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

[Realityck]

I see. When its AMFA the members aren't the union and when its the twu we are the union.  Have you taken a good look at the membership lately?  The twu dues payers may not be buried but the walking dead is a close description.  
 
Paying equity to the retirees is one thing but using equity to pay the twu's legal expenses is criminal. When negotiations are under way the international uses money from all dues payers not just the group that's negotiating a contract,  so if the bus drivers had to fund some of the legal fees or who ever for this suit than that's just part of belonging to a catch all  industrial union.  

 
 
 
If, as I believe likely, the International is able to dismiss this lawsuit or obtain summary judgment, the cost will be around 27 dollars per active AA member.  The value of the equity in question is probably between 1500 and 2000 per member. This is what you are moaning about.
 
The AA Presidents, based on the feedback of their members, told the International how they wanted this money distributed. They have told the International that it cannot compromise this matter. I personally agreed with the decision to limit the stock to active employees, but this is an internal dispute between members, not a fight with a Company.  It’s a little much to demand that the non AA portion of the TWU subsidize the defense of a position on an internal union matter that they had no say in, have no authority to resolve, and will take no benefit from.  

 

[scorpion 2]

 
 
 
If, as I believe likely, the International is able to dismiss this lawsuit or obtain summary judgment, the cost will be around 27 dollars per active AA member.  The value of the equity in question is probably between 1500 and 2000 per member. This is what you are moaning about.
 
The AA Presidents, based on the feedback of their members, told the International how they wanted this money distributed. They have told the International that it cannot compromise this matter. I personally agreed with the decision to limit the stock to active employees, but this is an internal dispute between members, not a fight with a Company.  It’s a little much to demand that the non AA portion of the TWU subsidize the defense of a position on an internal union matter that they had no say in, have no authority to resolve, and will take no benefit from.  

Theft is theft regardless if its 5 bucks or 1500 and I know of no one on the floor that was asked for feed back on this issue. If its an internal fight that why are the courts involved? Does it matter if its the court system or the company the fight is with? We pay dues to handle negotiations wether with the court system or the company.  If the argument were within a local than the local would foot the bill with the dues money in their bank account. They wouldnt go around shaking members down or go down to the subway or bus stations asking for coin to pay for legal costs from those members when the fight was within a specific local.  This isnt a specific local issue and the suit includes the international.  The international supposedly never sees a benefit from negotiations either but they are involved so how is this different?        

 

[WeAAsles]

If, as I believe likely, the International is able to dismiss this lawsuit or obtain summary judgment, the cost will be around 27 dollars per active AA member.  The value of the equity in question is probably between 1500 and 2000 per member. This is what you are moaning about.
 
The AA Presidents, based on the feedback of their members, told the International how they wanted this money distributed. They have told the International that it cannot compromise this matter. I personally agreed with the decision to limit the stock to active employees, but this is an internal dispute between members, not a fight with a Company.  It’s a little much to demand that the non AA portion of the TWU subsidize the defense of a position on an internal union matter that they had no say in, have no authority to resolve, and will take no benefit from.

$27.00. That is beyond priceless. Just like I thought, not even the price of 1 full share. You horrible robber barons.

 

[WeAAsles]

" The international supposedly never sees a benefit from negotiations either but they are involved so how is this different?"
[/quote]

They don't? That's news to me. I thought I pay 2 times my hourly wage per month and a percentage of that goes to the Int'l? So I thought as I get raises from negotiations they in turn get raises as well? Maybe I'm wrong there?

 

[exs]

 
 
 
If, as I believe likely, the International is able to dismiss this lawsuit or obtain summary judgment, the cost will be around 27 dollars per active AA member.  The value of the equity in question is probably between 1500 and 2000 per member. This is what you are moaning about.
 
The AA Presidents, based on the feedback of their members, told the International how they wanted this money distributed. They have told the International that it cannot compromise this matter. I personally agreed with the decision to limit the stock to active employees, but this is an internal dispute between members, not a fight with a Company.  It’s a little much to demand that the non AA portion of the TWU subsidize the defense of a position on an internal union matter that they had no say in, have no authority to resolve, and will take no benefit from.  
 
