Yellow | Yrc The Cancer Of The Trucking Industry

ebfZW65.jpg

For an idiot, you can't accuse him of being stupid. But his sense of fashion, or not, leaves a lot to be desired. von.
 
Did some more digging yesterday

so if what your saying is true,I will probably have to amend,my already amended tax return,showing that I did not actually lose projected income,that they just paid me less per hour,and that 11,000 dollar credit I took for said lost income never existed?? WTF??? Guess I will have to call Liberty then. Thanks.


you can't write of money you never paid taxes on you only get taxed on what you actually make ......................every year we go thru this lol really
 
And what are they going to buy them with? They say they're broke, remember? That's why they say they still need 15% of every Teamster check.
If the money's there, then they can (and should) restore full pay, benefits and CSPF payments.
But think about this. The bulk of the approx $300,000,000 per year in employee "donations" (aka "voluntary" 15% givebacks from full wages paid) is being hidden somewhere to fund another start-up company after they intentionally bankrupt YRCW. (It worked for the CF officials that used CF bankruptcy to start up CCX)
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=44823rocess. According to YRC's own news releases, they are in the process of liquidating properties now to bank even more money. Once they bankrupt YRC, they can get rid of the troublesome Teamsters and start up a new company or series of non-union companies (similar to how CCX came to be). Once done, then they can cherry-pick which former territories and terminals to best suit their new company plan, and buy them back dirt cheap. They can also go back and re-hire former favorite employees and supervisors. Those that did not "rock the boat" and simply did what they were told.
If the bulk of the approx $2.3 billion given up by YRCW employees since 2009 is still safely banked somewhere offshore, that money could be used to fund the new non-union company or group of companies similar to the startup of CCX.


you on drugs....... there off shore money cf was using that money when they where open not after they closed on cxx companies lol all those givebacks are not hiding in a bank lol your assuming there numbers are the same back 15
years ago lol we don't haul half the bills........ we haul freight cheaper, have more claims, less productivity ,1000 times more maintenance costs and breakdowns, delay times accidents, half the employees ,making way less then half the income etc etc
 
3,000 "If you work ther and don't like it, just leave" "It's that simple"
It's not that "simple" - after donating over $93,000 in the past 8 years and still the company claims to be on the rocks, too many people feel they've been played for fools - and they probably have.
It's not "simple" to quit and just find another job if you're in your 50's. Nobody will hire you. Age discrimination is illegal, but the companies don't care about that. 8 yrs ago that same person was in his 40's and believed the line of BS YRC was handing out about only needing 15% for a couple years, then the company would be back in good shape. That person WANTED TO BELIEVE the company big shots. Well it's 8 years later and it turns out the company lied, the money's gone and they say they need more. Where did the $2.4 billion that YRCW already got, go?
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"

you should know your teamster history every big union company on a giveback never makes it typically past 5 years and closes the doors fact so be thank fully you still have a paycheck after 8 years lol
 
o
A lot of people "fell asleep" or just didn't pay attention to what was happening to their money or how much it all amounted to.
The small number 15 as in 15% doesn't sound like much until you add it all up and multiply by 32,000.
Like Everette Dirkson once said "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about REAL money"
In MY book $2,662,400,000 is REAL money.
Maybe YRC will give everybody a free coffee mug when they shut the doors.
Just thinking positive.
at 15% of what top rate was and 75% of our pension for 8 years, they've easily taken over 4Billion, probably more!
 
o

at 15% of what top rate was and 75% of our pension for 8 years, they've easily taken over 4Billion, probably more!

What are you guys smoking? There is no 4 billion, that money doesn't exist, they haven't "taken" anything. We (labor) charge them less for our efforts, we didn't give back any "money" that they stashed away somewhere. This crap is really getting old.
 
Wow, are you delusional or what? First off, if your mortgage payment is $150 less than it was there is no "injection" of money by the bank. It just represents the lessor amount that you must pay. Whatever you now do with that $150 that you no longer have to pay is your business, but the bank isn't paying you back that money simply because you never paid it in the first place.

What are you talking about when you say the company agreed to pay the 15%? Where did you come up with that nonsense? The company pays us the agreed upon rate which happens to be 15% less than it used to be. In other words we accepted a lower rate of pay, period. No different than when we've gotten raises except this time it's a decrease instead of an increase.

