Not much, but if the IBT gets a vote, and the AMFA does not, the IBT would win.
What signing a Teamsters Card gets You
- Thread starter AMFAinMIAMI
- Start date
Not much, but if the IBT gets a vote, and the AMFA does not, the IBT would win.
Doubt that scenario. AMFA has more cards. Teamsters at present admitted that they do not have 50%. They are clueless as to how many cards they really need for a election. 50% plus 1 of what number? That is the mystery number that the Teamsters do not know. If they are serious about a vote then they have no choice but to shoot higher than they feel would be appropriate. AMFA knows the target number.
Real tired
Veteran
View attachment 9706
I got this in the mail. Help me!!!
Which are lies, and which are not.
I also posted this over at the UA board, and sorry about it being sideways.
I got this in the mail. Help me!!!
Which are lies, and which are not.
I also posted this over at the UA board, and sorry about it being sideways.
Just Another BK
Advanced
- Jul 19, 2008
- 133
- 37
Your IBT Pension Proposal statements don't make sense. If Joe Blow is receiving a Pension below the maximum guaranteed rate of the PBGC. Why would his Pension be cut?
Your statement:These Pension Funds could slash benefits to as low as just 10% above the guaranteed rate set by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. For a retiree with 30 credit years, that rate is currently less than $1100 per month!
From ther PBGC Website:
For 2013, the maximum guarantee for a life annuity with no survivor benefits is $57,477.24 yearly ($4,789.77 monthly) at age 65; $45,407.04 yearly ($3,783.92 monthly) at age 62; and $25,864.80 yearly ($2,155.40 monthly) at age 55. The maximum guarantee is based on a participant's age at the date guarantees become effective for the plan if payments have already begun. For those participants whose payments have not yet begun, the maximum guarantee is based on age when payments begin.
Your statement:These Pension Funds could slash benefits to as low as just 10% above the guaranteed rate set by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. For a retiree with 30 credit years, that rate is currently less than $1100 per month!
From ther PBGC Website:
For 2013, the maximum guarantee for a life annuity with no survivor benefits is $57,477.24 yearly ($4,789.77 monthly) at age 65; $45,407.04 yearly ($3,783.92 monthly) at age 62; and $25,864.80 yearly ($2,155.40 monthly) at age 55. The maximum guarantee is based on a participant's age at the date guarantees become effective for the plan if payments have already begun. For those participants whose payments have not yet begun, the maximum guarantee is based on age when payments begin.
Surprised they did not tell you they can open a contract after voting them in.
Well I suggest you read the article again! It says Hoffa has signed off on it so I would say it is more than a proposal, Secondly it is from the TDU that would be Teamsters for a Democratic Union so it is from the Teamsters. and third it says that the minnium under the PBGC would be less than 1100.00 a month under the Hoffa proposal it would br 1210.00 so no it is not less than the PBGC.
Wasn't it you that was telling me about how good these's Union Pension funds are and I said they are all scams I want no part of them they are all time bombs looking for a place to go off. give me the 9.3% matching 401K at SWA anyday compared to this junk!
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
(Posted on the UAL Board as well.)
For my part, its part truth, part distortion, and some lies thrown in.
Okay I'll try to go line by line.
The Preface:
Misleading - We were in bankruptcy under AMFA, you at USAir know what that entails, yet the ibt try to play it up as if AMFA had any other choice than concessions while at the same time fanning the flames of fear about NWA. Better representation? Not from my point of view.
Buyout and signing bonus:
Misleading - The $11,500 number is accurate but it comes no where close to the retro the ibt promised. As for the buyout, that's shows the ibts LACK of negotiating prowess. The company simply agreed to a buyout to pass the vote, the actual contract language wasn't written until AFTER the vote passed. The company put such draconian requirements on the buyout that only about 450 took it system wide and most of those were leaving anyway. The company was looking for 900 to 1000.
