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

[Realityck]

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.

 
 
You're wrong again.  The International did not pay any of Local 100’s fines or legal expenses for the strike several years ago. As to the composition of the class suing us, I don’t have final figures, but it appears the number of fleet service clerks and mechanic and related who were excluded due to taking the early out or stand in stead is approximately even and there may even be more mechanic and related. The plaintiffs claim that the total group is 2400 and the Oklahoma lawsuit alleges that 1400 former employees were wrongfully excluded. 

 

[Overspeed]

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 .
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
.
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?

 

 
Really? This tirade is all you have?
 
Why should the Int'l spend more dues money that is generated by 100% of the entire TWU membership on less than 10% of the membership? What is the portion of dues that has been consumed by the bad decisions of the current 591 officers (also past M&R local officers) over the past 5 years. Had we not accepted the offer back in 2010 we would all be making over $40 and hour by now. You are quick to point out that 2003 concessions have cost us but look at how much we lost from your bad recommendations to vote no because we could get more if we went on strike?
 
And you did want liquidation, "As an A&P, which I am first and foremost, since I was 18, the best thing that could happen for the profession would be for AA to liquidate before our peers get too deeply into negotiations, of course as an employee that would be disruptive, but perhaps in the long run even AA A&Ps would be better off if AA were to liquidate." You said that back in Sept 7, 2012. You wanted liquidation because it was discussed that we would be lucky to emerge with a contract in BK that kept what we had and you wanted UA/CO wages. The same wages the TWU had in a TA back in 2010 over two years earlier. You lie a lot so its hard for you to keep track. We are here to help you remember your lies.
 
The bylaws were not imposed on you, they were given to the new local officers as a basis for operating until the 591 membership could draft and approve their own. You and your fellow officers drafted ones that gave you big raises and circumvented the membership by not sending them out for a vote? 565 members got to vote on their first bylaws of the newly formed local, why not 591? Scam. The International gave you a raise? That's f'n hilarious.
 
Why does 591 have more money? Because you guys got your hourly wages paid for by a deal cut between Petersen and Durst. You yourself said that officer wages called UBP was hush money. Why don't you give up the UBP and get out of the Company's pocket? Because then 591 would have a lot less money for your junkets.
 
Petersen does not do what Don did. Sean Doyle does that job now. Get it right.

 

[comatose]

 
Really? This tirade is all you have?
 
Why should the Int'l spend more dues money that is generated by 100% of the entire TWU membership on less than 10% of the membership? What is the portion of dues that has been consumed by the bad decisions of the current 591 officers (also past M&R local officers) over the past 5 years. Had we not accepted the offer back in 2010 we would all be making over $40 and hour by now. You are quick to point out that 2003 concessions have cost us but look at how much we lost from your bad recommendations to vote no because we could get more if we went on strike?
 
And you did want liquidation, "As an A&P, which I am first and foremost, since I was 18, the best thing that could happen for the profession would be for AA to liquidate before our peers get too deeply into negotiations, of course as an employee that would be disruptive, but perhaps in the long run even AA A&Ps would be better off if AA were to liquidate." You said that back in Sept 7, 2012. You wanted liquidation because it was discussed that we would be lucky to emerge with a contract in BK that kept what we had and you wanted UA/CO wages. The same wages the TWU had in a TA back in 2010 over two years earlier. You lie a lot so its hard for you to keep track. We are here to help you remember your lies.
 
The bylaws were not imposed on you, they were given to the new local officers as a basis for operating until the 591 membership could draft and approve their own. You and your fellow officers drafted ones that gave you big raises and circumvented the membership by not sending them out for a vote? 565 members got to vote on their first bylaws of the newly formed local, why not 591? Scam. The International gave you a raise? That's f'n hilarious.
 
Why does 591 have more money? Because you guys got your hourly wages paid for by a deal cut between Petersen and Durst. You yourself said that officer wages called UBP was hush money. Why don't you give up the UBP and get out of the Company's pocket? Because then 591 would have a lot less money for your junkets.
 
Petersen does not do what Don did. Sean Doyle does that job now. Get it right.
 

 
So with your recommendation of voting yes to the trash in 2010, we wouldn't need to worry about receiving the company match it would already been given away.
 
There is a reason flies are attracted to your nose. Have you figured out why?

 

[NYer]

 
So with your recommendation of voting yes to the trash in 2010, we wouldn't need to worry about receiving the company match it would already been given away.
 
There is a reason flies are attracted to your nose. Have you figured out why?

 
The Retiree Medical was not eliminated in the 2010 Tentative Agreement, it was shifted to a payment from the sick bank.
 
