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

[NYer]

So I'll lose $25-30 of eqity this time.
 
How much did I lose paying the 757 grievance?
 
When did it become practice for union members to pay for grievances?
 
What Next?
 
THIS UNION SUCKS!

 
Unfortunately, that grievance became part of the bankruptcy as a "proof of claim" and was settled in that forum.
 
BTW, those that took the Early Out were eligible for their share of the 757 grievance and the healthcare grievance so this suit is not an argument over those payments.

 

[NYer]

 
I agree with Bob that in the end the TWU will find a way to keep/use all the equity they can and convince the members that it was in our best interest. We keep coming back/staying for more.

 
They'll have a hard time doing that since the Court Order on the 14% also puts a cap of 4% on the expenses and lawyers fees. This case, even if it goes to trial (highly unlikely) should never come anywhere close to that amount.
 
From Judge Orrick's Order: "...distributions from the equity distribution trust account for administrative and legal expenses related to the trust account and the litigation, or appeals not yet filed, will not exceed 4% of the total shares received from American."

 

[Rogallo]

Can anyone answer this question!
 
How much equity did I lose paying the 757 grievance?

 

[Bob Owens]

It's a damn good thing they didn't claim their shares would be 30-40-50% in their lawsuit, we wouldn't have needed to worry about the TWU keeping 14%, they would have kept it all. I guess I need to thank the EO's for not claiming more, you might have just saved us a few shares.

The Union wont permanently keep the 14% but they do have to hold those shares because I believe the court said they do in order to satisfy the claim should the retirees prevail. It sucks but it makes sense. My gripe is that we should not have to pay the legal fees out of our Equity shares but rather it should be paid out of the Equity we have built up in the Union. I'm not saying that the Union should give us the disputed equity shares, and absorb the costs should the retirees win, what I'm saying is the legal fees should be paid with the equity we built up in the Union, not take additional equity away from us. My concern is that with the Judge basically giving his fellow lawyers the green light to run the bills up to around $5.3 million and no one minding the store because "oh it will just end of being a couple of hundred dollars a head that they never had anyway" that the Lawyers will run those bills way up. What we should pay maybe $10,000 for will end up costing us $5.3 million. The lawyers that are representing us have a huge $5.3 million dollar incentive to maybe not have such a great opening argument and let this drag on for a few years.

The Union is getting sued, and yes we are getting sued because we are the Union. But we have built up equity in this Union that can only be used by the Union for representation, and this qualifies for that. This Union Equity can not be used for anything else, it is restricted equity, what they want us to do is leave that restricted equity alone, even though if more is needed we could always add to it, but whatever we put in can only go out for representation, and instead take unrestricted equity that we can use for anything, such as closing a gap in our personal finances due to the concessions we have taken, and use that to pay twice for representation.

 

[Bob Owens]

This case, even if it goes to trial (highly unlikely) should never come anywhere close to that amount.

Then there should be no problem with the Union paying those expenses and fees.

 

[Bob Owens]

Can anyone answer this question!
 
How much equity did I lose paying the 757 grievance?

You lost 11 weeks of Vacation, shift differential for 11 years, 110 days of 2.5 x for working the Holidays and a wage cut that was 3% more than what carriers that actually went into C-11 were able to get up to that point on order to make that settlement happen.

 

[Rogallo]

You lost 11 weeks of Vacation, shift differential for 11 years, 110 days of 2.5 x for working the Holidays and a wage cut that was 3% more than what carriers that actually went into C-11 were able to get up to that point on order to make that settlement happen.

 
I forgot how much I love paying dues for that kind of representation!
 
TWU GOTTA GO!

 

[NYer]

Then there should be no problem with the Union paying those expenses and fees.

 
Put it to vote.

 

[NYer]

The Union wont permanently keep the 14% but they do have to hold those shares because I believe the court said they do in order to satisfy the claim should the retirees prevail. It sucks but it makes sense. My gripe is that we should not have to pay the legal fees out of our Equity shares but rather it should be paid out of the Equity we have built up in the Union. I'm not saying that the Union should give us the disputed equity shares, and absorb the costs should the retirees win, what I'm saying is the legal fees should be paid with the equity we built up in the Union, not take additional equity away from us. My concern is that with the Judge basically giving his fellow lawyers the green light to run the bills up to around $5.3 million and no one minding the store because "oh it will just end of being a couple of hundred dollars a head that they never had anyway" that the Lawyers will run those bills way up. What we should pay maybe $10,000 for will end up costing us $5.3 million. The lawyers that are representing us have a huge $5.3 million dollar incentive to maybe not have such a great opening argument and let this drag on for a few years.

