Originally Posted by
UnusualAttitude
I am still in the camp that if this plan saves the company as much money as some speculate (they did say this solves the company’s accounting issues which to me means saves them money) that we should harness that leverage to address some other parts of the contract. They are very focused on negotiating this as a singular issue.
-UA
So you believe that the union saying that this solves the companies accounting problem means that it save the company money? Why not just ask that question?
I have asked, and the NC told me that this plan is actually more expensive than the current A plan. He also told me that they think that the company will like this because they will always know what they have to put into the plan because it can't be underfunded. In other words, according to PM, the company will never be required to make a large contribution during a down market because the plan can't be underfunded.
I did ask how that would work with the floor guarantee. He didn't follow. So I asked what would happen if the value of the plan fell below the floor guarantee. He said that the company would have to provide money to get it to the floor guarantee.
Now wait, doesn't that contradict what he said about the plan never being underfunded?
It's those exact kind of contradictory statements that result in us losing grievances and the contract not being what the union sells. The union only tells us what they want to believe, not what the language actually says.
Just show some courage and vote "NO." Tell the union and the company that we are willing to fight for the retirement the we deserve, not the one that came off the "sales rack."