Nightwatch
Veteran
- Jun 8, 2004
- 888
- 2
Who Paid The Loan?
- Thread starter Johnny Lunchbox
- Start date
Hackman
Veteran
- Sep 30, 2003
- 3,997
- 892
- Banned
- #47
Talking about money, how much did the twu spend on anti-AMFA campain during this last years AMFA drive? 10 Million? Will it be another 10 Million this year? Ouch...that's gonna leave mark!!! Polish up that twu coffin, get some new twu slogan shirts ordered, and get on that UBP Local 530 twu bus for another year of fun.Nightwatch said:
Punks, Drunks, Cowards, Functional Illiterates, Felons, and Scabs. The twu's finest.
DECISION 2007
Advanced
- Mar 19, 2004
- 101
- 0
Calvin, you off your meds or what?
Nightwatch said:
Perhaps you should check the latest LM2 and see if it is still a valid charge. If you would like I can give you a link to it, as I know the twu cultist don't seem to be able to do things themselves. Nobody ever said that it did not get classified as a loan in the first place, it has been absorbed by AMFA since.
DECISION 2007
Advanced
- Mar 19, 2004
- 101
- 0
Hey Rusty, not meaning to bust your bubble or nothing but the newest LM2's would not reflect a loan made in another year. Even you know that. And it was classified as a loan, to be repaid by future dues.
DECISION 2007
Advanced
- Mar 19, 2004
- 101
- 0
Bob Owens...a legend in his own mind!
This is about deceit by the organizers in TUL Bob, not your little witch hunt, but feel free to post something worthwhile next time.
This is about deceit by the organizers in TUL Bob, not your little witch hunt, but feel free to post something worthwhile next time.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Within the documentation of the LM2, it is characterised that the money's loaned from the amfa, are in fact a loan. What is the term of this loan? We allready know it was to be paid back with future dues from the AA employee's. Where does the responsibility for repayment lie now? Is it now a burden of the amfa represented members of SW, NW, UA, and etc.
With the comments of the amfa supportive posters on this subject within this forum, they profess a false sense of security. We all have witnessed that amfa national, feed's upon their own! What makes the amfa orgainzers at AA believe they are immune to any responsibility regarding this financial obligation? Where there any default protections secured when securing this loan?
And for further consideration. Will the amfa represented members be willing to support a drive "destined to failure"...? It is evident that additional funding will be required to support the amfa organizing committee's at AA....?
----------------------------------
amfa: The YUGO of the labor movement
Where bargaining means YOU GO....!
With the comments of the amfa supportive posters on this subject within this forum, they profess a false sense of security. We all have witnessed that amfa national, feed's upon their own! What makes the amfa orgainzers at AA believe they are immune to any responsibility regarding this financial obligation? Where there any default protections secured when securing this loan?
And for further consideration. Will the amfa represented members be willing to support a drive "destined to failure"...? It is evident that additional funding will be required to support the amfa organizing committee's at AA....?
----------------------------------
amfa: The YUGO of the labor movement
Where bargaining means YOU GO....!
High Speed Steel said:
Is there any difference between the "loan" used for organizing AA for AMFA and the $2 million used for attempting to organize Delta?
Whether you like it or not you got stuck paying $20 to try and organize Delta, and apparently the TWU has given up on the effort (What could they promise Delta workers now? "Give us two hours worth of your gross pay and we can get you even bigger pay and benifits cuts."?)
Nightwatch
Veteran
- Jun 8, 2004
- 888
- 2
Nice attempt at switching the focus Owens, but you lose. The fact remains there is a debt owed to AMFA National, to be repaid by future dues. The LM2 will only reflect a change in a once posted item, no $$$ paid on the loan, no change. Really quite simple Owens, which I'm sure I guy of your caliber already realizes but stalls to admit. Who's paying the rent on Local 12 in TUL? Surely they do not have Stewart controlling donations.
Nightwatch said:
Wrong again NW.
Look at an LM-2 on page 3, Schedule 1-Loans Recievable. The schedule includes ;
A; Who got the loan, purpose, security and terms of repayment.
B; Loans outstanding at start of period
C; Loans made during periods
D; Repayments recieved during period (D-1) Cash, (D-2) other than cash.
and finally
E; Loans outstanding at end of period.
So if indeed there was a loan to be repaid by future dues then it would still be considered an outstanding loan, but of course you knew that didnt you. Instead you attempt to decieve.
Why do you guys lie in ways that are so easily exposed? Surely you knew this, after all you have seen LM-2s before havent you? Dont you realize that this forum is different from the shop floor where you can spout off lies then later deny or claim you were taken out of context? Here your lies can be backchecked, and they will.
http://union-reports.dol.gov/olmsWeb/docs/..._20010831_0.pdf
The link above is for the 2001 TWU International LM-2.
On the additional pages for scedule 1,Loans recievable, page 2 of five you will see two outstanding loans where no payments were made during the reporting period on loans that were made prior to the reporting period. One is to a concealed party for the amount of 21,210 and the other is to Local 563 for 20,000.
So NW your claim that the LM-2 would only reflect a change is proven to be false. Nice try!