The Union is getting sued, and yes we are getting sued because we are the Union. But we have built up equity in this Union that can only be used by the Union for representation, and this qualifies for that. This Union Equity can not be used for anything else, it is restricted equity, what they want us to do is leave that restricted equity alone, even though if more is needed we could always add to it, but whatever we put in can only go out for representation, and instead take unrestricted equity that we can use for anything, such as closing a gap in our personal finances due to the concessions we have taken, and use that to pay twice for representation.

 
So, if the lawyers submit a brief asking for the case to be dismissed that means your whole theory is shot. Correct? That means they're not looking to spend the $5.3M or stall for "years" as you put it. Correct?

 

[Bob Owens]

I would not expect them not to ask. That's standard procedure.. Lets see how compelling their argument is. If it does get thrown out then-after I see what they charged I will admit that my concerns are unfounded. If it gets thrown out then and there anything more than $10000 is excessive.

 

[paul1]

so in April are we getting any shares at all?

 

[AANOTOK]

I'm gonna guess a few...but (off topic) I fully expect to receive my prefunding match sometime in April!

 

[Bob Owens]

Your true objective is to have someone else pay some of the freight in order to us to keep more to ourselves. If the International pays it, then that means the 100K Members contribute towards it rather than just those in AA. If that's what you want, then just say it. Since everyone worked so hard to eliminate the airline folks from the International, what are the chances that the Transit folks will want to help pay the freight.
 

There you go with your FOX News tactics of making an accusation towards your opponent and doing what you are accusing them of, in a desperate attempt to put them on the defensive. My true objective? Where did I ever say that someone else should pay? The fact is we pay dues, have paid dues and those dues should be used to pay the legal expenses .
 

The Union took on the responsibility of being our representatives during the equity process. They had no choice, since the airline was the entity that took us into bankruptcy making the TWU as creditor.
 

Exactly, the TWU is the Creditor, not the members, and the TWU is being sued and they want the members to set aside the dues the members pay for representation and  pay the legal fees with equity. So the members are paying for the same thing twice. We didn’t have any choice either.
 

 YOU, more than anyone would rail when a decision was made without consultation from the Presidents. NOW you want them to do exactly what you complained about?
 

Guess you conveniently missed “was it the right thing to do? Yes.” Oh but that would not have fit in with the rant you wanted to make.
 

Since you didn't like the decision made by the Equity Committee, which was made up of Local Presidents, it is now Little's fault because he didn't act like a dictator?
 

When did I say I didnt like the decision? Making stuff up to fit your rants again because you have no legitimate points to make? I said “right or wrong” the Union can’t walk away from “responsibility” for the decision. I agreed that the retirees should not get it and have posted as much, guess you conviently missed the “bird in the hand” post. Once again, I object to making us pay twice. You made the point of trying to blame the Equity Committee when you posted this:
 

“The issue about using the equity to cover expenses was posed to the Equity Committee or the Presidents' Council and approved”
And
“Well, it was the Equity Committee made up of Local Presidents that approved the formula and distribution eligibility...wasn't it.”

I countered that accusation with the fact that the Committee has no real authority, that authority lies with the International. An authority they have cited on multiple occasions in court. Either way it was ‘the Union” that made the decision.


I said the Union should pay the legal fees because these fees are the direct result of decisions made by the Union and we pay them to do this for us.
 

 
Your argument is really that the fees or expenses should be shared by all the Members of the TWU in order to dilute our exposure. Don't dance around it, just say it.
 

That’s your twisted way of trying to start the exercise without agreeing to the terms. Do you want to discuss how the Union should pay, fine, then we must assume the Union should pay, otherwise why debate it?
 

and I believe it will be dismissed because those suing didn't follow the internal process to dispute their claims, it can also be that it could be dismissed because of the merits of the arguments made by the plaintiffs...which they don't have.
 

Well on the one hand you say that the Union should not pay because this  has nothing to do with collective bargaining, that its not a union issue, that its an issue between two creditors then you say it will be dismissed because they didn't follow internal processes, are you now saying that it is a Union issue and they should have exhausted internal union processes? Once again you are contradicting yourself. If its not a Union issue, and Union funds should not be used then why would you say they should have followed internal Union processes?
 

Never SAID any of this. It is the interpretation of statement made. I never said the Members should pay because the Locals can't afford to
 

.
Ok you wrote this, give us your interpretation :
“As I mentioned before, some of the Local's would be bankrupted in order to fight a suit against our own Members.”

