local 514 video

[1AA]

Most I talked with said that once the TWU Local 514 resorts to attacking a person instead of explaining the offer, they are now NO VOTERS. Even those that do not like Bob Owens, dislike this material distribution even more.

The membership here in Tulsa has had enough of these political games.

Hopefully enough will vote NO or change their votes to NO.
We are down to hours instead of days or weeks.

 

[Tex-Mech]

An update to Hewitt's video is out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C2n2jqy0pI&feature=youtu.be

 

[paul1]

If you guys are reading the tweets from the court house I'm glad I voted no!

The twu should be coming out and saying, we have spoke and we are tried of being at the bottom, its time to close are cost gap.

Its time that M&R gets a fair contract that puts us in line with are peers!

 

[TWU informer]

If you guys are reading the tweets from the court house I'm glad I voted no!

The twu should be coming out and saying, we have spoke and we are tried of being at the bottom, its time to close are cost gap.

Its time that M&R gets a fair contract that puts us in line with are peers!

Are you kidding? The TWU is behind closed doors with AA Management conjuring up another sellout and how to get it passed.

 

[CMH_GSE]

Are you kidding? The TWU is behind closed doors with AA Management conjuring up another sellout and how to get it passed.

I believe you are correct here Informer, there will be another "last Bester" to vote on soon.

To the previous poster that wants us to get a "fair contract that puts us in line with our peers", I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we are currently in a process call Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the only one in my lifetime that I can remember the worker bees actually getting anything of note happened in 2009, the GM bailout.

The unions were actually put ahead of all other creditors, which is against the law, but it did happen. Don't look for the same thing to happen here.

 

[TWU informer]

I believe you are correct here Informer, there will be another "last Bester" to vote on soon.

To the previous poster that wants us to get a "fair contract that puts us in line with our peers", I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we are currently in a process call Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the only one in my lifetime that I can remember the worker bees actually getting anything of note happened in 2009, the GM bailout.

The unions were actually put ahead of all other creditors, which is against the law, but it did happen. Don't look for the same thing to happen here.

We could easily come up with our share of cost reductions by allowing more of a headcount reduction in exchange for more productivity. But that is not the way the TWU thinks or is headed.

In my opinion we could increase the headcount reductions, go to work, and get raises, holidays, and Vacation back in exchange. Hell the savings of the pension freeze and retirement medical is enough to cover our share if cost valuations were honest and not manipulated by bean counters.

 

[paul1]

From what i'm hearing, from the tweets is that we in m&r are over sharing are costs to bail others out. Cuts across the board of 20% is not fair, as are cost gaps are not equal and we are covering a larger share of the burden.

I think are lawyers are doing a great job!!

Can we get somebody from the twu to be in court and get us blow by blow info like the apfa. I hope they are there on Monday.

google apfaunity tweeter interesting reads

STAY INFORMED! oh wait this is the twu :angry2:

 

[Frank Szabo]

We could easily come up with our share of cost reductions by allowing more of a headcount reduction in exchange for more productivity. But that is not the way the TWU thinks or is headed.

In my opinion we could increase the headcount reductions, go to work, and get raises, holidays, and Vacation back in exchange. Hell the savings of the pension freeze and retirement medical is enough to cover our share if cost valuations were honest and not manipulated by bean counters.

IF - everyone could be persuaded to actually work for 5 hours a day, the present workload would mandate at least a 25% headcount reduction alone.

What causes me the most amazement is the almost hidden statement included in every union contract I've ever seen in my lifetime - "The company retains the right to manage the business", or some permutation thereof. Everyone who has ever looked at our book has seen that statement.

My question: That being the case, why does the company defer to the union re: the staffing levels and why has the company continued to place itself at an economic disadvantage by allowing that nonsense, ultimately resulting in the situation we're in today?

I'd like to think Judge Lane is able to see this unholy parasitic relationship between company and union and, in his rulings, acts to eliminate the problem.

