What no skywriters?
Lipstick on a pig!
- Thread starter jetmechjer
- Start date
What no skywriters?
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
I'm hearing a confirmation that the ghost was actually the pig with lipstick. It is no coincidence that the video disappeared at the exact same time the ghostly ad appeared.
Maybe the ghost disappeared by pulling his bottom lip over his head and then swallowed....
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Maybe the ghost disappeared by pulling his bottom lip over his head and then swallowed....
Nope I just spoke with the Ghost 10 minutes ago.
Plan is "All systems go"
You will get a laugh I am just sure of it.
Prepare Cotton for the next anti-line statement.
Instead of embracing the strength of the union, you guys get out a 20 lbs sledge hammer and drive the wedge deeper. All because of FEAR. The terms strength and unity are really nothing more than slogans to people living in fear.
Flying low
Veteran
- Jul 19, 2011
- 629
- 232
I wonder what the comments from the general public would have been if that was an article instead of an ad.
Early Out;
b. Provide the $12,500 special severance payment under Article 44
Article 44
This was brought up in Negotiations, but we never got an answer and the language was never changed.
The early out letter states that those who put in for the Early Out and were system protected would get the regular severance , the $10,000 incentive and the $12500 as per Article 44, but, Article 44 has been eliminated, so there goes the $12500. So instead of as much as $39,000 for an AMT its more like $27,000, compare that to UALs $75,000 early out.
Dont go by what they say, go by what is written and how the language would play out in Arbitration. remember the 1995 Me Too clause, the 2003 Early opener, and "System Attrition" for the introduction of SRPs.
The letter references that you would get $12500 as per an Article that would no longer exist.
In Arbitration the company will argue that it was their intent to eliminate the $12500 and the union agreed to it and we would lose..
This deal is full of contradictory and open (meet and confer) language and it must be remembered that in Arbitration the burden of proof is on the Union.
VOTE NO
b. Provide the $12,500 special severance payment under Article 44
This was brought up in Negotiations, but we never got an answer and the language was never changed.
The early out letter states that those who put in for the Early Out and were system protected would get the regular severance , the $10,000 incentive and the $12500 as per Article 44, but, Article 44 has been eliminated, so there goes the $12500. So instead of as much as $39,000 for an AMT its more like $27,000, compare that to UALs $75,000 early out.
Dont go by what they say, go by what is written and how the language would play out in Arbitration. remember the 1995 Me Too clause, the 2003 Early opener, and "System Attrition" for the introduction of SRPs.
The letter references that you would get $12500 as per an Article that would no longer exist.
In Arbitration the company will argue that it was their intent to eliminate the $12500 and the union agreed to it and we would lose..
This deal is full of contradictory and open (meet and confer) language and it must be remembered that in Arbitration the burden of proof is on the Union.
VOTE NO
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
removed by user
We brought this up at negotiations and asked that it be corrected but it wasn't. Back in 1995 the intent came into question as far as pushing people out of the shops and replacing them with SRPs, the union was under the impression that as AMTs retired or otherwise attritted out they they would be backfilled by SRPs. Thats not how it went down. In arbitartion the company argued "System Attrition".
I do not put it past this company to argue that it was their intent to eliminate the $12500 as of DOS and try and screw the guys out of the $12500.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
ok I removed my post but still think my point was valid.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
A half-page advertisement featured in Friday's local newspaper urged workers: "Vote No Save Our Profession." It's not clear who is behind the ad, which listed several reasons why the bankrupt air carrier's final, best labor offer is no good, including lack of job security, frozen pensions and slashed vacation time.
"It's a ghost out there, as far as I'm concerned," said Del Cotton, a machinist with 25 years with the company. "That stuff didn't come from Oklahoma."
John Hewitt, chairman of maintenance for the TWU Local 514 in Tulsa, said he was frustrated by the ad.
"Whether this is an individual or a company, they've misconstrued what's going on," Hewitt said. "Obviously, these people don't feel it's important to stand behind what they're saying; then they would have to answer for the things they say."
I WORK IN TULSA AND THERE ARE MANY NO VOTERS!
