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.
