TWU-IAM Finally Getting Ready for JCBA Negotiations

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
Au contraire mon ami...I have always acknowledged other unions losing members. The difference is that those losses by the IAM, in this instance, is somehow used to make an argument they are not worthy as opposed to AMFA. The argument that the IAM sucks because they lost members, so let's go AMFA is utterly ridiculous since you have also acknowledged they have lost members also. 
 
We can even argue the losses by AMFA are worse, in this context, because they lost those members after gaining them from the IAM. If we want to take that as a history lesson, then it seems clear AMFA is not the answer since once others get a taste of them more often than not, those mechanics end up elsewhere. 

 
I never made such an argument. I advocate for AMFA based on their foundation of democracy & accountability not their membership count.
 
I jumped in when you tried to float your "85% of peak membership" crap while at the same time denying the IAM was worse by the same measure.
 
You may try to argue the AMFA losses are worse. I on the other hand would argue the IAM is far worse.
 
The IAM has been decertified by the membership at how many carriers? UAL-NWA-Alaska-WN ...  How many carriers has AMFA been decertified by the membership at? UAL-Horizon (Horizon has tried once already to bring AMFA back and UAL is in the middle of an AMFA drive)   Is it merely a coincidence that both AMFA decertifications came by way of the teamsters? Is it merely a coincidence that both groups have tried/are trying to get AMFA back?  At AA/US you should be quite familiar with the teamsters lying organizing committee, why is it such a stretch to think that just maybe the UAL mechs were lied to as well?  I can tell you with certainty that the teamsters lies back in 2008 are at the foundation of the drive to bring AMFA back.
 
Further- what does it say about the IAM as an organization when they refused to acknowledge their own failings and respect the mechanics desire for separate representation?  All the airlines I listed didn't throw the IAM together - As many of you have ranted and raved, AMFA has been trying to get into AA for decades, well the same thing went on at UAL. I was in 3 unsuccessful drives at UAL before AMFA won, At any time the IAM could've made real change for the mechanics and kept them but they didn't.
 
That is an unresponsive union, out of touch with its membership, you may be fine with that sort lackluster representation, but I and others clearly are not

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
 
. --I guess a bankruptcy and a takeover by AMR is just a nuisance of a detail and had nothing to do with the TWA Members loss of their representation. 
 
 

Yes your comments are just a nuisance and have nothing to do with the fact that the IAM could choose to walk away like they did at TWA, the TWA guys never lost representation, they went from the IAM to the TWU. The issue is SOC and it doesn't matter if the merger was accomplished during a Bankruptcy or not, the rules for determining representation remain the same. 
 
Are you saying that the Union is somehow culpable for managements decision to employ the scam of bankruptcy and that the Union at the bankrupt carrier should walk away? Are you saying that the TWU should be the one to walk away? 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 --I thought you said there was no way to get an industry leading contract with the TWU and their broken system. 

 
Yes the TWU structure is broken, the Alliance would only make it worse. We need to fix the TWU not hand the reigns over to the IAM. We already saw what we can expect from them with the deal they negotiated , eight years after the company exited bankruptcy, with a company earning billions. 

 

[Vortilon]

 
You are so easily entertained, no wonder someone that has given nothing more than hot air has maintained the attention of a few malcontents.

 
Nothing like having a smartazz baggage handler imparting his/her vast knowledge on what is best for AA's AMTs.  Hey guys, let's take all his advise - what could go wrong?  Having a commie NYC FSC tossing about advice on union representation just gives me the warm fuzzies. Not...

 

[WeAAsles]

Go to iam141.org and click on US Airways, there was a joint agreement by the TWU and IAM that says they will try to negotiate the IAM pension for the single agreement.

Yes I actually have read the language multiple times. What it says is that the TWU will "propose" to the company participation into the IAMPF for TWU members. It does not say that that proposal means losing the 401k match as a sacrifice or that the proposal means our side will push to make it happen. It also absolutely says NOTHING about sacrificing our currently frozen pension with AA into the plan. That's a fear tactic being thrown out by some individuals on this forum.

