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

[Rogallo]

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.

 
 
How about for paying grievences?

 

[MetalMover]

 
 
How about for paying grievences?

Didn't we all pay for the 757 grievance with our equity?

 

[Realityck]

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)

 
 
 
It is true that the International thought that a five percent holdback would be sufficient to deal with individual disputes and any litigation that resulted. Then they were sued by retirees demanding a major share of the equity. Then they were sued twice more. The sum total of the suits demands approximately 13% of the equity plus attorney’s fees.  What you keep on ignoring is that if the International did not hold at least this much in reserve the Court would have issued an injunction, prevented the distribution, and required that the stock be held in reserve. If the Court had issued an injunction it would have given the case credibility it did not deserve and prejudiced our position.
 
In talking to lawyers half a million dollars is a reasonable estimate of what it will take to defend a case like this if it is dismissed before trial. The sooner it is dismissed the less in lawyers’ fees it will require. However, a half a million dollars in fees spread over the approximately 18,500 eligible TWU members adds up to 27.00 dollars per member. That is what all of this moaning is about. 

 

[scorpion 2]

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

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?

[/QUOTE]Good point!! You are 100% correct, that's why we haven't seen an increase in holidays or vacation. Nothing in it for them.  Trade profit sharing for a raise we would have gotten in a couple of years anyway instead of for holidays,vacation etc. etc. No return on investment for the international on a pure benefit deal.     

 

[NYer]

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

 
The formula was shared at all the "Roadshows" and it is even used in the post by Bob (see above).

 

[NYer]

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.

 
You know as well as I do that the share or the Equity was not negotiated by the "union" it was negotiated by the creditors with the creditors committee as part of a bankruptcy and not a collective bargaining process. It is a separate and distinct process, much like political spending is separate from dues monies.
 
The decisions were made by the union, and by the members of the Equity Committee which were also Presidents of the Locals. In one of the lawsuits filed, those Presidents and their Locals have also become defendants...so do you also advocate that the Locals' treasury should foot the bill to defend those lawsuits....If you do, then you know full well some of the Locals (if not all) could be left bankrupt in the event the lawsuits are successful.
 
Then if you want to argue that the legal fees should be taken from the International funds then the technicality of the TWU being the creditor and not the Members would be a legal fight you'd have a hard time getting over. The CBA's belong to the TWU International and therefore, technically, the Equity does also. Although for these debates, I'm sure you'd disagree the TWU owns the CBA.
 
There isn't any place which states we are supposed to get 90%, that's simply your math. There is no legally binding set amount we are supposed to get that is why there was a Committee set up to figure out the best path for distribution. It the end, the Equity Committee made the decisions on the final distribution and not the International.
 
Point being, there are many technicalities and many details that don't support your continued agenda of denigrating the International. That you must be admired for, the consistency in disapproval of the International regardless of who is actually in charge and who is actually making the decisions.
 
And BTW, the Courts have NEVER decided or spoken towards what we are entitled to....

 

[NYer]

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)

 
Before the lawsuits were filed no one could anticipate the Early Out folks and their lawyers would claim their share would total 10%. The 5% was based on past Equity distributions and the amount needed to satisfy potential payouts.
 
Also, if you read the actual Court Order signed by Judge Orrick, you'd notice that the litigation and fee's are capped at 4% of the total 14%. Which means the 10% that remains is only for the purpose of paying the plaintiffs in the unlikely event they win their case.
 
Chances are the case will be dismissed with the vast majority of the held value to be distributed to the Members.
 
The only problem with conspiracy theories is that it looks for the improbable while ignoring the facts.

 

[AANOTOK]

 
The only problem with conspiracy theories is that it looks for the improbable while ignoring the facts.

NYer,
 
While somewhere in your response I'm sure I could pull out a fact or two, 5% was to cover everything. Not a damn word about coming back for an additional 9%, under any circumstances...THAT IS FACT!
How in the world could our fantastic leaders along with their "financial experts" not anticipate what the EO folks and their lawyers might do. Hell, just as in any smart negotiations, aim high in the beginning and work off that.
Again, seems like their folks did their job, and ours well. as I told WeAAsles, ours either misjudged or miscalculated and should be held accountable.
 
