Hopeful

You need to debate 700UW on this one. I believe he experienced first hand this issue.


At this point I don't know what the judge can, will, won't, can't do with respects to abrogation.
I am no expert.
From here on end, since I am no expert like others here, I will return to this forum when either an agreement is reached or on June 22 when the judge makes his ruling.
I am no longer going to give my opinion nor am I going to listen to others opinions like they are right from Chapter 11 text books.

I will wait for the one person who will decide things....And that's the judge!
If a lawyer cannot give a definitive answer to a simple question, then who is anyone else here to speak as if they are end all?

TWU informer, on 23 May 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Spare me the lecture...
I voted NO because of language AND the fact that I was told by my LEADERSHIP we will start negotiations anew...DURATION is as clear as daylight in the term sheets. I read it well.. But was still told that the TWU's position was NO DURATION BECAUSE NO CONTRACT...

Not getting locked in to a six year deal is a major reason for a no vote...


You want to take a poll here as to how many people like me were told that we would not be locked in for six years?


Unlike those who post here who think they are bankruptcy and labor attorneys...I read and ask questions to arrive at my decisions. I am not an expert in these laws as others here think they are.
I asked questions, believed that the answers I got were the truth and factual.

So tell me, what's better? LBO FOR SIX YEARS OR TERM SHEETS FOR SIX YEARS?


Again, I ask you...how many people do you think beleived that by voting no, they weren't locking themselves into a six year deal?

I am sure there's a video out addressing both the durations of the LBO and term Sheets.

700UW, on 23 May 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Ok, I will take your word based on your experience with this.


Does everyone NOW realize that we might be stuck with the term sheets for six years anyway?

700UW, on 23 May 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

I don't know to explain this any clearer to you, 700...
The gist of my post is that WE WERE LIED TO BY THOSE PUSHING US TO VOTE NO....

Do you understand now? I am not arguing with you..
My point is about being mislead, not what people THINK may or may not happen.

700UW, on 23 May 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Ok, then why should the company care if we voted yes or no since they would get the term sheets imposed for six years anyway?
Next point is, does abrogating contracts and imposing term sheets constitute a settled labor contract?