Conflict of Intrest

[Bob Owens]

A few weeks back I wrote a letter to Mike Obrien, President of the TWU.

John Kerrigan (TWU Treasurer) resonded to the letter due to OBriens "illness".

I asked point blank "Why wasnt Bobby Gless listed on the 2003 LM-2"

Mr Kerrigan responded, "Robert Gless was not listed on the 2003 International LM-2 Report because he did not become an employee of the International until March 15, 2004."

(If anyone would like a copy PM me with your E-mail.)


Robert Gless,,, did not become an employee of the International until March 15, 2004. Thats a pretty definite date. It doesnt look like he just made it up.

OK, so if Bobby Gless was not working for the International from Jan 1, 2003 till March 14, 2004 who was he working for?

Well on July 14, 2004 Gless testified that he was paid $120,000 a year by American Airlines. He also testified that he was an International representative for about a year and a half prior to July 14, 2004 (but then again Mr Gless is prone to lying.)

Is Gless lying, or Kerrigan?

So if Gless was not working for the International and getting paid $120,000 a year by American Airlines that means he was working for American Airlines. After all dont most people work for the entity that pays them? If AA was paying him and the International was saying he wasnt working for them then there arent many other possibilities. In order to get paid that much Gless must have been a level 8 or above member of management!

But wait, if Gless was management why did Jim Little, a former member of AA management, assign Gless as the chair of the concessions committee meetings that were conducted in corporate headquarters? I'm sure that all of the negotiators were under the impression that Gless was working for the International, but Mr Kerrigan states that Gless was not working for the TWU Internatioanl until March 15, 2004, those talks took place a year prior.Jim Little for his part took these Local representatives , delivered them to American Airlines corporate headquarters and was rarely seen afterwards. Weeks later he would sign in an agreement which was different than what these representatives agreed to without a membership vote.

Does anyone else see where having a member of AA management leading a union committee that is discussing radically altering our CBA might present a conflict of interest?

 

[Vortilon]

Bob,

Good catch, you are on to something. No big surprize though. Get ready for a BS explaination now.

 

[eolesen]

Nice try, Bob, but unless he downgraded recently, there's no way Gless was a director, much less a member of management.

Anyone with intranet access at work can go to http://Sharporg.AmericanAir.Com and do an employee search to see that he's still showing as a MECHANIC LINE in the same cost center as you.

 

[TWU informer]

Nice try, Bob, but unless he downgraded recently, there's no way Gless was a director, much less a member of management.

Anyone with intranet access at work can go to http://Sharporg.AmericanAir.Com and do an employee search to see that he's still showing as a MECHANIC LINE in the same cost center as you.

I highly doubt that the American Airlines "Sharp" System is a legitmate source to dispell claims of Company and Company Union Leaders bedwetting and under handed financial pay.

You must be one of those that still doesn't believe AA Management will be less than truthful about this and other issues related to the Toy Union Leadership. We know better.

It is quite interesting that the big TWU defenders on this bulletin board now seem to be AA Management Personel.

 

[Bob Owens]

Nice try, Bob, but unless he downgraded recently, there's no way Gless was a director, much less a member of management.

Anyone with intranet access at work can go to http://Sharporg.AmericanAir.Com and do an employee search to see that he's still showing as a MECHANIC LINE in the same cost center as you.

According to the number 2 guy in the International Gless became an International rep on March 14, 2004. Do you want to see the letter?

If he was being paid by AA then he must have been working for AA since the International claims he was not working for them.

Gless testified that he was paid $120,000 a year. A line mechanic earns around $60,000. The only people that earn around $120,000 at AA, besides pilots, are level 8 managers.

Gless may have been demoted on March 14, 2004 back to line mechanic. If you compare his testimony and the 2004 LM2 the numbers work out. Gless was listed as getting $60,000 from the TWU and he would be collecting $60,000 from the company as a mechanic.




Another interesting thing from the letter was that Kerrigan said that "The TWU International is the certified bargaining agent". You see in most cases Local unions, where the top officers are elected by the members of that local are the certified bargaining agents for the contract. Our case within the TWU is unique in that the other 90,000 TWU members have more of a say in who controls our contract than we do yet they alone pick who controls their contracts. This set up, where the controller of our contract, the appointed ATD director, who we can not remove and do not pick, can do as he pleases, is undeniably undemocratic. Look at the APFA and the APA, both of those work groups removed the leaders that put the concessions in place, but at the TWU he was promoted!!!!

So, not only do we have a conflict of interest by having AA management chairing our committee meetings, we have people who secretly and illegally collect checks from AA putting in concessions so the company does not cut off those payments. And none of these people can be held accountable by the members.

Look at the dreaded "Vermont Plan". Pretty much everything that the company threatened to seek in BK they got or are getting. With the closure of the small line stations they will pretty much have it all, with the exception of one thing, the $3.1 million of "Company Paid Union Business".

 

[MCI transplant]

------Turns my stomach!!! Wake up people! "Lights are on, but no one's home!" People are too busy making aa $500mil. in TUL, and $150mil here at MCI! By the way, AFW hasn't chimed in on their "contribution"! Maybe they're the only sane one's in the bunch!!!!!

