Execs Dumping Stock

[diogenes]

I think you are misunderstanding the Constitution. The Constitution exists to limit the reach and power of the government, not of private parties.


I don't think so. This:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

plainly authorizes Congress to regulate business. The preamble say the articles are to be "in the public interest."

Your interpretation is one the investor class is trying to BS the working class into believing.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but what laws has Congress made that forbids union members to peaceably assemble?


Uhhhh, Smithfield Food's private police are beating folks trying to organize.

FWIW, I have been in on forming a church, starting a business, and organizing a union. Starting a church and business is as easy as falling off a log. Why is it so difficult to organize a union, given the First Amendment right to assemble, short of treason or sedition?

Check out the hoops a union goes thru:

http://www.nmb.gov/

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/home/default.asp



To the contrary, it is clear in your example that there has not been a constitutional taking. In constitutional law terms, a "taking of property" refers to the government taking property (without just compensation).

No, the property rights have been diminished aidded and abetted by the court system. Have you forgotten the Supremes recently ruled that taking private property and turning it over to another private citizen is constitutional?

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/lega...?article_id=115

The greatest fear the investor class has is for working folks to read the Declaration and Constitution for themselves, so I'm doing my part to spread the word!

 

[Bear96]

You missed my point...the PBGC is exactly like the FDIC and FSLIC...it's insurance for failed companies. But it has been turned into a dumping groud for unwanted assets. The S&L's failed, the depositors were protected to a point, and the FDIC and FSLIC moved in to sell off the assets of the failed banks and S&L's. The PBGC has moprhed into a dumping ground in the "reoganization" of bankrupt companies.

That's nice.

Now what does that have to do with constitutional takings?

 

[Bear96]

I think you are misunderstanding the Constitution. The Constitution exists to limit the reach and power of the government, not of private parties.


I don't think so. This:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

plainly authorizes Congress to regulate business. The preamble say the articles are to be "in the public interest."

I think we need to take a step back here and clarify exactly what we are talking about. Because I am confused.

First, how does the part of the Constitution you are quoting conflict with my general point that the Constitution mainly serves to define the limits of government (specifically, the federal government) power? Yes, the Constitution gives certain enumerated powers to the feds -- what you quoted above is one of those powers. That's nice. What is your point?

Second, you quoted Article I, Section 8, and specifically what is known as the Commerce Clause. (And BTW, the preamble to Section 8 does not mention "in the public interest." But maybe you are referring to something else.) However, the post of yours I was responding to was referring to the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment ("[P]rivate property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."). What is the connection (and point) you are trying to make between those very different sections of the Constitution?

Your interpretation is one the investor class is trying to BS the working class into believing.

Eh? Come again? I am just saying what the takings clause is about. It has well-settled constitutional law, for hundreds of years, that the takings clause refers to the government taking private property. I don't think that has ever been in dispute. (Until today, that is, apparently .) How is that the "investor class v. working class"?

This is like talking to PITbull. My point was simply that the takings clause refers to the GOVERNMENT taking private property. It DOES NOT APPLY to one private party being a nuisance to another private party. THAT WAS MY ONLY BASIC POINT. Are you saying that is incorrect? That the takings clause applies to a private party "taking" another party's property? Please clarify what you mean.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but what laws has Congress made that forbids union members to peaceably assemble?


Uhhhh, Smithfield Food's private police are beating folks trying to organize.

I am not familiar with what Smithfield Food is, but it sounds like a private party versus a union. So again, what Congressional law forbids union members from peaceably assembling? (Maybe it is simpler if you just give me a cite from the U.S. Code.)

FWIW, I have been in on forming a church, starting a business, and organizing a union. Starting a church and business is as easy as falling off a log. Why is it so difficult to organize a union, given the First Amendment right to assemble, short of treason or sedition?

Good question. My guess it is decades of Republican propaganda equating unions with communism, combined with a lot of greedy moves unions have made over those same decades that create news headlines about union leaders embezzling union funds and the like.