 
 

 

[exs]

 
 
 
If, as I believe likely, the International is able to dismiss this lawsuit or obtain summary judgment, the cost will be around 27 dollars per active AA member.  The value of the equity in question is probably between 1500 and 2000 per member. This is what you are moaning about.
 
The AA Presidents, based on the feedback of their members, told the International how they wanted this money distributed. They have told the International that it cannot compromise this matter. I personally agreed with the decision to limit the stock to active employees, but this is an internal dispute between members, not a fight with a Company.  It’s a little much to demand that the non AA portion of the TWU subsidize the defense of a position on an internal union matter that they had no say in, have no authority to resolve, and will take no benefit from.  

 
As far as I'm concerned you just made this up and if you are an International Rep. it is hard to believe anything you say. This union has zero credibility in my book.
We the members want facts in black and white. Where is the formula for the Equity? Did anyone here receive one? I sure didn't.
What are they hiding? Oh I forgot this is the TWU, they like to keep the members in the dark and running scared all the time.
 
Come on Reality post something in black and white, Please prove me wrong.

 

[NYer]

After some number crunching, and following the formula the TWU provided. I will try to illustrate and try to come up with a approximate on what we all received the very first time as a percentage.
This example is from the M&R, and if any of you see a number the closely resembles yours, speak up.
The formula is for a (e.i. ATM) with 15 years, at $32.75. And the total number of shares is 23 million based on a $14.50 per/share price This is the numbers the TWU provided as an example.
(23000000*0.2291)*((.5*32.75/350000)+(.5*15/215000))+((23000000*0.0981)*0.00009400108363985784)+407+29+((23000000*0.0183)*0.000094) = 1118 shares for this individual with 15 years.
1118*14.50 = $16211.00
Now The TWU gave this example based on a stock price of $14.50, but we received a unknown percentage at $22.55. This reduces the number of shares but the total value will be the same.
But that burning question still remains, what percentage of the total value did we get on the first allotment? The percentage won't be known because the varying price of the shares changes the percentage received on Day 1. It was a mistake to have said we received "X" percentage on day one because that number relies on the shares remaining at $22.55. As that price goes higher the percentage on the first day rises....if it dropped below the $22.55, then the percentage would have been less than the "X" amount shared.
 
And what is the final allotment less the 14% TWU is holding. That would depend on the price and the amount taken by the preferred stcokholders (old AMR share owners) from the total pool. Our 4.8% comes from that pool after the preferred stockholders get theirs. The only concrete thing is that the creditors, including the TWU, will receive at least the lost value from the CBA's due to the BK.
 
Thecolumn on the left is a graduated percentage witch is based on the $22.55 s/p and the column on the right is what you might expect after the %14 TWU hold back.
Trying to figure out the payments in between is about 2% each. The total number of shares for the M&R is 55.29% of 23,000,000 totaling up to 12,716,414 shares for the M&R. The 23 million shares is based on the $14.50 share price, so it is not an accurate number to use in the example. Since the value of the shares change, so does the ultimate number of shares needed for the creditors to recoup their one time lost value.

Now we have to subtract the TWU holdback of 14% witch comes to 19,780,000 shares left to distribute.
Now we plug the decreased number of shares into the formula.
(19780000*0.2291)*((.5*32.75/350000)+(.5*15/215000))+((19780000*0.0981)*0.00009400108363985784)+407+29+((19780000*0.0183)*0.000094) = 1023 shares for this individual with 15 years.
1023*$14.50 = $14833.50

