Will AA Mechanics be Next?

[Buck]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 9:28:27 AM AAmech wrote:

KC FYI, there are some very misleading statements showing up around here. Yes the mechs, fleet service are both represented by the TWU. But both vote independantly for their own contracts or in worse case, gulp, concessions!
----------------
[/blockquote]

I believe you had better do a little research into the TWU International Constitution. The International is the the Supreme Authority of all of it's locals. If left to the Air Transport division of the TWU, it will surprise me when there are seperate votes and if there are and the mechanics vote against concessions and Fleet Service for concessions, there will be concessions. AAMech could you provide documentation that proves that seperate votes are the rule of law or in the TWU constitution or in any by-laws of any local the has authority over the TWU International?

 

[Hopeful]

RV4:
I was not referring to the US AIrways pension. I was referring to the government beginning the process of switching traditional pension plans to a cash balance plan which will affect older workers. The legislation which will be introduced in February will also protect corporations from age discrimination lawsuits.

Originally published December 22, 2002

WITH the Bush administration throwing support behind "cash balance" pension plans, more companies may convert traditional pensions to this option, which can significantly reduce older workers' projected retirement benefits.

This month, the Treasury Department proposed guidelines under which employers could change traditional pensions to cash balance plans without fear of age discrimination charges. The department is accepting public comment and plans a hearing in April. The rules could become final in the summer.

Cash balance supporters say the plan is more suited for today's mobile work force and helps younger workers build benefits more quickly. A third of Fortune 100 companies have a cash balance or similar plan; in 1985, there was just one, according to Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a human resources consulting firm based in Washington.

Opponents say companies convert to a cash balance plan to save money at the expense of longtime employees.

By converting, companies can save money because benefits are no longer tied to what workers earned in the last few years of their career, when wages are usually highest, experts said. During conversions, too, employers often drop expensive early-retirement subsidies.

"Overall, if I'm an older employee, I prefer the traditional pension. If I'm a younger employee, I prefer the cash balance plan," said Kien Liew, president of PensionBenefits Inc. in Plano, Texas.

A traditional pension's benefits build slowly over many years and then accelerate, with payouts usually tied to average pay during the last few years of employment multiplied by years of service.

In a cash balance plan, benefits accrue more evenly throughout employment. Workers are credited with a certain percentage of pay, usually 5 percent a year, and the balance is increased annually by an interest rate of, say, 5 percent to 6 percent.

As with a traditional pension, the employer pools the plan's money and assumes the investment risk. Workers receive regular statements on the lump-sum value of their benefits.

Like a 401(k) account, cash balance plans allow workers leaving a company after being vested, usually in five years, to roll their accrued benefits into an individual retirement account or new employer's plan, if that plan permits. At retirement, workers typically take benefits in a lump sum, although they can get an annuity that pays them a monthly check for life.

'Harmed a lot'

Under the Treasury proposal, cash balance plans would not be deemed discriminatory if older workers receive at least the same percentage of pay in their accounts as younger workers.

When companies switch to a cash balance, employees don't lose benefits they have already accrued, but can take a hit on projected benefits they have yet to earn.

"The big issue is conversion. The way it's been done previously has harmed a lot of employees," said Thomas Lowman, an actuary at Bolton Partners in Baltimore.

Lawsuit pending

Generally, longtime workers lose about 30 percent of their projected benefits when employers switch to a cash balance plan, Lowman said.

Jane Banfield, 54, said her projected benefits of $30,000 a year were cut in half after AT&T Corp. converted from a traditional pension to a cash balance plan in 1998. An employee lawsuit against AT&T is pending.

"You're changing the rules in midstream without offering us the opportunity to change our investment strategy," said Banfield, who worked 20 years for AT&T in New Jersey before being laid off in November.

Cash balance plans have their pluses and the impact of conversions can be ameliorated, some experts said.

A cash balance plan "tends to distribute the 'defined benefit' dollars more broadly among the plan population," said J. Mark Iwry, former benefits tax counsel with the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration. "It's not a type of plan that deserves to be demonized."

But Iwry added that, during conversions, longtime employees "deserve a soft landing. They deserve reasonable transition protections." Some companies, for example, allow those near retirement to remain under the old formula, give workers a choice of the old or new formula, or have sweetened benefits for older workers, Iwry said.

In a conversion, workers should ask how they will fare under each plan and request a financial remedy from their employer if they'll be hurt under the new plan, experts said.

To suggest a topic, contact Eileen Ambrose at 410-332-6984 or [email protected].

Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun

 

[RV4]

[BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 9:06:41 AM Hopeful wrote: [BR][BR]RV4, Did you not mention USAIRWAYS pension in your last post? Union representaion has an awful lot to do with workers security and retirement!----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Ok so [A href="http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/edit.asp?mode=new&catID=9&forumID=30&topicID=3414&sessionID={0A02E906-5981-4BF8-87AB-65A99E9373BF}"]

 

[RV4]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 9:28:27 AM AAmech wrote:
[P]KC FYI, there are some very misleading statements showing up around here. Yes the mechs, fleet service are both represented by the TWU. But both vote independantly for their own contracts or in worse case, gulp, concessions![/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]You best go read the TWU/AA Presidents Council By-Laws and pay particular attention to the definition of "Flow Through Items" and how they are handled for voting purposes.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

" AMFA DAVE, RIDES AGAIN" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

Hey dave, I've got an autographed picture of Jim Little, that I can let you have, for "the right $$ price" .