If the company doesn't agree with our participation into the IAMPF the negotiators will support the continuation of the plan for those who are currently a part of it. As it should be since there may be many people in the fund who enjoy it and want to keep it.

At best I can see a scenario where we might have a choice between being in the plan or continuing with a 401k match and at worse the status quo remains and IAM members both current and those who change membership into the TWU in their stations will remain in the fund.

There won't be any scenario where anyone will lose what they have due to any changes in stations or representation. 

 

[xUT]

You speak as an authority but in fact you don't know.
If in fact it comes to fruition your best defense will be 'oops my bad".

 

[WeAAsles]

You speak as an authority but in fact you don't know.
If in fact it comes to fruition your best defense will be 'oops my bad".

Not an authority but there are too many reasons it's just not going to happen.

#1 The Pension fund trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to the plan participants. Those participants are not just USair employees but according to their site has 1750 contributing employers in the plan, has over 100,000 active participants and 90,000 retirees and beneficiaries.

If the fund were to take on the liabilities of AA's underfunded Pensions they would lose their green zone status and have to come up with a plan how to get it back to green zone within a certain time frame. AA would essentially have to make up those funding shortfalls at a much faster rate than they currently enjoy or the IAMPF would have to cut benefits for all 100,000 participants.

Does that make any SENSE to you? Here's a link to look up some of the companies in the plan.

http://ipass.iamnpf.org/EmployerSearch/Employers.aspx?search_by=B

#2  I happen to know 4 Fleet Presidents who may be a part of those negotiations and I haven't heard that a single one of them has an ounce of a thought of putting our Frozen pension at risk knowing the PBGC Mutiemployer payment liabilities and how extremely miniscule they happen to be. ALL of those Presidents pensions are frozen just like ours so back to common SENSE. Do you think they would agree or even continue to sit in that room together if someone floated this insane idea? How do you guys think Gary Peterson would react?

#3  Yes the IAM went after the Continental Airlines Retirement Program not once but twice. But both times they NEVER suggested taking over that plan. They wanted it frozen (Like ours already is) and for those members to join into the IAMPF. They were rebuffed twice and the CARP plan continues on today.

#4  And this is the one that I'll probably take the most flak from. But I very much doubt that the company wants to place their employees at further risks to eventually leave. I know what Bob has said about AA wanting to hold you hostage or keep prisoners but it makes zero SENSE again to me. The older we get the more we cost in both medical and productivity. Our experience does give us a value but as we age that value disappears. So no I do not think they want to put our opportunities to get out before 80 years old at risk simply knowing what happened to those unfortunate members at TWA who will be stuck here for still awhile to come.

So again is it possible for our frozen Pensions to become a part of the IAMPF, Yes. But does it make an ounce of SENSE it's going to happen, No.

Here is a link to the IAMPF Green zone status funding notice and what needs to occur if it goes out of that status.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/69651/Green_Zone2013.pdf
 

 

[Hackman]

 
Nothing like having a smartazz baggage handler imparting his/her vast knowledge on what is best for AA's AMTs.  Hey guys, let's take all his advise - what could go wrong?  Having a commie NYC FSC tossing about advice on union representation just gives me the warm fuzzies. Not...

Statement of truth there my friend.  You gotta wonder why Beltloader Bob and Samsonite Sally detest the AMT quest for a change in representation?
 
One answer, the coat tails will be much shorter to ride on for the Baggage Handling Engineers, and that makes them angry.  :angry2: 

 

[700UW]

Statement of truth there my friend.  You gotta wonder why Beltloader Bob and Samsonite Sally detest the AMT quest for a change in representation?
 
One answer, the coat tails will be much shorter to ride on for the Baggage Handling Engineers, and that makes them angry.  :angry2:

And this is a perfect example of why I say a lot of mechanics are elitists.
 
And since you all claim Fleet Service at AA has a better CBA than AMTs, I guess Bob and his gang are inept.
 
