Council 26 Mike Arcamuzi for Blk 11 Election
10-25-2014, 04:52 PM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Jetjok
What is a "short lease" anyway? A lease of less than a year, or a month to month lease of only Februarys? I just don't get it.
10-26-2014, 03:41 PM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by TonyC
The only thing that changed between the original FDA LOA and the one that was voted on was the length of an inverse STV. As I stated above, that was by agreement between The Company and The Association, first agreed to by your elected representatives, the MEC, and then ratified by membership vote.
Sounds like money was left on the table! But since it didn't affect DW and his cronies it was aggressively, rudely, and stated in a condescending manner by DW and cronies as "you will not be senior enough to be awarded STV." If DW felt this strong about the senior pilots gorging themselves on the STV, why did DW negotiate the STV include anything about forcing pilots in reverse seniority order? Why not in seniority order?
Originally Posted by TonyC
That is not direct dealing.
Originally Posted by TonyC
I bid Hong Kong. I commuted. I did not lease an apartment. Do you think I should have gotten the Rental Allowance?
Originally Posted by TonyC
90-day Inverse STVs were dinosaurs before the membership voted. How many STVs has The Company ever used? Zero. You were afraid you'd get drafted, and Dave Webb was certain you wouldn't. Who was right?
Originally Posted by TonyC
Apparently you aren't too familiar with the actual workings of a Ponzi scheme. That's certainly NOT what the Health Reimbursement Account was.
I added the bold portion to emphasis my opinion in the quote below. Not claiming to be a lawyer.
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization (ALPA), pays returns to its investors (Over age 53) from new capital paid to the operators by new investors (Under age 53), rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns (BC statement about those under age 53 can negotiate their HRA in future contracts) than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization (ALPA), pays returns to its investors (Over age 53) from new capital paid to the operators by new investors (Under age 53), rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns (BC statement about those under age 53 can negotiate their HRA in future contracts) than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.
Originally Posted by TonyC
HRA was funded by a VEBA with a $25,000 cash payment per pilot by The Company. The pilot gets the money, with accrued interest, on his 59th birthday. Having that money to offset medical costs until the pilot qualifies for Medicare removes an impediment to retiring.
I like the idea of the VEBA HRA being funded by the DSA (much more $). Then the HRA is funded by me and my actions. And not taking money that is obligated by the CBA to all members. Or taking money off the table that could be used to benefit of all members. Similar to the argument senior pilots have stated on here against funding a single pay rate because it results in less money for them.
Originally Posted by TonyC
Then ...
That's because, A) you're using a bad definition (Not the one Tony wanted), and B) you have your VEBAs confused. The $0.50 per credit hour goes into a different VEBA, also not funded by unused sick leave, to be used by EVERY pilot once he reaches Medicare eligibility, to supplement his "post-Medicare" health care costs.
That's because, A) you're using a bad definition (Not the one Tony wanted
), and B) you have your VEBAs confused. The $0.50 per credit hour goes into a different VEBA, also not funded by unused sick leave, to be used by EVERY pilot once he reaches Medicare eligibility, to supplement his "post-Medicare" health care costs.
.
Originally Posted by TonyC
AS many times as we've gone over this, it still amazes me that college-educated pilots can't figure out we have 2 separate VEBAs for 2 different purposes.
Even you, as a college-educated pilot use inaccurate terms to reference it.
Originally Posted by TonyC
Well, here's a problem. Instead of finding the definition of a generic VEBA, you've pulled one off of Investopedia, and it's not what we have. The HSA (Pre-Medicare) VEBA is not funded with unused sick leave -- it was funded by a $25,000 cash payment by The Company, per pilot.
Is it an HSA as you posted above and I put in bold, or an HRA as stated in the CBA quoted below? Maybe the confusion is from the the CBA, and college-educated pilots, using the term VEBA generically for both the VEBA($0.50/CH) and the HRA. Perhaps using confusing language is on purpose?