“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.”

What was the purpose of those statements?

"You made the claim that the Locals weren't sued, I corrected that statement since one of the suits mentions the Locals and if some of them are held liable, then it could bankrupt them."

When did I say the locals weren’t sued? Once again the words say one thing and you apply your own unique meaning to them, I said “Last I heard the Locals are part of the Union”.

"The funds being returned from the BK will reimburse the International AND the Locals for their expenses related to the BK. You suggested they be used to pay for the Equity expenses".

Yes those funds should be used first. If as you say it gets thrown out then that will more than cover it.

I have to give you credit. If we would just have followed your guidance and gone into liquidation instead of agreeing to this CBA, we wouldn't be here arguing about a few dollars."
 
Liquidation was never on the table and you know that. The only people who ever mentioned liquidation were little and his subordinates. Management refuted it. AA went in with $5 billion and came out with $10 billion, even the shareholders where made whole. AA is on target to make $3 billion a year, they didn't need any concessions from us to survive, they didn't need concessions from us to thrive they simply wanted them because they are greedy and wanted to be the most profitable airline ever and with the people we had running the Union they knew they would get whatever they wanted.
 
And on the other hand, since we didn't listen that time then it was a great idea to consolidate the Locals since some were in financial straits and would not have been able to afford what you now suggest to be done.
 
So in one paragraph in the same post you claim its going to get thrown out, so the legal fees wont amount to much, then you claim it would have bankrupted us if we still had separate line locals.
Only one Local was in Financial straits, another lie made up by Little and that waste Donnelly, the guy who over estimated our table position by $250 million. I know 562 had already restructured their E-board was would have been fine without UBB.


Since 591 is in better financial shape, they would be in a better position to pay these fees and even raise dues....something that was avoided when the new 591 gave themselves raises. (I presume that raise came from Members dues)
 
Yes 591 is in good shape because all the locals that went into it were in good shape, we started with nearly $1million and have nearly doubled that in one year. The members chose the same people who ran the Line Locals to run 591, not one member of Team Videtich made it.
 
Gave ourselves raises? No, the International raised the rates in the Bylaws they imposed on us, Yes we requested those rates and they approved them, they also approved the provisions for recall and an automatic decrease in those rates should the membership decline or take concessions. (Didn’t see Videtich take concessions during his tenure at the ATD, he got raises every year, even as he did his best add four more years of zero raises to the 2003 contract, and the membership declined by over 35%, no option for recall either.) Peterson is doing the job that Videtich used to get upwards of $150k for, Peterson gets $30k plus his base mechanics pay, so around $50k less than Videtich, and the members can remove him at any time, something they were not able to do with Videtich. I get $150/month more than I got as President, the money comes out to the equivalent of around 9 hours OT a week. Steve Gukelberger who is NE VP does what I used to do as local President but he gets around $350/month less than I used to get. Go ahead keep thowing that “you gave yourselves raises” out there, most of the guys I work with make as much with OT and don’t want my job. If you want it you don’t have to kiss Little’s ass anymore and you can wipe that brown stuff off your nose, all you have to do is get elected, you don’t even have to wait till the next election, you can start a recall drive. I’m thankful for the priviledge my peers have given me and I will continue to do it as long as they allow me to. If they think I’m getting paid too much they have the right to make a motion to cut our pay rates or they can seek to recall me. So far you and the AMFA guy from MIA make up the very few that complain about it.
 
Now back on topic;
 
So you are no longer claiming that the members are being sued, you already admitted that the Union is being sued, after all, through “no choice” of their own, they are the creditor being sued. That said you are saying that even though the Union, which is the membership, is being sued that the dues they pay should not cover the costs of the lawsuit and they should pay a separate fee by giving up equity that they were given as a result of what they lost in the C-11 process. You also stated that it will likely be thrown out because they didn't follow the internal union process  that in the past the Union has always footed the bill for, even when it ended up in court. You went on to cite that a transit run International would not be willing to finance it and small locals wouldn't be be able to afford it.
 
I guess what this comes down to is you are saying that all the TWU members at AA should be willing to give up shares so some members can keep small Locals? Yes or no? If no then why did you keep going back to that?

 

 

[DallasConehead]

The sad thing is, I would venture to say, the majority of retirees suing are retired fleet service clerks. I think its wrong that my equity which was given to me for losing my pension and retiree medical now gets to pay for lawyers when I am represented by a union that collects dues from me for the express propose of representation. When Local 100 got in trouble for their illegal strike, did the cost of representing them come out of just their dues? I think not.