As bad as that seemed at the time, it is much better than not having anything at all.

 

[DallasConehead]

Really? This tirade is all you have?
 
Why should the Int'l spend more dues money that is generated by 100% of the entire TWU membership on less than 10% of the membership? What is the portion of dues that has been consumed by the bad decisions of the current 591 officers (also past M&R local officers) over the past 5 years. Had we not accepted the offer back in 2010 we would all be making over $40 and hour by now. You are quick to point out that 2003 concessions have cost us but look at how much we lost from your bad recommendations to vote no because we could get more if we went on strike?
 
And you did want liquidation, "As an A&P, which I am first and foremost, since I was 18, the best thing that could happen for the profession would be for AA to liquidate before our peers get too deeply into negotiations, of course as an employee that would be disruptive, but perhaps in the long run even AA A&Ps would be better off if AA were to liquidate." You said that back in Sept 7, 2012. You wanted liquidation because it was discussed that we would be lucky to emerge with a contract in BK that kept what we had and you wanted UA/CO wages. The same wages the TWU had in a TA back in 2010 over two years earlier. You lie a lot so its hard for you to keep track. We are here to help you remember your lies.
 
The bylaws were not imposed on you, they were given to the new local officers as a basis for operating until the 591 membership could draft and approve their own. You and your fellow officers drafted ones that gave you big raises and circumvented the membership by not sending them out for a vote? 565 members got to vote on their first bylaws of the newly formed local, why not 591? Scam. The International gave you a raise? That's f'n hilarious.
 
Why does 591 have more money? Because you guys got your hourly wages paid for by a deal cut between Petersen and Durst. You yourself said that officer wages called UBP was hush money. Why don't you give up the UBP and get out of the Company's pocket? Because then 591 would have a lot less money for your junkets.
 
Petersen does not do what Don did. Sean Doyle does that job now. Get it right.

Sounds like he called Bullshit on you Bob.

 

[Overspeed]

 
The Retiree Medical was not eliminated in the 2010 Tentative Agreement, it was shifted to a payment from the sick bank.
 
As bad as that seemed at the time, it is much better than not having anything at all.

 
True. If you watch the line local videos from back in 2010 they said we were giving up retiree medical whihc was false. Only the funding of retiree medical changed as you state. Looks like all the officers either didn't read or had their own agenda for the future that they were advancing. Now they are in charge and have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately 25%of the membership took the time to even vote in the 591 election which is hardly a mandate for their agenda. More like apathy on the part of a misinformed and highly politicized work environment.

 

[Bob Owens]

True. If you watch the line local videos from back in 2010 they said we were giving up retiree medical whihc was false. Only the funding of retiree medical changed as you state. Looks like all the officers either didn't read or had their own agenda for the future that they were advancing. Now they are in charge and have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately 25%of the membership took the time to even vote in the 591 election which is hardly a mandate for their agenda. More like apathy on the part of a misinformed and highly politicized work environment.

It is dissapointing that such a small number voted, but had more voted its likely they would not have voted for your ticket. As far as the 2010 videos I clearly stated we were losing the Prefunding of retiree medical and switching to a plan where even if you had perfect attendance for most of your career the accruual rate was so low, less than half the industry standard, and the cost so high, nearly double the amount of hours per month for coverage that any other carriers plan charged, most would not have retiree medical. So yes they changed the funding, they changed it in a way that made it unattainable for most members.

 

[Bob Owens]

The Retiree Medical was not eliminated in the 2010 Tentative Agreement, it was shifted to a payment from the sick bank.
 

Not once in that post did he say retiree medical, he was clearly referring to the match and he is correct, not only would those under 50 have lost the match, they would have also had to turn over their contributions as well or opt out of retiree medical completely.

 

[Bob Owens]

Overspin and NYer. My position is the Union should pay, after all they would be paying with our own money right? Where did I say one way or the other whether it should be the International or the Locals?

So we have NYer saying it will get thrown out and wont amount to much then we have Overspin claiming that it would cost more than what 100% of the entire membership generates in a year. Overspin, are you claiming that the entire TWU membership generates less than $5.3 million a year? Did you miss the bit about the cap? M&R at AA alone generates at least that much.

Wanted AA to Liquidate? Thats your spin, I guess if a Diabetic decides to go ahead and have that foot taken off because he would be better off than if he told them not to you would run around saying he wanted to lose his foot.

The fact is in 2010 the members did their part, but the International refused to move the process forward. I have never seen where after a TA was rejected that a Union did not ask and get released.

