401k
08-14-2008 | 03:55 PM
#11
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
It wouldn't have come out of your 401k.
Not entirely true. There were some who voted for this which would have affected their dues.
I believe that the next step now will be to ask for a higher dues percentage. As for paycuts, the president is the only one who actually gets paid by ALPA. I don't necessarily disagree with giving that position a paycut. Maybe if you feel strongly about it you could propose a resolution. If you are talking about staff, they are under a collective bargaining agreement. ALPA will need to wait until their contract amendable date comes around for those paycuts.
Ironic you should mention UAL. They voted 4485-2052 against it. Their dues actually subsidize MECs' such as XJ (who all voted for this even though it would have meant more dues from their pilots). If all of them would have voted for this, it would have passed!
Not entirely true. There were some who voted for this which would have affected their dues.
Does it really matter. Thats great that they voted it down but guess what, ALPA needs money, so dues are now most likely going to go up. I agree that on the fact that there needs to be some paycuts. Our highest representative should make no more than the highest paid member. I have heard different things for the compensation packages for these guys and I have nothing that I would ever consider turning down. The industry takes cuts and so should ALPA.
Wasn't it based upon if the carrier already had some form of pension other than 401K? Like UAL has a C Plan, and a 401K. Wasn't their 401K was already taxed??
I can see why some carriers voted for the measure when it would not directly impact their own paycheck.
I might be wrong too but that was my understanding.
I can see why some carriers voted for the measure when it would not directly impact their own paycheck.
I might be wrong too but that was my understanding.
08-14-2008 | 04:14 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: FO
Maybe they should use the airline mentality.....just file for bankruptcy and impose paycuts. Luckly, we take the high road.
WISKEY72 -- I did not imply I agree with raising dues or taking dues before 401K contributions........It was meant to say that more money is one of the reasons they wanted to make this change.
Our MEC told us this would raise and additional 7 million dollars a year. Thats a large amount of paycuts for not only Prater but a lot of the ALPA employees.
08-14-2008 | 04:17 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Bluebus
Maybe they should use the airline mentality.....just file for bankruptcy and impose paycuts. Luckly, we take the high road.
WISKEY72 -- I did not imply I agree with raising dues or taking dues before 401K contributions........It was meant to say that more money is one of the reasons they wanted to make this change.
Our MEC told us this would raise and additional 7 million dollars a year. Thats a large amount of paycuts for not only Prater but a lot of the ALPA employees.
WISKEY72 -- I did not imply I agree with raising dues or taking dues before 401K contributions........It was meant to say that more money is one of the reasons they wanted to make this change.
Our MEC told us this would raise and additional 7 million dollars a year. Thats a large amount of paycuts for not only Prater but a lot of the ALPA employees.
I knew you didn't mean it that way.
08-14-2008 | 04:18 PM
#14
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: Bluebus
08-14-2008 | 04:21 PM
#15
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
It would have created $1.4M a year in additional dues income. If they would have attempted to exempt ALL 401k contributions from duesability (the other fair way to do it), it would have been $6M a year less in dues income.
08-14-2008 | 04:28 PM
#16
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
Its all water under the bridge now anyways.
Last edited by Nevets; 08-14-2008 at 04:33 PM.
08-14-2008 | 06:28 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 20
From: 7ER B...whatever that means.
I guess ALPA is feeling the pain of the gutted pilot contracts of the last 8 years. I've got an idea: instead of increasing dues %, we improve the contracts. That way I get more money AND ALPA gets more money. Then everybody wins.
08-15-2008 | 08:31 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
From: CR7 FO
Just out of curiosity but did any of your LEC reps actually ask or poll you as to which way you wanted them to use YOUR vote. Our rep emailed us, explained everything then asked if anyone wanted him to cast some of his votes "in favor" because he was planning on voting opposed. It looks from the results like only a couple of reps (Clarence R Fox, PSA; Gregory McKinney, NWA; and Thomas Thompson, UAL) split their votes which implies to me that they actually took the time to ask their constituents what they thought.
Kudos to them and the others who attempted to vote the way the pilots wanted them to. It seems to me that something this important and potentially divisive should have been put to a full vote.
Kudos to them and the others who attempted to vote the way the pilots wanted them to. It seems to me that something this important and potentially divisive should have been put to a full vote.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
