 2]

I cant believe the **** that's coming out of a few knuckle heads on this board.  Our pension was one of the least underfunded of the labor groups and depending on what formula used by IAMNPF who really knows what green status means for the true status of their pension fund?  If we were to use their formula our pension might be green as grass too. A fiduciary responsibility by the IAMNPF may just mean that they maintain the ability to cut benefits at will to keep it solvent. Receiving a pension trust via AA/twu represented members would more than likely be considered a windfall for the IAMNPF not a breach of fiduciary duty.
 
And yes our trust CAN be moved to the iam pension fund!
 
I spoke with the retirement counsel for the twu and as much as he didn't want to admit it he said that it is possible to move our trust into theirs. He also said that if he were running a corporation that had an underfunded pension obligation that dumping that liability onto someone else would be something he would do!   Kinda like a fiduciary responsibility for the corporation to get out from under it and pawn it off on to someone else. I also asked him if he would rather have a union responsible for his pension funding and the only source of the unions funding being the active employed members of the union,     or,,,     a corporation that's making huge profits funding his pension? He said that he would want the corporation being the responsible party for his pension.  The conversation was very eye opening and covered many scenarios. 
 
The bottom line is don't think for a minute that the twu, iam or the company are looking out for your bottom line. You are not the union,  you are a source of income for the industrial union machine and a brick in the company's backpack. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The bottom line is don't think for a minute that the twu, iam or the company are looking out for your bottom line. You are not the union,  you are a source of income for the industrial union machine and a brick in the company's backpack. 

Old news. I suppose people need reminding once in a while though. 

 

[Bob Owens]

During negotiations the lawyers initially said that since the plan was well funded and AA had plenty of cash mechanics would see no difference between a frozen plan and one that went the PBGC which has a max payout of $54000 (vs the $13000 that WeAAsles cited for multi employer plans. Then the following day they came back and said that we had to do whatever was necessary to keep the plan from going into the PBGC because there were a small number of "TWU members" that would be above the $54k, I suspect most of them were International officials whose AA pension was based on their International pay.

So it depends on how you look at it, if the pension had remained in place I would have been able to retire in ten years with around $4000 a month, now I'm looking at close to $2000. So yes I lost half my pension, but I would not have lost more than that had it went to the PBGC and most of the ask would have been satisfied and we would not have had to give more concessions in the here and now.

So according to what WeAAsles pulled up if we got rolled into the IAMPF and it ran out of money the most I could look forward to getting would be $13000 a year vs the $20,000 if we leave it right where it is and stay out of the IAMPF. So after losing half through the BK and the freeze, we could lose another 40%.
 
If this Alliance gets approved you know that the IAM will do whatever it takes to get their hands on our pensions and they have full control of the Alliance for the first two years.  They could do a hell of a lot of damage in two years. 
 
NO to the Aliance

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Bob how do you rectify the disparities? Our pension is underfunded to the tune of Billions and again I'm going to ask you and yes this is in the law, don't the administrators of the IAMPF have a fiduciary responsibility to the plan participants? (see the link below as to why the payouts needed to be lowered) If they took our pension as is with it's current underfunding they would be required by law to cut benefits once again to remain in the "Green Zone" status.

How do you rectify the difference in the multipliers? Ours was a 6.25% multiplier. What is the IAMPF multiplier? I believe it's less so if they took it over they would have to give us more than is being given to current participants after the cuts, (It was more prior to the law change)

Another thing. The company went through Bankruptcy and came to an agreement with the PBGC to freeze the pension. The entire details of that agreement I could not find in the court documents but I'm sure that there is a very detailed agreement between the two parties that would not allow AA to place it at risk? Wouldn't we both like to try and find that agreement?

The IAM did try to convince the Continental employees to FREEZE their CARP plan but that was refused twice and even the United Executives defended the CARP that it was solvent. I guess AA won't do that though because they want indentured mechanics? Oh and that's a currently "active plan", not an already frozen one.
 

"Continental Flight Attendants currently participate in the Continental Airlines Retirement Plan (CARP), which provides a measure of security for their retirement.
 
For over five years the Machinists have been trying to influence their current Members into believing that the CARP must be frozen and the IAM National Pension Plan is the right and only answer for the combined workgroup. Twice Continental Flight Attendants have rejected this notion, and the fact is there is no reason the CARP should not survive this merger. United has testified before Congress the viability of the Plan, and no other work group at Continental who belongs to this Plan is even talking about it, let alone trying to convince it's Members about the need to freeze it.
 
We know firsthand the devastation associated with a retirement plan being frozen or terminated.
The right thing to do is to fight to maintain this Plan for the benefit of Continental Flight Attendants now and to provide an option for all Flight Attendants in the combined workforce when we engage in Single Contract Negotiations."

http://unitedafa.org/news/details.aspx?id=6199

Bob if and or when I find out more information from the PBGC I'll post it. I really wish you or Bob Peterson would do this though since you guys are the one's representing your members and not me.

http://www.dol.gov/EBSA/pensionreform.html

 

Why would you ask or expect an answer from the PBGC on anything as far as our pension?   Our pension is not with the PBGC so they have nothing to do with our pension..
 
