Originally Posted by
Hacker15e
Does it matter if it is "unreasonable"? The cost is a function of laws passed to ensure pensions are funded better than they were. It is what it is. The cost of that burden is the company's argument against raising the cap, increasing the annual multiplier, or any of the other efforts to increase the benefit.
So far as verification of the 4:1 number, since knowledge of it is a result of information seen by MEC members who had to sign an NDA, I don't see any reason to expect the company will ever reveal the details of those numbers, how they were computed, or why. I understand the suspicion of information coming from members of the MEC based on past behavior, but this is information the company is never going to reveal to the pilot group. Insistence on chasing down the accuracy of the number is wasted effort.
It is a piece of data the pilot group didn't have during the last round of negotiations. Rather than wasting effort trying to disprove its validity (which is something none of us will be able to do), why not use it instead to figure out how to get the improvements in the A plan we want, rather than trying to stab the VB plan to death with it?
In the first place, the "4 to 1" ratio is NOT "a piece of data [we] didn't have during the last round of negotiations." We were told The Company made that claim to argue they couldn't afford to raise the FAE cap, and we had to take their word for it. As far as I can tell, we have zero additional information to confirm or deny the claim.
Secondly, is the figure regulatory ("a function of laws passed") or proprietary (" ... information seen by MEC members who had to sign an NDA ...", " ... don't see any reason to expect the company will ever reveal the details of those numbers, how they were computed, or why", " ... information the company is never going to reveal to the pilot group")?
If the cost is a result of regulatory change, we should be able to consult experts in pension fund management to derive an educated estimate of the cost. Federal laws are hardly secret, and I can't imagine why MEC members would be asked to not disclose Federal laws.
If the cost is proprietary, a secret, then stop blaming it on the law. And just because The Company won't tell us, or doesn't want to the MEC to tell us, that doesn't mean we can't consult with the same experts to study the fund and come up with some pretty good estimates.
I defy you to find evidence the MEC has paid such experts to study our A fund and estimate the cost of raising our FAE cap by any increment.
What you WILL find is clear evidence they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying and promoting one single alternative to our A Plan without learning one whit more about the plan we already have. The MEC has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership, and that includes being experts on our retirement plans. If they don't want to do that, they need to step aside and make room for those who will.
.