Theoretical Question

[KCKKen]

While I've been away from AA since January of 2010 I have been following the comings and goings, and was saddened to hear that things haven't changed much. Now you AA employees are going through the BK mess we TWA employees suffered through -- while some would rejoice at your plight, I'm not one of them. Anyway, here's my request for information:

When I left AA I went to work for a local utility. Unfortunately, they decided having an Air National Guard member on the payroll wouldn't do, and proceeded to work a plan that ultimately led to my termination just before I would have completed my probationary period. In doing this, they have (and I have overwhelming evidence of) violated a federal law. This is what I'm looking to find out:

IF I would have remained at AA and not taken this position, I would have over 25 years between TWA and AA and be over 50 years old. While I was given a package for leaving early when MCI was closed, I would like to find out if an "early out" package exists now for this condition (over 50 with 25 years seniority) and an approximate amount to compare with what I got in 2010.

As it stands right now, I can show actual wage loss of nearly $120,000.00 since July of 2010. If this is found to be "willful" (and it's pretty open-and-shut on that) the settlement amount with interest could top a quarter of a million dollars.

I'm going back to college right now, thanks to the GI Bill and still get to crawl around aircraft with the ANG. It's pretty obvious that the aircraft business in this country is not the best place to be right now, and commercial aircraft maintenance is particularly bad. I'm sorry to hear that many will lose their jobs, and only hope they can recover and move on like I'm trying to do.

Take Care,
KCKKen

 

[jimntx]

I can't tell you the specifics of our plan; however, I do know that in most Defined Benefit Plans which come under Federal law, if you take some sort of package other than the standard retirement package--and the reason you took it doesn't matter, by the way--you forfeit any rights to the standard package that you might have qualified for at a later date. I'm fairly certain that the answer to your question is no you can not go back now and ask for the standard retirement package.

 

[KCKKen]

I can't tell you the specifics of our plan; however, I do know that in most Defined Benefit Plans which come under Federal law, if you take some sort of package other than the standard retirement package--and the reason you took it doesn't matter, by the way--you forfeit any rights to the standard package that you might have qualified for at a later date. I'm fairly certain that the answer to your question is no you can not go back now and ask for the standard retirement package.

Dear Jim,
I was wondering if there's an "early out" going on now -- at 50 I know (if I had stayed) I still wouldn't be eligible to retire. When I left in 2010 there were two packages: one was to leave early (which for me was January instead of September, when MCI closed for good) and not seek furlough status. This got me a package that (at the time) was pretty good. The second plan was (I believe) for people that had 25 years seniority and were over 50 -- I don't remember what the details of this package were.

My attorney wants to point out to the court that if I had not left AA when I did (because, if I'm correct, my seniority would still have me on the payroll until this latest cut) to join the utility I would have had X amount of salary, X amount of benefits, and be eligible for any "early out" program currently available, if any is being floated out there.

My attorney wants to show that the utility can either 1) pay me what I would have made had they not terminated me unlawfully, or 2) pay me what I would have made at AA had I not taken the position in the first place, since the only reason I left when I did was to join the utility.

The other side of this is that they can either return me to full employment with full benefits (retroactive to date of termination, option #1 above), or if there is too much contention between the utility and I (most likely) they will have to pay the difference between what I would have made with them and my actual earnings at a replacement employment for a certain number of years.

I apologize for hijacking the message board for something not directly related to the current workforce's plight. I do hope everyone can make their way through this -- you all will be in my thoughts.

Take Care,
KCKKen

 

[jimntx]

Oh, gotcha. No there is no early out being offered that I know of.

 

[jimntx]

Oh, gotcha. No there is no early out being offered that I know of.

 

[jimntx]

Oh, gotcha. No there is no early out being offered that I know of.

 

[jimntx]

Deleted. System posted answer twice.

 

[eolesen]

Deleted. System posted answer twice.

Three or four times, apparently...

I'm just curious how a utility would get away with saying "no" to a Guardsman. You'd think that there would be Federal laws against that one...

 

[KCKKen]

I'm just curious how a utility would get away with saying "no" to a Guardsman. You'd think that there would be Federal laws against that one...

There is -- the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The Department of Labor "investigated" it, but (as other cases have shown) their "investigation" was pitiful and I have uncovered extensive evidence pointing to discrimination based on military service -- here's a prime piece of it:

In June 2010, while I was on my initial 180-day probationary period, I had a two-week ANG "summer camp" which I informed them of well in advance (February). Right in the middle of this two-week period a supervisor makes out an evaluation on me -- first, it's not his place to make out the evaluation (working foreman's responsibility); second, it's not made out per the instructions printed on the back of the form; third, I never knew it existed until three months after I was terminated -- even at the "ambush" termination "hearing" I was not shown anything that pointed to poor performance. On the contrary, I had assembled, tested, and documented several new pieces of equipment -- some that were not installed until long after I was gone, and I have it on excellent authority that these pieces of equipment worked flawlessly upon installation.

But this forum is about AA, so I'll cut this off. I want to thank you again for the information, and let those still at AA know I feel for them and hope things work out. If anyone wants to know more about my situation (what I can discuss), please feel free to drop me an e-mail.

Take Care,
KCKKen

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I'm just curious how a utility would get away with saying "no" to a Guardsman. You'd think that there would be Federal laws against that one...

It is pretty easy to dump an employee on almost any pretext during a probationary period.

 

[EXT PWR]

While I've been away from AA since January of 2010 I have been following the comings and goings, and was saddened to hear that things haven't changed much. Now you AA employees are going through the BK mess we TWA employees suffered through -- while some would rejoice at your plight, I'm not one of them. Anyway, here's my request for information:

When I left AA I went to work for a local utility. Unfortunately, they decided having an Air National Guard member on the payroll wouldn't do, and proceeded to work a plan that ultimately led to my termination just before I would have completed my probationary period. In doing this, they have (and I have overwhelming evidence of) violated a federal law. This is what I'm looking to find out:

IF I would have remained at AA and not taken this position, I would have over 25 years between TWA and AA and be over 50 years old. While I was given a package for leaving early when MCI was closed, I would like to find out if an "early out" package exists now for this condition (over 50 with 25 years seniority) and an approximate amount to compare with what I got in 2010.

As it stands right now, I can show actual wage loss of nearly $120,000.00 since July of 2010. If this is found to be "willful" (and it's pretty open-and-shut on that) the settlement amount with interest could top a quarter of a million dollars.

I'm going back to college right now, thanks to the GI Bill and still get to crawl around aircraft with the ANG. It's pretty obvious that the aircraft business in this country is not the best place to be right now, and commercial aircraft maintenance is particularly bad. I'm sorry to hear that many will lose their jobs, and only hope they can recover and move on like I'm trying to do.

Take Care,
KCKKen

If you got a pending lawsuit aginst a utility company you shouldn't be posting details about it on a open forum. Good luck and THANKS for your service to our country.