Retiree Equity Lawsuit Info

[NYer]

...and you miss the whole point of this argument, NYer.
 
In my opinion, they have their 5% percent, the Equity Committee, Lawyers, Labor Bureau (whoever else) agreed to when this was drafted and presented. What I'm saying is any additional funds to fight this lawsuit, while still on the backs of the members, should come from the dues we pay bi-weekly and not from concession shares/money. As a matter of fact, some of the money that these EO's paid in dues is still sitting in the TWU coffers.
 
There is nothing in any letter stating that if a suit is filed, until after the fact, the TWU has a right to come back and confiscate more shares as they see fit...PERIOD. If the TWU, lawyers, Labor Bureau etc all under estimated how much to withhold for litigation and possible settlement, then those individuals should be held accountable. We the membership had absolutely no say in the formula what so ever.

 
And if they Early Out's win their lawsuit (unlikely) where do their shares comes from? The vast majority of that 10% would be to distribute those shares to fellow MEMBERS...If it even gets to that point.
 
According to the 2013 LM-2, the entire assets of the TWU was $24,520,060. The value of the 10% is $36M. Does that math add up to you? Does it seem possible to cover the request of the Early Out's from "dues" money?

 

[AANOTOK]

 
And if they Early Out's win their lawsuit (unlikely) where do their shares comes from? The vast majority of that 10% would be to distribute those shares to fellow MEMBERS...If it even gets to that point.
 
According to the 2013 LM-2, the entire assets of the TWU was $24,520,060. The value of the 10% is $36M. Does that math add up to you? Does it seem possible to cover the request of the Early Out's from "dues" money?

And half of the 10% ($36M) is already covered by the 5% they have withheld. Also, the number Drummond quotes is by his own admission a "rough calculation by the plaintiffs", could be less and could be more. If more, guess what...our shares takeaway is uncapped and unlimited.
 
So I say keep my other 5%, let the TWU fight it for years with the dues, and keep it tied up in court if need be.
.

 

[NYer]

And half of the 10% ($36M) is already covered by the 5% they have withheld. Also, the number Drummond quotes is by his own admission a "rough calculation by the plaintiffs", could be less and could be more. If more, guess what...our shares takeaway is uncapped and unlimited.
 
So I say keep my other 5%, let the TWU fight it for years with the dues, and keep it tied up in court if need be.

 
Sure, as long as you get what you want let the Early Out Members fight to get theirs (if they prevail), keep the TWU spending on lawyers and the EO's while at the same time it cripples the organization you want to change.
 
That seems like a very unbiased account of what "should" happen. No agenda there, eh.

 

[MCI transplant]

So what]s the difference between an EO, and a SIS? Or are we talking the same thing?

 

[1AA]

So what]s the difference between an EO, and a SIS? Or are we talking the same thing?

. $39,000.00

 

[scorpion 2]

 
And if they Early Out's win their lawsuit (unlikely) where do their shares comes from? The vast majority of that 10% would be to distribute those shares to fellow MEMBERS...If it even gets to that point.
 
According to the 2013 LM-2, the entire assets of the TWU was $24,520,060. The value of the 10% is $36M. Does that math add up to you? Does it seem possible to cover the request of the Early Out's from "dues" money?

The company is holding the shares. The twu has a claim against the company and that claim is being paid in shares. With the share price moving up your total shares will decrease because it wont take as many to pay the claim.   The agreement is for 5% to be withheld and for the company to withhold 10%  could put them in a lawsuit. Since when does the companies have the discretion to withhold wages from twu members to pay lawsuits incurred by the twu?  

 

[AANOTOK]

Bob Owens, you are pretty much outspoken on any and all things, but I have yet to hear your take on another 5% of our shares to be used to defend and possibly settle the former employee's lawsuit.

 

[Bob Owens]

NY.. read your statement slowly... "It  is for recovery of loss during bankruptcy"....  R E C O V E R Y...  I lost $27k - $32K a year when AA was in bankruptcy.... for 10 years...  Are we not entitled to recovery of loss during bankruptcy?

Unfortunately no, because the court does not look at those losses as "losses" because they were agreed to during "consensual bargaining".

