Articles Detail

February 11, 2013

QUESTION:  The IBT has said, in a letter dated  February 6, 2012, that “Under the Settlement Agreement that ended American Airlines’ concessionary negotiations with the TWU, American mechanics and related employees are to receive 4.8 percent of the total equity in American….that is allotted to a certain class of unsecured creditors.”  They further state that “If the IBT replaces the TWU, the IBT will hold and distribute that equity stake….”  Are the statements by IBT about the equity true? купить хвост русалки

ANSWER:  the Statements by IBT about the equity allotted to TWU are wildly and irresponsibly inaccurate.

First, there is no agreement anywhere that would allot to Mechanic and Related as a class or craft 4.8% of the equity in American or in any successor company.  The 4.8% equity is allotted by agreement to TWU  as a fund from which  TWU will distribute their appropriate shares to ALL SEVEN of the classes or crafts represented by TWU.  Mechanic and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity.  The responsibility  of determining what that appropriate share is, and  must rest on TWU, since the  equity agreement  itself contains no formula as to how  the equity is to be shared out among the seven classes or crafts.  Thus, not only is IBT spectacularly wrong and inaccurate regarding the amount of equity to be distributed to  the M&R class or craft; but its ignorance in that respect undermines its equally uninformed notion that there exists an already defined amount of equity that can and will be simply handed over to IBT if it displaces TWU as the M&R representative.  There isn’t—as IBT could easily have found out for itself, if it had bothered to read the basic equity agreement. 

 Ask yourself:  can you trust your vital job interests, in a dangerous time, to an organizational that plays so fast and loose with important facts?  An organization that makes “guarantees” about an agreement that it obviously hasn’t bothered to even try to understand?  Should you trust the task of administering complicated agreements regarding equity and other matters to the union that negotiated them?  or to a union that seeks votes by making “guarantees” regarding an agreement that involves what may be hundreds of millions of dollars—but which  can’t  even be bothered to read?