Haven't Heard About the Extra 4% in Equity to be Held Aside?

[Bob Owens]

We didn't assume the need was going from 5% to 10%, that was brought about because the plaintiffs in the lawsuits "say" they're supposed to get 10% of the total.

Exactly, you implied that I was wrong for assuming that the costs would consume the whole $5.3 million, you obviously assumed it would be less(which would make it easier for the Union to pick up those costs as well) and your own words prove that your assumptions have come up short in the past. You were short by nearly 200%, so wouldn't it be prudent to err on the other side this time and assume that if there is $5.3 million in the pot the lawyers will do their best to get every penny of it?
 

Then the 10% to the 14% was brought about because the plaintiffs said the 10% wasn't enough and were ready to file an injunction for the entire distribution to be held.

So the legal alternative to not raising the original 5% to 14% would be to have the entire distribution on hold until this entire issue is resolved. Is that a better alternative...I don't believe most would agree to holding everything is better than holding 14%.

I believe I have stated several times that I do not dispute withholding the shares to satisfy the lawsuits, it sucks but its what the courts require, what I dispute is that additional shares are being withheld to cover the expenses of representing the Union in court, and yes the Union is "us", but I didn't see my name on the lawsuit. Its a lawsuit against the collective body. This is essentially a DFR case stemming out of collective bargaining that occurred in Bankruptcy, and our dues are used to defend the Union in DFR cases. While you claim again and again its not collective bargaining you are wrong, it is, because our interests are represented by the Union, it may not be Sect 6 Collective bargaining like we sometimes have, but it is collective bargaining. 2003 wasn't sect 6 bargaining either, but the contract that resulted from those talks outside of section six were just as binding as those achieved within section 6.

 

[NYer]

Thanks NYer,
 
First left click and drag then "CTRL+C"  on your appropriate formula and copy it from this post.
Then Past it into any cell in Excel then hit ENTER.
To change the Wage and years, go to the top to the formula bar and alter the info and presto changeo you now have the number of shares you are to allegedly to receive.
 
M&R
 
=(23000000*0.2291)*((.5*32.75/350000)+(.5*15/215000))+((23000000*0.0981)*0.00009400108363985784)+407+29+((23000000*0.0183)*0.000094)
 
 
 
 
FSC
 
=(23000000*0.158)*((0.5*21.46/200000) + (0.5*15/190000)) + ((23000000*0.0676)*0.000106501499600557) + 307 + 29
 
 
Sorry part timers this formula only is appropriate for the Full timers.

 
The only issue with the formula is the 23M shares as that total is not know until it is distributed. It isn't known because of the fluctuations in the share price and the fact that the preferred shareholders get a higher percentage of the total shares which lowers the amount of shares available to the rest of the creditors.

 

[NYer]

Exactly, you implied that I was wrong for assuming that the costs would consume the whole $5.3 million, you obviously assumed it would be less(which would make it easier for the Union to pick up those costs as well) and your own words prove that your assumptions have come up short in the past. You were short by nearly 200%, so wouldn't it be prudent to err on the other side this time and assume that if there is $5.3 million in the pot the lawyers will do their best to get every penny of it?  I don't assume it would be either. The issue is that you have already conceived a theory based on your belief the entire amount will be spent. That is an unknown and therefore your theory is just that, a baseless theory.


I believe I have stated several times that I do not dispute withholding the shares to satisfy the lawsuits, it sucks but its what the courts require, what I dispute is that additional shares are being withheld to cover the expenses of representing the Union in court, and yes the Union is "us", but I didn't see my name on the lawsuit. Its a lawsuit against the collective body. This is essentially a DFR case stemming out of collective bargaining that occurred in Bankruptcy, and our dues are used to defend the Union in DFR cases. While you claim again and again its not collective bargaining you are wrong, it is, because our interests are represented by the Union, it may not be Sect 6 Collective bargaining like we sometimes have, but it is collective bargaining. 2003 wasn't sect 6 bargaining either, but the contract that resulted from those talks outside of section six were just as binding as those achieved within section 6. --The lawsuit, at least one of them, is against the TWU and each individual Local. It isn't a DFR case because it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It is a case against a creditor of the AA BK. In 2003 we fought against changes to the CBA. The Equity is a mechanism of the BK Court and the payment of the Equity is based on that mechanism, not collective bargaining. It's like the separation of political money (COPE) and dues money.

 

[NYer]

 

Exactly, you implied that I was wrong for assuming that the costs would consume the whole $5.3 million, you obviously assumed it would be less(which would make it easier for the Union to pick up those costs as well) and your own words prove that your assumptions have come up short in the past. You were short by nearly 200%, so wouldn't it be prudent to err on the other side this time and assume that if there is $5.3 million in the pot the lawyers will do their best to get every penny of it?  I don't assume it would be either. The issue is that you have already conceived a theory based on your belief the entire amount will be spent. That is an unknown and therefore your theory is just that, a baseless theory.