Originally Posted by CBA
Sec. 27.H.7.b
For each eligible active pilot (i) having a seniority list number on August 25, 2006, (ii) who has attained at least age 53 before January 1, 2007, (iii) who is expected to meet the age and service requirements for coverage under the Retiree Group Health Plan as of his attainment of age 60 or older, and (iv) who retires on or after August 26, 2006, the Company will make a one-time cash payment of restricted signing bonus to the VEBA equal to $25,000.
Sec. 27.H.7.c
HRA contributions will not be reduced for a pilot who continues as an active employee past age 60.
For each eligible active pilot (i) having a seniority list number on August 25, 2006, (ii) who has attained at least age 53 before January 1, 2007, (iii) who is expected to meet the age and service requirements for coverage under the Retiree Group Health Plan as of his attainment of age 60 or older, and (iv) who retires on or after August 26, 2006, the Company will make a one-time cash payment of restricted signing bonus to the VEBA equal to $25,000.
Sec. 27.H.7.c
HRA contributions will not be reduced for a pilot who continues as an active employee past age 60.
The first VEBA is the $0.50/CH available to all pilots in retirement after they reach medicare eligibility (after reaching age 65) in the "Post Medicare Health Plan". If the pilot retires prior to age 65 and is not medicare eligible (under age 65), their insurance is the Retiree Group Health plan paid out or their pocket with no $0.50 VEBA to help.
The second VEBA is the HRA ($25,000) provided to those over age 53 before 1 Jan 2007 and retire on or after August 26, 2006. This is a lifetime benefit for a subset of the group.
This money is definitely not from the DSA which we currently lose when we retire.
The HRA VEBA is to help the pilots in a subset of the union members who retired anywhere between age 60 and 65 to cover the cost of the Retiree Group Healthcare Plan cover medical costs until reaching age 65. Then they switch to the Post-Medicare Plan with the $0.50 VEBA.
So in summary all pilots get VEBA, but those 53 and over at a specific date get VEBA and more VEBA. So DW left some brothers/sisters behind. This makes those younger than 53 at the specified date a B SCALE RETIREMENT (VEBA).
The definition of a VEBA states there can be no discrimination, unless it is in a CBA. Posted below is the wikipedia definition. CBA Sec.27.H7.c, quoted above, shows that the union took proactive actions (company did not present this) to ensure there was no possibility of the HRA begin prorated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Employee_Beneficiary_Association
A voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) is a form of trust fund permitted under United States federal tax law, whose sole purpose must be to provide employee benefits.[1] Among the types of benefits which a VEBA may provide are accident insurance benefits, childcare costs, employee continuing education, the cost of legal services, life insurance benefits, severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, sick leave pay, training benefits, and vacation pay.[1][2] A VEBA cannot, however, provide commuter benefits, miscellaneous fringe benefits, or retiree income.[2] The plan may pay benefits to employees, their dependents, or their designated beneficiaries, or to disabled, laid-off, or retired former employees.[1][2]
The organization must also meet the following additional requirements:
1. It must be a voluntary association of employees;.[2]
2. Substantially all of its operations are for the purpose of providing benefits;
3. Its earnings may not benefit of any private individual, organization, or shareholder other than through the payment of benefits;[3]
4. It must be controlled by its members, in whole or part by their trustees, or by an independent trustee; and[4]
5. It must be nondiscriminatory in the payment of its benefits (unless it was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement).[5]
Employer contributions to a VEBA are tax-deductible[2]
Beneficiaries of a VEBA must have an employment-related common bond (such as a common employer), be covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or belong to a labor union.[1] However, if multiple employers share the same line of business and the same geographic area, they are considered to share the "common bond" specified by the law.[1]
A voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) is a form of trust fund permitted under United States federal tax law, whose sole purpose must be to provide employee benefits.[1] Among the types of benefits which a VEBA may provide are accident insurance benefits, childcare costs, employee continuing education, the cost of legal services, life insurance benefits, severance pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, sick leave pay, training benefits, and vacation pay.[1][2] A VEBA cannot, however, provide commuter benefits, miscellaneous fringe benefits, or retiree income.[2] The plan may pay benefits to employees, their dependents, or their designated beneficiaries, or to disabled, laid-off, or retired former employees.[1][2]
The organization must also meet the following additional requirements:
1. It must be a voluntary association of employees;.[2]
2. Substantially all of its operations are for the purpose of providing benefits;
3. Its earnings may not benefit of any private individual, organization, or shareholder other than through the payment of benefits;[3]
4. It must be controlled by its members, in whole or part by their trustees, or by an independent trustee; and[4]
5. It must be nondiscriminatory in the payment of its benefits (unless it was established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement).[5]
Employer contributions to a VEBA are tax-deductible[2]
Beneficiaries of a VEBA must have an employment-related common bond (such as a common employer), be covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or belong to a labor union.[1] However, if multiple employers share the same line of business and the same geographic area, they are considered to share the "common bond" specified by the law.[1]
Originally Posted by TonyC
Do you count future hires to be in his special group? He protected them by refusing to engage in discussions about a Defined Contribution plan for all future pilots. ...