THERE ARE STILL THOSE THAT BELIEVE WE ALL FOLLOW HEWITT, COTTON, CIRRI, AND MULLINGS.
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!
LOCAL 514 DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!
VOTE NO ON LBO2
"It's a ghost out there, as far as I'm concerned," said Del Cotton, a machinist with 25 years with the company. "That stuff didn't come from Oklahoma."
John Hewitt, chairman of maintenance for the TWU Local 514 in Tulsa, said he was frustrated by the ad.
"Whether this is an individual or a company, they've misconstrued what's going on," Hewitt said. "Obviously, these people don't feel it's important to stand behind what they're saying; then they would have to answer for the things they say."
I WORK IN TULSA AND THERE ARE MANY NO VOTERS!
THERE ARE STILL THOSE THAT BELIEVE WE ALL FOLLOW HEWITT, COTTON, CIRRI, AND MULLINGS.
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!
LOCAL 514 DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!
VOTE NO ON LBO2
A half-page advertisement featured in Friday's local newspaper urged workers: "Vote No Save Our Profession." It's not clear who is behind the ad, which listed several reasons why the bankrupt air carrier's final, best labor offer is no good, including lack of job security, frozen pensions and slashed vacation time.
"It's a ghost out there, as far as I'm concerned," said Del Cotton, a machinist with 25 years with the company. "That stuff didn't come from Oklahoma."
John Hewitt, chairman of maintenance for the TWU Local 514 in Tulsa, said he was frustrated by the ad.
"Whether this is an individual or a company, they've misconstrued what's going on," Hewitt said. "Obviously, these people don't feel it's important to stand behind what they're saying; then they would have to answer for the things they say."
I WORK IN TULSA AND THERE ARE MANY NO VOTERS!
THERE ARE STILL THOSE THAT BELIEVE WE ALL FOLLOW HEWITT, COTTON, CIRRI, AND MULLINGS.
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!
LOCAL 514 DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!!
VOTE NO ON LBO2
Anyone have a copy or a link to the ad???
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
The last and totally undeniable reason to vote NO on LBO II !!!
Subject: Confirmed
AA sent US Air a confidentiality agreement today on future merger discussions. It is suspected the TWU International, APA, & APFA leaders are also under a similar agreement! So no system protection for AA M&R employees in LBO2 and a merger with US Air is like telling a girl that you can get pregnant if I pull out...I promise! The best reason yet to vote NO!!!!
Subject: Confirmed
AA sent US Air a confidentiality agreement today on future merger discussions. It is suspected the TWU International, APA, & APFA leaders are also under a similar agreement! So no system protection for AA M&R employees in LBO2 and a merger with US Air is like telling a girl that you can get pregnant if I pull out...I promise! The best reason yet to vote NO!!!!
THANK YOU. I will forward this on.
http://www.tulsaworl...E1_Anewsp307329
It seems that Mr Hewitt says that the ad is misleading and some of the claims are outright lies. He then talks about what may or may not happen if the Judge abrogates.
What Mr Hewitt fails to mention is which ones does he claim are outright lies? Most of us are well aware of what may happen IF the the Judge abrogates.
Mr Hewittt also fails to mention that even during normal Section 6 negotiations if the parties are released after 30 days the company can do the same thing, BK is a shortcut for the company to Self Help. The difference is that the Union can not legally resort to self help in BK unless they are released by the NMB. Is Mr Hewitt lying when he fails to mention that?
Another thing Mr Hewitt seems to forget is that the company isnt saying that voting yes "will" save jobs, they are saying it "may" save jobs while at the same time demanding the ability to layoff anyone. If the company is saying it will save jobs then why not have a number put in the contract? Why not just ask to modify System Protection like in 2003?
Their actions with Article 42 says it all. The Pilots have 95% of their guys covered by Furlough protection yet they insist that we give it all up.
Without system protection there is nothing stopping the company from eliminating a lot more than the 4000 jobs they threatened to. Back in 2003 the guys in MCI were told that if they voted YES they would save their jobs in MCI, their YES vote was percentage wise much Higher than Tulsa, so how did the company repay them-they closed the base.