The administrators of the AA plan have the same fiduciary responsibilities as the administrators of the IAMPF so I'm not sure where you are going with that. Here are a few points you need to consider. 
-under the current plan if AA were to try and dump the plan on the PBGC and we did end up in the PBGC we would get everything we accrued up till the point the plan was frozen to a max of $54,000 a year
-if we get rolled into the IAMPF and given credited service in exchange for our funds and they ran out of money the most we would get from the PBGC is (according to what you put out $13,000) a year. 
-if we were rolled into the IAM plan, from what I've seen, the earliest you could retire without penalty is 65, under our current plan the earliest we can retire without penalty is 60.
-that five extra years of working and paying into the plan greatly lowers the "under funding" because many more people would die before ever collecting a pension check and even more would die collecting a pension five less years than under the AA plan.
 
Every point you have made here reinforces why we do not want to go into this Alliance where the IAM will determine ALL the answers to questions you have. 
 
I believe that AA would love to clear the AA pension debt, even just the TWU part off their books and I also believe the IAM would love to see a cash infusion into their IAMPF. I believe that if we were to ratify a deal that put us into the IAMPF that much of that debt would disappear off the books as well due to what I already mentioned. I also believe that for us the result of the Alliance, and their already stated intent to put us in the IAMPF will be even worse than what we have now. Sure they will promise us the world but one difference between the IAMPF and the AA plan is that if the plan starts running short of cash AA has to put in cash and can not cut our pensions but under the IAMPF they can cut our pensions when we are retired to try and make sure the plan doesn't run out of money. So under the current plan AA is left with the bill if there is a shortfall, under the IAMPF you are. That being the case I'd rather have my money paid directly to me where I know whats there and would instead negotiate higher wages and contribution rates in the here and now than rely on a sketchy promise from a Union sponsored plan from a Union that we won't even be members of (the IAM). 

 

[chellow]

Sure they do.
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf
 
Page 39.
 
Anytime a plan defaults to the PBGC, the benefits are reduced.  Big time.
 
Just ask about 30,000 of your new coworkers from the US side.

That's not a take over.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

From the IAMNPF plan description:

"The maximum benefit that the PBGC guarantees is set by law. Under the multiemployer program, the PBGC guarantee equals a participant’s years of service multiplied by (1) 100% of the first $11 of the monthly benefit accrual and (2) 75% of the next $33. The PBGC’s maximum guarantee limit is $35.75 per month times a participant’s years of service. For example, the maximum annual guarantee for a retiree with 30 years of service is $12,870."

"The Trustees may terminate the Plan and Trust Fund by a document in writing executed by all of the Trustees, if in their opinion the Fund is not adequate to carry out the intent and purpose of the Plan. The Plan and Trust Fund may also be terminated if there are no individuals living who can qualify as participants or beneficiaries under the Plan or if there are no longer any collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to the Fund. The Plan is considered terminated by law if it is amended to provide that no further benefits will be earned by employees for employment with employers, if every employer withdraws from the Plan within the meaning of Section 4203 of ERISA, upon the cessation of the obligation of all employers to contribute under the Plan, or if the Plan is amended to become a defined contribution plan."

No friggin way I would trust the IAM with Roach as a trustee of the plan.

The TWU + IAM = Epic Fail

 

[WeAAsles]

Alright I'm finished with this little exercise in fear mongering. The reality is that most of you on this site want to burn the association anyway you can and you'll do or say whatever it takes to get that to happen. It doesn't matter if you're being honest or not with others who are reading as long as you get what "YOU" want. If the association falls apart you have a much better chance of getting your AMFA in and that's all this is about at the end of the day.

You're not looking for anything substantial "In Writing" that either proves your case or mine because that may not go in your favor, so why even bother to try and get that. You talk about leadership that rules through fear and intimidation. You people are NO different. Sorry excuse for leaders if you ask me. 

The IAMPF is NOT going to take over our frozen pension. But go ahead and keep trying to sell it. Whatever means it takes to gain converts right?

 

[WeAAsles]

Rush-The Enemy Within (Part I of Fear)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBZ2qDIbDUQ

 

[NYer]

During negotiations the lawyers initially said that since the plan was well funded and AA had plenty of cash mechanics would see no difference between a frozen plan and one that went the PBGC which has a max payout of $54000 (vs the $13000 that WeAAsles cited for multi employer plans. Then the following day they came back and said that we had to do whatever was necessary to keep the plan from going into the PBGC because there were a small number of "TWU members" that would be above the $54k, I suspect most of them were International officials whose AA pension was based on their International pay.

So it depends on how you look at it, if the pension had remained in place I would have been able to retire in ten years with around $4000 a month, now I'm looking at close to $2000. So yes I lost half my pension, but I would not have lost more than that had it went to the PBGC and most of the ask would have been satisfied and we would not have had to give more concessions in the here and now.

So according to what WeAAsles pulled up if we got rolled into the IAMPF and it ran out of money the most I could look forward to getting would be $13000 a year vs the $20,000 if we leave it right where it is and stay out of the IAMPF. So after losing half through the BK and the freeze, we could lose another 40%.
 