I'm just a (possibly) college-educated pilot. Not a retirement lawyer specializing in ERISA law.
Originally Posted by TonyC
Good for CAL. We're not CAL. The rest of this conversation is pointless.
Originally Posted by TonyC
Well, I was there, I have originals, markups, meeting minutes, resolutions ... I'm just telling you what happened.
10-27-2014, 12:31 PM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 560
Understandable disappointment
I think there are some good points in the C2006. Like everyone there is good and bad in contract negotiation.
I much prefer any new HRA be negotiated from the DSA. Pits no one against each other, removes an "impediment to retire", and puts us in control of the DSA/HRA account.
I much prefer any new HRA be negotiated from the DSA. Pits no one against each other, removes an "impediment to retire", and puts us in control of the DSA/HRA account.
10-27-2014, 02:15 PM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Busboy
We didn't negotiate a renewal of the $25,000 VEBA during the "interim agreement"? That's when the rest of us were let down.
Special deal for special people.
But we have A380 rates so I have that going for me.
Some people think BC is brilliant getting all that hidden money. I guess he did do a brilliant job (hiding it) because I still can't find it. Maybe I should check his brokerage account.
10-27-2014, 04:43 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 560
Learn from the past!
Gunter,
We both agree that DW and his administration did things we disagree with. I have certainly been critical of things I did not like, trying to do it in a factual and unemotional way. We need to be able to discuss the past to learn from it. But ultimately the past needs to stay in the past or the future will be no better! If we as a union are to accomplish anything positive in the future we need to be able to move forward as a team. My posts have been to point out the damage to unity by previous administrations in the hope that we do not return to that caustic style of leadership, or create special groups within our ranks!
In Unity!
We both agree that DW and his administration did things we disagree with. I have certainly been critical of things I did not like, trying to do it in a factual and unemotional way. We need to be able to discuss the past to learn from it. But ultimately the past needs to stay in the past or the future will be no better! If we as a union are to accomplish anything positive in the future we need to be able to move forward as a team. My posts have been to point out the damage to unity by previous administrations in the hope that we do not return to that caustic style of leadership, or create special groups within our ranks!
In Unity!
10-27-2014, 05:03 PM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by Raptor
Has anyone here gotten paid for grid penalty events? It's such a high hurdle to get.
The extra 3 CH didn't seem to help my sleep schedule at the time. The only good thing with the grid penalty events is they are automatic. No requirement to submit a pay log. They'll show in your pay summary at the end of the bid period. Probably a good thing since few of us are probably aware we're due one.
10-29-2014, 08:14 AM
#90
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 27
@Gunter / @Flying Boxes I too agree not everyone is going to agree with every decision. That's why I am encouraged to see the statements like this from Mike's website:
"We Must Move Forward
We currently have a Hatfield and McCoy mentality in our union. There are very bright people involved in union work today as well as from the previous administrations. We marginalize ourselves when we prevent union participation based on personalities and thus prevent progress. Our most talented, visionary and bold leaders must unite to build the best possible union for our families."
Mike states it well: It is up to us.
"We Must Move Forward
We currently have a Hatfield and McCoy mentality in our union. There are very bright people involved in union work today as well as from the previous administrations. We marginalize ourselves when we prevent union participation based on personalities and thus prevent progress. Our most talented, visionary and bold leaders must unite to build the best possible union for our families."
Mike states it well: It is up to us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