 

[NYer]

There you go with your FOX News tactics of making an accusation towards your opponent and doing what you are accusing them of, in a desperate attempt to put them on the defensive. My true objective? Where did I ever say that someone else should pay? The fact is we pay dues, have paid dues and those dues should be used to pay the legal expenses . Opponent? Someone that has a different point of view is labeled an "opponent." Regardless, your whole mantra of the International should pay for is, is saying that someone else should pay because that means our Brothers & Sisters in Southwest, Transit, Railroads and even the Dealers will contribute some of their dues...that IS someone else paying.
 
Exactly, the TWU is the Creditor, not the members, and the TWU is being sued and they want the members to set aside the dues the members pay for representation and  pay the legal fees with equity. So the members are paying for the same thing twice. We didn’t have any choice either. OK. So if you agree the "TWU is the Creditor, not the members," then you'd have to agree that dues shouldn't be used to pay something that is "not the members." Can't have both, you can't say the members are not creditors then also say the equity belongs to the members since the equity is paid to the creditors. That being the case, the TWU and the Local Presidents for AA at the ATD created a plan to distribute the equity to their members affected by the BK, it is the right thing to do.....but even you have acknowledged this is a separate issue from a normal representational task. 
 
Guess you conveniently missed “was it the right thing to do? Yes.” Oh but that would not have fit in with the rant you wanted to make.
 
When did I say I didnt like the decision? Making stuff up to fit your rants again because you have no legitimate points to make? I said “right or wrong” the Union can’t walk away from “responsibility” for the decision. I agreed that the retirees should not get it and have posted as much, guess you conviently missed the “bird in the hand” post. Once again, I object to making us pay twice. You made the point of trying to blame the Equity Committee when you posted this: Posted what?
 
I countered that accusation with the fact that the Committee has no real authority, that authority lies with the International. An authority they have cited on multiple occasions in court. Either way it was ‘the Union” that made the decision. Apparently the Committee has authority since they ignored Little's letter to include the Early Out's in the 1.7% Me Too portion of the Equity Distribution, a point made in two of the three lawsuits. The Equity Committee is also the body that decided to use the Equity to help cover their own expenses during the Roadshows and with anything related to the Equity Distribution.


I said the Union should pay the legal fees because these fees are the direct result of decisions made by the Union and we pay them to do this for us. Right above you said the TWU is the Creditor and not the Members. That means the Equity is for the TWU, of which they decided to distribute to the Members (as the right thing to do..something you seem to cherish). If YOUR assertion is correct, then that means the TWU IS paying expenses from their kitty, since the Equity is a given to the Creditor, not the Members, out of the BK Court.
 
Well on the one hand you say that the Union should not pay because this  has nothing to do with collective bargaining, that its not a union issue, that its an issue between two creditors then you say it will be dismissed because they didn't follow internal processes, are you now saying that it is a Union issue and they should have exhausted internal union processes? Once again you are contradicting yourself. If its not a Union issue, and Union funds should not be used then why would you say they should have followed internal Union processes? Oh Bob...I have to give you credit, you're trying very hard to twist and confuse issues. However, issues related to unions have two ways to get figured out and it depends whether it is a "minor" dispute or a "major" dispute. A "major" dispute could include something like modifications to the collective bargaining agreement and those types of issues can be sorted out with the assistance of a Federal Court. Then you have a "minor" dispute, which is typically taken care using internal processes like a grievance and in the case of the Equity, the Equity Appeals process. Being that this will certainly be deemed a "minor" dispute and the internal process was not used, it seems certain the case could be dismissed on those terms.

What was the purpose of those statements? The purpose of that statement is to refute your stance that the "union" should pay for it with dues even if they go bankrupt...I believe you mentioned they could just raise dues....that was your solution.

"You made the claim that the Locals weren't sued, I corrected that statement since one of the suits mentions the Locals and if some of them are held liable, then it could bankrupt them."
 
Liquidation was never on the table and you know that. The only people who ever mentioned liquidation were little and his subordinates. Management refuted it. AA went in with $5 billion and came out with $10 billion, even the shareholders where made whole. AA is on target to make $3 billion a year, they didn't need any concessions from us to survive, they didn't need concessions from us to thrive they simply wanted them because they are greedy and wanted to be the most profitable airline ever and with the people we had running the Union they knew they would get whatever they wanted.  It was on your table, and you saw it as an alternative that would be better than agreeing to a deal you believed not worthy. But that's a different subject.
 
