TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[trentrb211]

How can a ramper vote on a CBA that they are not part of the class and craft?
 
This doesnt seem factual.

 

[trentrb211]

And that is why you have no idea how this works. But you always seem to be the expert on everything. So please stay out of our business

 

[scorpion 2]

I'd rather not take a chance to lose what the TWU has, as far as agreements like OT, the current grievance process, the ability to easily change schedules and all the little things many take for granted. I don't believe it is a slam dunk the TWU would win simply because we have the higher numbers. Just on these pages you can see how so many, spend so much time talking against the TWU.
 
In having a vote, what is the upside. What is there to gain as a TWU Member. On the other hand, how much can I lose if the IAM wins. Those factors make it a foolish risk to take.
 
With the Association, each side can keep what they have and we can all get to negotiations.
 
I understand why the AMFA supporters don't want it and don't like it. Simply, it makes their decade long push for AMFA even harder with the added numbers of the IAM.

You make no sense at all. With the alliance there are an equal number of appointees on the negotiating committee from both sides. Doesn't matter that we outnumber the iam guys. But hey if there was a vote and the iam was to prevail then congratulations to them (or us) because we the members spoke. Whats wrong with that?

 

[scorpion 2]

So Scorpion, a letter will prove to you that there is no intention to take over the or "grab" the pension then I guess you have a letter to prove they will, as you seem to believe. You spoke to the "TWU retirement guy," which must have been a conversation held at least a year ago since the TWU doesn't have a "retirement guy" since the changes from the last Convention.

Maybe you should put in a call to 514 and have them pull the guys contact info off the union bulletin boards. Guess they didn't get your memo that the guy is doing pro bono work now. I think the pension agreement between the iam and twu speaks volumes in saying our trust is in their sights. Like I posted earlier have the international put a letter out explaining how our pension trust will not be touched. Hint, they wont.

At first the retirement guy tried to make out how great it would be if the membership were to be able to hit the ground running in the IAMNPF with the same time vested that they had in the AA plan. He couldn't say enough good about our old plan and thought resurrecting it in the IAMNPF would be a really good thing for us. He started back tracking when he realized that a multi employer plan was protected at a much lower payout than a single employer plan. Then the more he found out about the restrictions placed on the retirees of the IAMNPF his tune changed completely. But hey like I said in an earlier post, thanks in advance if you can get the twu/iam to put a letter out stating that under no circumstances will they try to negotiate our pension trust into the IAMNPF.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
The $310M does not include their lump sum option, nice try. The Equity is byproduct of a bankruptcy and ALL creditors received Equity from the Creditors Committee commensurate to their losses within that process.
 
As far as the APFA, well I guess you could have done better for us. I mean you guys were involved in the negotiations....Oh wait. It was someone else who is fault....even though you were at the table. Copy.

The $310 includes the total value of all concessions, so yes it includes the lump sum option even if it was given no value. Let me clear things up for those who are unfamiliar with the way you like to spin things. You throw out big numbers to try and confuse things, the Lump sum was not a multimillion dollar option, it was the option to take a lump sum payment of your pension and give up guaranteed payments for life so on an actuarial basis the value of the lump sum was less than if you collected a pension. Its similar to the way if you win the lottery you can take the full amount paid out over many years or you can accept a smaller award all at once. 
 
I was not at that table. That was done at "high level" negotiations where only the International and whomever they picked was present, what I participated in was merely a sideshow conducted by the International because they know that the only way to get the members to accept these lousy deals is to have faces that the members picked tell them its the best they can expect, by the way there was a lawsuit filed on that. So once again when hit with the facts you resort to distract by an attempt to make a personal attack and leave out the fact that the International made videos telling the members they needed to accept what you now admit is an inferior agreement. You are no longer claiming that we didn't get the worst deal, instead you are trying to say its my fault because you claim I was there. Why not just admit you were wrong? 
 
How much value did the mechanics get for their lump sum option? I know it was gone when I hired on but management still got it because I remembers several taking it. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Maybe you should put in a call to 514 and have them pull the guys contact info off the union bulletin boards. Guess they didn't get your memo that the guy is doing pro bono work now. I think the pension agreement between the iam and twu speaks volumes in saying our trust is in their sights. Like I posted earlier have the international put a letter out explaining how our pension trust will not be touched. Hint, they wont.

