AMO Pension

Professional Mariner Forum
41

JAFO,
You are right on track, but the elections are in 2010 and the new people take over on 01/01/11. This can be reversed, but these current guys have to go!!
Why are guys that took a buyout getting a second pension before current members get thier proper amounts is because all the current officials have a buyout already! This whole deal is a scam, dreamed up by officials who want another bite at the apple.
Whoever runs need to roll up the sleeves and get down and dirty, and hit the key points.
AMO pension problem, no problem with MEBA, SIU, MMP ect.
Total lopsided retirement benefit packages for officials and shoreside employees, while sea going members get the crumbs.
Wages and benefits of officials totally out of line with sea going members.
Officials doing contracts that have limited if at all deep sea experience.
Officials with buyouts changing pension rules that only benefit themselves and a select few.
Officials with no education, causing the membership to pay huge salaries to “special assistants”

I could go on but its just more of the same.

42

OK, right. So what do we do now?

I don’t care if the present leadership gets voted out. What I really want is that
the rehabilitation plan gets rewritten to be more equitable.

Is there some way the trustees be forced to start over and come up with a rehabilitation plan
that is more fair? Who would be the enforcer here? The government? An attorney?

As for the senior union members who are trustees, one assumes they have already
received the buyout, and thus have a conflict of interest. Can we somehow confirm that?

43

I just wonder what happened to ALL of the members last time that an election came around? I worked with Jack and a couple others that were on his ticket. I know that I voted for him and could not believe that they lost by as much as they did.

I had to pull the plug and bail out and file for my 20 and out, now if they would get their sh#t together and start paying me I would be very happy.

44

One question comes to mind: How can the government allow the trustees of the pension plan to change the rules at any whim? Isn’t there some federal regulation prohibiting this stuff. And can anybody explain how the buyout guys can continue to work? Are they not ‘retired’? So if I take my money by the end of this year, can I still work in this industry? I don’t think so. Is the IRS still interested in this stuff. When the union received the reply from the IRS, the trustees just changed the rules and said ‘everything’s okay now’. What gives?

45

@jjpjr58

It’s funny you mention buy out guys and continued employment, just last night at the amo area informational meeting Bethel was asked “why do buy out guys get a 2nd pension to draw and WHY is the calculation % not reduced to that of a new member” as expected more diatribe and psycho babble to redirect the question and not answer it.the reason is apparent, its done because they want more money from the plan till they get voted out!!!.
for anyone that desires to continue betting on a long shot its in your best interest to vote all of those thieves out this year or continue to cry about how your getting screwed.

46

How does the executive board say they are doing what is best for the membership when hundreds upon hundreds of members are getting shorted considerably on their pensions? 2010 we get no pension benefits, well the buy out guys weren’t supposed to get anything anyway, so the members who don’t have a buyout are sacrificing for a year of no benefits so the plan will be in better shape for the buy out guys to start reaping the highest contributions before anyone else even gets what they have worked forand planned for.
Has anyone run these new contribution figures? It’s terrible, remember it’s benefit base not your days wage, they can screw with that anytime but keep your days wages the same. A guy with a decent contract in AMO with 10 or so years not sailing above C/M or 1st gets peanuts. Now the buyout guys are making a killing. Oh yeah who has the buyout?
Buyout guys should have the lowest percentage until we all get our fair pension.
Also where is our pension statement promised to us in April , figures that didn’t happen.
First everyone with less than 20 by 1/2011 had to sail till they were 65, then it’s a miracle "due to our hard work and looking out for you we have found a way for all to get the unreduced pension at 20"
But it’s only for benefits thru 2009, so if your high three is not as Captain or Chief your getting shafted anyway.
Why didn’t they do the unreduced benefit @20 years first? Instead of scaring everybody?
Maybe because if they chopped it off at 20 years in 12/2010 then we could be at the 100% contribution earlier which benefits who the most?
Get my drift?