The lowered price of diesel fuel was an example of paying less for something just like the company is now paying us less for our labor. Obviously you don't get it.

Your posted definitions of terms you seem to like to use here - Capital Injection, Extortion, and Coercion - are meaningless in regard to the YRCW situation. Nice try though.
OK. If you're happy with getting 15% less than the NMFA says Teamster Freight employees should get - then I'm happy.
The Teamsters at the companies NOT on the 15% giveback are happier. The big brass at YRC is happy to take your money. Hoffa and Nyhan are happy at doing nothing for us, so I guess everybody's happy - right?
Coercion means someone threatens to do physical or financial harm to you if you do not comply to their demands.
Did the YRC brass vaguely imply that YRC would probably close or go bankrupt if the 15% "suggested"
Wow, are you delusional or what? First off, if your mortgage payment is $150 less than it was there is no "injection" of money by the bank. It just represents the lessor amount that you must pay. Whatever you now do with that $150 that you no longer have to pay is your business, but the bank isn't paying you back that money simply because you never paid it in the first place.

What are you talking about when you say the company agreed to pay the 15%? Where did you come up with that nonsense? The company pays us the agreed upon rate which happens to be 15% less than it used to be. In other words we accepted a lower rate of pay, period. No different than when we've gotten raises except this time it's a decrease instead of an increase.

The lowered price of diesel fuel was an example of paying less for something just like the company is now paying us less for our labor. Obviously you don't get it.

Your posted definitions of terms you seem to like to use here - Capital Injection, Extortion, and Coercion - are meaningless in regard to the YRCW situation. Nice try though.
Example ; If you sold a car to someone for $10,000 and that person signed an agreement to pay the full amount, that is a legally binding agreement. If 2 hours later he comes back from the bank with $8500 and says he'll only pay $8500, but he's gonna keep the car, which he left at his house. What would you do? Tear up the signed agreement and write a new one for $8500? or demand he pay the original $10,000 as agreed? You would still be $8500 richer if you caved in to his demand. Is that OK? It wouldn't be with me. I'd say a deal is a deal - pay the money or we go to court. No guns or fisticuffs.
I guess it's OK with you that YRC has intimidated enough people with suggested bankruptcy or job loss threats (said or unsaid, the intent was there). Anyhow, over 50% of the employees "got the message" and were afraid enough to vote YES and lose out on around $11,400 per year that they would have otherwise been paid as per NMFA. If Hoffa wants to allow wage cuts, why don't he cut his own. YRCW employees are just damaging the negotiating power of other Teamsters at other companies that DO NOT want to cave in to givebacks.
I guess if 100% of the YRC employees agreed to 15% less than the Teamster contract and 100% agreed to ignore the NMFA , then it would be OK but only if the IBT gives it's blessing also (which they would since Hoffa has no backbone anymore).
If every union company wants to negotiate their own wages and benefit packages, the there is no point in the NMFA even existing anymore.
So why not just de-certify since you don't want to go by the contract like other Teamsters that will not be bullied by their company and still get paid "full boat"? Why do you even have union negotiators since you choose to take pay less than what was negotiated in the NMFA?
I guess your post says it all. no backbone - head in the sand. No wonder Yellow Freight (aka YRC) is such a mess. The company knows now that they can demand (and get) anything they want. Every Teamster that works at YRCW now stands to lose everything they agreed to give back to YRC, so the results of any future votes will be YES is even more likely. All that "stock" they gave you in exchange for the 15% will be even more worthless than it is now when or if the company shuts the doors. Their "voluntary" 15% giveback for the last 8 years will be for nothing. The company wins. Up to 32,000 Teamsters are left holding the bag.
If all that is OK with you, then all is good, except for all those that voted NO
 
ls.jpg
Liberty Tax Sign Holding Shift change , that's me up front and Mud to my left and Trip in the back and Big R in middle , we had a FUN day , as nobody threw food at us today !! and plus they are giving all yrcw guys -15% off !!!
 
