Conflict of Intrest

[TWU informer]

Recently heard of more experienced AMT's leaving the Tulsa Base Aviation industry for bigger and better things.

Soon, the motivated one's will all be gone, and the stooges who believe there is nothing better than AA will be all that is left.

But when the motivated are all gone, who is going to do the work? It sure will not be the union managers attending the JLT, PLT, ALT, and JACC meettings. It sure will not be the grievance office full of deadbeats who don't work. It sure will not be the United Way, Red Cross Blood Drive Kings and Queens. In fact, there will be very little work getting done once the experienced and motivated have left the building.

There is no confidence in the Burchette/Romano leadership and the motivated AMT's are either seeking exit strategies or have already begun the process to get out, and some have already left.

Remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

 

[eolesen]

Spoken like a true AA management employee

Is that because I'm willing to look on all sides of an issue before blasting away on the keyboard?...

I can safely say all of us on this board havent seen a "look forward number" in six years

I have, but only because I was working a second job...

 

[Bob Owens]

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.
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.

Well if you repeat it its heresay, I said what I saw, heard, read and believed to be true not what somebody else saw, heard or read. So where is the heresay?

As far as Gless's salary thats recorded testimony, witnessed and certified, not heresay. Gless told me in the fall of 2002, while he was still President of Local 562 that he would be making around $20k more than he was as President, he was making $97K as President, I was the Treasurer, once again, thats not heresay, you can try and dispute my testimony but that does not make it heresay.

Now as far as people "falling on their swords" it seems that those who may have had a part in the scheme and that would not have been on the recieving end have jumped ship.

Sue Oliver, head of HR, Gregg Hall, head of maintenance, Anne McNamara, head of legal, Don Carty,CEO, are all gone. So are Art Luby and Sonny Hall from the TWU.

 

[eolesen]

As far as Gless's salary thats recorded testimony, witnessed and certified, not heresay. Gless told me in the fall of 2002, while he was still President of Local 562 that he would be making around $20k more than he was as President, he was making $97K as President, I was the Treasurer, once again, thats not heresay, you can try and dispute my testimony but that does not make it heresay.

So what exactly is your point, Bob? Gless told you he was earning $97K in 2002? He somehow was making $120K in 2004?

The fact remains he wasn't an AA managing director, and AA most likely wasn't paying him any extra above what he'd earn as a mechanic, which was your accusation a few pages ago.

If there's another point hidden in here, perhaps you could let the rest of us in on it?

 

[j7915]

Recently heard of more experienced AMT's leaving the Tulsa Base Aviation industry for bigger and better things.

Soon, the motivated one's will all be gone, and the stooges who believe there is nothing better than AA will be all that is left.

But when the motivated are all gone, who is going to do the work? It sure will not be the union managers attending the JLT, PLT, ALT, and JACC meettings. It sure will not be the grievance office full of deadbeats who don't work. It sure will not be the United Way, Red Cross Blood Drive Kings and Queens. In fact, there will be very little work getting done once the experienced and motivated have left the building.

There is no confidence in the Burchette/Romano leadership and the motivated AMT's are either seeking exit strategies or have already begun the process to get out, and some have already left.

Remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

When is your last day at AA?

 

[FWAAA]

So what exactly is your point, Bob? Gless told you he was earning $97K in 2002? He somehow was making $120K in 2004?

The fact remains he wasn't an AA managing director, and AA most likely wasn't paying him any extra above what he'd earn as a mechanic, which was your accusation a few pages ago.

If there's another point hidden in here, perhaps you could let the rest of us in on it?

Isn't it obvious? Perjured testimony by a union boss (now there's a big surprise) Just Has To Involve AA. No way would he lie on the stand without some complicity by AA, right?

I've tried to follow the arguments and I just don't see the connection that implicates AA in what is essentially an intra-union dispute. Maybe Mr Owens has caught some TWU people in some inconsistencies. Wow. A busdrivers' union in NYC not able to keep its stories straight. Like I said - Now there's a big surprise. B)

 

[aafsc]

Recently heard of more experienced AMT's leaving the Tulsa Base Aviation industry for bigger and better things.

Soon, the motivated one's will all be gone, and the stooges who believe there is nothing better than AA will be all that is left.