47

You have to remember that by allowing buyout members to continue to work (at least under the old plan) it was a cash cow for AMO. They collected contributions from the companies, put it in the general pension fund, but that money did nothing for the buyout member as he/she already had their money. Therefore, any member with a buyout was still earning his/her salary, already had that seven-figure check in the bank, and the union is still getting that individual’s company contribution. If you think about it, how long would the pension plan have been underfunded if we said buyout members weren’t allowed to work, say, 10 years ago?

There was talk of adjusting the percentages to lower the upper age group and raise the lower age group, but, naturally, this wasn’t even allowed the light of day by the trustees. It’s simple economics that you try to acquire as much money as early as possible, then watch it mature as you grow older. The new plan is great in that it “supposedly” will allow each member to control his/her fund 100% on their own, but it is an unequal trade-off. I’m glad I have control, but now I have to watch it for an extra 10 years because that’s how much longer I have to work in order to retire comfortably.

I agree that anyone with a buyout should not be eligible for this new scheme. Not directed at only the elected officials, but the seafaring members as well. Why do they collect a 2nd plan when many of us were shafted from the 1st (and only) plan. Sorry if that offends some, but it’s a logical question. AMO’s pension declaration used to state they could not change the pension scheme without a membership vote. They could modify anything to affect new applicants/members, but not existing members. Somewhere this was changed after the debacle started and it was brought to their attention. Yes, that is illegal. Any of us who were applicants or members prior to 01/01/2010 should be entitled to the original pension scheme if we elect to do so. Are we? No. Why is this not an issue with the IRS? Who knows, but perhaps politics is involved…stands to reason why the union hounds everyone for PAF money every chance they get over the past six months or so…

Union officials will always have some corruption in one form or another. To me, Bethel is barely one step above the McKay Klan. There may be less frolicking around the union and school grounds, less four-letter words at meetings, but it is just replaced with other, unseen BS. But no worries, they will unfortunately be re-elected and get to enjoy that new building. If AMO can take anything to heart, it is this - MEBA will have one new applicant if these retards are re-elected. Thanks for nothing, a**holes.

48

I am staying long enough to vote this fall, taking my monthly, going to MEBA then filing a lawsuit in that order.
VOTE OUT ALL BUYOUT AMO OFFICIALS

49

“I am staying long enough to vote this fall, taking my monthly, going to MEBA then filing a lawsuit in that order.
VOTE OUT ALL BUYOUT AMO OFFICIALS”

*** I’m right behind you Pensionless.

I doubt I will go to MEBA - probably the Oil Patch for me but I am not staying in AMO and I will sue if the hold my pension in any way.

50

Go to the www.voteamc.com website and go to the library section and read the LM-2 reports. Look. At the wages for officials, double digit increases every year. They reward themselves for running a lousy pension plan. The sea going members feel lucky to get 3%. Now, do you really think they are taking care of your family and future?

51

Why not? Maybe Congress will bail AMO out. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) has just the fix. Read WSJ article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575188263180553530.html

52

[QUOTE=iwassoldout;27042]Wow where have you guys been? Nice to see some other AMO members chime in on this matter. Anyone hear that the 401K plan is under the microscope as well?[/QUOTE]

What is the policy on 20 and out and not being able to work on vessels once you retire. I see a few years ago a Capt retired and then accepted a job as Capt. on a maritime academy training ship. I see you have to ask permission from the board of trustees. Does anybody know of retirees that are working on ships outside the union. I’m sure they don’t want you working with MMP or MEBA but what about smaller non union companies, yachts or state ferries. Would like some feedback

53

[QUOTE=arkcpt;34960]What is the policy on 20 and out and not being able to work on vessels once you retire. I see a few years ago a Capt retired and then accepted a job as Capt. on a maritime academy training ship. I see you have to ask permission from the board of trustees. Does anybody know of retirees that are working on ships outside the union. I’m sure they don’t want you working with MMP or MEBA but what about smaller non union companies, yachts or state ferries. Would like some feedback[/QUOTE]

They don’t have a problem with the majority of jobs, just be sure to get permission in writing first. But, just as you said, don’t expect to get permission to work with MMP or MEBA.

54

[QUOTE=iwassoldout;27042]Anyone hear that the 401K plan is under the microscope as well?[/QUOTE]

No, I have not heard anything about the 401-k Plan. What have you heard?

