AGA 60 and Retirement
#21
DLax -
Interesting idea, but your formula doesn't quite seem fair to the younger member of our crew force. Somebody who is hired fairly young (say 33) and puts in a full 25 yrs would ONLY get the same retirement as a person who, for one reason or another, is hired much later in life (say 50) and works significantly FEWER years for the company. I don't know why the person wans't hired until later, but this shouldn't be a reason to lessen their required service in order to get a full retirement package. I think the younger guys in our crewforce have had more than their fair share of top heavy decisions. Just my 2 bits.
Interesting idea, but your formula doesn't quite seem fair to the younger member of our crew force. Somebody who is hired fairly young (say 33) and puts in a full 25 yrs would ONLY get the same retirement as a person who, for one reason or another, is hired much later in life (say 50) and works significantly FEWER years for the company. I don't know why the person wans't hired until later, but this shouldn't be a reason to lessen their required service in order to get a full retirement package. I think the younger guys in our crewforce have had more than their fair share of top heavy decisions. Just my 2 bits.
#24
Got you PM. I really like what you had to say about how a Block Rep should operate; I think that we have VERY similiar opinions about how that job should be performed. As much as I want to throw my name in the ring for Block 7, I think that I would be overextended until I get my remaining 34 months done at the ANG (not that I'm counting). Especially after these past few months, I think the folks on the back half of the seniority list (and our block) deserve somebody who is not only committed to representing their desires, but can put forth the time that being an ATTENTIVE block rep requires. I'll yield to your nomination, but as I previously mentioned, will step up to the plate if a like-minded candidate doesn't emerge.
HerkDriver
Last edited by HerkDriver; 09-13-2007 at 05:25 AM.
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 37
I'm probably going to get shot for this but here it goes. Why don't we start thinking about getting rid of the A plan. This should be very simple to do; give the guys who have a lot invested in the program the option of keeping it. For the others, figure out a fair formula and do a cash buy-out, which is then rolled over into an IRA/401K. Then replace the A-plan with a very large B-plan. I for one would rather have a cash value prgram instead of a future promise.
Fire away.
Fire away.
#28
I'm probably going to get shot for this but here it goes. Why don't we start thinking about getting rid of the A plan. This should be very simple to do; give the guys who have a lot invested in the program the option of keeping it. For the others, figure out a fair formula and do a cash buy-out, which is then rolled over into an IRA/401K. Then replace the A-plan with a very large B-plan. I for one would rather have a cash value prgram instead of a future promise.
Fire away.
Fire away.
#30
I'm probably going to get shot for this but here it goes. Why don't we start thinking about getting rid of the A plan. This should be very simple to do; give the guys who have a lot invested in the program the option of keeping it. For the others, figure out a fair formula and do a cash buy-out, which is then rolled over into an IRA/401K. Then replace the A-plan with a very large B-plan. I for one would rather have a cash value prgram instead of a future promise.
Fire away.
Fire away.
No way the company will trade the good deal they have on the A plan with all the early deaths for an expense buyout.
Sorry