Yellow | YRC self fulfilling profits

dogsbestfriend

TB Lurker
Credits
0
Never fails, when listening to discussions in regard to past events, you will inevitably hear someone say "when they take something away - you will never get it back". When I hear this not only do I cringe, but my level of respect for that person drops significantly due to their open display of weakness. So my response is, if you truly believe this then why did you vote yes to give it all away?

Furthermore, I have read and heard people state as fact, that the snapback agreement we had, was taken away in the last MOU.

So I'd like to point this out, and by all means if there are any lawyers monitoring this board then feel free to chime in with your legal assessment. Clipped from the original Agreement below, Section 24 outlines what some refer to as a Snapback, which is perfectly ok because essentially that's what it's intended to do. Once you've read that, then fast forward to the February 7, 2014 Extension of the Agreement for the Restructuring, keeping in mind that it is only an "Extension" of the original, with some changes, but nowhere does it state, that Section 24 of the original agreement ,has been amended or removed etc.

The original AGREEMENT FOR THE RESTRUCTURING OF YRC WORLDWIDE INC. clearly states, If a Change of Control of YRC Worldwide Inc., including all domestic or Canadian subsidiaries but excluding Chinese businesses (collectively “YRCW”) occurs, this Restructuring Plan may be terminated and wages reverted to full NMFA on a prospective basis if the Union so elects in writing and all other provisions of this Revised Plan shall be null and void on a prospective basis; provided that in the case of the sale of a business unit of YRCW, whether through the sale of assets or stock or through a merger, the election shall only apply to the business unit that is the subject of the sale. Union approval for any Change of Control is required. For the purposes of this Section 24, a “Change of Control,” shall be deemed to have taken place if a third person, including a “group” as defined in Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,

Fast forward to the Extension of the Agreement for the Restructuring of the YRC Worldwide Inc. Operating Companies, dated February 7, 2014
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716006/000119312514043473/d672613d8k.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716006/000119312514043473/d672613dex101.htm
 
Keep in mind that any agreement is contingent on it being enforced by both parties. YRC breaks it (PTS to name just one) and the IBT turns there head the other way.

We are all screwed!

Never fails, when listening to discussions in regard to past events, you will inevitably hear someone say "when they take something away - you will never get it back". When I hear this not only do I cringe, but my level of respect for that person drops significantly due to their open display of weakness. So my response is, if you truly believe this then why did you vote yes to give it all away?

Furthermore, I have read and heard people state as fact, that the snapback agreement we had, was taken away in the last MOU.

So I'd like to point this out, and by all means if there are any lawyers monitoring this board then feel free to chime in with your legal assessment. Clipped from the original Agreement below, Section 24 outlines what some refer to as a Snapback, which is perfectly ok because essentially that's what it's intended to do. Once you've read that, then fast forward to the February 7, 2014 Extension of the Agreement for the Restructuring, keeping in mind that it is only an "Extension" of the original, with some changes, but nowhere does it state, that Section 24 of the original agreement ,has been amended or removed etc.

The original AGREEMENT FOR THE RESTRUCTURING OF YRC WORLDWIDE INC. clearly states, If a Change of Control of YRC Worldwide Inc., including all domestic or Canadian subsidiaries but excluding Chinese businesses (collectively “YRCW”) occurs, this Restructuring Plan may be terminated and wages reverted to full NMFA on a prospective basis if the Union so elects in writing and all other provisions of this Revised Plan shall be null and void on a prospective basis; provided that in the case of the sale of a business unit of YRCW, whether through the sale of assets or stock or through a merger, the election shall only apply to the business unit that is the subject of the sale. Union approval for any Change of Control is required. For the purposes of this Section 24, a “Change of Control,” shall be deemed to have taken place if a third person, including a “group” as defined in Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,

Fast forward to the Extension of the Agreement for the Restructuring of the YRC Worldwide Inc. Operating Companies, dated February 7, 2014
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716006/000119312514043473/d672613d8k.htm
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716006/000119312514043473/d672613dex101.htm
 
So I'm listening to this official speak at one of our Union meetings.So the man says yes the Teamsters have two men on the board of directors at YRCW.So you and I are thinking that our interests are being looked after by these two appointed characters right? I find out through this orator at the dais that these two individuals have no say in the operation or decisions of that body.So what is it that they actually do if they don't have a say? This is my speculation or conjecture and it isn't supported by any documents or secret recordings.Could they be seated on the BOD to make sure Welch and Pierson are properly compensated or what is it that they do? Another thing is about the stockholder meeting this month.The same orator said that the union has no seat at those meetings because they don't have any special stock to do so.So my question is what has really been going on since we voted for concessions and a part stake in this company for our sacrafice.Are we complete morons because we have no idea or information?
The official stated finally that the company is doing really well right now.So he says about these bonuses and stock awards that Welch and Pierson have been getting are within their contractual rights but and this is a big butt.The official claims that these bonuses and compensation alike are not moral and ethically correct.Really?
 
The two Teamsters on the board yrc are probably paid through yrc payroll and they're not on the teamster payroll that in itself is how you grease the politician when it comes time to vote or turn your head the other way as they are doing.
 
The two Teamsters on the board yrc are probably paid through yrc payroll and they're not on the teamster payroll that in itself is how you grease the politician when it comes time to vote or turn your head the other way as they are doing.

Slight correction. The Teamsters Union had the ability to nominate two individuals to the YRCW board. They are not there as Teamsters themselves and their legal, fiduciary obligation is to the shareholders and not to Teamsters specifically. You need to understand what the board members legal responsibility actually is.
 
Slight correction. The Teamsters Union had the ability to nominate two individuals to the YRCW board. They are not there as Teamsters themselves and their legal, fiduciary obligation is to the shareholders and not to Teamsters specifically. You need to understand what the board members legal responsibility actually is.

It was a charade. They knew the perception by the rank and file would be that there were 2 BOD members looking out for them. Well played on their part.
 
Slight correction. The Teamsters Union had the ability to nominate two individuals to the YRCW board. They are not there as Teamsters themselves and their legal, fiduciary obligation is to the shareholders and not to Teamsters specifically. You need to understand what the board members legal responsibility actually is.
Their responsibility is to be seen and not heard and that is it
 
Slight correction. The Teamsters Union had the ability to nominate two individuals to the YRCW board. They are not there as Teamsters themselves and their legal, fiduciary obligation is to the shareholders and not to Teamsters specifically. You need to understand what the board members legal responsibility actually is.
Their responsibility is to be seen and not heard and that is it

Why don't you take a little time to research the role and responsibility of a board of directors at any company. That might help you avoid making silly statements.

"What is a 'Board Of Directors - B Of D'

A board of directors (B of D) is a group of individuals that are elected as, or elected to act as, representatives of the stockholders to establish corporate management related policies and to make decisions on major company issues. Every public company must have a board of directors. Some private and nonprofit companies have a board of directors as well."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/boardofdirectors.asp
 
Top