TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[NYer]

The $310 includes the total value of all concessions, so yes it includes the lump sum option even if it was given no value.  --No. it does not. Just like the 4.8% of the TWU does not include just the changes to the CBA. Included in that 4.8% was 1.7% in a "Me Too" value not directly linked to the CBA. It also includes value gained from settlements of grievances tied to the 757's and the healthcare overpayment.
 
 
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. --That's a little ridiculous. The "Lump Sum" payments enable pilots to take their full value whether they lived an hour, a week or a century past their retirement date. Those payments were made at one stop and not spread out over time which lessens the liability for the Company. So much so, that getting rid of that "lump sum" payment was a central "want" for the airline, and they got it.
 
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? --Sir. You are bringing out the fact and complaining that other work groups did better. I merely mentioned that you had a participatory seat at the event you're complaining about. To your defense, this was a BK situation where leverage is not something employed in those types of negotiations. 
 
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. --Don't be coy, that was an issue from 1983 and not as a result of the BK like the pilots lump sum option was.

 

[NYer]

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. --You're wrong, but you're usually the last one to recognize that.
 
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. --Where exactly is that said? --Wow. Where did I say that?
 
 
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? --They will have that choice because we'd be under one CBA which would allow for ANYONE interested to choose that option. There may be new hire TWU Members that want to be part of their Plan. If they choose it, then they'll have that option, they won't be forced as you predict. (I guess you have to say that to be consistent that everything TWU/IAM has to stink)
 
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. --Those scenarios are not going to happen. The IAM is not going to willingly give up control of their Members of the IAMNPF.
 
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. --My "argument" about the Association has little to do with the IAMNPF. I simply don't think it is a good idea to have a vote between two unions in which the union I belong to could lose when there is an option available that helps both sides retain what they're familiar with. I value some of the systems we have over the systems the IAM uses.

 

[NYer]

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

 
If there is an option that helps me keep what I currently have as opposed to taking a change and losing it. I'd rather take the option that helps me keep what I currently have, i.e. Association.
 
If it's between the IAM and TWU, I'd stick with the TWU.

 

[AANOTOK]

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

As a 31year Fleet Service Clerk, I can't recall ever deciding (with a vote) what pay and benefits the mechanics would receive in a contract.

 

[NYer]

 
 
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.

 
So, if I'm not a "commie" and I'm not a sheep/chicken combo who likes to be told what to think, I can prove otherwise only if I agree with what you want me to agree with and follow the rest of the AMFA supporters...you know, fall in line. Is that right?
 
BTW--If most were ready for a change AMFA would of had enough cards by now. Isn't "most" a majority and if you had "most" wouldn't the TWU be out by now? It doesn't seem you've grasped the idea of, "most."

 

[Bob Owens]

-No. it does not. Just like the 4.8% of the TWU does not include just the changes to the CBA. Included in that 4.8% was 1.7% in a "Me Too" value not directly linked to the CBA. It also includes value gained from settlements of grievances tied to the 757's and the healthcare overpayment.
 

 Key spin words-"not directly". All that was part of the concessions, directly or indirectly. 
 

 --That's a little ridiculous. The "Lump Sum" payments enable pilots to take their full value whether they lived an hour, a week or a century past their retirement date. Those payments were made at one stop and not spread out over time which lessens the liability for the Company. So much so, that getting rid of that "lump sum" payment was a central "want" for the airline, and they got it. 
 
 

Yes and it was part of the ask included in the $310M so what was the value? You spun it out to say the pilots lost millions each, but in fact the Lump sum is valued at less than what the pension is, just like a Lottery payment. The company wanted to get rid of it for 30 years but unlike us, the pilots kept saying NO. The problem for the company is two fold, when a wave of pilots retire all at once it creates a huge sudden exit of capital from the plan, and two, like you said if only live a minute past their retirement date the company gets to "indirectly" keep the rest of the value, much like the IAMNPF would if we were in it and only lived an hour. 
 

--Sir. You are bringing out the fact and complaining that other work groups did better. I merely mentioned that you had a participatory seat at the event you're complaining about. To your defense, this was a BK situation where leverage is not something employed in those types of negotiations. 
 