To the contrary, it is clear in your example that there has not been a constitutional taking. In constitutional law terms, a "taking of property" refers to the government taking property (without just compensation).

No, the property rights have been diminished aidded and abetted by the court system. Have you forgotten the Supremes recently ruled that taking private property and turning it over to another private citizen is constitutional?

Yes, the Kelo case was a step backwards, IMO. Fortunately, all that has to be done to get around that is for states to pass laws clarifying when the government can take private property. Maybe your anger is better directed at lobbying for those laws.

In any case, Kelo still does not help your assertion that a private hog farmer can constitutionally take the land of another private party. See, Kelo involved the city of New London -- listen carefully now, the city of New London, i.e., a government entity -- condemning and taking property. If your hog farm example entailed a government entity taking property to turn it over to the pig farmers, then you would have a point. But your initial example did not mention that, which is so crucial when talking about constitutional takings.

My neighbor is burning leaves in his yard, and the smoke is bothering me. Is this a federal case? Should I run to court and expect the federal government to reimburse me for my inconvenience -- maybe pay me several thousand dollars from the taxpayers? What part of the Constitution should I use for my claim? Is this a constitutional taking? (No.)

The greatest fear the investor class has is for working folks to read the Declaration and Constitution for themselves, so I'm doing my part to spread the word!

Unfortunately, your "word" is inaccurate and misleading, and shows serious misunderstandings about constitutional law. In the real world, the Constutition means what the Supreme Court says it means (see, i.e., Marbury v. Madison), not what you or I "feel" it should mean. If that is another example of Investor Class v. Working Class in your eyes, feel free to start advocating a better system of government.

 

[KCFlyer]

That's nice.

Now what does that have to do with constitutional takings?

Not a thing. What I was replying to in both your posts was this

Taxpayers are not footing the bill. Premiums paid to be PBGC, and the PBGC's investments, are footing that bill.

Taxpayers aren't footing it...yet. And the PBGC ain't like Aetna where you can file a claim and rebuild.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

Minus your condescending remarks... just first understand the posters opinions and what they are trying to convey BEFORE you just assume you know and start answering what you THINK.

Its not a puzzle and no one here is posting in "tongues".

 

[Bear96]

Not a thing. What I was replying to in both your posts was this Taxpayers aren't footing it...yet.

So you agree with me.

 

[KCFlyer]

So you agree with me.

Not really. IMHO, the taxpayer's will be footing the bill within the next year...

 

[PITbull]

Not really. IMHO, the taxpayer's will be footing the bill within the next year...

That's sure is a fact...as soon as even one of the following DL, NW, Delphi, GM dump their obligation will throw PBGC into insolvency.

I think the BK laws should change and include that any company that reorganizes in BK and dumps their pension plans, should be an automatic liquidation. If that isn't to the liking of the BOD's then, they should have to pick up their pension obligation plans and start payments to the PBGC once they emerge.

Currently, it's just too damn easy for Corporations to walk away from their pension promises to employees who have stuck with the company for decades because of it. The only pension plans that are protected and honored even in a BK, are execs...and are rewarded for throwing every other employee's retirement under the bus.

 

[Bear96]

Not really. IMHO, the taxpayer's will be footing the bill within the next year...

Very possibly. But, so far this has not happened.

That's sure is a fact...

No, it is not a fact that the taxpayers will be footing the PBGC's bill next year (unless there has been some recent Congressional legislation passed I am unaware of).

See, this is why there are often problems with communicating here. It is OPINION, GUESSING, SPECULATION, PREDICTION (etc.) that this will happen. Even if it is very likely, it is not "fact." And it's especially not "sure[ly]" a fact.

 

[Dog Wonder]

See, this is why there are often problems with communicating here. It is OPINION, GUESSING, SPECULATION, PREDICTION (etc.) that this will happen. Even if it is very likely, it is not "fact." And it's especially not "sure[ly]" a fact.

So what year will the taxpayers pick up the tab. When did thy agree to do it?

 

[Dog Wonder]

So what year will the taxpayers pick up the tab. When did thy agree to do it?