 

[Buck]

Posted: 1/25/2003 829 AM

Buck
Member

 

[RV4]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 8:25:01 AM KCFlyer wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 8:12:56 AM RV4 wrote: [BR][BR]Where in my post did I ever insinuate that you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time? I really, really missed it. [BR][BR]I am only pointing out that at this point in time, a union representation election would result in absolutely SQUAT to help the airline or it's employees. You may have a "lap dog" union represent you now. But the time to change things would have been long before now, or later on. Right now, the AMFA, IAM or any other union most likely would not have the ability to do a heckuva lot more for you than your current union. [BR]----------------[BR][BR]If no union can do a heckuva alot about the situation as you claim, then why are beating a drum to begin with? [BR][BR] LISTEN, the EMPLOYEES that are MECHANICS would be BETTER OFF in a mechanics union. I dont know how you define SQUAT from your anti-non-union job, but from where I sit, that is pretty damn important![BR][BR]You keep claiming that NO EMPLOYEES would benefit. I keep telling you that group would be better off than they are now.[BR][BR]Are you a mechanic? Are you in the union? What is your agenda anyway?[BR][BR][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[RV4]

[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 8:41:30 AM KCFlyer wrote: [BR][BR]Okay RV4 - AA management says to the TWU "We're bleeding cash and we need concessions" TWU is voted out and AMFA voted in. They walk into managements office and sit down. Management says "We're bleeding cash and we need concessions". What exactly can the AMFA do that the TWU cannot, that will result in a win/win for the company and mechanics? Bear in mind that without the company, union representation is a moot point. So please, enlighten me.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]My GOD you are impossible.[BR][BR]I am not advocating AMFA based on a belief that we will then manage and/or fix the company! I have been advocating AMFA long since 1998, it has nothing to with any piss poor business models, or overpaid greedy and incompetent management, or over capacity. The problem is simple, there is too much supply and not enough demand. A Union giving concessions does nothing to fix this![BR][BR]You keep acting as though it is the unions duty to fix the company. Is it even the unions fault the company is in this position? Mangement has many weapons to extract concessions and it appears Chapter 11 does not eliminate the company nor make unions moot.[BR][BR]The MECHANICS would be better off in a mechanics only union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![BR][BR]

 

[AAmech]

KC FYI, there are some very misleading statements showing up around here. Yes the mechs, fleet service are both represented by the TWU. But both vote independantly for their own contracts or in worse case, gulp, concessions!

 

[Hopeful]

RV4, Did you not mention USAIRWAYS pension in your last post? Union representaion has an awful lot to do with workers security and retirement!

 

[RV4]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE]KCFLyer,[BR][BR] Are you in the union? Are you in airline management? What is you agenda?[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 8:53:08 AM Hopeful wrote:

KCFLYER:
Since you are a "flyer" on the airlines. Do you care more about a "clean" aircraft or an "airworthy" one?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Both.

 

[RV4]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/25/2003 9:55:30 AM KCFlyer wrote: [BR][BR]RV4 - I'm only looking at today. Right now, it doesn't matter if Christ himself represents you guys, there isn't anything that a particular union can do better than any other...for TODAY. Tomorrow is another question. ----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]Finally you get it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!![BR][BR]But I do have more faith in Christ than that.

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 8:51:48 AM RV4 wrote:

My GOD you are impossible.

That's what my wife tells me.

I am not advocating AMFA based on a belief that we will then manage and/or fix the company! I have been advocating AMFA long since 1998, it has nothing to with any piss poor business models, or overpaid greedy and incompetent management, or over capacity. The problem is simple, there is too much supply and not enough demand. A Union giving concessions does nothing to fix this!

Didn't say that it did, just saying that I don't see what "changing horses in mid stream" buys either the mechanics, the rampers, management or the airline.

You keep acting as though it is the unions duty to fix the company. Is it even the unions fault the company is in this position? Mangement has many weapons to extract concessions and it appears Chapter 11 does not eliminate the company nor make unions moot.

I do? Search thru many of my posts on the U board (and some on the AA and UAL boards) to see what I think. I've stated there that management should look at revamping the revenue structure hand in hand with going to labor. I believe that even I, Mr anti-union kook-aid-sipping management lackey, have said that employee concessions alone will not save any airline, and that by revamping the revenue structure, many concessions may not be necessary. I do believe that the antagonistic relationship between unions and management doesn't help the situation any.

The MECHANICS would be better off in a mechanics only union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't doubt that they would, I just doubt that a mechanics only union would do much for them today.

----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[KCFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 8:53:02 AM RV4 wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/25/2003 8:48:40 AM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:

" AMFA DAVE, RIDES AGAIN" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

Hey dave, I've got an autographed picture of Jim Little, that I can let you have, for "the right $$ price" .

----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]

You always manage to show up and contribute greatly to the debate!

Very impressive!

Stick your picture out on E-bay, this an aviation forum not a flea market.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You know, NHBB has one view that is what I believe the one that should be seriously looked at - offer an early out to trim costs from the top down, instead of cutting so much from the lower end of the scale that it's more appealing for the younger guys to fix cars instead of planes.