You got 433 shares for roughly $200k in concessions, at best you could have recovered maybe $15k, thank Jim Little and whoever helped him get that passed in 2003. If our agreement would have had them pay more , and they paid us less, such as with the Medical, or the outsourcing of OH work, then they become losses, and they were included as such in the award. retirees get a portion of those losses. Now the rest of the award, much like the 433 shares in 2003, are for the $1billion in concessions we have to give going forward, retirees wont be a part of that, but the retirees want a piece of that Equity as well. Tell me how many of the 433 shares you got in 2003 did you hand over to retirees back in 2003? None I'm guessing, yet the guys who left this time want not only the shares tied to the medical overpayment AND $40k, which by the way came out of our pockets, that buyout was funded by concessions elsewhere, but they also want some of the shares that are from the concessions that left us at the bottom of the industry in pay, with less vacation, fewer sick days and in reality no Holidays, shares that once again would come not from AA, but rather from us, you have cited how AA screwed you, and they did, but you are going after your former coworkers who continue to get screwed. Thes people arent going after AA they are going after the people who were not able to take advantage of the buyout who have to work under the mess they left behind.

Sorry I think the lawsuit is wrong and those involved are being just plain greedy. Looking at this its no wonder we have ended up where we are. These guys are retired, some, not all, helped put this crappy deal in place to get their $40k, yet they think nothing of trying to stick their hands into the pockets of their former coworkers and take even more.

 

[1AA]

Greedy was my first thought. But in the meantime the TWU is being sued which will delay us from getting our full equity if we even will see it all at this point. I mentioned earlier that if they want equity then return the $39,000 they received in compensation for taking the early out. My opinion from the beginning was why did the TWU in the first place take control of the equity distribution? Who handled the distribution for the non union employees? The guys that took the EO are either working elsewhere or retired. This lawsuit is disrupting our current financial situation. Many of us including myself were looking forward to all the money to pay off some dept so we can move on. Thanks to the greedy bastards and the TWU for withholding more of our money we are unsure on the full payout and when it will be distributed in its entirety.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens, you are pretty much outspoken on any and all things, but I have yet to hear your take on another 5% of our shares to be used to defend and possibly settle the former employee's lawsuit.

I think the whole deal sucks. I think the retirees will get next to nothing but be successful at burning through most of those funds in lawyers fees. Its a lose lose deal, once again we are fighting each other over the crumbs (4.8% of roughly 70% of 70% of the total shares???) and the company gets to just sit back and laugh. Like I said earlier, did anyone sign over a portion of the 433 shares we got in 2003 to retiree? Why do these guys feel they are entitled to what we are getting for an even worse contract that we are stuck with till 2018, in part thanks to many of them? saying "I voted NO, but I support taking shares away from you for myself" doesn't make you any better than the YES voters who are trying to dip into our pockets again.

 

[Bob Owens]

Greedy was my first thought. But in the meantime the TWU is being sued which will delay us from getting our full equity if we even will see it all at this point. I mentioned earlier that if they want equity then return the $39,000 they received in compensation for taking the early out. My opinion from the beginning was why did the TWU in the first place take control of the equity distribution? Who handled the distribution for the non union employees? The guys that took the EO are either working elsewhere or retired. This lawsuit is disrupting our current financial situation. Many of us including myself were looking forward to all the money to pay off some dept so we can move on. Thanks to the greedy bastards and the TWU for withholding more of our money we are unsure on the full payout and when it will be distributed in its entirety.

Yes they seem to forget that that $40 they got is being paid for by us working for the lowest wage in the Industry, having up to two weeks less vacation every year than they had while they were here, No pension, higher medical costs, no Holidays and only 5 sick days. Now they want to take even more from us, greedy, IGM, and now I want YOURS TOO!!!

 

[Bob Owens]

Sure, as long as you get what you want let the Early Out Members fight to get theirs (if they prevail), keep the TWU spending on lawyers and the EO's while at the same time it cripples the organization you want to change.
 

And why are the TWUs funds so low? Loss of members? No. Costs associated with strikes while fighting for the members rights? NO. Ten years ago with the same amount of members the TWU had double the cash so what happened? Your buddy Jim Little burnt through it. Him and his former boss loved to spend, first signing a long term, very expensive lease for a floor on Broadway to all his real estate deals in DC. On top of that he loaded up the organization with overpaid pro-company loyalists and provided them cars and benefits as if they were CEOs. Paying Bobby Gless $180k plus a car, Don Videtich $150k plus a truck, Gless was making nearly triple what he would make as a mechanic. Little had people all over the place, most making six figures while telling his members to agree to concessions. Thankfully he is gone, but much work needs to be done.

Saying that the Union does not have the money to fight this isn't the right answer, sadly the answer is this is all part of a bad deal, and the deal was that any lawsuits arising would be paid for from the fund. End of story.

