Mechanics YES vote Guarantees!

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
Here is one of the guaratees that the YES vote will provide.

1)It guarantees that you will be earning les six years from now than you are presently.

The agreement call for a 17.5% cut with 5-1.5% increases till 2009. So in 2009 our pay will be 10% lower than it is today without taking into account inflation which has averaged 3%/yr for the last thirty years. So six years from now our salary will likely be 28% less than it is now. Guaranteed.

But what about profit sharing?

Profit sharing only kicks in after $500 million. We are not getting 15% profit sharing. 15% of the profits above $500 million are going into the fund to be distributed among ALL employees. In order for us to get back what we are giving up the company would have to have an annual profit of $27 billion. Thats more than the companys entire combined profits since it was founded.

But what about the stock options?

Options are not a gift. Options are the option to buy stocks at a set price that is independant of the market. In other words if the excercise price is set at $5, you can excersice that option at that price even if its market value is $20 or 2 cents. So the option only has value if the current market price is above the option price.In order to buy these stocks you first must have money though. Normally the options have a 10 year period in which to be excercised. This allows the recipient more time to allow it to gain in value without tieing up his money. He can wait till he feels it is at max value, pay the option price and resell it at current market value for a guaranteed return as long as it has gone up in value during that period. If it does not go up in value he loses nothing. So while the options are a better deal than profit sharing the cost for getting the opportunity to be in the plan is too excessive, the amount of options are limited making it is most unlikely that the $20,000 annual concession that is required will ever be earned back.
 

FA Mikey

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
4,421
301
miami
goldwatermiller08.com
A yes vote offers a chance to live to fight another day.

A yes vote gives us the chance to reclaim what we give up now, later.

A yes vote means jobs to the greatest number of our fellow employees.

A yes vote preserves basic quaility of life. Would you work for AA with out a CBA? Where they dictate work rules and pay as they see fit. In BK you will have the chance to see exactly what thats like.



Voting no means you will be making less money. That you may loss your entire CBA. That seniority and all other work rules are gone. Layoffs could be done on a station by station basis not System seniority. Everything will be up to a judge, who''s only job is to preserve the company and pay creditors.
 
OP
B

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
----------------
On 4/3/2003 11:42:41 AM FA Mikey wrote:

A yes vote offers a chance to live to fight another day.

So does a NO vote, but a YES vote means that that day cant come until 2009 vs. 2004.

A yes vote gives us the chance to reclaim what we give up now, later.

If you vote yes you are guaranteed to be giving up $100,000 in wages. there is no way that you will ever recover those losses never mind the fact that we are already $150,000 behind the 8-ball. Later will be 2009 or maybe 2010 ,or 2011, the airlines have a history of delaying negotiations when it loks like they will be giving raises.

A yes vote means jobs to the greatest number of our fellow employees.

How is that? There are no guarantees that once these agreements are made that the company will not invoke force majuere and layoff as they please.In fact a yes vote guarantees nothing except that we will be making less six years from now than we are now.

A yes vote preserves basic quaility of life. Would you work for AA with out a CBA? Where they dictate work rules and pay as they see fit. In BK you will have the chance to see exactly what thats like.

Well I have not seen the APFAs agreement but this thread was adressed to mechanics. From what I see there is very little benifit left from our CBA. Like a spoiled brat at Christmas, the company pretty much got everything it wanted. There are no guarantees that the Judge will void the contracts in BK. Most of the time he does not, rather he encourages them to come to mutually agreeable terms. In those cases where he did the circumstances were quite different, these demands, especially six years, are unreasonable and I'm willing to believe that any reasonable person would agree that six years is unreasonable.



Voting no means you will be making less money. That you may loss your entire CBA. That seniority and all other work rules are gone. Layoffs could be done on a station by station basis not System seniority. Everything will be up to a judge, who's only job is to
preserve the company and pay creditors.


Mikey, you must be getting desperate to lie like this. Voting YES means we will be making less money without the opportunity for relief for at least six years. Voting NO means that we will keep our contract and make our case to the Judge that we are willing to help the company though this temporary crisis but the company's demands are unreasonable. The judges job is not to preserve the company at any cost. The Judges job also must take into consideration that everyone is treated equitably. He must also consider the repercussions that the onerous conditions placed upon workers may have to the value of the creditors assets. The fact remains even despite these hard times, if the mechanics or the pilots went on strike, the company could not replace the workers fast enough to stave off liquidation. The fixed costs are too high and even in C-11 there would not be sufficient relief. Prior to this downturn the shortage of mechanics was reaching a critical condition. Industry insiders recognize that this shortage will likely return and be much more severe as the Viet Nam vets start to retire in large numbers. That is why the company wants to be able to place mechanics in the shops and why our head count and layoffs remain comparatively low. Instead of laying off the company simply eliminated OT. OT as needed is more cost effective than maintaining a higher head count, the benifits costs are paid and time paid for is better utilized. When the Presidents offered to allow the company to lay off to meet their goal of $310, the company refused the offer.

Any more fear based lies to offer Mikey?
----------------​