OK. If you're happy with getting 15% less than the NMFA says Teamster Freight employees should get - then I'm happy.
The Teamsters at the companies NOT on the 15% giveback are happier. The big brass at YRC is happy to take your money. Hoffa and Nyhan are happy at doing nothing for us, so I guess everybody's happy - right?
Coercion means someone threatens to do physical or financial harm to you if you do not comply to their demands.
Did the YRC brass vaguely imply that YRC would probably close or go bankrupt if the 15% "suggested"
Example ; If you sold a car to someone for $10,000 and that person signed an agreement to pay the full amount, that is a legally binding agreement. If 2 hours later he comes back from the bank with $8500 and says he'll only pay $8500, but he's gonna keep the car, which he left at his house. What would you do? Tear up the signed agreement and write a new one for $8500? or demand he pay the original $10,000 as agreed? You would still be $8500 richer if you caved in to his demand. Is that OK? It wouldn't be with me. I'd say a deal is a deal - pay the money or we go to court. No guns or fisticuffs.
I guess it's OK with you that YRC has intimidated enough people with suggested bankruptcy or job loss threats (said or unsaid, the intent was there). Anyhow, over 50% of the employees "got the message" and were afraid enough to vote YES and lose out on around $11,400 per year that they would have otherwise been paid as per NMFA. If Hoffa wants to allow wage cuts, why don't he cut his own. YRCW employees are just damaging the negotiating power of other Teamsters at other companies that DO NOT want to cave in to givebacks.
I guess if 100% of the YRC employees agreed to 15% less than the Teamster contract and 100% agreed to ignore the NMFA , then it would be OK but only if the IBT gives it's blessing also (which they would since Hoffa has no backbone anymore).
If every union company wants to negotiate their own wages and benefit packages, the there is no point in the NMFA even existing anymore.
So why not just de-certify since you don't want to go by the contract like other Teamsters that will not be bullied by their company and still get paid "full boat"? Why do you even have union negotiators since you choose to take pay less than what was negotiated in the NMFA?
I guess your post says it all. no backbone - head in the sand. No wonder Yellow Freight (aka YRC) is such a mess. The company knows now that they can demand (and get) anything they want. Every Teamster that works at YRCW now stands to lose everything they agreed to give back to YRC, so the results of any future votes will be YES is even more likely. All that "stock" they gave you in exchange for the 15% will be even more worthless than it is now when or if the company shuts the doors. Their "voluntary" 15% giveback for the last 8 years will be for nothing. The company wins. Up to 32,000 Teamsters are left holding the bag.
If all that is OK with you, then all is good, except for all those that voted NO

Wow, I got the impression from reading your posts on another forum on TB that you were a pretty intelligent guy. Then on this forum that impression goes out the window.

First of all I'm not "happy" about taking a pay cut. Second, we're bound by the MOU which has modified the NMFA and is a legal contract in itself. It was voted on and accepted and is binding just as much as a normal contract. Nobody is "taking" anything from us that we didn't agree to. We're currently getting exactly what our current "contract" calls for, get over it already. As far as "all the other companies" covered by the NMFA, you've got to be joking. What big list of "other companies" are under the NMFA today? Are you kidding?

Your ludicrous claim of coercion is laughable also. The MOU conditions were required by the investment banks before they would agree to refinance the YRCW notes that were coming due. The company didn't have the cash to pay the maturing notes and would have been forced to file Ch.11 if they couldn't get refinancing. That's a fact not an opinion. The IBT had auditors examine the company financials and that's why they gave their blessing to the MOU. It was to save the last large Teamster ltl job. It's not coercion but wisdom, something you apparently lack in this discussion.

Your car sale example is so flawed it's almost not even worth responding to. If I had an agreement to sell a car for $10,000 but the buyer only had $8,500 to pay he wouldn't have the car UNLESS I agreed to sell it for $8,500 with a new agreement (MOU). We voted on and accepted the MOU, no one forced lower pay on us.

Your bluster here is just that - a bunch of bluster with no facts. Stick to the other forum where you appear more intelligent in your comments.
 
Wow, I got the impression from reading your posts on another forum on TB that you were a pretty intelligent guy. Then on this forum that impression goes out the window.

First of all I'm not "happy" about taking a pay cut. Second, we're bound by the MOU which has modified the NMFA and is a legal contract in itself. It was voted on and accepted and is binding just as much as a normal contract. Nobody is "taking" anything from us that we didn't agree to. We're currently getting exactly what our current "contract" calls for, get over it already. As far as "all the other companies" covered by the NMFA, you've got to be joking. What big list of "other companies" are under the NMFA today? Are you kidding?

