The Thieves Get Richer
- Thread starter LavMan
- Start date
18yrsandstillonnights
Member
- Aug 19, 2002
- 20
- 0
Yah, He get's 1.7 million shares of stock and I get 225 shares.... Sounds like a good deal to me ! Thats 7,555 times the amount I get.. "one for you, 7,555 for me... one for you, 7,500 for me............." Yep... good deal.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #5
unit4 or shall I say the end of C-con, the IAM Mechanic and Related was the only union and group to oppose the plan of stock and the $35 million to the former officers. But I guess you are too busy worshiping Pruitt who could not defend a dog from the dog catcher, or Timmy "I am in it for myself" Nelson, my kid could defend someone better then those clowns.
Lavman
In court papers the IAM is not listed as objectors to the stock distribution to management. the only objection from the IAM on record is a very limited objection to the 35 million paid to the wolfgang. If you had OBJECTED to this corporate greed you would have copies of this.
We are worse off now than we were in 1985. Thanks to the IAM.
Go ALLIED GROUND WORKERS
In court papers the IAM is not listed as objectors to the stock distribution to management. the only objection from the IAM on record is a very limited objection to the 35 million paid to the wolfgang. If you had OBJECTED to this corporate greed you would have copies of this.
We are worse off now than we were in 1985. Thanks to the IAM.
Go ALLIED GROUND WORKERS
Severed-N-Happy
Senior
- Dec 21, 2002
- 395
- 0
225 shares? Bwahaha! You forgot the insane rip-off 66 pct tax rate they are imposing by witholding 66pct of your allocated shares to pay your taxes. My 112 allocation I am (and I assume you are) vested in has shrunk to 38. With a gift like that, I neither need nor want Sneekel's pittance handout, and as far as I am concerned, the aforementioned criminal can take those watered down shares he's attempting to prostitute me with, and stick 'em where the good Lord split 'um.18yrsandstillonnights said:
I guess none of us should be surprised when we get the shaft again and again, but I suppose I am naive enough that I am truly surprised, or actually shocked, to find this company and its band of thieves are taking 2/3 of our shares to pay our taxes. For those of us furloughed, they should remember we may not have been paying any taxes, since we don't have a job!! I am outraged, and find it inexcusable the way this company, Dave Seigel and his henchmen continue to treat the employees, those still on the payroll, and those who have already been severed.
Does the company have a choice in witholding this from your allocation? I'm not sure they have a choice in how it is withheld. It could be an IRS law or it could be outlined in the contracts with each group. I believe it's an IRS law that the tax is paid up front and if so the company has no choice but to take it out up front unless you want to pay the tax out of your pocket. :blink:oldtimer said:
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
According to another thread, they are saying the company took out the shares for ALL the stock even those that were NOT vested yet.
The main question here is, if you get termianted or retire, or quit, you DO NOT GET THOSE FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS. So, if it is true, that the company has withheld the total shares whether vested or NOT, how would that be legal to get TAXED on shares you do not qualify for because of your separation from the company? We need to find out from the company first off, which shares were taxed, and go from there.
Bet you won't see management on here trying to explain this one. Our AFA union is in the process of finding out.
The main question here is, if you get termianted or retire, or quit, you DO NOT GET THOSE FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS. So, if it is true, that the company has withheld the total shares whether vested or NOT, how would that be legal to get TAXED on shares you do not qualify for because of your separation from the company? We need to find out from the company first off, which shares were taxed, and go from there.
Bet you won't see management on here trying to explain this one. Our AFA union is in the process of finding out.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Management is taking the position that the VOLUNTARY furloughees get charged the entire amount even on shares that are not vested yet and are in the future. My question is what if these folks terminate or quit, or retire? How can you be taxed from the future on shares THAT ARE NOT VESTED AND THAT MAY HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF NEVER BEING DISTRIBUTED TO YOU???? Who will make the correcton and how?
They say its the IRS. How is it the law for we contract holders, when ALPA IS TAKEN OUT OF THIS EQUATION? Show me the IRS REG? PROVE IT That folks on leave get treated less than actives by the law? Specifically when it comes to stock distributions and vestership. How does the company plan to return these shares or money back to the Voluntary furloughee who has speparated from the company and will not get the future allocations????
Watch, management will not answer. They are staying CLEAR of this thread.
It's amazing that what little bit we got, WE GET SCREWED AGAIN!
They say its the IRS. How is it the law for we contract holders, when ALPA IS TAKEN OUT OF THIS EQUATION? Show me the IRS REG? PROVE IT That folks on leave get treated less than actives by the law? Specifically when it comes to stock distributions and vestership. How does the company plan to return these shares or money back to the Voluntary furloughee who has speparated from the company and will not get the future allocations????
Watch, management will not answer. They are staying CLEAR of this thread.
It's amazing that what little bit we got, WE GET SCREWED AGAIN!
l8nitemech
Newbie
- Aug 22, 2003
- 1
- 0
Lavman
You were present at the Jan meeting in CLT, when Tony was asked by a ramper what actions the IAM was taking to oppose the excessive stock allotment to management. Tony's reply was they did not know anything about it.
Question for you. Why do you continue to post inaccurate information?
For this matter to go unopposed by the IAM means they remain incompetent or untruthful!
You were present at the Jan meeting in CLT, when Tony was asked by a ramper what actions the IAM was taking to oppose the excessive stock allotment to management. Tony's reply was they did not know anything about it.
Question for you. Why do you continue to post inaccurate information?
For this matter to go unopposed by the IAM means they remain incompetent or untruthful!