$16211.00 - $14833.50 = $1377.50 less



Total EQ                      1st                2nd           3rd             4th         last
$14833.50 * 50% = $7,416.75  $1,483.35  $1,483.35  $1,483.35  $2,966.70
                    51% = $7,565.09  $1,513.02  $1,513.02  $1,513.02  $2,729.36
                    52% = $7,713.42  $1,542.68  $1,542.68  $1,542.68  $2,492.03
                    53% = $7,861.76  $1,572.35  $1,572.35  $1,572.35  $2,254.69
                    54% = $8,010.09  $1,602.02  $1,602.02  $1,602.02  $2,017.36
                    55% = $8,158.43  $1,631.69  $1,631.69  $1,631.69  $1,780.02
                    56% = $8,306.76  $1,661.35  $1,661.35  $1,661.35  $1,542.68
                    57% = $8,455.10  $1,691.02  $1,691.02  $1,691.02  $1,305.35
                    58% = $8,603.43  $1,720.69  $1,720.69  $1,720.69  $1,068.01
                    59% = $8,751.77  $1,750.35  $1,750.35  $1,750.35     $830.68
                    60% = $8,900.10  $1,780.02  $1,780.02  $1,780.02     $593.34
                    61% = $9,048.44  $1,809.69  $1,809.69  $1,809.69     $356.00
                    62% = $9,196.77  $1,839.35  $1,839.35  $1,839.35     $118.67
 
I hope this postes ok and its not all jumbled.
Hope this helps and just remember this all pre tax figs
 

 

[exs]

Nyer, its pretty simple, if I received lets say 350 shares, We all want the union to tell each member is how they came up with that number or shares for that matter. Why are you posting what Bob thinks is correct.
 
NEXT!!!

 

[NYer]

No not me, no one asked me or informed me of the 14%. All the information was the first 5% then another 5% after the lawsuit was filed. I learned about the additional 4% here on this forum. After it got out and as they say went viral the TWU comes out with a letter of explanation. I wonder when the TWU was going to let its members know about the 14%. Kind of makes you think if they have more to take from us over this lawsuit that we do not know about. 20% maybe? BTW: 14% of what? Is there a formula yet that we can figure out how much 14% is?

About $50M

 

[NYer]

To stay on topic people, Members, are suspicious when things are not clear. The TWU has not communicated to the members how much money/shares they are being sued for and the appoximate cost breakdown of the defense of these cases. TWU says we need 5%......er...um ...no....10%........well.....better make it 14%. Who are the plantiffs? What exactly do they want? Are they responsible for legal costs to the TWU if they are unsuccessful? Our "Brothers and Sisters" where?
All the TWU posts is a letter fro, Gary Drummond stating that there are law suits from retirees and we have to defend them, not a lot of information there. The rest of it comes out on this and other boards.

The original 5% was to cover any issues with the Membership that would require them to receive more shares in the event there were any shortages or mistakes. Then came the lawsuits in which the plaintiffs made the equation that their share would be 10% of the total shares. After that, another lawsuit and different lawyers for different plaintiffs threatened to file an injunction to prevent any further distributions to the rest of us until these lawsuits are settled. In order to prevent that injunction and to comply with the subsequent court order, it was agreed that 14% would cover the expenses and fees, plus the payments to the plaintiffs in the unlikely event they win. The court order also restricts the fees from being over or more than 4% of the total.

 

[NYer]

Theft is theft regardless if its 5 bucks or 1500 and I know of no one on the floor that was asked for feed back on this issue. If its an internal fight that why are the courts involved? Does it matter if its the court system or the company the fight is with? We pay dues to handle negotiations wether with the court system or the company.  If the argument were within a local than the local would foot the bill with the dues money in their bank account. They wouldnt go around shaking members down or go down to the subway or bus stations asking for coin to pay for legal costs from those members when the fight was within a specific local.  This isnt a specific local issue and the suit includes the international.  The international supposedly never sees a benefit from negotiations either but they are involved so how is this different?

It is different because the Equity is a result of the bankruptcy and the fact that the TWU was a creditor, an act outside of the collective bargaining process and not part of the collective bargaining process. That being the case the issuance of the equity needed to be self contained. It is similar to how dues aren't allowed to be used for political campaigns.

 

[NYer]

Nyer, its pretty simple, if I received lets say 350 shares, We all want the union to tell each member is how they came up with that number or shares for that matter. Why are you posting what Bob thinks is correct.
 
NEXT!!!

The numbers in the formula change as the value of each share changes and as the number of total shares in the pool change. Those numbers are not known until it happens. Therefore, if you're given a formula today and the number change tomorrow, then the answer to the formula is also wrong.

If the numbers in Bob's formula stayed the same then maybe it would be correct, but the share price changes and because of that the 23 millions share amount changes and that means the answers change.

