High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Enough talk, lets vote....
Why I Voted Yes
- Thread starter Strake
- Start date
- Status
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Not until after next week!
The plan to allow more voting time is going to backfire.
Flying low
Veteran
- Jul 19, 2011
- 629
- 232
Vote yes, vote no, Vote yes, vote no, Vote yes, vote no, Vote yes, vote no,
where it stops no one will know. Keep voting and keep 'em guessing....
Bloodhound
Member
- Jan 25, 2012
- 33
- 30
How on Earth anyone can purposely and willingly allow your salary to remain stagnant, and more benefits to be taken away for a period of probably 17 years (2020 minus 2003....if this passes, a new contract probably won't be reached til 2020...LOVE the Railway Labor Act) by voting yes is beyond me.
Wait, are you stating a fact about Delta or AA?Seems that we don't agree on any concessions and the TWU and AA do anything they want anyway. Looks like we're non- union also.
Just my, "back of the envelope," WAG:
IMHO: The majority of the non-voters were actually No-Voters that either:
1) contractually knew their jobs were gone; or,
2) were not inclined to vote given that they were not inclined to follow the job in a furlough.
If the No-Voters want to win this vote: you have to get those that failed to vote, to get out and vote NO.
The Yes-Voters need to understand that given the story that AA failed to find enough OH capacity in the OSV; why would AMR continue to ask for contractual flexibility that AMR is unable to exercise?
Could it be that AMR is seeking the flexibility to sell overhaul, with contracts in place that allow the OSV to implement their programs while the TWU is locked into a 6 year contract?
Did not AMR sign a multi-year deal with SABRE, above the actual market price for IT infrastructure and management and significantly above the then market rates: only to use those binding contracts as rationale for later outsourcing the SABRE Function, using the AMR-SABRE long term contract as a means of pumping up the value of another corporation buying SABRE from AMR and justifying the sell?
In the outside world, lifting the value of a wholly owned enterprise, only to spin it off at a later date is called: "Pump It To Dump It."
IMHO: The majority of the non-voters were actually No-Voters that either:
1) contractually knew their jobs were gone; or,
2) were not inclined to vote given that they were not inclined to follow the job in a furlough.
If the No-Voters want to win this vote: you have to get those that failed to vote, to get out and vote NO.
The Yes-Voters need to understand that given the story that AA failed to find enough OH capacity in the OSV; why would AMR continue to ask for contractual flexibility that AMR is unable to exercise?
Could it be that AMR is seeking the flexibility to sell overhaul, with contracts in place that allow the OSV to implement their programs while the TWU is locked into a 6 year contract?
Did not AMR sign a multi-year deal with SABRE, above the actual market price for IT infrastructure and management and significantly above the then market rates: only to use those binding contracts as rationale for later outsourcing the SABRE Function, using the AMR-SABRE long term contract as a means of pumping up the value of another corporation buying SABRE from AMR and justifying the sell?
In the outside world, lifting the value of a wholly owned enterprise, only to spin it off at a later date is called: "Pump It To Dump It."
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Couldn't agree more!
And I hope each and every member take the EXTRA time out to read the FULL TEXT....
Don't just make a decision on the union's Cliff'sNotes!
enough already
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2003
- 659
- 249
Ad in the Tulsa World yesterday:
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
I believe burchette, hewitt, gless, videtich, drummond, etc. can answer this question.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Hey Ken, have you polled your station to see how many may want to take the funds and go through Early out or Stand in Stead? I took the liberty to look at your stations seniorty list in SAN and out of 27 mechanics it looks like 9 or so have over 25yrs with the company. Have you talked to any of your older folks about what their options are if they vote YES? If you clear a few off the top you may be able to save some of your less senior mechanics there in SAN and save the profession....Keep us updated on your progress, your profession is counting on you!
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Over 10,000 hits 
Over 10,000 hits
hss,
I can tell that you are a twu worshipper. If this contract passes, when the guys complain, you will say; "You voted for it!" If it doesn't pass, and the abrogation takes place, you will say" It's worse now than it would have been!"
Of course, you and the twu have no notion of how it's going to be, because all the i's aren't dotted, and the t's aren't crossed on the proposed contract....
But with your seniority, you really don't care either way, do you?
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
Funny you mention this hss tool.
There are people with at least 25 years with the company but unlike you none of us, ( I've got 26 years), are voting yes because it benefits us personally. We are voting no because THAT benefits all of us. Voting yes harms not only everyone at AA but the rest of the industry.
The "less senior mechanics" are already looking for other jobs because they too are voting no and they understand what you don't and never will understand... you do not give up pay and benefits to save jobs because those sacrifices never work.
By the way thanks for acknowledging that "your profession is counting on you!". I do what I can by stating the truth and performing my responsibilities to the best of my abilities. I will do what I can to promote my profession and not harm it.
Vote NO!
- Status
