Kip Powick Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1076454611201&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CDB Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 As an outsider, I'm just curious what employees who support this stance think the alternative to Li is? I don't see too many other sources of funds lined up outside the door, and even if there were, why would their position concerning the pension issue be any different? The positions from both parties seem to be much more harsh than just 'big words' to gain concessions from the other.. Any insight would be greatly appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 The trouble is that it is a knee-jerk reaction by the Union heads without consultation with their members. There are numerous forums around where DB and DC pensions are being discussed and for those not familiar with the pension issues they are very enlightening....some individuals have admitted that they did not know the advantages of each system and now have more information upon which to make a decision. Most unions are guilty of just jumping up and saying "no-way" when a proposal is contrary to the status quo....without really looking at the entire issue. Having said all that, I would like to make it clear that I have not decided which would be best for me if the issue really concerned me......CAW ???? just a initial war of words ...as a starter ...........and I really don't think the judge is going to tell Mr Li he is out of the picture. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Insight?.... Insight around the AC camp is a very precious rarity, I'm afraid... little is known and even littler is communicated. Union's I've become familiar with (read: the IAM) will tell all what their members want long before they have a clue. I'm hearing, just this morning for instance, that I'd rather tell Mr. Li to get stuffed, than take an offer to open our contract again to change some items that were supposed to improve productivity - which in fact did quite the opposite - and accept his offer.... Did I know I thought that way? Did anyone ask me?.... Did anyone ask anyone I work with?.... Hell no. The union apparently thinks they have the insight. Y'know... I've winced every time I hear someone claim that the problems at AC are largeley due to "the unionized employees".... but what I think I might have missed is that it may truly be "the unions" that are a big part of the problem... and since unions are "supposed to be" a voice for their members, the conclusion makes sense, dangit.... But I'm here to tell you..... THE IAM DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME! They never ask me, they never listen to me, they can almost always be counted on doing the exact opposite of what I'd like them to do.... And I think.... I'm pretty sure even, that that would go for almost all of us in maintenance. We should be looking very seriously at his proposals and not simply discarding them as more rotten good-for-the-company-so-it's-bad-for-us stuff.... Insight.... hmmmmm.... can someone with "insight" find me the off switch for the bloody IAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RKM Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 In regards to unions I have to be honest and say I was once a member of the CAW (GM) and thank God I am no longer associated with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The evolution of the unions from their roots is interesting. The CAW spread and CUPE (from a public service union to the private sector). I guess the only three "true" airline unions in the mix are ALPA, ACPA and oh yes the IAM & AW. Unions, like corporations are more about their needs rather than the needs of their members IMO but I am sure there are others who hold a contrary opinion. Too bad though, that most of the unions do not or so it appears, want to allow their members to have a say in the pension issue. What do they have to lose by allowing the membership to vote??? Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest M. McRae Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The evolution of the unions from their roots is interesting. The CAW spread (from car builders) and CUPE (from a public service union to the private sector). I guess the only three "true" airline unions in the mix are ALPA, ACPA and oh yes the IAM & AW. Unions, like corporations are more about their needs rather than the needs of their members IMO but I am sure there are others who hold a contrary opinion. Too bad though, that most of the unions do not or so it appears, want to allow their members to have a say in the pension issue. What do they have to lose by allowing the membership to vote??? Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest directlaw Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 It is saber rattling. Trying to look tough. The unions are in a position of weakness and they know it. If the unions can't get Li's pension proposal width drawn they will all be there on the 16th negotiating with him. Count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CDB Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I hope you're right...it just seems (from the outside at least) that on this particular issue - the pensions - neither group is up for negotiation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiho Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The pension issue is probably one of the most complicated components of our contract and, as evidenced by the reactions, one of the most dear. There is widespread lack of knowledge about the peculiarities / pros / cons of DB and DC. The unions (which I still believe are the employees) also have no knowledge as to just what the size of the pension shortfall currently is. I think TTI knows what that shortfall currently is (pretty close, anyway). TTI planned this solution to the pension "problem" some time ago...they're far too sophisticated to not have considered this prior