At first the retirement guy tried to make out how great it would be if the membership were to be able to hit the ground running in the IAMNPF with the same time vested that they had in the AA plan. He couldn't say enough good about our old plan and thought resurrecting it in the IAMNPF would be a really good thing for us. He started back tracking when he realized that a multi employer plan was protected at a much lower payout than a single employer plan. Then the more he found out about the restrictions placed on the retirees of the IAMNPF his tune changed completely. But hey like I said in an earlier post, thanks in advance if you can get the twu/iam to put a letter out stating that under no circumstances will they try to negotiate our pension trust into the IAMNPF.

If they put our AA pension in the IAMNPF the company gets not only a multimillion dollar concession (millions of dollars in liability -monies owed to us-would simply disappear) that they could not have forced on us in BK but they save money compared to having to match all hours worked in the 401k. 
 
Millions of dollars, our money, would simply vanish due to the 60 vs 65 rule. On top of that our pensions would no monger have the same protections, should the IAMNPF run out of money the most we are guaranteed according to proponents of the deal is $13,000. We negotiated and paid for the ability to retire at 60 without penalty, every time we would bring up that we had less sick time, less vacation etc that was always thrown back at us, now we still have less of everything else but we would lose that as well. , now it would be given away and we would likely receive ZERO credit for it, more than likely both parties (the IAM run Alliance and the company) would co-operate and try and sell it as a gain. 
 
Either way, whether its just a forward looking deal or we go in vested and they get our funds from AA I want no part of the IAMNPF.
 
Its funny how at first the other side was saying that the IAMPF didn't want us because of the liability, then they were showed documentation indicating they were wrong, now they are claiming that they do not want our funds from the AA plan, well if they didn't know that they wanted us in the IAMPF then how could they know that the IAMPF doesn't want the AA funds? Either they were wrong on the first point and lying on the second or lying on both points and hoping nobody would call them out. 
 
The fact is its clear that the intent is to get us into the IAMNPF, what is not so clear is what they intend to do about the AA pension. The plus's of moving it over to the IAMPF for the company and the fund are indisputable. The benefits to the members are dubious at best. The evidence out there, including reports that we will be immediately vested in the IAMPF once we go in certainly indicate that our funds from AA will be transferred to the IAMPF. The fact that the company could eliminate millions, if not billions in liability off their balance sheet and the track record of both the IAM and TWU in facilitating hidden concessions time and time again also strongly support the idea that our AA pension funds will be moved to the IAMNPF. 
 
 
The IAM will not doubt push a hard sell for us on the IAMPF. I want no part of the IAMNPF and here is why;
 
Currently my AA pension is frozen, but I know whats there and I know what I can expect. Even if AA were to liquidate my AA pension will not be reduced and is protected. 
 
If our pension is moved into the IAMNPF it no longer has the same protections. The guarantees in multiemployer pensions are different, they can lower my pension if they feel they need to even after I have retired. As reported here if the IAMNPF ran out of money the MOST we would get is $13000 per year. Even with the frozen AA plan I would get a lot more than that. 
 
With the IAMPF we are giving money back to the company in exchange for a promise from a plan sponsored by a Union that we would not even members of. 
 
Our pensions would not be portable with the IAMNPF, it basically locks us into a Union that negotiates the worst deals in the industry. We are at the very bottom of the industry. The latest IAM agreement does not even get them up to the UALs three year old agreement and has zero profit sharing for what will likely be the most profitable period ever in the airline industry. 
 
The IAMNPF also locks you into this airline, so in addition to giving money back vs the 401k , writing off perhaps billions in liabilities the company also gets a captive workforce. Why would we want that? Portability is a huge asset, it forces companies to treat their workers better. Mechanics are paid better than baggage handlers because their skills are portable and in limited supply, those two factors drive the market rate, no other reason. Anything that stifles portability stifles leverage at the bargaining table. 
 