Maybe you need WeAAsles and Nyer to negotiate your next CBA, since Fleet did so much better, and while you are at it get some stock clerks since you also say that Stores has a better CBA also.
 
The only anger I see is from you AMTs who claim the whole world is against you, are you guys fans of Jesse Ventura and Mel Gibson.
 
Seems to me you are all jealous of Fleet and Stores.
 

 

 

[xUT]

Not an authority but there are too many reasons it's just not going to happen.

#1 The Pension fund trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to the plan participants. Those participants are not just USair employees but according to their site has 1750 contributing employers in the plan, has over 100,000 active participants and 90,000 retirees and beneficiaries.

If the fund were to take on the liabilities of AA's underfunded Pensions they would lose their green zone status and have to come up with a plan how to get it back to green zone within a certain time frame. AA would essentially have to make up those funding shortfalls at a much faster rate than they currently enjoy or the IAMPF would have to cut benefits for all 100,000 participants.

Does that make any SENSE to you? Here's a link to look up some of the companies in the plan.

http://ipass.iamnpf.org/EmployerSearch/Employers.aspx?search_by=B

#2  I happen to know 4 Fleet Presidents who may be a part of those negotiations and I haven't heard that a single one of them has an ounce of a thought of putting our Frozen pension at risk knowing the PBGC Mutiemployer payment liabilities and how extremely miniscule they happen to be. ALL of those Presidents pensions are frozen just like ours so back to common SENSE. Do you think they would agree or even continue to sit in that room together if someone floated this insane idea? How do you guys think Gary Peterson would react?

#3  Yes the IAM went after the Continental Airlines Retirement Program not once but twice. But both times they NEVER suggested taking over that plan. They wanted it frozen (Like ours already is) and for those members to join into the IAMPF. They were rebuffed twice and the CARP plan continues on today.

#4  And this is the one that I'll probably take the most flak from. But I very much doubt that the company wants to place their employees at further risks to eventually leave. I know what Bob has said about AA wanting to hold you hostage or keep prisoners but it makes zero SENSE again to me. The older we get the more we cost in both medical and productivity. Our experience does give us a value but as we age that value disappears. So no I do not think they want to put our opportunities to get out before 80 years old at risk simply knowing what happened to those unfortunate members at TWA who will be stuck here for still awhile to come.

So again is it possible for our frozen Pensions to become a part of the IAMPF, Yes. But does it make an ounce of SENSE it's going to happen, No.

Here is a link to the IAMPF Green zone status funding notice and what needs to occur if it goes out of that status.

http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/69651/Green_Zone2013.pdf

I spent 18 years under the IAM and if you believe 1/4 of the tripe they put out then you will be sorrily disappointed.

 

[dfw gen]

Yes I actually have read the language multiple times. What it says is that the TWU will "propose" to the company participation into the IAMPF for TWU members. It does not say that that proposal means losing the 401k match as a sacrifice or that the proposal means our side will push to make it happen. It also absolutely says NOTHING about sacrificing our currently frozen pension with AA into the plan. That's a fear tactic being thrown out by some individuals on this forum.

If the company doesn't agree with our participation into the IAMPF the negotiators will support the continuation of the plan for those who are currently a part of it. As it should be since there may be many people in the fund who enjoy it and want to keep it.

At best I can see a scenario where we might have a choice between being in the plan or continuing with a 401k match and at worse the status quo remains and IAM members both current and those who change membership into the TWU in their stations will remain in the fund.

There won't be any scenario where anyone will lose what they have due to any changes in stations or representation. 

Your an idiot.

 

[700UW]

Your an idiot.

Real intelligent response, and great refuting of information.
 

 

[WeAAsles]

I spent 18 years under the IAM and if you believe 1/4 of the tripe they put out then you will be sorrily disappointed.

That's an irrelevant comment when it came to what I posted, and the idea of what makes sense and what does not.

 

[WeAAsles]

Your an idiot.