I believe I have stated several times that I do not dispute withholding the shares to satisfy the lawsuits, it sucks but its what the courts require, what I dispute is that additional shares are being withheld to cover the expenses of representing the Union in court, and yes the Union is "us", but I didn't see my name on the lawsuit. Its a lawsuit against the collective body. This is essentially a DFR case stemming out of collective bargaining that occurred in Bankruptcy, and our dues are used to defend the Union in DFR cases. While you claim again and again its not collective bargaining you are wrong, it is, because our interests are represented by the Union, it may not be Sect 6 Collective bargaining like we sometimes have, but it is collective bargaining. 2003 wasn't sect 6 bargaining either, but the contract that resulted from those talks outside of section six were just as binding as those achieved within section 6. --The lawsuit, at least one of them, is against the TWU and each individual Local. It isn't a DFR case because it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It is a case against a creditor of the AA BK. In 2003 we fought against changes to the CBA. The Equity is a mechanism of the BK Court and the payment of the Equity is based on that mechanism, not collective bargaining. It's like the separation of political money (COPE) and dues money.*

 

 
*this is where you usually change the subject.

 

[Bob Owens]

*this is where you usually change the subject.

Seems you are the one trying to change the subject. My point is whether its $5.3 million or $1 the Union should pick up the costs associated with the lawsuit against the Union, not take it from our equity. You keep saying that this is something it isnt, the fact is we paid the Union to represent us through the collective bargaining process in BK and the Union determined the formula and eligibility for the Equity and former members are suing the Union and you are saying that in addition to the fees we paid the Union to represent us and come up with that formula and eligibility we have to pay an aditional fee for them to represent us in the lawsuit that their actions brought.

Once again, why should the members pay twice for the same thing?
Who represented us in Sect 1113 Collective bargaining negotiations? The Union.
Who represented us on the creditors committee? The Union.
Who made the decisions that led to the lawsuit? The Union
Who chose the lawyers that will be representing the Union ? The Union.
What authorizes them to do this? The fact they are our paid representatives.
Who are the retirees suing? The Union.
Who is being stuck with the bill of the lawsuit against the Union, brought about because of the actions of the Union in addition to their dues? The members.
This would be like BP sending a separate bill to all their customers to pay for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

I have not spoken against the withholding of equity that the courts may determine we are not eligible for, only that additional equity could be used to pay for what we are already paying for. Keep spinning.

 

[NYer]

Seems you are the one trying to change the subject. My point is whether its $5.3 million or $1 the Union should pick up the costs associated with the lawsuit against the Union, not take it from our equity. You keep saying that this is something it isnt, the fact is we paid the Union to represent us through the collective bargaining process in BK and the Union determined the formula and eligibility for the Equity and former members are suing the Union and you are saying that in addition to the fees we paid the Union to represent us and come up with that formula and eligibility we have to pay an aditional fee for them to represent us in the lawsuit that their actions brought.

Once again, why should the members pay twice for the same thing?

I have not spoken against the withholding of equity that the courts may determine we are not eligible for, only that additional equity could be used to pay for what we are already paying for. Keep spinning.

 
Well, it was the Equity Committee made up of Local Presidents that approved the formula and distribution eligibility...wasn't it. And that is why one of the lawsuits includes each Local as a defendant. As I mentioned before, some of the Local's would be bankrupted in order to fight a suit against our own Members.
 
Your response was to have the dues raised in order to cover the difference or avoid a default. I assume you meant a "special assessment" since that is limited as opposed to a raising the dues permanently which would actually cost the Members much more over the long term than the current process.
 
It is also important to note that the other unions are using the same process are currently held by the TWU. I'm sure no one would protest if we raised dues,as you suggest, instead of using a small portion of the equity. Right.

 

[Bob Owens]

Last I heard the Locals are part of the Union. Read the Constitution of the TWU, committees made up of Local Leaders are subordinate to the International and exist only for the convenience of the International, they do not have the right to make any policies, ultimate authority lies with the International, at any time Little could have stepped in and said "this is how you are doing it", just like he did in 2003 when they imposed the most concessionary contract in history on us "Without further ratification".

In one post you claim the legal fees wont amount to much in the next you claim it would bankrupt the Locals, so which is it? When you make up your mind we can continue debate.
It appears that when the members are paying you are willing to assume that they will not spend the whole $5.3million but when the Union is paying it you assume they will. Double standards, or skitzophrenia?

