Were Presidents Really Kicked Out of Court
- Thread starter NYer
- Start date
Flying low
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 232
In one of these threads (I forget which one), Bob Owens said he was asked to leave the court room during a certain part of discussions.
The judge said that anyone who did not sign a confidentiality agreement had to leave, He then took a break and left the courtroom. I had signed one so I did not leave at first. The company looked over, saw I wasnt leaving, went to their lawyers who then went to the TWU lawyers who then came to me. I told them I had signed it so I didnt have to leave. Our lawyers said Ok. When they saw I still wasnt leaving the whole train happened again. They apparently told our lawyers that despite signing they did not show us "high level" info and they wanted me out. At the time the Flight Attendants had the floor so I left, as did several Flight Attendants.
Bob, What is this "high level" info that they dont want seen? Any idea what it may be?
Thats why its called a confidentiality agreement.
Information that was not given to elected people at the Pre-1113. Some came out, and the company objected each time. One thing that we were not told was that going by the companys own numbers they overcharged Maint by $40 million and stores by $2 million.
If the deal had passed they would have walked away with $40 million more than they said they needed. When the company was challenged they said they didnt care, that was the number because they were going with 20% across the board to get to their EBITAR. That leads to this; the companys business plan calls on us taking these huge cuts not as a matter of survival for the company but so they can make HUGE profits, more than 17% according to ststements in court. Nobody in this industry makes those sort of profits.
The comopany admitted that they werent seeking cuts based on what the industry pays, they were seeking cuts based on the 17% target they wanted. Their rationale was they felt that they could attrcat more investment and have enough in reserves to handle any crises.
Seems to me the members should have had that information instead of the side by side the International stuck in with the Voting instructions. Maybe 7 out of 7 would have rejected the deals then and ours would have gone down by 90%.
olderguyAMT
Advanced
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 41
Now, in rememberance of the activities of the past, WILL our infallable TWU stuff the ballot with this info:
the companys business plan calls on us taking these huge cuts not as a matter of survival for the company but so they can make HUGE profits, more than 17% according to statements in court. Nobody in this industry makes those sort of profits.
The company admitted that they werent seeking cuts based on what the industry pays, they were seeking cuts based on the 17% target they wanted. This is an outrage! Your union leadership is deeply offended by this!
Your union recommends that you take this info. into accout when voting on this agreement. The leaders in your union all stand together on this issue and remain in solidarity, suggesting that we all vote NO on the basis of these statements.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Bob, are you there on your own time, or are you coding your time as union business? How many other employees are being paid by the unions to be in the courtroom?
Not that its any of your business but why do you ask?