Ok thats all in the past and we cant change it till the next round of negotiations, we just have to make sure we never end up with the likes of Little and Videtich again. Getting back on topic. Dues money is membership money, so why should the members be forced to spend additional money to defend the Unions decisions when they have money sitting in the Unions treasuries? You clowns keep going off on a tangent about the International when my position has been that the Union pays.

Management has been told as far as M&R call the Presidents, don't call the international. Peterson has the authority that Videtich had over Line Maint issues.

 

[Overspeed]

Overspin and NYer. My position is the Union should pay, after all they would be paying with our own money right? Where did I say one way or the other whether it should be the International or the Locals?
So we have NYer saying it will get thrown out and wont amount to much then we have Overspin claiming that it would cost more than what 100% of the entire membership generates in a year. Overspin, are you claiming that the entire TWU membership generates less than $5.3 million a year? Did you miss the bit about the cap? M&R at AA alone generates at least that much.
Wanted AA to Liquidate? Thats your spin, I guess if a Diabetic decides to go ahead and have that foot taken off because he would be better off than if he told them not to you would run around saying he wanted to lose his foot.
The fact is in 2010 the members did their part, but the International refused to move the process forward. I have never seen where after a TA was rejected that a Union did not ask and get released.
Ok thats all in the past and we cant change it till the next round of negotiations, we just have to make sure we never end up with the likes of Little and Videtich again. Getting back on topic. Dues money is membership money, so why should the members be forced to spend additional money to defend the Unions decisions when they have money sitting in the Unions treasuries? You clowns keep going off on a tangent about the International when my position has been that the Union pays.
Management has been told as far as M&R call the Presidents, don't call the international. Peterson has the authority that Videtich had over Line Maint issues.

The equity committee made the decision on the distribution. So I agree the part of the union that made the decision should fund the defense of their decision. Locals that represent the AA members should pay, not those members that had nothing to do with it. Pay up Bob.

No spin. You said liquidate now own it. You lied.

Rejection never means you get an automatic release by the NMB. That's what you believe but that is not what always happens.

The AA locals made the decision, not the international. Pay to defend the decision with the AA locals members money.

So Peterson has the authority to sign off on LOAs that affect the entire M&R membership? That would be a no. Doyle has that authority, not Peterson. You know that bit you continue to lie. Just like you lied about drafting your own raise language and denying the membership the right to vote on it. How about your wages being paid for through a secret letter between Peterson and Durst? You guys wouldn't take on the company because you have a hand in their pocket. You are exactly like the people you claim were corrupt. Can't wait until you get to negotiate. Who will you blame then?

 

[swamt]

Overspeed it should be the membership that has the authority to sign off on LOA's.  If you guys had AMFA as your union it would be as such, but you don't so the international has their say so on LOA's NOT the membership.  All members should be the word on LOA's as this is who they all affect.  Time for change OS, and here it comes...

 

[scorpion 2]

 
True. If you watch the line local videos from back in 2010 they said we were giving up retiree medical whihc was false. Only the funding of retiree medical changed as you state. Looks like all the officers either didn't read or had their own agenda for the future that they were advancing. Now they are in charge and have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately 25%of the membership took the time to even vote in the 591 election which is hardly a mandate for their agenda. More like apathy on the part of a misinformed and highly politicized work environment.

44 years old and younger lost it completely!  If a person had 25 years in and was 44 he lost his retiree med verses a guy with 10 years in and 50 kept his. The group in between got a typical twu negotiated farse of a deal that as Bob said wouldnt last until medicare kicked in even if you had the max sick hours built up. It brought back memories of the t shirt AN INJUSTICE TO ONE IS AN INJUSTICE TO ALL the twu put out a few years before. What a bunch of crap.        

 

[Overspeed]

44 years old and younger lost it completely!  If a person had 25 years in and was 44 he lost his retiree med verses a guy with 10 years in and 50 kept his. The group in between got a typical twu negotiated farse of a deal that as Bob said wouldnt last until medicare kicked in even if you had the max sick hours built up. It brought back memories of the t shirt AN INJUSTICE TO ONE IS AN INJUSTICE TO ALL the twu put out a few years before. What a bunch of crap.        

 
Lost completely? Not true. The funding changed to SK time instead of prefunding.

 

[AANOTOK]

Bob, you absolutely said liquidate, and for you to come back and deny it hurts your credibility.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, you absolutely said liquidate, and for you to come back and deny it hurts your credibility.

So did you, does that mean you want it to happen? I'm not denying what I said, I'm rejecting your and his interpretation of it. The statement speaks for itself. To say what I wanted is conjecture.