But when the motivated are all gone, who is going to do the work? It sure will not be the union managers attending the JLT, PLT, ALT, and JACC meettings. It sure will not be the grievance office full of deadbeats who don't work. It sure will not be the United Way, Red Cross Blood Drive Kings and Queens. In fact, there will be very little work getting done once the experienced and motivated have left the building.

There is no confidence in the Burchette/Romano leadership and the motivated AMT's are either seeking exit strategies or have already begun the process to get out, and some have already left.

Remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Maybe they are just retiring. One can live like a king on $32/hr in a place like TUL and TUL is not one of those places with a lot of high paying jobs.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Isn't it obvious? Perjured testimony by a union boss (now there's a big surprise) Just Has To Involve AA. No way would he lie on the stand without some complicity by AA, right?

I've tried to follow the arguments and I just don't see the connection that implicates AA in what is essentially an intra-union dispute. Maybe Mr Owens has caught some TWU people in some inconsistencies. Wow. A busdrivers' union in NYC not able to keep its stories straight. Like I said - Now there's a big surprise. B)

=========================================================

Addressed to FWAAA + Former ModerAAtor;

I place a lot of Importance to the thing you two contribute to this site.
I'm sure(from you) that the feeling is mutual.

I want to go one record here to state the following;

(IMHO)Info posted on this site by Bob Owens is TOP QUALITY.
Again,(IMHO), It Is NOW, and has been SINCE Bob arrived on site.

I'm sure you "2" will take me to "task", if you deem it necessary !!


GO NY YANKEES/06

NH/BB's

 

[FWAAA]

=========================================================

I want to go one record here to state the following;

(IMHO)Info posted on this site by Bob Owens is TOP QUALITY.
Again,(IMHO), It Is NOW, and has been SINCE Bob arrived on site.

I'm sure you "2" will take me to "task", if you deem it necessary !!

No argument from me!

I don't doubt that Mr Owens has indeed caught the various TWU officials in some embarrassing inconsistencies. You know me - How do can you tell that a union official is lying? His lips are moving!! B)

But I'm just too dense to see any evidence that AA was in on the TWU deception and I'm just too obstinate and pig-headed to think that any AA management would risk going to prison to help the TWU screw its members. Over at Enron, they're goin to prison over billions and billions of dollars stolen from California electrical utilities and ratepayers plus their own stockholders. But AA managers risk prison terms over $120k paid to a known liar (as Mr Ownens himself pointed out in his post)? I just don't see that connection.

Go Cubbies!!

 

[Bob Owens]

No argument from me!

I don't doubt that Mr Owens has indeed caught the various TWU officials in some embarrassing inconsistencies. You know me - How do can you tell that a union official is lying? His lips are moving!! B)

But I'm just too dense to see any evidence that AA was in on the TWU deception and I'm just too obstinate and pig-headed to think that any AA management would risk going to prison to help the TWU screw its members. Over at Enron, they're goin to prison over billions and billions of dollars stolen from California electrical utilities and ratepayers plus their own stockholders. But AA managers risk prison terms over $120k paid to a known liar (as Mr Ownens himself pointed out in his post)? I just don't see that connection.

Perhaps just uninformed.

Are you aware of the reporting requirements as per the LMRDA? Both LM-10 and LM-30 forms have to filed when corporate funds are used for union business. One by those who paid them and the other by those who recieved them. When I checked with the DOL they claimed that AA had not filed any of the required forms even though they put it in writing that they give the TWU $3.1 million a year for company paid union business. Not for 2003 or as far back as they had records. In fact I dont think they have filed them to date.

Now there are certain circumstances where such transactions are legal, others where they are not, but either way they MUST be reported. So the fact that they did not file already puts both the TWU and AA in violation of the LMRDA reporting requirements. Anne McNamara,Art Luby and Sue Oliver would be very familiar with these reporting requirements. As lawyers and the head of HR they would be aware of labor laws like the LMRDA which cover all workers. If Jim Little had a real Masters degree there would be no denying that he would have been aware of them.


The TWU at AA is split into 21 Locals. Combined they have around 30,000 members at AA. (Whereas Local 100 has 36,000 members)Its a very unusual, ineffective, ineffecient structure, but by keeping the members split between Locals it allows the unelected International appointees of the ATD to have control of the contract. The largest Local, Local 514 just happens to be in one of the lowest cost areas of the country that also happens to be a RTW state. A double whammy for more pro-union areas where the cost of living is higher.