And you sir deserve mucho credit, you're one heck of a spinner. Supply a little fact with a little bit of what if and mix it in with a bit of didn't know and BINGO, you have a believable story!

 

[NYer]

NYer,
 
While somewhere in your response I'm sure I could pull out a fact or two, 5% was to cover everything. Not a damn word about coming back for an additional 9%, under any circumstances...THAT IS FACT!
How in the world could our fantastic leaders along with their "financial experts" not anticipate what the EO folks and their lawyers might do. Hell, just as in any smart negotiations, aim high in the beginning and work off that.
Again, seems like their folks did their job, and ours well. as I told WeAAsles, ours either misjudged or miscalculated and should be held accountable.
 
And you sir deserve mucho credit, you're one heck of a spinner. Supply a little fact with a little bit of what if and mix it in with a bit of didn't know and BINGO, you have a believable story!

 
Well, If you wanted them to tell you they'd come back for a 5% and another 4% then that would mean the KNEW they would get sued AND the plaintiffs would ask for 10% of the total shares. It would also have to be true that they KNEW there would be three lawsuits and that an injunction would be filed, or threatened, which would prompt a Judge to sign an order requiring another 4% of the shares to be held aside.
 
For you to be correct, then all that would have to have been known from the very beginning of the process and even before the shares were approved under the bankruptcy process. They would have needed to know in the summer of 2012 what was going to happen in the 2013 AND 2014.
 
Seeing the reaction when told of the 5%, I'm there would have been NO PROBLEM with them saying they were going to hold 15% or 20% because they knew what was going to happen in a few years and there were getting ready today. Yeah, that seems doable.
 
C'mon man. At least make it credible.
 
Maybe the alternative was better. Let them file an injunction preventing any further distributions until these issues are ironed out. If 14% is unacceptable, then your logic seems to dictate that to avoid that they should have allowed all further shares from being distributed. Makes perfect sense....=/

 

[AANOTOK]

NYer and his "Spin Zone"...and please, don't even start with credibility!!
 
Anyway, more happy members to use in your never ending spins...
 
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:26 AM
I would like to see the TWU protecting the rights of the members they represent that are actively employed, not retired. The retirees took an early out extra $15k, or whatever, above what they would have gotten without an offer of extra money. Without this lawsuit and 14% now being held back, what would currently employed members see in total equity? $15k or less if sold immediately, sound about right? Does "Have your cake and eat it too" come to anyone elses mind? Only the retirees suing want currently employed members to pay for the cake. Another way to think about it is the retirees are trying to be "made whole" again, as though they were injured. So the TWU needs to think outside the "Solidarity Box" on this one. Those retirees have gotten theirs in cash at least equal to what I will receive as an active employee are now reacing into our (my) pockets. If this suit is only for the post July 26th (whatever date that was) retireees, and they prevail,the next will be the May retireees and so on. Let's not allow a lawsuit like this to become a water shed event where currently employed represented members begin continually paying into some fund for committee screw ups, if that is what this ends up being. The committee decided they weren't allowing eligability beyond a specific date. Stick to that date and that is it. Counter sue, threaten sanctions (same thing) and get aggressive. Shut them down. This is money, and when it comes to money people fight. A failure to take any and all punitive measures against those claimants could be seen as a failure to represent currently employed members equally. That is certainly going to be my view if the TWU settles and I receive anything less than I am due regardless of any settlement that I am not the cause of. XXX
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:12 AM
legal fees should come out of our dues and over inflated internation salaries,not out of our EQUITY!
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 8:37 AM
I completely agree with how Tom summed it up a few comments above.
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 8:33 AM
Twu is stealing our stock Dale Danker has passed the buck to international you people have lied to all members 5% is what we agreed with. you comitted fraud you have stolen from all members. We have never got a set amount of equity yet you have found a way to steal that. I think all members should file a lawsuit take a stand and fight for what is rightly ours. I think they should be audited rumor has it TWU is broke. Get the ideal people enough is enough?
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 7:53 AM
If our local union 514 officers had the integrity to back its members here in tulsa they would have already started an class action law suit againt IAC and had them signing up for it. TOTALY WORTHLESS UNION!!!!!