 And you did that because you had no effective defense of your position that we did as well as other groups.
 
 

 --Don't be coy, that was an issue from 1983 and not as a result of the BK like the pilots lump sum option was.
 

So I guess its a fair statement to say that when it comes to concessions we are 30 years ahead of the pilots!

 

[Bob Owens]

As a 31year Fleet Service Clerk, I can't recall ever deciding (with a vote) what pay and benefits the mechanics would receive in a contract.

"Indirectly" you decided what they heard and got to vote on though. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
If there is an option that helps me keep what I currently have as opposed to taking a change and losing it. I'd rather take the option that helps me keep what I currently have, i.e. Association.
 
If it's between the IAM and TWU, I'd stick with the TWU.

You are confused, right now you have the TWU, not the Association.  The agreement may not take you from the TWU but it changes everything for the worse about what you have with the TWU. With the TWU you at least get to vote on people who can go to negotiations, with the Association the IAM and TWU internationals each select three people for each contract group, Stores and Title II are included as part of the M&R group so more than likely both will be excluded entirely. Cant see them telling the Presidents of either 514, 567 or 591 they can't go. Maybe Fleet is OK with the International selecting the three out of seven Presidents to go , or maybe none of them will go, you really don't have a say.  Thats what this Association does, it changes what we have, but not for the better, it makes everything we don't like that much worse. If you want to keep what you have you have to vote against the Association. You may still be paying dues to the TWU but everything else will change and not even the people you elect will have any say in what happens in negotiations. 

 

[AANOTOK]

"Indirectly" you decided what they heard and got to vote on though. 

No Bob, I had absolutely NOTHING to do with their benefits and compensation...NOTHING!

 

[700UW]

Something doesnt seem right here.
 
I cant see a Fleet Service person being on a mechanic and related negotiating committee nor a Fleet Service person voting on a CBA that they are not working under nor are they in the class and craft.

 

[NYer]

You are confused, right now you have the TWU, not the Association.  The agreement may not take you from the TWU but it changes everything for the worse about what you have with the TWU. With the TWU you at least get to vote on people who can go to negotiations, with the Association the IAM and TWU internationals each select three people for each contract group, Stores and Title II are included as part of the M&R group so more than likely both will be excluded entirely. Cant see them telling the Presidents of either 514, 567 or 591 they can't go. Maybe Fleet is OK with the International selecting the three out of seven Presidents to go , or maybe none of them will go, you really don't have a say.  Thats what this Association does, it changes what we have, but not for the better, it makes everything we don't like that much worse. If you want to keep what you have you have to vote against the Association. You may still be paying dues to the TWU but everything else will change and not even the people you elect will have any say in what happens in negotiations. 

 
Not confused at all. If there was a vote and the IAM won, then you'd have the worst case scenario in which there would be no one from the TWU at the table at all. Facing a scenario by which I have no one familiar with the TWU negotiating my next CBA, I'd rather not face that possibility with a vote between the TWU and the IAM. I've said it before, the Association is not a perfect solution (there are not perfect solution) but it is much, much better than facing the possibility that the TWU would be out and we'd get stuck with the IAM.
 
You might be willing to roll the dice on a vote for an organization you've spent many, many years talking against in the belief they'd win, but I'd rather not face that because the cliff we'll fall off from is much worse.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
 
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. --Where exactly is that said? --Wow. Where did I say that?
 

Either you or WeAAsles, not much of a difference. 
 
 
 

--They will have that choice because we'd be under one CBA which would allow for ANYONE interested to choose that option. There may be new hire TWU Members that want to be part of their Plan. If they choose it, then they'll have that option, they won't be forced as you predict. (I guess you have to say that to be consistent that everything TWU/IAM has to stink)
 

From what the US guys posted participation in the IAMNPF is not optional, they can't choose a 401K match instead. Where are you getting this from?
 
 

-Those scenarios are not going to happen. The IAM is not going to willingly give up control of their Members of the IAMNPF. 
 