Regained 80%:
Misleading - this doesn't begin to address what we gave up in out old agreement. Remember, the ibt basically tried to mold us into a mirror of the ibt CAL agreement. 80% would best be determined by balancing what you got by what value you placed on what language you gave up. For me, not 80%
We are back at the table, in expedited negotiations.....AT UNITEDS INVITATION.
Stronger Scope:
While we have a "No-Furlough" clause, nothing protects us from losing work due to attrition. The teamsters gave up language in our previous agreement that kept work by name.
Average 15%:
Just what it says.....AVERAGE.
Increase in Line Premium,Longevity, Shift pay
Distortion approaching Lie - Yes all those went up, but the teamsters gave up our Skill Pay language which was what was used to fund these increases - it was just moving money around and calling it an increase.
Double Time:
Repeat - we had this before, so it should be included in their 80% regained line above.
1.5x for Training:
True - that said in my 20+ years at UAL I've only had to attend training following a shift once. NOTE: this is only for training following or preceding a shift - NOT Offshift training. The Travel time pay is good.
Strengthened Grievance Process:
Having served as a Steward for all three UAL unions IAM-AMFA-ibt, I disagree.
Hours of Service Improvements
IMHO No - Here in SFO we lost better language, loss of Sat-Sun off schedule to rotation, and the company can junior mechanics on to 10hr shifts where under our previous CBA 10hrs where strictly voluntary
Missed Paid lunch:
True - a situational/niche improvement
Moving Expenses:
True - we had this previously as a reference to company policy, this clarifies language in the CBA
Longevity Pay
Repeat/Distortion - Again already mentioned, and this was funded in part by the loss of Skill Pay language.
Run/Taxi
True - extremely situational - While not familiar with USAirs situation here at UAL we seldom run engines for more than an hour...if that.
COLA Committee:
True - the language is there, so far not a single report.
Per Diem
True
Lead/Insp Premium
True
1.75x for Field Service
True - situational
Our two latest CBAs - AMFA & ibt are available online for direct comparison.
In summary, there are a lot of little situational increases, ie; taxi/run, and EFS pay increase but for the rest of the CBA, I think we surrendered things we shouldn't have, and didn't get enough in return. Add to it, the ibt FAILED in two of their biggest organizing promises - 1) to open the contract early, and 2) to get us a double vesting pension.
Yea we got some of our money back, but after almost 10 years, we should've gotten more and not have had to give up to get it.
JMHO
Real tired
Veteran
Beautiful !! Thanks again !!!
Basically the highlight sheet stresses the things they you at UA have that we do not have here at US. Doesn't mean we'll ever see any of that here.
I knew they were just puffing up their chest.
Sadly though, my misinformed, apathetic coworkers are buying into it hook, line and sinker.
Basically the highlight sheet stresses the things they you at UA have that we do not have here at US. Doesn't mean we'll ever see any of that here.
I knew they were just puffing up their chest.
Sadly though, my misinformed, apathetic coworkers are buying into it hook, line and sinker.
Just Another BK
Advanced
- Jul 19, 2008
- 133
- 37
First of all I quoted a sentence from AMFAin Miami Post in this Topic. He said: [background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]These Pension Funds could slash benefits to as low as just 10% above the guaranteed rate set by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. For a retiree with 30 credit years, that rate is currently less than $1100 per month! That was his statement I was questioning. I am not here to back the IBT or AMFA. [/background]
Secondly I have never approved of any IBT Pension Plan. I don't even know if they have ever been able to establish one at any airline. USAirways had a Company Defined benefit Plan and a 401K match of only 2% before the last Bankruptcy. We then moved into the IAM Pension Plan and if we had opted in sooner would have well over $100 per year of service invested like the Simulator Techs. The Retirees who left at the time of turnover (Company Plan) to the PBGC are very happy with their pension accruels that were below the maximum limits of the PBGC and never lost a dime except for those who took income leveling. The PBGC did not recognize that option before the full retirement age of 62. Thirdly if you believe a large carrier with more than SWA 2.5 Mechanics per A/C will ever get anywhere near the SWA CBA contract you are delusional. It will never happen. If you like them so much quit and try and get hired there. Because that's your only option unless you want several more thousand layoffs to get down to that number. Its like a baseball player playing for the Yankees or the Pirates. He's going to get a hell of a lot more money playing for the Yankees. They are both baseball teams but two different animals all together.