55

I believe the IRS rule for receiving a subsidized defined benefit is that you can not return to work for the employer paying the benefit. Which means AMO, not other non AMO companies. Their rule of needing permission to work in your field for a non AMO company needs to be challenged, after all they changed the rules of getting a pension after working years and years for 2% for the first 20 then 2.6% after.now many members won’t even get the 40%
many members high 3 years are at C/M or 1st and less then 20 years, do the math, it’s terrible. Now you can’t go to an outfit that has a pension like you thought you would get? Won’t make sense to the comman man.

56

This is a GREAT thread and should be passed to all the AMO brothers. I always advance this info to my friends in the union. Anyway I got my “Statement” in the mail today and when I opened it it was like I was slapped in the face. 10+ years in slaving away as a second from the top for $1000 a month under the current third revision pension plan (Could you imagine the throngs of departures had they stuck with the original 65 and out plan!) Makes you wonder if the current plan is not being advanced due to the up coming election just to keep the masses in place! At a recent regional meeting we were told the buy out people had to be kept due to “National Security” what a crock, they jam all the top positions, will not leave as long as they start to aquire a second pension and the entire crew of elected officals have already qualified for their buyouts and as “Pensionless” says are looking to grab more. If you really want to vomit check the link below to see what is on record with the Department of Labor for pay scales. AMO officals are almost twice the wage scale of the MMP and MEBA officals!

http://www.youramc.org/files/File/AMO%20LM-2%202009.pdf

http://www.youramc.org/files/File/MMP%20LM-2,%202008.pdf

http://www.youramc.org/files/File/MEBA%20LM-2%202009.pdf

Not bad to promote the lowest pay scale and benefits in the industry! It made me sick to look at all these clowns at the head table during the meeting as they defended the latest revision to the pension. What really made me sick was the vehement defending of the people lucky enough to grab a buyout or fully funded 20 and out pension as they continue to clog the top seagoing positions. It is ok for them to continue in the industry but we should consider the following actions to distribute the benefits equally amongst the masses:

All that have qualified for the fully funded monthly pension and buyout start at year one again. Why should a person with 25 plus years in with the above get a higher percentage placed in their SECOND pension when the rest of us are dealing with such minute numbers?

Make it mandatory for all that have qualified in the above to ship “Rotary Shipping” No permanet jobs for those that were lucky enough to get out before the floor fell out on us all. Due to the high base numbers at the top they should be restricted from continuing to clog the the top jobs and gain the highest percentage towards their SECOND pension. I understand the need to continue to make a wage after the buy out or to supplement their 20 year pension but they can schlep the decks or turn wrenches in the engine room like the rest of us to earn that SECOND pension while giving those who got BURNED in this shitty deal the chance to beef up their numbers in plan number 3, 10 , 15 or whatever.

At the end of the day a person with less then 20 years in who did not get their fully funded pension or buyout would be crazy to vote the incumbents in as they are only interested in defending the rights of the 400-500 people in the union who got the lions share (Including themselves) and are working hard to ensure that those few continue to be the “King of the Hill”

Changing the rules after the start of the game should always be considered illegal especially if the rules are being bent to continue to benefit those on top!

How can you place any trust on the elected officals who played like everything was ok with the medical plans and pension until it was too late? Are we being told of the current plan until the election ends? Could we be slapped with a 65 and out plan again after the election ends? Would you recommend anyone join the AMO with the current state of affairs?

57

amo members are getting screwed and the screwing will continue till bethel and his band of thieves are voted out!!!
I’m so pissed about the lump sum recipients getting a second pension and the pitance of a retirement that will be accrued in 2011 that I’mconsidering another career far far away from amo!
I do not see any reason for new members to join the union or anyone with 20 years in to stay that being said the only ones crewing the ships will be the buy out guys and anyone desperate enough to settle for the lower wages.
before too long I see the SIU merging with amo in order to crew the ships .once this happens the pension plan will reflect that of the SIU, sail till your 65, collect a few checks and die leaving a lot of money on the table. If you think bethel has not consulted sacco on this issue already you must be in denial!!
we are totally screwed if bethel and crew get reelected, in the interim I’ll dress up the resume and start looking for an exit strategy.