Not sure where that statement came from but they already did, they agreed to a deal that says that their members can not work if they are collecting a pension, that sounds like the IAMNPF has a lot of control to me. 
 
 

 --My "argument" about the Association has little to do with the IAMNPF. I simply don't think it is a good idea to have a vote between two unions in which the union I belong to could lose when there is an option available that helps both sides retain what they're familiar with. I value some of the systems we have over the systems the IAM uses.
 

What you fail to see is that the Association does not preserve what you have, it only preserves the fact that your dues go to the TWU. Already the two have agreed to change the way we determine seniority, doing it the IAM way-by SSN instead of age, and our pension-the IAMNPF instead of 401K match (and possibly 65 vs 60 without penalty) again doing it the IAM way. Make no mistake they are going to rework everything you know into the IAM model, so I guess the only good thing will be that you will be paying the lower TWU rate for IAM misrepresentation instead of the higher IAM rate, but then again if the TWU prevails you get to keep not only your lower dues but possibly the other things you say you want to keep. What do you get to keep in the Association? 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
Not confused at all. If there was a vote and the IAM won, then you'd have the worst case scenario in which there would be no one from the TWU at the table at all. Facing a scenario by which I have no one familiar with the TWU negotiating my next CBA, I'd rather not face that possibility with a vote between the TWU and the IAM. I've said it before, the Association is not a perfect solution (there are not perfect solution) but it is much, much better than facing the possibility that the TWU would be out and we'd get stuck with the IAM.
 
You might be willing to roll the dice on a vote for an organization you've spent many, many years talking against in the belief they'd win, but I'd rather not face that because the cliff we'll fall off from is much worse.

So you are saying that the worst case scenario is that we end up in the IAM, but the Association will put you in the IAM pension, the IAM seniority determination process and the IAM has control the first two years. Thats already been determined. From what you are saying here you should be advocating against the Association because why would you want to be in an association with an organization that you obviously do not want to be a member of? You are aware that at any time the station you are in could be transferred to the IAM aren't you? By endorsing the Association you are making it that much more likely that your worst case scenario could become your reality.
 
You call it rolling the dice, I call it taking a stand, once in a while you have to do that you know.
 
The IAM may have had a chance had they come back with a wage close to Delta and Profit Sharing, but with the turd they brought back they would not get more than 500 cards (ex-TWA) from the TWU side. You yourself say that ending up in the IAM is a worst case scenario, well with this Association everything is already being done as dictated by the IAM so whats the difference? 

 

[Bob Owens]

Something doesnt seem right here.
 
I cant see a Fleet Service person being on a mechanic and related negotiating committee nor a Fleet Service person voting on a CBA that they are not working under nor are they in the class and craft.

Thats because in the IAM they pick people in the class and craft, in the TWU they take elected people from the Locals. If they fixed the structure of the Locals the TWU would fix the problem of having people from one class sitting in negotiations for another class, but having the International simply pick whomever they want , like at the IAM is just as unacceptable. The fix for the TWU may be difficult but simple, move the remaining Title II guys into Local 591. 

 

[NYer]

 
 Key spin words-"not directly". All that was part of the concessions, directly or indirectly. 
 
Yes and it was part of the ask included in the $310M so what was the value? You spun it out to say the pilots lost millions each, but in fact the Lump sum is valued at less than what the pension is, just like a Lottery payment. --And like a lottery payment, once the money is in your hands, it's yours. If you pass away they don't come and take it back. The pilots, as a creditor, lost that value as a lump sum and they were compensated for it by the Creditors Committee.
 
The company wanted to get rid of it for 30 years but unlike us, the pilots kept saying NO. The problem for the company is two fold, when a wave of pilots retire all at once it creates a huge sudden exit of capital from the plan, and two, like you said if only live a minute past their retirement date the company gets to "indirectly" keep the rest of the value, much like the IAMNPF would if we were in it and only lived an hour. --They get to keep the rest of the value?
 
 And you did that because you had no effective defense of your position that we did as well as other groups.
 
 
So I guess its a fair statement to say that when it comes to concessions we are 30 years ahead of the pilots! I guess AMFA can get you the limp sum back....Oh wait.....