Retiree Equity Lawsuit Info

[Jager]

Can anyone forward me info on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the early out retirees targeting the equity share distribution..
 
I understand it was filed on the west coast..
 
You can PM me the info if you don't want to post it here..
 
Thanks..

 

[Birdman]

Can anyone forward me info on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the early out retirees targeting the equity share distribution..
 
I understand it was filed on the west coast..
 
You can PM me the info if you don't want to post it here..
 
Thanks..

http://twu514.org/blog/2014/01/22/equity-distribution-reserve/

 

[Jager]

Thanks Bird but I already read the letter from this Jack...
 
What I need is the organizer of the impending suit.. Or legal council name.

 

[DFWFSC]

Thanks Bird but I already read the letter from this Jack...
 
What I need is the organizer of the impending suit.. Or legal council name.

I recall reading on these forums a few months back, that there were a few guys who took the EO and said they were entitled to a piece of the equity. They said that if they didn't get any equity there would be a big lawsuit and they would get the equity tied up in court for years. I forgot their forum "user names", but im sure if they are the one's suing, they have been told to stay away from social media by their legal team.

 

[mike33]

I don't understand why the EO's shouldn't be part of the distribution?. Did they not work for the company just like anyone else that didn't take the EO?.... I always believed the EO was for the benefit of the company to replace a senior person with 1 or 2 new hires that would create a savings for the company. Why should they be penalized for leaving early?. Isn't the equity stake based on previous work hours and givebacks? Isn't one different from the other?
 
Just asking

 

[Jager]

I agree Mike... I don't believe we should be entitled to 100% of the shares but it should be prorated to the years that have been worked under the concessionary contracts.. The equity share is about the sacrifices given to exit bankruptcy intact..

 

[AANOTOK]

I agree Mike... I don't believe we should be entitled to 100% of the shares but it should be prorated to the years that have been worked under the concessionary contracts.. The equity share is about the sacrifices given to exit bankruptcy intact..

They received  more ($39,000) to voluntarily leave than I will get from my equity shares $12,000 (maybe) to have to stay and work under the concessionary contract. Why allow them to take away more from me and add to their $39,000?

 

[bob@las-AA]

Those who took the EO would get something for the higher medical cost they suffered. Nothing else, IMPO

 

[DFWFSC]

Those who took the EO would get something for the higher medical cost they suffered. Nothing else, IMPO

 
What about all those people that got RIF'd and had to move without the $12,500 we no longer get...should they be entitled to more equity to compensate for their loss?

 

[OldGuy@AA]

The majority of the equity is supposed to be compensation for the frozen pension.  The EO guys left the company so the frozen pension doesn't affect them.  They also were given a cash incentive.  So they sold their yes votes for $39,000 and helped the TWU and AA get these concessions that they don't have to live under.  They sold us out and now want to get in our pockets for equity that does not belong to them and they don't deserve.  I owe these people nothing.

 

[DFWFSC]

The majority of the equity is supposed to be compensation for the frozen pension.  The EO guys left the company so the frozen pension doesn't affect them.  They also were given a cash incentive.  So they sold their yes votes for $39,000 and helped the TWU and AA get these concessions that they don't have to live under.  They sold us out and now want to get in our pockets for equity that does not belong to them and they don't deserve.  I owe these people nothing.

Well said...I agree.     There are FSC's who took the EO and are crying about not getting the equity, saying if they knew they weren't getting any they wouldn't of taken the EO.  Why would anybody pass up the $39K in order to get $10-12K in equity?

 

[mike33]

They received  more ($39,000) to voluntarily leave than I will get from my equity shares $12,000 (maybe) to have to stay and work under the concessionary contract. Why allow them to take away more from me and add to their $39,000?

Did you not have a chance to take the EO?

 

[mike33]

The majority of the equity is supposed to be compensation for the frozen pension.  The EO guys left the company so the frozen pension doesn't affect them.  They also were given a cash incentive.  So they sold their yes votes for $39,000 and helped the TWU and AA get these concessions that they don't have to live under.  They sold us out and now want to get in our pockets for equity that does not belong to them and they don't deserve.  I owe these people nothing.

If they were there when the pension existed? don't they get a portion of the freeze at some point?. The cash incentive is a company benefit because they save in the long run. Maybe they voted no and still got the EO?

 

[mike33]

Well said...I agree.     There are FSC's who took the EO and are crying about not getting the equity, saying if they knew they weren't getting any they wouldn't of taken the EO.  Why would anybody pass up the $39K in order to get $10-12K in equity?

I don't see where the EO has anything to do with the Equity.  I must be missing something.  Everyone had their name in the hat for the EO. A pension is accrued and never lost if you are vested. Even when frozen.

 

[AANOTOK]

Did you not have a chance to take the EO?

Umm, nope, at least not according to my mortgage company, student loan provider etc etc...
Not sure what the EO's financial situation was/is, but apparently either money wasn't a concern (if $39,000 will get you out of there) or they disliked AA so much that they wanted to leave. I don't know. But EO was not an option for me Mike, and neither should my equity be for them!