to their offer. Why the last minute take it or leave it ultimatum style offer? What are the fine details of the offer? Is there room for negotiations? Can we negotiate with TTI (legally - they haven't "paid" for that right yet)? At this point, we would not know what we would be voting on. That is what has generated the response to TTI's ultimatum. And, maybe, that is precisely what it was intended to do. I did not know this was going to be the make it or break it issue. TTI did. If it truly is, why would they not have divulged that long ago and take the uncertainty of having wasted their time / effort / money out of the equation. I mean if switching to DC is the best and only way that AC can go forward, why risk that on a vote by employees that lack the knowledge to make an informed decision? I don't know the answers, but there are people educating themselves on this issue and we will have some illumination in the days ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 The only hope the unions have is that they actually find an investor who will leave the status quo intact in all respects. I'd say the odds of that happenning are 1000 to 1. They have painted themselves into a corner and any good strategist would see it. The problem for the unions is that a DC plan is not necessarily a concession. If, as I posted a few days ago, they negotiated to get at Li's bottom line, they might be able to limit the DC plan to new employees only. And they might be wise to negotiate an opt-in for current employees who would prefer DC. And then, of course, you negotiate the best possible DC. I'm big on DC because a well run DC plan will provide a better pension. Yes, there is a risk. However - and here's the rub - if the unions keep on the DC pension fund managers and demand performance, threatening to force changes in fund managers if they under-perform markets, then you should get a great plan. But that means unions actually have to work a little harder. DB plans encourage laziness. So longer as the benefits are paid as promised and the fund runs a surplus some of the time, -the employer can raid the surpluses (legally) -the employer can take unilateral contribution holidays (legally) -Nobody pays much attention to a DB plan's performance or is very demanding when markets are good. -Few DB plans have indexed benefits, so in a period of high interest rates you just get a nice surplus (which the employer raids) DC provides the incentive to keep the fund performing well - at least outperforming the usual market and pension benchmark indicators. Also, every dollar the employer contributes stays in the plan, and the employer can never raid the surplus (because with DC, there is no such thing as a surplus) or take a contribution holiday). There is added risk with DC, but a well-run DC plan is better than a well-run DB plan because it will tend to pay a higher pension. Moreover, and this is key, with a well-run DC plan, you don't have to negotiate for indexation of benefits - and give up wages or make other contract concessions as you would with DB - because in a high interest rate environment you get full benefit of higher rates. Your unions won't tell you this because they are ideologically married to DB plans. It's a throwback to an earlier era where people stuck with an employer for life. Unions don't like variability, they don't like portability, they don't like mobility. They like a captive work force, angry at the employer, etc. As some of you have proven with your comments, if you had the ability to move with your pension intact, including the employers' share of many years of contributions, you would be out of AC like a bat out of hell. But that's not what the unions want. They want you there, and they want you miserable. They want you to be as miserable as Pam Sachs and all of the union leaders that represent you. That's why they oppose DC. And why they won't even debate the issue (with you, their dues-paying members). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bm330 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Not trying to squirt lighter fluid all over the place but..... 5 days to develop an understanding of the proposal, draft a presentation to all employees, have a pension seminar, then organize a union by union vote. Noah was given an easier task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiho Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I totally agree. In fact, it's impossible. So if Li walks because of this, then I have to believe it was by his design. He's too smart to walk away without any further discussion on this issue. If, however, his plan gets signed off on by the 16'th, he'd be MUCH happier. I think he's looking to cover a future $42 million writedown on his investment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Foxtrot Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Dagger; I have to admit that I know very little about pensionn plans. The points you have brought up seem to hit the nail right on the head. When Air BC introduced our pension plan I was very happy to see that their name did not appear anywhere on the plan. As you see Air BC is gone. My pension plan is still here! I just had coffee with an ex co-worker, and he is glad that the pension plan he payed into went with him when he moved on. Am I mistaken? wasn't one of the reasons A.C. went bankrupt that the pension plan was under funded? Haven't companies been subject to hostile take-overs so that their pension plans could be pilfered? Isn't it common for companies to go under to get out of paying pensions? I mean wouldn't you rather not have your boss's hand in your cookie jar? I am no expert, but one of the reasons I would prefer to not be assimilated into A.C. is their pension. The proof will only come when we are collecting our pensions as to who is right, and who is wrong. As for now will an under funded pension eventually put us out of a job? When it does I know where my money will be, and it it will not be sought after by creditors! P.S. I was shocked to see our company name on my last pension update! the less they have to do with it the happier I am. JMHO Tony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Just a clarification on something you said....pension plans are regulated trusts...they cannot be "pilfered"...only the surplus in a plan can legally be removed by a company or as you suggested in a hostile takeover...there is no surplus in the AC plan..