No back room deals, now thats funny right there! Look what you just posted, the IAM could never agree to a TA that eliminated 50% of the jobs but yet they wouldn't make a recommendation either way on outsourcing all utility except 50 total, eliminating pensions, outsourcing 3 heavy checks and half of another, eliminating holidays, cutting sick time, I can go on and on. You had a local lodge president telling members he wished he could vote no which was an endorsement to accept it because he knew of the pending merger and would be getting a promotion! You yourself said that reps from CLT and PHL reccomended a no vote but one city wouldn't go along and it just so happened to be the city where the local president got a promotion was from, how about that! What it all boils down to is the LEADERSHIP of the IAM like so many times failed, they are to concerned for themselves and don't care about their MEMBERS all they care about are dues flowing in so they keep getting paid period!!You are making things up.
There was no backroom deal, the IAM did not get what they want.
The IAM could never agree to a TA with the company that eliminated 50% of the jobs.
Dont put words into my posts.