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?