58

While I agree that it is appalling the members who already qualified for benefits will now collect a second retirement benefit, will changing the elected be able to reverse the course into a more even option? It was my understanding the Board of Trustees determines the final say on this (and all pension/retirement options…basically they run the show on everything). How are people appointed to the Board of Trustees? Is it possible for the Union President to remove Trustees from the Board? If so, then I agree a change of leadership is due in full order. However, if the Board of Trustees is composed of lifetime-appointments, then will a change of leadership affect anything? Furthermore, where is a list of the current Board of Trustees? As an AMO book member, where do I find this? There was nothing on their website. I would like to know who is actually determining my future.

Obviously they need to restructure the pension plan as it stands now. My suggestion is a flat dollar amount contributed on a per-day-worked basis, with different (increasing) amounts per position (3rd, 2nd, CM/1st, M/CE) that is the same for all companies and non-negotiable without all companies’ and union agreement. This will be paid only to those who have NOT collected, or declared eligibility, for any previous plan offered.

This flat-dollar plan means members working for TOTE will not have an unfair advantage over TAGOS members solely on base wages. Percentage-based systems unfairly provide an advantage to those working for higher paid companies. Negotiating wages is one thing, but unions were founded on equality, and any pension scheme should be equal for all. This also eliminates any confusion on hourly/OT based contracts and eliminates any option to bring this into MOU negotiations. This is not very different from the old system, with the major exception of each member being able to see, verify, change, and control their individual retirement account.

Current members working after collecting a buyout or having eligibility for a monthly pension also needs to be addressed. Granted, telling this group they must cease shipping tomorrow is not an option (AMO does not have QUALIFIED people to replace this number of people. And “qualified” goes beyond license rating…) Therefore, what options are acceptable? Setting a date, possibly one to five years from now, whereby those members must stop shipping? I am hesitant to use the word “retire” as the union seems to interpret that different than you and me. AMO will tell you they decided to allow their new plan open to everyone as they were concerned about lawsuits from buyout/pension members based on discrimination (…“why include them and not me…”). Okay, possibly some truth, but more likely is the ability of the elected officials to capitalize on a second pension. I say this as they apparently didn’t care about the younger membership (less than 20 years) filing suit for eliminating the old scheme. Which is also why the union likely put in place the option for those aforementioned to collect a “portion” of their previous amount. Literally pennies on the dollar.

I for one am glad to see this thread continuing and the useful and knowledgeable information and links provided. While it is a given that a majority of the membership is angry at what has/is happening, there is that old saying along the lines of complaining gets you nowhere - action does. So let’s start getting some suggestions and options out here like I proposed above. Nobody will have the perfect answer, but hearing suggestions is something the current leadership obviously didn’t bother with…

59

WOW it’s nice to see some people chiming in. I guess it took the pension statements to do it. In order to change anything these guys must be voted out!!

Buyout members should not receive any contributions until every member gets thier 40% at least. Thier contributions should go towards that. Then the buyout members should get the least percentage so other members can build thier fund up to take the place of the 2.66% they should have gotten for each year after 20. This would at least make it reasonable.
As far as buyout guys and national security, give me a break, thier are many hungry, talented guys waiting for a top slot that would actually leave the office and do something other than watch movies.
How does the top man in AMO get a pay raise from 284,000 in 2008 to 321,000 in 2009 when we are in a recession and lose the pension plan?
Anybody else see that kind of raise ?
Everything is always blamed on something or someone else, that kind of money the buck should stop with them. It’s supposed to anyway.

60

I agree it is good to see people chiming in Pensionless but we also need to get the word out about this thread. I pass the link to all my friends currently sailing with the AMO and encourage them to also add their 2 cents. We need to advance this issue before the election or all is lost. People need to mull these remarks before placing their ballot! Also the election has finally been announced but who is running against the people currently elected? Without the AMO newspaper to promote their ticket and platform where do they plan on discussing their ideas?