If this Alliance gets approved you know that the IAM will do whatever it takes to get their hands on our pensions and they have full control of the Alliance for the first two years.  They could do a hell of a lot of damage in two years. 
 
NO to the Aliance

 
For an AMFA supporter,(we know you don't publicly support AMFA) it would really help your credibility to try and get support for your cause by using the virtues and advantages of the choice you seek rather than to cause fear or distrust. Making arguments that are really not supported by anything other than your biased outlook is a pretty transparent self interest argument.
 
You're supposed to be an intelligent man. So why is it that common sense seems to escape your arguments? Why in the world would the IAMPF take over an UNDERFUNDED pension plan which would only put their current pension status in jeopardy? A multi-employer pension needs to make adjustments to their Plan which would keep it under federally mandated funding levels, preferably in Green Zone. If they fall under those level their need to make automatic adjustments in order to return to the Green Zone.
 
The Association agreement spells out how the IAMPF will be treated in negotiations. Obviously, our Brothers & Sisters with the IAM  have a vested interest to maintain that Plan, which would be the reason to support the continued funding of their current pensions.
 
You’re against the Association, but you fail to mention to all the IAM Members what would happen to their retirements in the event the Association fails and either the TWU or AMFA become their bargaining agent. As a matter of fact, what happens to the TWU if the IAM becomes the bargaining agent? Apparently, it is more likely for your “doomsday” scenario to come about in that scenario, rather than with the Association, since the TWU will not even carry a voice.
 
BTW--The IAM does not get "full control" of anything. However, if you believe otherwise I'm sure you'll specify it from the Association Constitution.

 

[NYer]

 
Every point you have made here reinforces why we do not want to go into this Alliance where the IAM will determine ALL the answers to questions you have. INACCURATE...The IAM, nor the TWU will determina ALL the answers. Neither side has the absolute control....
 
I believe that AA would love to clear the AA pension debt, even just the TWU part off their books and I also believe the IAM would love to see a cash infusion into their IAMPF. I believe that if we were to ratify a deal that put us into the IAMPF that much of that debt would disappear off the books as well due to what I already mentioned. I also believe that for us the result of the Alliance, and their already stated intent to put us in the IAMPF will be even worse than what we have now. INACCURATE...The agreement states the support of the IAMPF during negotiations, but also states the support of maintaining the current status for IAM Members. That means the TWU Members will not be FORCED into the Plan, as you contend.
 
 
 

 

[swamt]

Why would you ask or expect an answer from the PBGC on anything as far as our pension?   Our pension is not with the PBGC so they have nothing to do with our pension..
 
The administrators of the AA plan have the same fiduciary responsibilities as the administrators of the IAMPF so I'm not sure where you are going with that. Here are a few points you need to consider. 
-under the current plan if AA were to try and dump the plan on the PBGC and we did end up in the PBGC we would get everything we accrued up till the point the plan was frozen to a max of $54,000 a year
-if we get rolled into the IAMPF and given credited service in exchange for our funds and they ran out of money the most we would get from the PBGC is (according to what you put out $13,000) a year. 
-if we were rolled into the IAM plan, from what I've seen, the earliest you could retire without penalty is 65, under our current plan the earliest we can retire without penalty is 60.
-that five extra years of working and paying into the plan greatly lowers the "under funding" because many more people would die before ever collecting a pension check and even more would die collecting a pension five less years than under the AA plan.
 
Every point you have made here reinforces why we do not want to go into this Alliance where the IAM will determine ALL the answers to questions you have. 
 
I believe that AA would love to clear the AA pension debt, even just the TWU part off their books and I also believe the IAM would love to see a cash infusion into their IAMPF. I believe that if we were to ratify a deal that put us into the IAMPF that much of that debt would disappear off the books as well due to what I already mentioned. I also believe that for us the result of the Alliance, and their already stated intent to put us in the IAMPF will be even worse than what we have now. Sure they will promise us the world but one difference between the IAMPF and the AA plan is that if the plan starts running short of cash AA has to put in cash and can not cut our pensions but under the IAMPF they can cut our pensions when we are retired to try and make sure the plan doesn't run out of money. So under the current plan AA is left with the bill if there is a shortfall, under the IAMPF you are. That being the case I'd rather have my money paid directly to me where I know whats there and would instead negotiate higher wages and contribution rates in the here and now than rely on a sketchy promise from a Union sponsored plan from a Union that we won't even be members of (the IAM). 

And no union should control a pension with a clause that you will not receive any more monies into the fund if you are not a member of their union.  It is just a way for the union to never get booted from a carrier.  Bob how many times has the IAM cut the funds going out and/or reduced the amounts to keep it in the green?  I have heard of twice but not sure...

 

[iluvaa]

Hey NYer when did we the union ever decide we wanted this association. For or against when did we the union decide this. When the members have a voice there is nothing to fear, if the members wants this then that's the way it is but if the members don't that's the way it is also. A few can't dictate this change and expect people that are supposed to have a voice in it to stand by quietly. Why is it that you supporters constantly act surprised that your dictatorial ways always cause strife. The only way there will be peace is a legitimate vote