My Mother used to call me that until I beat her at Backgammon.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes I actually have read the language multiple times. What it says is that the TWU will "propose" to the company participation into the IAMPF for TWU members. It does not say that that proposal means losing the 401k match as a sacrifice or that the proposal means our side will push to make it happen. It also absolutely says NOTHING about sacrificing our currently frozen pension with AA into the plan. That's a fear tactic being thrown out by some individuals on this forum.

If the company doesn't agree with our participation into the IAMPF the negotiators will support the continuation of the plan for those who are currently a part of it. As it should be since there may be many people in the fund who enjoy it and want to keep it.

At best I can see a scenario where we might have a choice between being in the plan or continuing with a 401k match and at worse the status quo remains and IAM members both current and those who change membership into the TWU in their stations will remain in the fund.

There won't be any scenario where anyone will lose what they have due to any changes in stations or representation. 

So you say, but after nearly 30 years I've learned to expect the worst case scenario. We were told that the language about the "successful resolution" of the 1114 process would not interfere with us getting the other half of our prefunding accounts, yet nearly three years later the court made their determination and we still do not have our money. So when I told the members that this language would bite us in the ass, there were those who said I was using fear tactics to get the deal rejected just as you are now.
 
When the cheerleaders were selling the concessions they said we had language saying that we had gain sharing, three years later and still notb a penny, not even a determination of what it will be based on, IIRC it cost us several thousand dollars a year per member, money that could have been used to get us some Holidays or vacation back, instead the company simply got additional concessions. We said that the language was bad, guys like you said we were lucky to have it and it would put money in our pockets and we were just being picky by demanding details. 
 
In 2001 we negotiated Jump seat privileges, once again a value is assigned, we never got that either.
 
In 1995 we got a contract that gave the company SRPs. The selling point was that no mechanics would be forced to be an SRP, and that they would be introduced into the shops through 'attrition". Many shop guys in Tulsa voted for the deal because they thought they were safe in the shop till they retired. Well they were wrong, if there was an A&P  vacancy on the Dock  an SRP was hired and went in the shop and the shop A&P was forced to the dock. They came up with the term "system attrition". 
 
So does the agreement say that the intent is negotiate a deal where we all end up in the IAMNPF , yes it does, its not exactly a hard sell because it would cost the company less than our 5.5% 401k match and with wages going up it will be even more of a savings than it is now. 
 
Now we both agree that the intent of the Association is to put us all in the IAMNPF. Correct? That is what the document says. I admit that it doesn't say anything about what their intents are as far as our AA plan, just as we weren't told A&Ps out of the shops and replaced by SRPs, weren't told that we would be losing push backs, weren't told that we would be losing de-icing, weren't told that we would not be getting gain sharing, weren't told that three years after the deal was signed we still would not have the rest of the prefunding, weren't told that we would be losing inspectors off the Bchecks, weren't told we would be losing the flex vacation. 
 
I'm concerned because i know its possible that our AA pension, thats currently a single employer plan, can be rolled into the IAMNPF multi-employer plan and I haven't seen anything stating that there is no intent by the Association to do so. The response from the Associations supporters on this blog has been that the IAMNPF would not want the billions that are in this fund due to the shortfall in the fund. This shortfall is not exactly a clearly defined number, recently heard it claimed that the fund was 100% funded. Even if that wasn't the case, changes between the early retirement rules and other restrictions that the IAMNPF has lower the estimated amount of monies needed to provide future benefits, so even if the AA fund had a liability that liability could dissapear simply due to the plan changes.    I also have to look at the fact that most of us are in our fifties, pensions tend to accumulate at a greater rate in the years after 20 than the years before twenty so we really would not accumulate much of a pension in the years we have left, so how would they make going into the IAMNPF appealing to us? To me the only way they can make it appealing to us is to roll us into the IAMNPF so we would have the same amount of credited years in the IAMNPF as we would if our AA plan was not frozen. What did they do at  USAIR and TWA?