No one knows what the tally will be until the tally is finalized. That's also the reason there will be a 30 day appeal after the final numbers are released and that is why there is a reserve held in order to ensure everyone gets what their supposed to get.

 

[exs]

The numbers in the formula change as the value of each share changes and as the number of total shares in the pool change. Those numbers are not known until it happens. Therefore, if you're given a formula today and the number change tomorrow, then the answer to the formula is also wrong.

If the numbers in Bob's formula stayed the same then maybe it would be correct, but the share price changes and because of that the 23 millions share amount changes and that means the answers change.

No one knows what the tally will be until the tally is finalized. That's also the reason there will be a 30 day appeal after the final numbers are released and that is why there is a reserve held in order to ensure everyone gets what their supposed to get.

 
You are still not answering the question,
 
What Formula?
 
My guess is that you don't know it either.

 

[Bob Owens]

It is different because the Equity is a result of the bankruptcy and the fact that the TWU was a creditor, an act outside of the collective bargaining process and not part of the collective bargaining process. That being the case the issuance of the equity needed to be self contained. It is similar to how dues aren't allowed to be used for political campaigns.

I can understand the argument of holding shares to cover the potential claims should the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs because if the court rules we were not entitled to those shares and the retirees are, retrieval of those shares would be impossible, but I don't agree that members shares should be used to cover legal expenses related to the lawsuit. We, the members, should not have to pay twice for representation.The lawyers that the Union hired and chose will be representing the Union in a lawsuit brought against the Union by decisions the Union made. We have zero control over who was chosen to represent us so we should not have to pay beyond what we already pay in dues. The Union picked the team, they should pay them as well from the dues we pay the Union. The Union should cover the Legal fees just as it does any other lawsuit that arises as a result of what we do collectively as a Union. To say that negotiations and equity have nothing to do with each other is patently false, of course they are related as the Equity is a reflection of some of what we will be losing going forward. The Union acted as the members agent and members pay them a fee to act in that capacity. The lawsuit was brought against the Union by retirees because of a decision the agent made, a decision I agree with but nonetheless was made by the Union. When you are paid to make a decision for someone else you cant turn around and wash your hands of the financial liability of continuing to provide representation should your decision be challenged by someone who claims to have been harmed by that decision.

If the court determines that the Union distributed the shares correctly or incorrectly the legal fees in defending the Unions decision should be bourne by the Union, not another fee assessed against the members without following the procedures outlined in the Constitution.


Lets say the court decides that retirees are entitled to 10% of the shares, then we are entitled to 90%, but if some of those shares in the 90% are siphoned off to pay for legal fees then we get less than 90%. We are being harmed. The lawyers hired by the International, not by us, can run up costs to take the entire 4% even if the case lasts just one hour of one day.

If the International cant/wont pay legal fees then on a per capita basis each local should be assessed a share of the cost but no matter what the members should get the full allotment of what the court decides we are entitled to. The money that the Locals got back from the Bankruptcy settlement may even cover it for some locals.

 

[AANOTOK]

The original 5% was to cover any issues with the Membership that would require them to receive more shares in the event there were any shortages or mistakes. Then came the lawsuits in which the plaintiffs made the equation that their share would be 10% of the total shares. After that, another lawsuit and different lawyers for different plaintiffs threatened to file an injunction to prevent any further distributions to the rest of us until these lawsuits are settled. In order to prevent that injunction and to comply with the subsequent court order, it was agreed that 14% would cover the expenses and fees, plus the payments to the plaintiffs in the unlikely event they win. The court order also restricts the fees from being over or more than 4% of the total.

NYer,
 
I like how stated the original 5% "was to cover any issues with the Membership that would require them to receive more shares in the event there were any shortages or mistakes." Then came the lawsuits???
As you will note below, the "ORIGINAL 5%" was to cover the lawsuits, along with the legal and administrative costs as well.
 
A Reserve equal to 5% of the distribution will be created to address:
 
*Payroll inaccuracies
*Incorrect payouts
*Eligibility appeals
*Administrative expenses in handling claims
*Litigation costs
 
...and you call me a conspiracy theorist  B)