Didn't the TWU receive a reimbursement in cash of the monies it spent throughout the C-1113 process to the tune of several million dollars? Our share (Local 591) was around $160,000. Use those monies first then see where it goes from there, from what you are saying in some posts that may cover the whole thing.

 

[NYer]

Last I heard the Locals are part of the Union. Read the Constitution of the TWU, committees made up of Local Leaders are subordinate to the International and exist only for the convenience of the International, they do not have the right to make any determination, ultimate authority lies with the International, at any time Little could have stepped in and said "this is how you are doing it", just like he did in 2003 when they imposed the most concessionary contract in history on us "Without further ratification".

In one post you claim the legal fees wont amount to much in the next you claim it would bankrupt the Locals, so which is it? When you make up your mind we can continue debate.
It appears that when the members are paying you are willing to assume that they will not spend the whole $5.3million but when the Union is paying it you assume they will. Double standards, or skitzophrenia?

Didn't the TWU receive a reimbursement in cash of the monies it spent throughout the C-1113 process to the tune of several million dollars? Our share (Local 591) was around $160,000. Use those monies first then see where it goes from there, from what you are saying in some posts that may cover the whole thing.

 
It doesn't take much to bankrupt a Local that has less than six figures in their treasury, on the other hand if each Member ended up contributing 1 share towards the legal fees incurred by the lawsuits, it would amount to almost $750K. Coming from a large Local like 591, we might be able to weather that storm but some of the other Locals would not and could not survive...If they do not survive then basic protections would not be afforded to those Members like processing grievances.
 
It would however, enable those Locals' that survive more of a voice in negotiations, for instance, or give those with an agenda a reason to further criticize and try to bring a change to the TWU or of the TWU.
 
Going on purely on representational responsibilities, it makes little sense to have the Locals' foot a bill that will surely make some close their doors. That is especially true now that there are less people at the ATD that can assist with issues and the burden is left for the "autonomous" Locals to fend for themselves...As was apparently requested and indulged in the last Convention.

 

[Bob Owens]

It doesn't take much to bankrupt a Local that has less than six figures in their treasury, on the other hand if each Member ended up contributing 1 share towards the legal fees incurred by the lawsuits, it would amount to almost $750K. Coming from a large Local like 591, we might be able to weather that storm but some of the other Locals would not and could not survive...If they do not survive then basic protections would not be afforded to those Members like processing grievances.
 
It would however, enable those Locals' that survive more of a voice in negotiations, for instance, or give those with an agenda a reason to further criticize and try to bring a change to the TWU or of the TWU.
 
Going on purely on representational responsibilities, it makes little sense to have the Locals' foot a bill that will surely make some close their doors. That is especially true now that there are less people at the ATD that can assist with issues and the burden is left for the "autonomous" Locals to fend for themselves...As was apparently requested and indulged in the last Convention.

So you have abandoned your position that one has nothing to do with the other as the reason why the members should have to pay for the lawsuit against the Union and instead went to your belief that some locals would go bankrupt if they did.

Well what about the reimbursement from the company for BK negotiations expenses? Why not use that and then arrange loans for those Locals who cant afford it because they were hit hard from the 5 years of negotiations that the International dragged us through by refusing to move forward in Section 6? -Seems you had no concerns about how that impacted Local finances. Are any of these Local Presidents saying they think its right that the legal expenses come out of their equity? Was it put to a vote? Or are you just assuming thats how they feel?


Sad but not unexpected that once again when you have lost the debate and find yourself utterly failing to be able to defend your position you resort to claiming that the winning argument is driven by people who have other motives and want to harm the TWU.

Its pretty simple, I think we, the members, should get every penny we can, and I don't believe we should pay for the same thing twice. Arrangements can be made for the Locals that don't have the money, but not having the money is no excuse for not giving the members what they paid for.

 

[NYer]

So you have abandoned your position that one has nothing to do with the other as the reason why the members should have to pay for the lawsuit against the Union and instead went to your belief that some locals would go bankrupt if they did.

Well what about the reimbursement from the company for BK negotiations expenses? Why not use that and then arrange loans for those Locals who cant afford it because they were hit hard from the 5 years of negotiations that the International dragged us through by refusing to move forward in Section 6? -Seems you had no concerns about how that impacted Local finances. Are any of these Local Presidents saying they think its right that the legal expenses come out of their equity? Was it put to a vote? Or are you just assuming thats how they feel?


Sad but not unexpected that once again if you have no argument and find yourself utterly failing to be able to defend your position you resort to claiming that the winning argument is driven by people who have other motives and want to harm the TWU.

 
Didn't abandon anything.
 