The IAMNPF denies us the ability to use our skills and collect the pension that we earned. In effect the IAMPF takes over ownership of our A&P licenses. Well that certainly does not sit well with me, they didn't contribute one iota to me getting my licenses and I would never consent to allowing them to determine whether I can use them to earn money on the outside either. I understand their spin on the theory of it, "eliminate the available hours of labor and have more leverage at the bargaining table because of a reduced overall supply", but the reality is it just forces people to stay with US no matter how bad the contracts are that the IAM negotiates. The proper way to address supply is like the way the pilots do it, limit the duty cycles, but as we know their new partner testified in Congress against that. 
 
 
The thing we have to remember is that if we could not live off the wage without supplemental income we will not be able to live off a pension based on that wage, we need to retain the option of using our licenses even if we decide we have had enough of AA. The IAMNPF would deny us that option. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
It also says, "TWU and IAM further agree that, in the event that negotiations with the Carrier to cover the entire crafts or classes of Mechanic and Related, Fleet Service, and Stores at the New American Airlines do not result in agreement, TWU will support continued participation in the IAMNPF of those of the Carrier's employees who are already participants in the IAMNPF."
 
Clearly, the agreement will not force anyone not currently participating to do so. It also protects those that do and want to participate in the Plan to continue to do so.
 
Ironically, without the Association and with the IAM winning a representational vote it would be more probable that we'd be forced into the IAMNPF. So you're protest of the Association is actually giving you a higher probability to be forced into a Plan you don't seem to want to be a part of. Ironic.

Clearly you are grasping at straws. I think its pretty obvious that the language is referring to an unwillingness of the company or the membership as a whole to accept the deal. Yes people would be forced into the IAMNPF as written in this deal if the membership as a whole were duped into accepting it. 
 
On your second point. So are you admitting now, in direct contradiction to earlier claims, that if the TWU were voted in or in by acclimation over the IAM that those in the IAMNPF could remain in the plan? Thats pretty much what it says, basically that no matter what happens they can stay. I support that, let them stay if they want, if they want to give back around $1/hr to the company after factoring in OT etc in exchange for a promise from the IAMNPF thats should be up to them. What would be the IAMs argument against it? Because they are now TWU members? Well they were willing to accept thousands of TWU members that were never a part of the IAM, why not accept those who are already in the plan to continue if they choose to?
 
So in the event our rights are defended by the NMB and we have an election (if another party produces a showing of interest) or the IAM simply bows out, as long as the TWU proposes the IAMNPF to the entire membership they have complied with this agreement, the members could reject the IAMNPF but those who are in it could stay in it if they chose. 
 
So, that said the IAM could walk away and their members can stay in the IAMNPF. So whats the downside of all staying in one union now? You basically just shot down the only argument they had in favor of the Alliance. 

 

[Bob Owens]

How can a ramper vote on a CBA that they are not part of the class and craft?
 
This doesnt seem factual.

Actually under the current TWU Negotiating Committee Bylaws there could be more Fleet Service Clerk Presidents sitting in Mechanics negotiations than mechanics. There are seven Fleet service clerk Locals, 5 of those Locals have Title II, so there could be three mechanic Presidents and five Fleet Service Clerk Presidents sitting in the next round of M&R negotiations, now on the fleet side there would be Seven Fleet Service Presidents in negotiations, no mechanics (unless a Title II was elected to be President, don't ever recall a Title II guy being President of any Local). So Fleet Presidents can sit in the mechanics negotiations but mechanics can not sit in Fleet Negotiations, of course the Bylaws are not really enforceable but since the International has decided that only Fleet Service Clerks are welcome at the International and ATD its anyones guess how negotiations will be structured. The Title II guys could, like the Title I guys in RDU did, vote to say they do not want anyone from their Local in negotiations if its not a mechanic, but thats pretty rare.  While this needs to be fixed its still better than the Association where the members and Locals have ZERO say in who sits in Negotiations. 

 

[iluvaa]

I'm not voting for the IAM either.

by your own admission you don't want a vote period.

 

[Vortilon]

 
Most of the whiners are the minority looking for the change. If the majority were the whiners, the TWU would have been out.