 

[Bob Owens]

From what i'm hearing, from the tweets is that we in m&r are over sharing are costs to bail others out. Cuts across the board of 20% is not fair, as are cost gaps are not equal and we are covering a larger share of the burden.

I think are lawyers are doing a great job!!

Can we get somebody from the twu to be in court and get us blow by blow info like the apfa. I hope they are there on Monday.

google apfaunity tweeter interesting reads

STAY INFORMED! oh wait this is the twu :angry2:

Not so. We arent giving more so others can give less, the company picked a number, and that number was 20%, I guess because the Analysts say the should maintain at least 20% liquidity, and applied it to everyone regardless of their standing, if you recall back in 2003 they didnt cut management because they said they were below industry standards. Roth testified that they informed the company that they were asking for $41 million more than they said they needed, the company didnt care, because they were going for 20%, except management of course, we would have simply been a bomnus. They still have not revealed what concessions management is giving, The latest scam they are pulling is all the "retirements", they retire, the company counts it as a head cut off payroll, adds that in as a savings, then pays them consulting fees which gets charged somewhere else on the balance sheet.

Just think, if this had been voted in we probably never would have known that we were giving $41 million more in concessions than the company said they needed.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Not so. We arent giving more so others can give less, the company picked a number, and that number was 20%, I guess because the Analysts say the should maintain at least 20% liquidity, and applied it to everyone regardless of their standing, if you recall back in 2003 they didnt cut management because they said they were below industry standards. Roth testified that they informed the company that they were asking for $41 million more than they said they needed, the company didnt care, because they were going for 20%, except management of course, we would have simply been a bomnus. They still have not revealed what concessions management is giving, The latest scam they are pulling is all the "retirements", they retire, the company counts it as a head cut off payroll, adds that in as a savings, then pays them consulting fees which gets charged somewhere else on the balance sheet.

Just think, if this had been voted in we probably never would have known that we were giving $41 million more in concessions than the company said they needed.

That's what accountants do, Bob - they lie.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

the question I have is; why are we finding out now in court that the company overstated cost outs? If you Read Sharon Levins (twu bankruptcy lawyer) opening statement, she made very good arguments. why weren't these points enforced by the TWU Interntaional in negotiations and in the press?
we find out after the vote, oh I get it, if we voted yes, this would be a mute point!

 

[Hopeful]

Let's hope that what we think are good arguments by union attorneys are not deemed a moot point by the judge.
I do believe the international is behind the scenes negotiating a new LBO. But they have some tweaking to do to reverse the 55-45 no vote to get a mere 51-49 yes.

 

[strikeforce]

the question I have is; why are we finding out now in court that the company overstated cost outs? If you Read Sharon Levins (twu bankruptcy lawyer) opening statement, she made very good arguments. why weren't these points enforced by the TWU Interntaional in negotiations and in the press?
we find out after the vote, oh I get it, if we voted yes, this would be a mute point!

excellent question, Chuck!

And, wasn't Sharon Levine at negotiations too?

Didn't Jim Little say "he had the BEST team" assembled for negotiations? So, why didn't Thomas Roth catch this $41M cost overture in so-called "negotiations". Why are WE hearing about it now?? This is just another example of WHY the TWU has to go!

 

[Shafted]

excellent question, Chuck!

And, wasn't Sharon Levine at negotiations too?

Didn't Jim Little say "he had the BEST team" assembled for negotiations? So, why didn't Thomas Roth catch this $41M cost overture in so-called "negotiations". Why are WE hearing about it now?? This is just another example of WHY the TWU has to go!

I bet Jim Little and his boys were suposed to get a cut out of that $41M. Thats why it was not discovered(aka: overlooked).

 

[Shafted]

excellent question, Chuck!

And, wasn't Sharon Levine at negotiations too?

Didn't Jim Little say "he had the BEST team" assembled for negotiations? So, why didn't Thomas Roth catch this $41M cost overture in so-called "negotiations". Why are WE hearing about it now?? This is just another example of WHY the TWU has to go!

I bet Jim Little and his boys were suposed to get a cut out of that $41M. Thats why it was not discovered(aka: overlooked).