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Foxtrot Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 WA777; I was just trying to point out that in the evnt of a perceived surplus a company could slide in steal your money, and your company's bank account, then shut you down when the economy falls. A few years ago the A.C. pension was hugely over funded. This has caused a lot of problems. People should not have been so over joyed that they let the company take a HOLIDAY, just as we should not be overly concerned now. I hate to say it, and please do not call me a TROLL! but how do we expect a pension designed for 40,000 people making good money to be funded by 25,000 people making peanuts. As I said before, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 After reading what pension changes were being proposed,i find myself totally against what the IAM,and the rest of the union leadership is telling Victor.If you feel your leadership is out of touch tell them ,We should at least have the right to vote on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 Last week we discussed the moral issue here at AC....as applies to YYZ. Well seeing something like this sure doesn't help. We know that if it's DC they want in the end they are going to get that, so make it more palletable to us give a little honey to attract the bears. I think that what has the masses upset is hearing about this "sudden development " at this late a stage in the game, and that's what it is to the players involved. With just under 20 years here, I am one of the people that will be forced into a DC, there is so much speculation on what the formula is going to be and it's all from a position of ignorance.I don't like the thought that now I'm going to actually have to pay a lot more attention to my pension than I used to and I also don't like the though that I'm now going to have to pay someone to help me with that. But if it means that I still have the ability to feed my family so be it. I would love to see some of the 6.5% that we gave last year to come back to us as a way to soften the blow of the DC , that we all know will happen. I know that Dagger is going to say why should they give us some money back, well as I said it would make something that was supposed to be untouched and now getting forced upon us a little softer.If we thought that moral was bad before I can bet that it will only fall from here. And before ACPA jumps in and says 6.5% isn't that bad we took a lot more....at our level it all hurts. Flame away! Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 You can't even really say what is proposed by Li since his reps say the details are negotiable, and all pension negotiations are about details. I would want my union to find out the bottom line before they actually decided it represented a concession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leading Edge Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 You are probably making more than the bottom 300 ACPA guys... It hurts everywhere. LE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 No, I would say that since Li's people claim the details of DC and who it covers are negotiable, I'd suggest that the unions go and find out the bottom line. If you have 20 years, you must be darn close to 60 number of age+years of service, and if that was lowered to 56 or 57, a lot more people would be exempt. And if the contribution terms for DC are good enough, you might even WANT to be in DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aardvark Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 dagger i agree that for some a dc would look just as good as a db..there are pros and cons to both. but to give an ultimatum to the current pension plan members without any specfic details is just hardline bargaining. in the end they'll get new employees into a dc current employees will be given the choice mr li is just trying to line his pockets with whatever he can get....can you blame him? it's all business......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 That's my notion... There is a deal to be had for grandfathering most if not all current employees into DB, or at least giving all a choice. Li's people said they would negotiate the details, so perhaps the unions should save everyone some grief and just negotiate that deal without putting their members through the wringer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aardvark Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 that's a good point saving everyone the grief but in the back of my mind i hope the unions hold the line on this one...this style of ultimatum bargaining is getting a little old.. mr li is going to make one s#it pile of $$$ on this deal... now i fear it's turning into a game of how much more can i squeeze outta them.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chiselcharter Posted February 11, 2004 Share Posted February 11, 2004 I was in a DC plan and it's my preference. However for a company prone with labour grief why would it wait until early Feb with a Feb 16th deadline to try convince 'old' union thinking that DC is better. What is their motive? They can't be that naive to think unions whom trust them not would jump into an agreement. Are they hoping unions say no, the company crumbles and pieces are picked up for pennies on the dollar with a 'hungry' workforce having been put on the street momentarily thus caving into their demands? What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.