Section 6 negotiations and the bankruptcy are two separate issues. You can try to pin any issues you have with the Section 6 on the International but you know full well that the bankruptcy is a something that no of us have any control over. Even you have acknowledged that in past posts.
 
The issue about using the equity to cover expenses was posed to the Equity Committee or the Presidents' Council and approved. It is the same process being used with the APA and APFA and it was used in other airline union related equity distributions from past bankruptcies.
 
You either advocate for the Members of you don't. Your solution is to have the some of the Local's take out a "loan" to help pay for legal fees? The solution is to put some of the Locals in financial jeopardy?
 
Winning argument? You? Hardly.

 

[Bob Owens]

Yes Section 6 and C-1113 are separate but the role the Union plays in representing us remains the same.

My solution is for the Union to pay the costs just like any other costs associated with the Representation the Union provides.

If assessments, loans etc are required thats the cost of providing representation.

Representation costs the Union covers is not limited to Sect 6 negotiations.

Your obvious desperation reveals more than what you claim. You are losing the argument, you went from saying the members should pay separately because it has nothing to do with collective bargaining to using your assumption that it would financially jeopardize some Locals. You have switched from it wont cost much to it will bankrupt some locals and you have desperately tried to change the subject.

 

[NYer]

Yes Section 6 and C-1113 are separate but the role the Union plays in representing us remains the same.

My solution is for the Union to pay the costs just like any other costs associated with the Representation the Union provides.

Your obvious desperation reveals more than what you claim. You are losing the argument, you went from saying the members should pay separately because it has nothing to do with collective bargaining to using your assumption that it would financially jeopardize some Locals.

 
Section 6 and the 1113 process were directly related to the CBA, and the contents thereof, and it is a dealing directly with the employer towards making changes.
 
The Equity is a function of the BK statutes, in which all the creditors are involved. The negotiations for the percentage to be derived is either done in Court in which the TWU would be fighting other creditors or it would be a negotiated number agreed to by the other creditors and the Unsecured Creditors Committee. It isn't part of the CBA.
 
That's pretty revealing, trying to confuse the issue and making my points an act of "desperation." I didn't bring up that the Locals should pay, you did. I merely stated that fact that doing so would expose many to bankruptcy which defeats another tenet of your argument, not mine.
 
Your quote, "That may BK some Locals, to offset that I think that all the funds that the company paid back to the Union should be used to pay these fees."

 

[Bob Owens]

Section 6 and the 1113 process were directly related to the CBA, and the contents thereof, and it is a dealing directly with the employer towards making changes.
 
The Equity is a function of the BK statutes, in which all the creditors are involved. The negotiations for the percentage to be derived is either done in Court in which the TWU would be fighting other creditors or it would be a negotiated number agreed to by the other creditors and the Unsecured Creditors Committee. It isn't part of the CBA.
 
That's pretty revealing, trying to confuse the issue and making my points an act of "desperation." I didn't bring up that the Locals should pay, you did. I merely stated that fact that doing so would expose many to bankruptcy which defeats another tenet of your argument, not mine.

Who were we paying to represent us during that process?
Who made the decisions on distributing the Equity?
Answer to both questions is "the Union".
So even if it wasn't part of the CBA it is part of the representation the members paid for.

I said the Union should pay, whether thats the Locals or the International is immaterial. I did assume that the International would not be willing to pay but added that the monies returned to the Union, International included, should be used first.

 

[NYer]

Who were we paying to represent us during that process? What process?
Who made the decisions on distributing the Equity? The Equity Committee
Answer to both questions is "the Union".
So even if it wasn't part of the CBA it is part of the representation the members paid for.

I said the Union should pay, whether thats the Locals or the International is immaterial. I did assume that the International would not be willing to pay but added that the monies returned to the Union, International included, should be used first. Some of that money belongs to other Divisions, do you believe they're going to volunteer that. We are represented by a mostly Transit hierarchy now.

 

[Bob Owens]

Again, what about the monies the Union got from the company to cover the costs of representing us in the 1113 process? You don't seem to want to touch that. You admit that 1113 is collective bargaining, something to don't deny the members pay for through their dues, why not use those monies to cover the costs instead of saying that each member should give shares of equity that they got in exchange for the worst deal in the industry for the next six years?

The fact is that most locals are already receiving more per capita than they were before due to the shift in costs from untaxed non-wage compensation to taxed compensation, the 7% wage increase I've received since DOS means I pay 7% more dues but changes in the medical alone triggered changes that effectively reduced my "total value" by around $9000 per year (according to the company's numbers) and thats not even mentioning the loss of the pension.

I don't agree that the Union should keep the monies they were reimbursed through the 1113 process and charge us shares of equity to represent us in a lawsuit that their decisions triggered. Our dues should cover that.