And on the other hand, since we didn't listen that time then it was a great idea to consolidate the Locals since some were in financial straits and would not have been able to afford what you now suggest to be done.
 
So in one paragraph in the same post you claim its going to get thrown out, so the legal fees wont amount to much, then you claim it would have bankrupted us if we still had separate line locals. It could bankrupt certain Locals if you assertion of $5.3M in costs materializes, something I believe it not credible.
Only one Local was in Financial straits, another lie made up by Little and that waste Donnelly, the guy who over estimated our table position by $250 million. I know 562 had already restructured their E-board was would have been fine without UBB. There were several Locals that were in tough financial shape, it could be that the reimbursement would have helped them but it does no good to have Locals without the resources needed to meet the needs of their Members. Even suggesting they take "loan" or "raise dues" temporarily" is not ideal and should be avoided. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Since 591 is in better financial shape, they would be in a better position to pay these fees and even raise dues....something that was avoided when the new 591 gave themselves raises. (I presume that raise came from Members dues)
 
Yes 591 is in good shape because all the locals that went into it were in good shape, we started with nearly $1million and have nearly doubled that in one year. The members chose the same people who ran the Line Locals to run 591, not one member of Team Videtich made it.  Good for us, a strong financial Local, something we may need with upcoming Joint Negotiations.
 
Gave ourselves raises? No, the International raised the rates in the Bylaws they imposed on us, Yes we requested those rates and they approved them, they also approved the provisions for recall and an automatic decrease in those rates should the membership decline or take concessions. (Didn’t see Videtich take concessions during his tenure at the ATD, he got raises every year, even as he did his best add four more years of zero raises to the 2003 contract, and the membership declined by over 35%, no option for recall either.) Peterson is doing the job that Videtich used to get upwards of $150k for, Peterson gets $30k plus his base mechanics pay, so around $50k less than Videtich, and the members can remove him at any time, something they were not able to do with Videtich. I get $150/month more than I got as President, the money comes out to the equivalent of around 9 hours OT a week. Steve Gukelberger who is NE VP does what I used to do as local President but he gets around $350/month less than I used to get. Go ahead keep thowing that “you gave yourselves raises” out there, most of the guys I work with make as much with OT and don’t want my job. If you want it you don’t have to kiss Little’s ass anymore and you can wipe that brown stuff off your nose, all you have to do is get elected, you don’t even have to wait till the next election, you can start a recall drive. I’m thankful for the priviledge my peers have given me and I will continue to do it as long as they allow me to. If they think I’m getting paid too much they have the right to make a motion to cut our pay rates or they can seek to recall me. So far you and the AMFA guy from MIA make up the very few that complain about it. Complain? It was a question. A mere yes would have sufficed. This entire defensive diatribe was not necessary.
 
Now back on topic;
 
So you are no longer claiming that the members are being sued, you already admitted that the Union is being sued, after all, through “no choice” of their own, they are the creditor being sued. That said you are saying that even though the Union, which is the membership, is being sued that the dues they pay should not cover the costs of the lawsuit and they should pay a separate fee by giving up equity that they were given as a result of what they lost in the C-11 process. You also stated that it will likely be thrown out because they didn't follow the internal union process  that in the past the Union has always footed the bill for, even when it ended up in court. You went on to cite that a transit run International would not be willing to finance it and small locals wouldn't be be able to afford it. Make up your mind, either you agree the TWU is the Creditor, which then means they lost the value in the CBA they own...Or the Members are the Creditor since we lost in BK. Can't have both. Either the TWU is the Creditor or the Members...which is it?
 
At least you're consistent in trying to confuse the issues. This case will more than likely be dismissed because they didn't follow the RLA in making their claims in the process forum. As far as the RLA is concerned, this will most probably be deemed a minor dispute and the Equity Appeals process was not followed. In the past, we have not footed the bill for issues arising from equity concerning a BK, so as much as you try to confuse the issues they remain quite separate. If you want make comparisons, then note that the APA and APFA are also using the same process as the TWU in as much as they are using equity to pay expenses related to their distribution.
 
I guess what this comes down to is you are saying that all the TWU members at AA should be willing to give up shares so some members can keep small Locals? Yes or no? If no then why did you keep going back to that?  Isn't that the same as saying all Members in the TWU should be willing to have their dues used to pay for expenses so another group of TWU Members can take home more themselves, on an issue not related to collective bargaining.