Now the company and its sympathizers are saying to Tulsa that a Yes vote will save jobs in Tulsa, but putting in language that would allow them to cut most if not all the jobs in Tulsa and at the same time Management is telling the line guys they need to vote YES so they can cut jobs in Tulsa, make the line guys the majority and pay the line guys what competitors pay.
Do the math, 35% of Maintenance spend, thats including Line, parts and materials, there is no cap as far as how much of that cap comes from OH, however there is a 15% cap on Line maint outsourcing.
So are they telling Tulsa something closer to the truth or are they telling the line something closer to the truth?
Well the company has admitted that they pay too little to the line in negotiations, They know that if this deal passes, Bootlicker Letter or not, they are not going to get what their peers get from their line mechanics. The millions they save on wages will be spent on OT, higher rates of parts changed that did not fix the problem, longer out of service time, fewer MELs cleared, more delays and more cancellations compared to their peers. They will not be able to attract or retain talent, they will be at a competative disadvantage. We do a lot of OH in house that our competitors outsource. During the last LBO the company threw a few crumbs at the line, but Tulsa balked and said that if they didnt get the crumbs as well the deal was "DOA in Tulsa".
So which story do you think is closer to the truth? The one that says if we vote YES it "may" save jobs in Tulsa, or the one that says that if we vote YES the company over the next six years will be able to cut enough OH jobs through outsourcing to make the line the majority?
It seems that Mr Hewitt says that the ad is misleading and some of the claims are outright lies. He then talks about what may or may not happen if the Judge abrogates.
What Mr Hewitt fails to mention is which ones does he claim are outright lies? Most of us are well aware of what may happen IF the the Judge abrogates.
Mr Hewittt also fails to mention that even during normal Section 6 negotiations if the parties are released after 30 days the company can do the same thing, BK is a shortcut for the company to Self Help. The difference is that the Union can not legally resort to self help in BK unless they are released by the NMB. Is Mr Hewitt lying when he fails to mention that?
Another thing Mr Hewitt seems to forget is that the company isnt saying that voting yes "will" save jobs, they are saying it "may" save jobs while at the same time demanding the ability to layoff anyone. If the company is saying it will save jobs then why not have a number put in the contract? Why not just ask to modify System Protection like in 2003?
Their actions with Article 42 says it all. The Pilots have 95% of their guys covered by Furlough protection yet they insist that we give it all up.
Without system protection there is nothing stopping the company from eliminating a lot more than the 4000 jobs they threatened to. Back in 2003 the guys in MCI were told that if they voted YES they would save their jobs in MCI, their YES vote was percentage wise much Higher than Tulsa, so how did the company repay them-they closed the base.
Now the company and its sympathizers are saying to Tulsa that a Yes vote will save jobs in Tulsa, but putting in language that would allow them to cut most if not all the jobs in Tulsa and at the same time Management is telling the line guys they need to vote YES so they can cut jobs in Tulsa, make the line guys the majority and pay the line guys what competitors pay.
Do the math, 35% of Maintenance spend, thats including Line, parts and materials, there is no cap as far as how much of that cap comes from OH, however there is a 15% cap on Line maint outsourcing.
So are they telling Tulsa something closer to the truth or are they telling the line something closer to the truth?
Well the company has admitted that they pay too little to the line in negotiations, They know that if this deal passes, Bootlicker Letter or not, they are not going to get what their peers get from their line mechanics. The millions they save on wages will be spent on OT, higher rates of parts changed that did not fix the problem, longer out of service time, fewer MELs cleared, more delays and more cancellations compared to their peers. They will not be able to attract or retain talent, they will be at a competative disadvantage. We do a lot of OH in house that our competitors outsource. During the last LBO the company threw a few crumbs at the line, but Tulsa balked and said that if they didnt get the crumbs as well the deal was "DOA in Tulsa".
So which story do you think is closer to the truth? The one that says if we vote YES it "may" save jobs in Tulsa, or the one that says that if we vote YES the company over the next six years will be able to cut enough OH jobs through outsourcing to make the line the majority?