 

[Bear96]

So what year will the taxpayers pick up the tab. When did thy agree to do it?

?

 

[PITbull]

AFA MEC West E-line today...keeps it in the "spotlight"...

MEC WEST AFACouncil66

Brother can you spare a dime?

Well if your brother happens to be Scott Kirby- US Airways Vice President of Sales and Marketing he can.



Following last weeks announcement of management profiteering it comes as little surprise that late this afternoon it was reported in a SEC filing that Scott Kirby added an additional $3,000,000+ to his previously exercised stock options of over $4,000,000.



Scott Kirby 6/23/06

Acquired 82,500 @ $13.45 = $1,109,625.00

Sold 82,500 @ $50.00 a share = $4,125,000.00

Profit-$3,015,375.00



It is obscene to watch executives line their pockets while those very same executives preach that our new contact must be cost neutral.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[700UW]

2 execs at US Airways sell more of their stock

The Arizona Republic
Jun. 25, 2006 12:00 AM

Two top executives of the new US Airways have sold more stock.

Jeff McClelland, chief administrative officer, and Scott Kirby, executive vice president of sales and marketing, exercised options and sold shares on Friday. Both sold shares earlier this month, along with other officers. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Doug Parker has not sold any shares.

McClelland and Kirby each exercised options on 82,500 shares at prices ranging from $13.45 to $25.60 and sold the shares at $50, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. McClelland's pre-tax gain was $2.23 million, Kirby's $3.02 million.

US Airways' stock has more than doubled since it debuted after the America West-US Airways merger last fall. The airline has been riding an industry rebound, with fares rising on a cutback in seats and sizzling travel demand.

 

[PITbull]

MORE SHARES SOLD ON FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2006


And the beat goes on...below, from the East AFA MEC....still no one has addressed the millions owed on the income tax to be paid by the company...

June 25, 2006
The AFA Newsletter for US Airways Flight Attendants


In this Issue for

June 24, 2006


SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE?
NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE

One of the questions I have been asked recently is, "why is the Company taking peanut off the aircraft?" The obvious answer is of course the peanut allergy problem for our customers. Further analysis leads me to believe there is another reason; they need something with which to pay us.

In the past two weeks several Company executives have converted stock options, realizing pre-tax profits in the millions of dollars. Last week AFA issued a press release calling the profiteering by these executives "outrageous and beyond obscene" On June 12 the following Company executives conducted the following transactions:

Senior Vice President and General Counsel, James E. Walsh III, acquired 35,062 shares of stock at a price of $14.23 and 12,375 shares at a price of $12.44. Mr. Walsh then sold those shares at a price of $46.08 realizing a pre-tax profit of $1,529,513.50. None of Mr. Walsh's options expired prior August 16, 2014.

Senior Vice President and CFO Derek J. Kerr acquired 4,125 shares at $9.21; 14.437 shares at $12.44; and 14,712 shares at $20.34. Mr. Kerr sold 34,924 shares at price of between $47.00 and $47.08 for a pre-tax profit of $1,126,027.89. None of Mr. Kerr's options expired prior to January 24, 2012.

Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, Jeffrey D. McClelland acquired 22,001 shares at $9.21 and 41,250 shares at $12.44. Mr. McClelland then sold those shares at $46.08 realizing a pre-tax profit of $2,198,826.87. None of Mr. McClelland's options expired prior to January 24, 2012.

Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Scott J. Kirby, acquired 4,125 shares at $6.42 per share; 24,750 shares at $9.21 per share; 41,250 shares at $12.44 per share and 4,125 shares at $29.09 per share. Mr. Kirby then sold 115,500 shares at $46.08 for a pre-tax profit of 4,569,146. The option expiration date for Mr. Kirby's 4,125 shares was October 28, 2006. The earliest expiration date for the remainder of his shares was January 24, 2012.
At the time of the merger, America West shareholders, including these executives, were given stock and options in the new Company. Those of us that held US Airways stock lost all of our stock equity as a result of the bankruptcy. A lot of us have now been burned three times by US Airways stock; twice by owning it and once by not.