We have over 3 mechs per a/c at SWA.
I know it doesn't make that much of a difference in your example, but it makes a difference here.
By contract we must have at least 2.75 per a/c.
Yes and everything you just said about the IAM plan was being said about the Teamsters plans up to 6 days ago and next month it may be the IAM plan that is failing. Like I tried to tell you before there is a big difference between a single company plan and a multi-company plan like the IBT and IAM below is a couple of paragraphs from the PBGC website that might open your eyes or you can just keep believing whatever they tell you.To be perfectly honest you work for US Airways and the IAM does not even have a dog in the hunt until a single carrier filing is granted and best guess is that will be over a year from now. So I will get about replacing the TWU with AMFA and you can do whatever you thinks best over at US Airways we will have to hash all this out at a later date.
The Program:
The multiemployer program is funded and maintained separately from PBGC's other insurance program, which covers only single-employer plans. Each multiemployer plan pays an annual insurance premium of $9 per participant to PBGC, increasing to $12 per participant for the 2013 plan year. Under the multiemployer program, PBGC provides financial assistance through loans to plans that are insolvent (that is, plans that are unable to pay basic PBGC-guaranteed benefits when due). Before a plan receives financial assistance from PBGC, it must suspend payment of all benefits in excess of the guarantee level.
Benefits Guaranteed by PBGC in Multiemployer Pension Plans:
MPPAA established a benefit guarantee limit for participants in multiemployer plans equal to the participant's years of service multiplied by the sum of (1) 100 percent of the first $5 of the monthly benefit accrual rate and (2) 75 percent of the next $15 of the accrual rate. For a participant with 30 years of service under the plan, the maximum PBGC-guaranteed benefit was $5,850 per year. This benefit guarantee formula remains in effect for participants in multiemployer plans that received financial assistance from PBGC at any time during the period from December 22, 1999, to December 21, 2000. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, signed into law on December 21, 2000, increased the benefit guarantee in multiemployer plans to the product of a participant's years of service multiplied by the sum of (1) 100 percent of the first $11 of the monthly benefit accrual rate and (2) 75 percent of the next $33 of the accrual rate. For someone with 30 years of service, this raised the guaranteed limit to $12,870.
Just Another BK
Advanced
- Jul 19, 2008
- 133
- 37
Wow 2.75-3, that makes a big difference from 2.5. You have got to be kidding me. At one point AMR had over 20 Per A/C ! USAirways had 20 before bankruptcies. That is a big difference when you are cutting the financial pie ! The IAM said they could get us SWA wage rates if we would go down to there levels of staffing. Heavy Maintenance Checks are the biggest cost item and that's why farming it out saves them so much money.
Just Another BK
Advanced
- Jul 19, 2008
- 133
- 37
Yes the IAM Pension Plan is a multi employer. However it is well funded and run by IAM and participating Employer Trustees. I am not saying anything positive or negative about it. I have never heard a negative comment concerning there financial liabilities. I don't see it FAILING anytime soon.The old USAirways Company Plan was a single employer that got dumped on the PBGC. The TWU has established a 401K plan after the AMR freeze with a match of what 5%? So what's the problem? The IBT or AMFA for that matter would take over your present contract and then have to negotiate a new CBA with members input and approval anyways.
My concern lies in the fact that our frozen pension will be the target of either the IAM or IBT should they become the union on the property. If those fund are turned over to either of their funds we would lose our level of protection based on single employer and would be at the mercy of a failed plan that that would the entitle us to 100 dollars a month. While what little research I have done into the IAM plan suggest for now it is stable but all these plans where stable at one time or another and since it is a muti-company plan a single covered company failure could change all that overnight.
Similar threads