In fact the structure is so ineffecient that International officials justify the payments by claiming that without them many of the locals could not financially survive.(That is heresay FM but this is not a court of law).

Whereas Local 100 has control of its contract with the MTA and several other employers, thus making them a powerful Local, at AA the members are all split up, and none of the people we vote for have any real say in the contract.

Thats why the company financially supports the locals, because by doing so they remain small, weak, ineffective and dependant on the company handout. Company unionsism, and thats why its illegal.

Since membership power is limited to the Local level and the contract belongs to the International, the company maintains the weak structure by funding the Locals that otherwise would have to merge into larger Locals. Larger locals would be less managable from both the company and the International position, which unsuprisingly, is usually the same.

So why would AA not report these illegal financial transactions and why would they agree to them in the first place? Easy, for a measly $3.1 million they got more concessions than any of the carriers that went BK got.Are you kidding me, where else could the company turn $3.1 million into $1.3 billion a year?

As far as jail time, unfortunately the penalties for screwing your employees or members is not nearly as severe as when you screw over stockholders.


http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/unions.htm#who


Officers and employees of unions must file a Form LM-30 with OLMS if they have any loans or benefits from, or certain financial interests in, employers whose employees their union represents and businesses that deal with their union.

So if you collected a salary, recieved stock options, recieve time towards your pension, use flight benifits, accrued sick time etc it all has to be reported.

Employers who enter into such an agreement or engage in certain specified financial dealings with their employees, unions, union officers, or labor relations consultants must file a Form LM-10.

Report of Employers
(29 U.S.C. 433)


SEC. 203. (a) Every employer who in any fiscal year made-

(1) any payment or loan, direct or indirect, of money or other thing of value (including reimbursed expenses), or any promise or agreement therefor, to any labor organization or officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization, or employee of any labor organization, except (A) payments or loans made by any national or State bank, credit union, insurance company, savings and loan association or other credit institution and (B) payments of the kind referred to in section 302© of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended;

The LMRA is known as Taft Hartly, here is the link.

http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/tafthartley.html

More:



(

[URL="http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olm...nstructions.pdf"]http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olm...nstructions.pdf[/URL]

http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/regs/sta.../olms/lmrda.htm

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olm...30factsheet.htm

 

[Bob Owens]

Isn't it obvious? Perjured testimony by a union boss (now there's a big surprise) Just Has To Involve AA. No way would he lie on the stand without some complicity by AA, right?

I've tried to follow the arguments and I just don't see the connection that implicates AA in what is essentially an intra-union dispute. Maybe Mr Owens has caught some TWU people in some inconsistencies. Wow. A busdrivers' union in NYC not able to keep its stories straight. Like I said - Now there's a big surprise. B)

As per your own example-Enron, perjury and the inability to keep stories straight isnt limited to corrupt union leaders.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, looking at the websites you referenced, there's an entire FAQ which details situations where a LM-10 is and isn't required to be filed.

LM-10 FAQ

So if you collected a salary, recieved stock options, recieve time towards your pension, use flight benifits, accrued sick time etc it all has to be reported.

Actually, that's not what the FAQ says.

If the payments made by AA to the TWU were simply those required for healthcare, vacation, sick or retirement benefits that would have been due to the employee if they were not on union leave, then as I'm reading this, the company is not required to file a LM-10, and the union official is not required to file a LM-30.

You've continually claimed those payments are illegal. The truth is that neither of us knows if they are legal or not because we don't know what those payments are for.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, looking at the websites you referenced, there's an entire FAQ which details situations where a LM-10 is and isn't required to be filed.

LM-10 FAQ
Actually, that's not what the FAQ says.

If the payments made by AA to the TWU were simply those required for healthcare, vacation, sick or retirement benefits that would have been due to the employee if they were not on union leave, then as I'm reading this, the company is not required to be filed on a LM-10, and the union official is not required to file a LM-30.

You've continually claimed those payments are illegal. The truth is that neither of us knows if they are legal or not because we don't know what those payments are for.

Thats why they are supposed to file, so the DOL can decide.

Which number question are you refering to?