 

[AANOTOK]

I think the whole deal sucks. I think the retirees will get next to nothing but be successful at burning through most of those funds in lawyers fees. Its a lose lose deal, once again we are fighting each other and the company gets to just sit back and laugh. Like I said earlier, did anyone sign over a portion of the 433 shares we got in 2003 to retiree? Why do these guys feel they are entitled to what we are getting for an even worse contract that we are stuck with till 2018, in part thanks to many of them? saying "I voted NO, but I support taking shares away from you for myself" doesn't make you any better than the YES voters who are trying to dip into our pockets again.

I guess my direct question is Bob, do you support the stealing of "another" 5% of the members shares to cover this mess instead taking it from money we have already paid into the coffers through our dues or other means.
 
And, is this true?
The Executive Board recently voted for and approved a $9.00 an hour wage increase for the TWU Local 514 President.
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56651-how-the-twu-will-get-their-due/page-3#entry1056528

 

[scorpion 2]

And why are the TWUs funds so low? Loss of members? No. Costs associated with strikes while fighting for the members rights? NO. Ten years ago with the same amount of members the TWU had double the cash so what happened? Your buddy Jim Little burnt through it. Him and his former boss loved to spend, first signing a long term, very expensive lease for a floor on Broadway to all his real estate deals in DC. On top of that he loaded up the organization with overpaid pro-company loyalists and provided them cars and benefits as if they were CEOs. Paying Bobby Gless $180k plus a car, Don Videtich $150k plus a truck, Gless was making nearly triple what he would make as a mechanic. Little had people all over the place, most making six figures while telling his members to agree to concessions. Thankfully he is gone, but much work needs to be done.

Saying that the Union does not have the money to fight this isn't the right answer, sadly the answer is this is all part of a bad deal, and the deal was that any lawsuits arising would be paid for from the fund. End of story.

The agreement was for 5%. The company is holding the stock not the twu so my question is,,,   does the company have the legal right to withhold more?  If this precedence is set whats to keep the twu from approaching the company every time they have a legal issue that pertains to a certain local or locals and asking them to withhold wages from the local or locals to pay for legal expenses. Or,  instead of dues money paying for arbitration cases, the twu could ask the company to withhold wages from the employee who is grieving to pay for his arbitration.       

 

[Bob Owens]

I guess my direct question is Bob, do you support the stealing of "another" 5% of the members shares to cover this mess instead taking it from money we have already paid into the coffers through our dues or other means.
 
And, is this true?
The Executive Board recently voted for and approved a $9.00 an hour wage increase for the TWU Local 514 President.
 
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/56651-how-the-twu-will-get-their-due/page-3#entry1056528

I didn't support any of this deal, didn't support the concessions, didn't support the 4.8% of a portion of the equity in exchange for another $1billion in concessions on top of the Billions we gave in 2003, so the answer is No, but the deal is what it is. Are they going to use the funds from the International to pay for it? Well if you were a transit worker or any of the other 75% of the TWU membership that has no stake in how much of the equity that other members from AA are trying to take from us how would you feel about that? This isn't a fight between Union members and the company, its a fight between former Union members who pocketed $40k and their own former coworkers and Union Brothers, so why should they pay for that? Why should Transit and SWA members, who are just as entitled to the Internationals resources pay for that? Its not going to happen. If you want to put the pressure where it belongs then put it on those who are pushing the suit, put it on the guys, some of whom helped saddle us with the worst deal in the industry, walked away with $40k that we paid for, and now want to take even more.  United, Delta, even US all went through BK yet they all have more VC, Holidays and sick time than we do, well where do you think the $40k they gave to the EOs came from? US!
 
 
To me I think we should focus on USAIR and make sure that we let everyone know we will do whatever we can to make sure they get something that will bring us closer to rates at other carriers, may not be a concern for fleet, but it is for Maint. In the long run we stand to lose a lot more if US doesn't get a good deal than an extra 5% of our Equity stake.
 
Here is an example of how its done.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/twu-president-backs-lirr-strike-article-1.1557993
 
 
As we bicker amongst ourselves about who should pay and who should get the one time equity, management is sending US aircraft to AA stations, field trips with TWU members working on planes the IAM would not work on in an effort to get the company to move. Whatever they get can only help us down the road, so if we accept OT or field trips to do this work we are working against our own interests.
 
To the retirees that are part of this lawsuit trying to stick their hands in our pockets, "Shame on you. Haven't you done enough damage?" Why should you get equity for concessions that will not affect you, didn't you get your $40K?  To the current workers who stand to possibly lose 10% don't allow your pursuit of that 10% of the equity divert you from the very real very important  struggle going on in this company. The USAIR people are our coworkers, its in all our best interests to see them succeed.