Local 514 vote yes rally

[odie01]

Local 567 AFW posts Vote NO Video's , No doubt about it AFW's a NO

http://www.twu567.org/

 

[amtide]

AA set up a trap, with the help of the TWU International, put for bait ‘jobs jobs’ attached to a string. They are waiting for us to get in the trap to pull the string, give you nothing, close the cage and catch us for six years.

Pilots and Flight Attendants don’t even look that way, they are not to playing that game.

People you have to understand there is no protection once they have us in the trap they can do whatever they want. I’m not pushing for the Usair deal but they have in writing the protection of no furloughs for two years this AA offer do not have protection at all. VOTE NO

 

[odie01]

Subject: Before you vote....Watch what the Local Presidents Have to say Locals 561, 562, 564 and 565......


Supported by 563 & 567. Please FWD and FWD and FWD



Date: Monday, May 7, 2012, 4:42 PM


The local Presidents have something to say and in order to make the best decision possible please watch what the people sitting at the table during negotiations have to say about this deal. There are 2 parts to this video going over each topic. It is all our responsibility to inform each member that these videos exist and to get our co workers informed and prepped before the vote even if we have to burn the videos on disk and play on the TV in the break rooms. It is a scary time for many and the company is going to use that against you but we are here to shine a light and deepen your knowledge of what is going on so that you can make the best decision you can for you and your family. Good Luck Brothers and Sisters. Remember a slap across the face by a deck of playing cards hurts way more than getting slapped with a single card. That shows you the true power of sticking together. In Solidarity and good Luck.


Kenny Powell


You tube Channel with all videos > click here


Local presidents video (PART 1 of 2) > click here


Local presidents video (PART 2 of 2) > click here








This message was sent to you because you subscribed to the TWU Local 567 Email List at TWU Local 567, 2050 Golden Triangle Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76177

 

[enough already]

It's amazing to see these guys I work with wringing their hands and spreading the gloom and doom that they're being told by our leadership (loosely used term) that's going to happen if the Yes doesn't prevail.

 

[Buck]

Oklahoma TWU members:

We reviewed the Early Out Incentive Allowance you submitted and based on that alone, it appears individuals taking this option would be preventing an involuntary furlough, in which case we would allow UI benefits based upon those facts. This is not a determination, as notice will go to the employer once a claim is filed and evidence from both the claimant and employer would be examined at that time.

There is also the issue of severance pay, which could be deducted from UI benefits during the week in which it is paid. The claimants will need to report the receipt of severance pay.

John Scott Chief of Benefits 405-557-7228

 

[Flying low]

AA set up a trap, with the help of the TWU International, put for bait ‘jobs jobs’ attached to a string. They are waiting for us to get in the trap to pull the string, give you nothing, close the cage and catch us for six years.

Pilots and Flight Attendants don’t even look that way, they are not to playing that game.

People you have to understand there is no protection once they have us in the trap they can do whatever they want. I’m not pushing for the Usair deal but they have in writing the protection of no furloughs for two years this AA offer do not have protection at all. VOTE NO

Just a "promise". Since we don't have a "full text contract" with them that we can read, it's not a sure thing.

 

[Buck]

Just a "promise". Since we don't have a "full text contract" with them that we can read, it's not a sure thing.

Isn't there a full text on jet net on restructuring under work group specific?

 

[Overspeed]

It is a court document from the appeal in IBT/Frontier Airlines case!!

Just giving useful information!! What do you bring??

Useful if you actually read and comprehend it. This is what happens when people who aren’t lawyers try to interpret judicial opinions. The opinion you link to is a District Court decision overruling the Bankruptcy Court. Part B, which you base your opinion on, describes the Bankruptcy court decision which was overruled. If you read the first part of the decision it specifically states that the reason the Bankruptcy Court decision was overruled was because it relied on proposals made after the beginning of the hearings on the motion to reject. That is the part that is quoted by our lawyer in her opinion where she states that the LBO cannot be considered by the Court because it was a proposal made after the beginning of the hearings.