 
 
Whiners?  Why don't you walk into any line maintenance breakroom and run your mouth like that?   I would say you're more of a sheep - chicken combo.  People like you (commies) like to be told what to think, and want everybody else to fall in line behind them.  No democracy!  Well, after almost 30 years of working in the suck under TWU negotiated contracts, and being at the absolute bottom of the industry in pay and benefits - most of us are ready for a change.  AMFA is the answer.

 

[700UW]

I was an IAM member for 20 years we never had fleet negotiating for mechanic and related and they never voted on our CBA.

 

[NYer]

You make no sense at all. With the alliance there are an equal number of appointees on the negotiating committee from both sides. Doesn't matter that we outnumber the iam guys. But hey if there was a vote and the iam was to prevail then congratulations to them (or us) because we the members spoke. Whats wrong with that?

 
Read it again. I was talking about a vote between the IAM and TWU, instead of the Association agreement, and the possible consequences of such a vote.
 
There is nothing wrong with a vote between the two if there was one....I just rather not take the chance of losing when winning gives me nothing. If the IAM wins, we can lose many things we currently have. If the TWU wins, we can keep many of things we currently have. If the Association wins, we can keep the things we currently have AND each side can prioritize their needs to keep most of what they want in a CBA, such as a the IAMNPF.
 
With the Association, they can keep their IAMNPF and we can keep out frozen assets and 401K. How harmonious would we all be if one side or the other won an election and we spend the rest of our careers fighting each other and card drives so each side can try to regain their losses.....That's not even mentioning the seniority agreement that is part of the Association which can go away if there was a fight between the two sides.
 
A vote to decide that chaos is not worth it to me. Too much to risk and too little to gain.

 

[NYer]

Maybe you should put in a call to 514 and have them pull the guys contact info off the union bulletin boards. Guess they didn't get your memo that the guy is doing pro bono work now. I think the pension agreement between the iam and twu speaks volumes in saying our trust is in their sights. Like I posted earlier have the international put a letter out explaining how our pension trust will not be touched. Hint, they wont. --Has there been a memo that says they will, because the Pension agreement doesn't say that. It does say they IAMNPF will be a point of negotiations and it also says that in the event the IAMNPF is not an option for the TWU, we would support their continued participation. In other words, we protect our interests and they protect theirs.

At first the retirement guy tried to make out how great it would be if the membership were to be able to hit the ground running in the IAMNPF with the same time vested that they had in the AA plan. He couldn't say enough good about our old plan and thought resurrecting it in the IAMNPF would be a really good thing for us. He started back tracking when he realized that a multi employer plan was protected at a much lower payout than a single employer plan. Then the more he found out about the restrictions placed on the retirees of the IAMNPF his tune changed completely. But hey like I said in an earlier post, thanks in advance if you can get the twu/iam to put a letter out stating that under no circumstances will they try to negotiate our pension trust into the IAMNPF. --As a scare tactic that fear might be useful for rhetorical purposes, but in real life that possibility is not even logical. Why would a Plan that has so many Federal oversights put themselves in a position to take a underfunded frozen plan.
 
If you're familiar with multi-employer pension plans then you'd know they need to keep themselves in a certain level of funding, currently they're in the "Green Zone" and they're safe. However, if they take on an underfunded plan they would immediately put themselves in a position to where they would need to make modifications to their current system in order to compensate for the shortfall in our pension underfunding.
 
That makes absolutely no sense for the IAM and their Members to allow. Now, what can happen is that TWU Members (who happen to have many former IAM Members) the ability to begin to accrue under the IAMNPF. That helps the IAM to have more people paying into the system without putting that same system in jeopardy. The ability to join their plan or their guys opting for the 401K will be made available to all.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

I was an IAM member for 20 years we never had fleet negotiating for mechanic and related and they never voted on our CBA.

 
700UW
 
Now DO You get why we want the TWU GONE?

 

[swamt]

Travis, have you or anyone out here heard anything more from the Pres. 591 Peterson on this alliance issue?  After the this long holiday weekend, this coming Wed will be 10 weeks since the filing.  This ok as AMFA will have more time to collect cards from the US guys.  I do know one thing from all this, you guys DO NOT want this alliance to be the union at the new AA, you think you have it bad now wait till you guys get involved with this alliance BS.