Everything that Charles has said about the pension is true. The pension aspects of this contract are good (not great and a little late for some, and really late for those that can't live long enough to see their monthly rate increase in 3 years).
But what about the rest??? What about the inadequacies of the 401K?? The opening us up to the loss of control of the dispatch hall?? NO language about new jurisdictional matters.... Health/Dental STILL unequal up and down the coast.... No language for training in small ports (read what the contract says)..... Language on drayage vague and distorting...... PMA's foot in the door for the implementation of forced travel...
And answer me this?? If the contract was worth $140 million and $95 million was for pension only it kinda puts things in an entirely different light, doesn't it??
PLUS you still work AFTER 35 years but with NO benefit towards your pension.... PLUS you still have to PAY a 5% penalty for every year that you retire before 62, even if you have 35 years at age, say 55.
And the biggest is allowing the fragmentation of OUR UNION by allowing members to bargain directly with the employer for a larger wage and benefits then as applied to the rest of us.....
The contract has to be important to all, and ALL benefit from it. This contract fails from this aspect. The pensioners (and it still doesn't address the needs of those who retired years ago and those that have to work past 35 years with NO benefits) and steady crane drivers (mostly in LA) benefit from this contract on everyone else's backs.
We needed defining language on jurisdiction, protection of our dispatch halls, health care whos UCF isn't based on 1966 SF payments (there was some small gains here), we needed to shore up our ranks for the future of this Union, not give the keys to the Kingdom (ruination) to a small percentage of vocal workers.
At least thats the way I look at it.
Tim 35181