 

[NYer]

NYer and his "Spin Zone"
 
Anyway, more happy members to use in your never ending spins...
 
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:26 AM
I would like to see the TWU protecting the rights of the members they represent that are actively employed, not retired. The retirees took an early out extra $15k, or whatever, above what they would have gotten without an offer of extra money. Without this lawsuit and 14% now being held back, what would currently employed members see in total equity? $15k or less if sold immediately, sound about right? Does "Have your cake and eat it too" come to anyone elses mind? Only the retirees suing want currently employed members to pay for the cake. Another way to think about it is the retirees are trying to be "made whole" again, as though they were injured. So the TWU needs to think outside the "Solidarity Box" on this one. Those retirees have gotten theirs in cash at least equal to what I will receive as an active employee are now reacing into our (my) pockets. If this suit is only for the post July 26th (whatever date that was) retireees, and they prevail,the next will be the May retireees and so on. Let's not allow a lawsuit like this to become a water shed event where currently employed represented members begin continually paying into some fund for committee screw ups, if that is what this ends up being. The committee decided they weren't allowing eligability beyond a specific date. Stick to that date and that is it. Counter sue, threaten sanctions (same thing) and get aggressive. Shut them down. This is money, and when it comes to money people fight. A failure to take any and all punitive measures against those claimants could be seen as a failure to represent currently employed members equally. That is certainly going to be my view if the TWU settles and I receive anything less than I am due regardless of any settlement that I am not the cause of. XXX
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:12 AM
legal fees should come out of our dues and over inflated internation salaries,not out of our EQUITY!
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 8:37 AM
I completely agree with how Tom summed it up a few comments above.
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 8:33 AM
Twu is stealing our stock Dale Danker has passed the buck to international you people have lied to all members 5% is what we agreed with. you comitted fraud you have stolen from all members. We have never got a set amount of equity yet you have found a way to steal that. I think all members should file a lawsuit take a stand and fight for what is rightly ours. I think they should be audited rumor has it TWU is broke. Get the ideal people enough is enough?
By: XXXXXXXX
Friday, March 28, 2014 7:53 AM
If our local union 514 officers had the integrity to back its members here in tulsa they would have already started an class action law suit againt IAC and had them signing up for it. TOTALY WORTHLESS UNION!!!!!

 
If I can turn your "conspiracy theories" with mere "spin," then I guess those "theories" are not very good.
 
Members should be upset. None of this was ever explained properly, they always seems to react to information sharing instead of getting out ahead of it. I know what I know because I read the actual documents that are submitted in Court.

 

[AANOTOK]

 
Maybe the alternative was better. Let them file an injunction preventing any further distributions until these issues are ironed out. If 14% is unacceptable, then your logic seems to dictate that to avoid that they should have allowed all further shares from being distributed. Makes perfect sense....=/

Didn't see your little late edit.
Yep, would have been totally fine with that, especially if what you, WeAAsles, Reality claim, that the lawsuit will be thrown out or a summary judgement issued. I can wait, I want every red cent that is owed me NYer, every cent.
 
Go ahead, you may have the last spin word!

 

[FWAAA]

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.

About that bolded part:   are you saying that the appointed TWU international leadership decided on its own to exclude the early-out retirees from receiving any equity?

 

[NYer]

Didn't see your little late edit.
Yep, would have been totally fine with that, especially if what you, WeAAsles, Reality claim, that the lawsuit will be thrown out or a summary judgement issued. I can wait, I want every red cent that is owed me NYer, every cent.
 
Go ahead, you may have the last spin word!

 
I was the one that brought the issue of the 14% to light in the first place. Just because you don't agree and can't dispute the information with anything other than what you "believe" or "feel," doesn't mean that what I share is spin. I just don't subscribe to the notion that EVERYTHING coming from the International is automatically wrong, corrupt or bad. That is left for those with agendas and rhetoric to fill that agenda.

 

[Zom JFK]

I'm just curious did the pilots or the flight attendants give equity shares to their early outs, SIS and other retirees that were on the property when AA declared BK?