HowardBorden
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Posts
- 889
The BoD has placed this mess in the memberships hands to stand up and give a collective HELL NO! Whether you agree that was the best course of action is irrelevant at this point. It is our time to take a stand and collectively make our voices heard loud and clear. Lets do what we need to do to get back to the negotiating table with some leverage. Management believes we side with them on this, I am not buying that view. Vote no on this TA and spread the word to those that think this is good enough. It is not, not even close.
From the MDW reps:
Your NC came to a point in the negotiation where they felt that they had achieved the maximum amount of gain with the leverage they currently have. My vote to send this TA to you is not an endorsement of it. All of our consultants and subject matter experts agree that we will have gained far more leverage for the possibility of further contractual gains in the case of a full membership "no" vote. It is time for management to hear your voice.
From the MCO reps:
If we vote "no," we are guaranteed but one thing, our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (contract) remains as is. Is that so bad? Frankly, given the relief in scope, elimination of the lance program, subsets that may reduce our flexibility, I prefer we keep our current contract. I believe our leverage on scope alone is getting stronger by the day. So what is scope relief worth?
From the BWI reps:
This vote was, in fact, only a vote to allow you to see the AIP and strategically place us in the best position for future movement at the table. Your BWI reps are NOT in favor of this AIP for a variety of reasons. Our goals, as clearly dictated by you, were reserve, retirement, and compensation. Your board was placed in a difficult position and needed to act to place our membership in the best strategic position possible under the circumstances. It will be through a resounding rejection of this TA by you, that we will gain the leverage needed to move the Company beyond what is a substandard contract in several areas. Understand we are recommending you VOTE NO and show Gary Kelly exactly how you feel about his offer. He thinks your BOD is out of touch and he thinks you will actually pass this substandard contract. It is time for you all to show him he is wrong.
From the OAK reps:
A majority "no" vote will give us that leverage. The larger the "no" vote, the more leverage we will have. So we bought and paid for Section 1, and we are going to sell it back for a 4 percent raise since 2011 and a .7 percent increase in 401(k) match?
From the MDW reps:
Your NC came to a point in the negotiation where they felt that they had achieved the maximum amount of gain with the leverage they currently have. My vote to send this TA to you is not an endorsement of it. All of our consultants and subject matter experts agree that we will have gained far more leverage for the possibility of further contractual gains in the case of a full membership "no" vote. It is time for management to hear your voice.
From the MCO reps:
If we vote "no," we are guaranteed but one thing, our current Collective Bargaining Agreement (contract) remains as is. Is that so bad? Frankly, given the relief in scope, elimination of the lance program, subsets that may reduce our flexibility, I prefer we keep our current contract. I believe our leverage on scope alone is getting stronger by the day. So what is scope relief worth?
From the BWI reps:
This vote was, in fact, only a vote to allow you to see the AIP and strategically place us in the best position for future movement at the table. Your BWI reps are NOT in favor of this AIP for a variety of reasons. Our goals, as clearly dictated by you, were reserve, retirement, and compensation. Your board was placed in a difficult position and needed to act to place our membership in the best strategic position possible under the circumstances. It will be through a resounding rejection of this TA by you, that we will gain the leverage needed to move the Company beyond what is a substandard contract in several areas. Understand we are recommending you VOTE NO and show Gary Kelly exactly how you feel about his offer. He thinks your BOD is out of touch and he thinks you will actually pass this substandard contract. It is time for you all to show him he is wrong.
From the OAK reps:
A majority "no" vote will give us that leverage. The larger the "no" vote, the more leverage we will have. So we bought and paid for Section 1, and we are going to sell it back for a 4 percent raise since 2011 and a .7 percent increase in 401(k) match?