At this week's CLT Town Hall, I asked Doug Parker about these transactions. My specific question was did he believe it was appropriate for these former America West executives to realize this windfall as a direct result of the merger, without which America West would have likely been in bankruptcy rendering that stock worthless as well. His reply was these executives were among the lowest paid executives in the industry and they did receive the stock and options as part of their compensation package from America West which converted to US Airways options on September 27, 2005. He went on to say that most of the options were nearing their expiration date and had to be exercised. Unless I am missing something in the SEC filings, that does not appear to be the case.

On June 23, 2006 Mr. Kirby went to the well again and exercised his right to purchase 82,500 shares at $13.45 per share. He then sold all 82,500 shares at $50.00 per share for a pre-tax profit of $3,015,375. Those options were due to expire on March 27, 2012.

At the Town Hall meeting Mr. Parker again reiterated that what makes this merger work is the combination of low labor costs and higher revenue potential. He went on to say that without labor contracts that maintain these low costs the merger does not work. I asked Mr. Parker if he realized that merged contracts had to be ratified by the members. His response was, "yes I know, and if we can't get that done then we can operate two separate operations and contracts even under a single operating certificate." That will hardly lead to the "merger synergies" sold to investors.

No single investor invested more in this merger than the employees. Over the last four years US Airways East employees stepped up three times and saved this Company. America West Flight Attendants, among the lowest paid of the DOT ranked major carriers, had fought for two years in Section 6 negotiations for improvements to their contract only to have their negotiations derailed by the merger. Now as we try to merge contracts, we do not subscribe to the "no cost" mantra management insists on. We do not expect to be left standing on the side of the tracks when the gravy train passes by.

NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE

Last week's session with management did not produce any quantifiable results. We have spent the past three sessions passing proposals dealing with Grievance and System Board back and forth. Not only is the Company insisting on holding the line on costs, they are even trying to reduce non cost items in our contracts. A very unsettling example of this is the Company's proposal to keep discipline letters in a Flight Attendant's file for 24 months rather than 12. The 12 month provision has been in our contract for decades. I can see it now; 'the new 24 month DCP program". The Company wants to move forward with negotiations while leaving various provisions within each section open until the end. I see that as quite dangerous to the process. We will then end up in the "money" sections such as compensation, scheduling, vacation and sick with a host of open items. The expectation at that time will be to horse trade for pay. That is not a corner we intend to be backed into.

This management needs to get serious and start moving forward. We will not take one step backward in this negotiation. The Company's position appears to be to try to rush us through the process and get a deal in place prior to all the other pieces of the merger falling into place. We all want improvements in areas such as pay, reserve, scheduling and sick. At the rate this is going to be a slow process. Only when the Company truly needs our two groups to fly as one are we likely to see any meaningful movement on their part. My wish is they would realize that now rather than later but if that is not the case we can be very patient until they do.

To the media, tales of management excess and profiteering is sort of like a "dog bites man" story. Doug Parker told the CLT Town Hall attendees he believes US Airways has the best Flight Attendants in the United States. If that is so, (and I agree with his assessment) it is time to get down to business and negotiate a contract that bears fruit to that claim. If we don't, the media may then have their "man bites dog" story.

Thank You,

Mike Flores, President
The US Airways MEC


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wHAT MANAGMENT STRATEGY IS, OBVIOUSLY, TO EXHAUST THE UNION IN FIGHTING FOR THE 12 DCP RATHER THAN 24 MONTHS THE COMPANY IS TRYING TO PUSH FOR.

When I was on the property, we were trying and were succeeding in reducing the DCP levels to 6 months.

Hope the union doesn't fizzle out. If the DCP 24 month discipline level goes through, that would be the first in any airline group anywhere, and folks will be terminating right and left.

I WOULD HAVE FRIED THE ENTIRE BOD, INVESTORS AND EXECS ON THIS ONE...RIGHT IN THE MEDIA.

The unions need to hit the company in the stock price and drive it down with picketing, media campaigns, and expose the execs!