Your ludicrous claim of coercion is laughable also. The MOU conditions were required by the investment banks before they would agree to refinance the YRCW notes that were coming due. The company didn't have the cash to pay the maturing notes and would have been forced to file Ch.11 if they couldn't get refinancing. That's a fact not an opinion. The IBT had auditors examine the company financials and that's why they gave their blessing to the MOU. It was to save the last large Teamster ltl job. It's not coercion but wisdom, something you apparently lack in this discussion.

Your car sale example is so flawed it's almost not even worth responding to. If I had an agreement to sell a car for $10,000 but the buyer only had $8,500 to pay he wouldn't have the car UNLESS I agreed to sell it for $8,500 with a new agreement (MOU). We voted on and accepted the MOU, no one forced lower pay on us.

Your bluster here is just that - a bunch of bluster with no facts. Stick to the other forum where you appear more intelligent in your comments.
:guiness: Very well put.
 
you should know your teamster history every big union company on a giveback never makes it typically past 5 years and closes the doors fact so be thank fully you still have a paycheck after 8 years lol
Possibly because yellow scared the men into "voting" yes for more concessions that any company ever......
 
Wow, I got the impression from reading your posts on another forum on TB that you were a pretty intelligent guy. Then on this forum that impression goes out the window.

First of all I'm not "happy" about taking a pay cut. Second, we're bound by the MOU which has modified the NMFA and is a legal contract in itself. It was voted on and accepted and is binding just as much as a normal contract. Nobody is "taking" anything from us that we didn't agree to. We're currently getting exactly what our current "contract" calls for, get over it already. As far as "all the other companies" covered by the NMFA, you've got to be joking. What big list of "other companies" are under the NMFA today? Are you kidding?

Your ludicrous claim of coercion is laughable also. The MOU conditions were required by the investment banks before they would agree to refinance the YRCW notes that were coming due. The company didn't have the cash to pay the maturing notes and would have been forced to file Ch.11 if they couldn't get refinancing. That's a fact not an opinion. The IBT had auditors examine the company financials and that's why they gave their blessing to the MOU. It was to save the last large Teamster ltl job. It's not coercion but wisdom, something you apparently lack in this discussion.

Your car sale example is so flawed it's almost not even worth responding to. If I had an agreement to sell a car for $10,000 but the buyer only had $8,500 to pay he wouldn't have the car UNLESS I agreed to sell it for $8,500 with a new agreement (MOU). We voted on and accepted the MOU, no one forced lower pay on us.