 

[eolesen]

I highly doubt that the American Airlines "Sharp" System is a legitmate source to dispell claims of Company and Company Union Leaders bedwetting and under handed financial pay.

Hmmm... It's far more likely that Gless perjured themselves than it is for Sharp to be inaccurate.

Sharp is the corporate source of record for everything from pension accruals, insurance beneficiaries, etc. Thus, it falls under Sarbaines-Oxley, and I don't know of a single person who works for AA that is willing to fall on their sword and commit a federal crime just to cover up your conspiracy theory.

It is quite interesting that the big TWU defenders on this bulletin board now seem to be AA Management Personel.

I'm not a defender of the TWU -- just a defender of truth and verifiable facts.

The letter from the union simply states that he became an officer on a certain date. Unless it states what his payroll status was in 2003, or how much he was paid up until March 2004, that's really not proof of anything.

What was the exact question and answer in his "testimony" Bob? Was he being asked about his current pay, or what he was paid in the previous year? If he was already an international officer, the $120K per year could just as easily be construed as his current annual salary. When I file for a credit application, like most people I use a look-forward number for my annual salary if I've just received a raise. Many peole use a look-backward if they've just taken a pay cut. It's not inaccurate or perjury unless you're specifically being asked what your past or future wages were/are.

Without a qualifier to clarify his testimony, I wouldn't go making assumptions that he was earning a $120K salary during FY2003. Feel free to post the full question and answer, though.

Right now, all that the two of you have provided is heresay. Show some proof for a change, and I'll be happy to consider it against the facts which are already at hand.

 

[TWU informer]

That's interesting E,


AA claimed during the National Mediation Board AMFA/TWU dispute investigation that information provided directly from the "SHARP" system to prove ineligibility of names on the list was not an accurate form of documentation for such purposes.

So you now claim this is as accurate as there is available or that it falls under Sarbaines-Oxley, yet NMB submissions from AA legal contradicts that claim. One of you is not truthful. Or is it a matter of what the documentation is being used for that defines it's accuracy?

 

[AMFAMAN]

So you now claim this is as accurate as there is available or that it falls under Sarbaines-Oxley, yet NMB submissions from AA legal contradicts that claim. One of you is not truthful. Or is it a matter of what the documentation is being used for as it pertains to it's accuracy?

DOH!!!

 

[eolesen]

is it a matter of what the documentation is being used for that defines it's accuracy?

Sort of, except that it's a matter of what field/data element you're looking at that defines its accuracy.

The original discussion was whether or not Gless was a management employee ( ). That's identifiable by payroll type, and Sharp is the record of source for payroll transaction records (PTR).

Title group is unique to the TWU, so if that's what the NMB request was, it's entirely possible that Sharp isn't the source. Looking at a table layout, I don't see title group referenced anywhere, but I also don't speak German (Sharp is AA's name for SAP's HR module, and the underlying database field names are still in German....).

 

[ICEMAN]

I hesitate to respond to all of the conspiracy theories spun out on this site because it's a waste of life. But, let me make several points in response to this string. First, if you actually read the NMB's decision on amfa's application you will see that AA took the position throughout the case that SHARPS was the only reliable source on payroll and work history and was superior to the older data bases that amfa illegally gained access to.

Second, while I am not totally sure, I remember it being announced at a union meeting sometime in the fall of 2004 that Bobby Gless was being brought on the ATD staff permanently. Until that time he would have been an AA mechanic on union leave and the TWU would have had to reimburse the Company for his time. Sometimes persons on detail to staff positions are also given overrides over their Company pay if they are performing staff work. I don't know if that was the case with Gless.

Third, I really could care less what position Jim Little held thirty years ago and I find this line of discusion humerous in light of the fact that one of AMFA's primary organizers was a grocery store manager and several others applied for supervision. However, so far as I know Jim Little held positions in freight control and budget back in the seventies. These are non-union positions, but not management because they do not have responsibility to hire, fire, or make policy. The Company does not define people in these positions as managers or supervisors and neither does the Board. The NMB has ruled that this category of employees is office/ clerical.

 

[TWU informer]

I hesitate to respond to all of the conspiracy theories spun out on this site because it's a waste of life. But, let me make several points in response to this string. First, if you actually read the NMB's decision on amfa's application you will see that AA took the position throughout the case that SHARPS was the only reliable source on payroll and work history and was superior to the older data bases that amfa illegally gained access to.

Spoken like a true TWU spokesman.

 

[Bill]

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah, blan, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, shall I go on.


Crap-stirring!!!!!

 

[TWU informer]

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah, blan, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, shall I go on.
Crap-stirring!!!!!

CIO is that you?

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

When I file for a credit application, like most people I use a look-forward number for my annual salary if I've just received a raise

Spoken like a true AA management employee

I can safely say all of us on this board havent seen a "look forward number" in six years
But it must be nice to get 60K from your union and another 60 from the the company. Now that is a look forward number