The FAQs you are referring to are for the LM-10s, which companies file, those who recieve file LM-30s.

If they recieved pay for a "no show" job, in other words when not actually performing work for the company, it has to be reported.

NEW! Q18. What are some examples of situations where an employer must file a Form LM-10?

A18. If the following businesses are employers, they must file a Form LM-10 in the following instances, provided that the de minimis exemption, or other reporting exemption, is not applicable:

An employer of the union members provides the union's officers an exclusive opportunity to purchase the employer's stock at below market prices.


An employer of the union members pays a union official for a "no-show" job.



If they didnt pay out the same as a rank and file member for the same health care coverage, it has to be reported.

If they flew under conditions that were not available to every other rank and file member A-10s for the family to Hawaii etc, it has to be reported.




The company put out the figures,it came to $3.1 million. There is no way that the cost for health benifits and pensions for the twenty or so people on Union leave cost that much, besides the company called it "Company paid Union Business". That says what its for, company paid union business not funding required benifits as per the contract. Besides the contract also says that if someone is on UBC that the company will bill the union for the salary plus a percentage override for tax and benifit related expenses, when I was in office it was 9%.

UBC is effecively a loan from the company to a union officer. If the union does not pay, the officers UBC status is revoked-therefore it must be reported.

Q6. What transactions must be reported on Form LM-10?

A6. Employers must file a Form LM-10 to disclose any:

Payments and loans made to any union or union official, other than payments of the kind referred to in section 302© of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and payments and loans in the regular course of business by insurance companies and credit institutions.

And here is one I missed:
NEW! Q27. Is an employer required to file a Form LM-10 if the employer provides office space dedicated for use by the union that represents its employees?
A27. Assuming that the office space is provided without cost to the union, the value of the office space is reportable. Section 203(a) of the LMRDA requires employers to report certain payments to labor organizations and their officials, subject to multiple exceptions. 29 U.S.C. § 433. No exception for proving cost-free office space is provided.
Unlike the situation where the employer in essence leases office space to a union without charging rent, no report is required where an employer permits its employees' union officials to reserve on a temporary and episodic basis office or conference space on an as-needed basis for conducting union business. This type of fleeting use by the union of an employer's facilities, where permission, timing and location are entirely within the employer's discretion, has no reasonably quantifiable market value.

 

[eolesen]

Thats why they are supposed to file them, so the DOL can decide.

The DOL already decided that if it fell into certain categories, there was no need to file.

If the DOL wanted to decide each line item, then the exemptions wouldn't exist.

 

[Bob Owens]

The DOL already decided that if it fell into certain categories, there was no need to file.

If the DOL wanted to decide each line item, then the exemptions wouldn't exist.

You still havent referenced where exactly you found clearly defined categories of exemptions that would explain why the company did not report $3.1 million in "Company Paid Union Business". Like I said, file and let them decide.

As far as LM-30s, there are not as many exemptions.

How do I know if I am required to file a Form LM-30?

Union officers or employees (except employees performing exclusively clerical or custodial services) must file a Form LM-30 if they or their spouses or minor children:

Have any of the following interests or dealings related to an employer whose employees their union represents or is actively seeking to represent:
- hold any securities or other interest in, or have any income or other benefit from, such an employer (except wages or other benefits received as bona fide employees);
- have a part in any transaction involving securities or other interests in, or loans to or from, such an employer;
- have any business transaction or arrangement with such an employer; or
- have any securities or other interest in, or income or other benefit from, any business consisting in substantial part of buying from, selling or leasing to, or otherwise dealing with, such an employer;
Have received any payment of money or other thing of value from an employer or a person who acts as a labor relations consultant for an employer, except payments permitted by § 302© of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (see LMRDA § 505); or
Have any securities or other interest in, or income or other benefit from, a business which buys from, or sells or leases to, or otherwise deals with, their union or any trusts in which their union is interested.



So, while the company may not have to file that they paid into benifits that the officers would have recieved if not on leave it looks like the person recieving them should have, especially if they were in any way above or beyond what they would have receieved as and ordinary member.

So if you collected a salary, recieved stock options, recieve time towards your pension, use flight benifits, accrued sick time etc it all has to be reported.

All those items have quantifiable values, unlike accrued seniority which would be much harder to quantify.