Your bluster here is just that - a bunch of bluster with no facts. Stick to the other forum where you appear more intelligent in your comments.
First of all I did work for Yellow Freight in two different barns. At Minneapolis (Burnsville), I worked dock, city and line haul. Each one had a separate seniority list. When I did city peddle runs, the customers constantly complained about damage, slow service, rude people at the main office and no satisfaction on damage claims. After a while, I just told them, sorry, I understand and if I were you, I'd use a different carrier. That's when I got "laid off" (just by coincidence). Then I worked at Chicago line haul (does the name Mary Shaper sound familiar). She was the only decent person I knew at Bridgeview. After a while there, I was so disgusted with the low morale, the **** poor dispatching, the favoritism, the lousy beat-up equipment and drivers slashing tires of fellow drivers because those shuttle drivers were doing more than 3 switches in an 8 hr shift at the railhead only 4 miles away. (The senior drivers on that board did not like the fact that up to 6 rounds were being made in an 8 hr shift by junior people that actually DID THEIR JOB, so they went out and slashed tires on the good drivers' cars) They were bragging about it in the ready room while I was doing my paperwork after a laydown run. THAT is when I decided I wanted no part of Yellow Freight anymore. I found another Teamster job in a different town and quit shortly after that. Yellow Freight in Mpls wasn't much better. Duane, the dispatcher was a 100% A-hole. Some of the drivers weren't much better. Bad attitude. Unfriendly. Treated drivers under them on the list like dirt. I was happy when they laid me off at Mpls - it saved me the trouble of quitting.
After those two bad experiences, I understood why the overall morale at Yellow and now at YRCW is so low. YRC truly is the Cancer of the Industry. The drivers know it. City p&d drivers know it. The dock crews know it. Management knows it. And most of all the customers know it. That's why its "Dog eat dog" yet at YRC today and why the morale is so low. All that affects productivity. Now the MOU that you and the majority of others agreed to is just dragging morale down even more. Those that wanted no part of it are pissed at those that voted YES and I believe those that did vote YES did it because they felt they had no choice. Most of those that won't stand up for what they believe in have a hard time accepting it, but still they always cave in and follow the crowd when asked to vote on anything. That's also why we still have Hoffa.
The way I understand it, the MOU has been extended 2 or three times and now they want it extended again to 2019. I say, fine,if you YRC (Yellow) people want to do that, but get out of the NMFA. Why have your reps sign a contract that is not worth the paper it's written on after those it was intended to cover, later agree to lower wages and benefits.
I am retired now, but I am still proud to say that the people I worked with at 4 different companies over a 36 year period, stood up to those companies request for givebacks. We voted over 80% NO.
Whether YRC stays in business matters not to me because you (and Hoffa) also agreed to let YRC quit contributing to the CSPF. Am I right? If so, you are also cutting the throats of the retirees and I personally don't care what you do. Since you chose to stop contributing, your future pension (If there ever is any) should also be cut accordingly. The way I see it- we are either together as One or we are not. There is no "Brotherhood" anymore.
.Finally, on the car thing. I was trying to use an analogy. (I use those simpler coparisons to help some people better understand something more complex. I guess I used a poor one and apparently it didn't sink in, so I'll try again one last time. But then if you are just refusing to look at it in any other way, then it is just a waste of time.(I think that is the case here). But here goes.
.
Assume I'm an owner and boss of a small company. I hire you to do a job for $10,000 We shake on the deal and sign the papers. Upon completion of the job, the boss/owner says,
"Times are tough and the bank is putting the squeeze on me" and asks that he only be required to pay $8500. If you choose to believe that business owner and agree to the lower amount, that business owner is going to be $1500 richer at the end of the day, whether his hardship story is true or not. Technically, that $1500 was yours according to the original agreement, but now it's in that bosses pocket. You walk out the door $1500 poorer than you were. He can pull the same sad story on the next sucker he hires to do a job. Maybe it'll work again. Those that stand up to that same boss and say "No, a deal is a deal" would have that original $10,000 in HIS pocket going out the door.
The same scenario is at YRC. If everybody believes the hardship story and wants to make the boss (YRC) richer by giving back part of their pay that they were originally promised, the boss (YRC) is happy to take it and bank it or do whatever with it.
"The IBT had auditors......" is a joke. They are experts at "cooking the books" for the highest bidder. Between Hoffa and Welch, they were told what the results of said "audit" should be before they even started.
If that's the Yellow Freight (YRC) that you are satisfied with, so be it. You helped create it and are helping it to continue to screw its employees..
 