The Court does not impose anything. It simply accepts or rejects based on the Company’s representation of what it intends to impose. The Company has stated in every proceeding that it intends to impose the “Ask” and if the contract is rejected that is what will be imposed. If you think this isn’t the correct account of the law find a lawyer who will sign his name to a contrary opinion.

 

[Harold Nads]

The Court does not impose anything. It simply accepts or rejects based on the Company’s representation of what it intends to impose. The Company has stated in every proceeding that it intends to impose the “Ask” and if the contract is rejected that is what will be imposed.

If the "ASK" is what the company actually needs to exit BK, what is the LBO for? If the company has already agreed to the LBO, and agree that it is sufficient for a successful emergence from BK, anything less imposed on the workers would be considered unnecessary, unfair, and punitive out of spite. This is the misguided, inept leadership style that has destroyed this company.

 

[Flying low]

Isn't there a full text on jet net on restructuring under work group specific?

Responded to US AIR promising 2 year NO FURLOUGH.

 

[Overspeed]

If the "ASK" is what the company actually needs to exit BK, what is the LBO for? If the company has already agreed to the LBO, and agree that it is sufficient for a successful emergence from BK, anything less imposed on the workers would be considered unnecessary, unfair, and punitive out of spite. This is the misguided, inept leadership style that has destroyed this company.

That's easy, both reach the goal of shaving ~$210M off M&R's total costs. The "ask" is the Company plan and the LBO is a combination of items the Union wanted (not all of them) and the Company (not all of them). The "ask" may seem punitive to you and me however it is the quick and dirty way of achieving their goal of cutting ~$210M in costs.

The court will not view the 3/22 term sheet as punitive because it is another way to cut costs. AA's attorneys are saying it is the (in their opinion) sure fire way to cut out 20% of costs in M&R and the Wall Street types on the creditors committee agree with that method.

 

[Birdman]

That's easy, both reach the goal of shaving ~$210M off M&R's total costs.

Have you seen the cost outs on both?

 

[Bob Owens]

It's amazing to see these guys I work with wringing their hands and spreading the gloom and doom that they're being told by our leadership (loosely used term) that's going to happen if the Yes doesn't prevail.

They should be telling you what happens if it does pass,
System protection gone, Art Luby told us not to push for better Scope back in 2001 because System Protection is clear and enforceable, most SCOP language can be muddied up in arbitartion, now we are being told to vote YES and give it up.

 

[Bob Owens]

The Company has stated in every proceeding that it intends to impose the “Ask” and if the contract is rejected that is what will be imposed. If you think this isn’t the correct account of the law find a lawyer who will sign his name to a contrary opinion.

Yes and the ASK had the 1.5% increases, 401k match, and profit sharing. Some are running around saying that if its imposed they would not be there because the ASK said those things were contingient upon ratification, well if that were the case then the savings would be above and beyond the 20% and would therefore be inequitable and punitive.

Like I said before we have lots of reasons for rejecting the deal that others who came before us did not have. If we tap out we are stuck at the very bottom for another six years, our pay in 2018 would be less than what UAL tops out at now.

 

[Overspeed]

They should be telling you what happens if it does pass,
System protection gone, Art Luby told us not to push for better Scope back in 2001 because System Protection is clear and enforceable, most SCOP language can be muddied up in arbitartion, now we are being told to vote YES and give it up.

Bob, you say ASM cap protects jobs, now its system protection. You are on the double talk train.

Both the term sheet and the LBO say system protection is gone. There is a savings attributed to that is there not? $12,500 not having to be paid due to bumping saves a lot of money when you outsourcing 4,300 jobs. Seriously Bob, we are in the BK that was a threat, a sham, and plain not right but guess what, we are in the sh#t now.

And if Luby were here he would slam you on that lie. How dare you invoke the name of a person that helped write contract language that kept you working all this time?A CBA that are systematically destroying with your lies and half truths. You are truly pathetic.