Last edited:
First of all I did work for Yellow Freight in two different barns. At Minneapolis (Burnsville), I worked dock, city and line haul. Each one had a separate seniority list. When I did city peddle runs, the customers constantly complained about damage, slow service, rude people at the main office and no satisfaction on damage claims. After a while, I just told them, sorry, I understand and if I were you, I'd use a different carrier. That's when I got "laid off" (just by coincidence). Then I worked at Chicago line haul (does the name Mary Shaper sound familiar). She was the only decent person I knew at Bridgeview. After a while there, I was so disgusted with the low morale, the **** poor dispatching, the favoritism, the lousy beat-up equipment and drivers slashing tires of fellow drivers because those shuttle drivers were doing more than 3 switches in an 8 hr shift at the railhead only 4 miles away. (The senior drivers on that board did not like the fact that up to 6 rounds were being made in an 8 hr shift by junior people that actually DID THEIR JOB, so they went out and slashed tires on the good drivers' cars) They were bragging about it in the ready room while I was doing my paperwork after a laydown run. THAT is when I decided I wanted no part of Yellow Freight anymore. I found another Teamster job in a different town and quit shortly after that. Yellow Freight in Mpls wasn't much better. Duane, the dispatcher was a 100% A-hole. Some of the drivers weren't much better. Bad attitude. Unfriendly. Treated drivers under them on the list like dirt. I was happy when they laid me off at Mpls - it saved me the trouble of quitting.
After those two bad experiences, I understood why the overall morale at Yellow and now at YRCW is so low. YRC truly is the Cancer of the Industry. The drivers know it. City p&d drivers know it. The dock crews know it. Management knows it. And most of all the customers know it. That's why its "Dog eat dog" yet at YRC today and why the morale is so low. All that affects productivity. Now the MOU that you and the majority of others agreed to is just dragging morale down even more. Those that wanted no part of it are pissed at those that voted YES and I believe those that did vote YES did it because they felt they had no choice. Most of those that won't stand up for what they believe in have a hard time accepting it, but still they always cave in and follow the crowd when asked to vote on anything. That's also why we still have Hoffa.
The way I understand it, the MOU has been extended 2 or three times and now they want it extended again to 2019. I say, fine,if you YRC (Yellow) people want to do that, but get out of the NMFA. Why have your reps sign a contract that is not worth the paper it's written on after those it was intended to cover, later agree to lower wages and benefits.
I am retired now, but I am still proud to say that the people I worked with at 4 different companies over a 36 year period, stood up to those companies request for givebacks. We voted over 80% NO.
Whether YRC stays in business matters not to me because you (and Hoffa) also agreed to let YRC quit contributing to the CSPF. Am I right? If so, you are also cutting the throats of the retirees and I personally don't care what you do. Since you chose to stop contributing, your future pension (If there ever is any) should also be cut accordingly. The way I see it- we are either together as One or we are not. There is no "Brotherhood" anymore.
.Finally, on the car thing. I was trying to use a comparison. Apparently it didn't sink in, so I'll try again one last time
.
Assume I'm an owner and boss of a small company. I hire you to do a job for $10,000 We shake on the deal and sign the papers. Upon completion of the job, the boss/owner says,
"Times are tough and the bank is putting the squeeze on me" and asks that he only be required to pay $8500. If you choose to believe that business owner and agree to the lower amount, that business owner is going to be $1500 richer at the end of the day, whether his hardship story is true or not. Technically, that $1500 was yours according to the original agreement, but now it's in that bosses pocket. He can pull the same sad story on the next sucker he hires to do a job. Maybe it'll work again.
The same scenario is at YRC. If everybody believes the hardship story and wants to make the boss (YRC) richer by giving back part of their pay that they were originally promised, the boss (YRC) is happy to take it and bank it or do whatever with it.
"The IBT had auditors......" is a joke. They are experts at "cooking the books" for the highest bidder. Between Hoffa and Welch, they were told what the results of said "audit" should be before they even started.
If that's the Yellow Freight (YRC) that you are satisfied with, so be it. You helped create it and are helping it to continue to screw its employees..
Who said they where asking to extend again in 2019? They still contribute just at 25% rate western states won't accept partial contributions so union puts it into 401k if I'm correct.
 
Who said they where asking to extend again in 2019? They still contribute just at 25% rate western states won't accept partial contributions so union puts it into 401k if I'm correct.
Not in 2019 But still want to extend it to 2019, which of course would also include the MOU. They tried in 2013 - 2014 to extend it 5 years to 2019 under Zollers and they are still trying under the new CEO Walsh now.
www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2013/11/20/yrc-looking-for-flexibility-teamsters.html
www.eurokam.ro/teamsters-to-vote-soon-on-yrc-contract-extention-l-7291-en.html
 
Last edited:
Not in 2019 But still want to extend it to 2019, which of course would also include the MOU. They tried in 2013 - 2014 to extend it 5 years to 2019 under Zollers and they are still trying under the new CEO Walsh now.
www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2013/11/20/yrc-looking-for-flexibility-teamsters.html

Man, you need to do some research before you post. Zollars left in 2011. The current MOU was approved in 2014 and it extends till 2019. Nothing has changed since that time.
 
Man, you need to do some research before you post. Zollars left in 2011. The current MOU was approved in 2014 and it extends till 2019. Nothing has changed since that time.
OK. I read it was rejected in Jan 2014 as it was originally presented to the voters.
.Zollars was there when it all started in Aug 2009 - he left in 2011 - Walsh was CEO when the original MOU giveback was due to run out. He pressured the employees to extend it to 2019. Correct? Was there a 2nd vote in 2014 to approve it?
I just read the "amended plan' and it stated it "terminates on March 31, 2013". So educate me - what happened between April 1, 2013 and Jan 2014 when it was voted on again and apparently approved for another 5 years?
 
Last edited:
Top