More than adequate

Bob Owens

Sep 9, 2002
In Jim Littles recent corespondance with the company he admits that the concessions we gave were more than adequate.

The question is why did he insist that we give more than adequate? All through the so called negotiations he claimed that the numbers were essential, that they had to be met, could not be deviated from, but now he admits that they were more than adequate. Again why did we have to give concessions that were more than adequate? Isnt that what we said all along? Shouldnt he have insisted that the concessions be just enough and not give more than adequate? In other words we gave back more then we should have and we can thank Jim Little, who still gets his $140,000+ other perks, benifits, holidays etc. Hey it didnt hit his pocket so I guess that he felt he could be generous with other peoples money, OURS! What does he care? We cant vote him out because we did not vote him in! Hell we dont even have the right to reject more than adequate concessions! He can impose any agreement he sees fit regardless of what our Constitution says!

Hey Jim, why did we give more than adequate concessions, was it so that we could claim to be Industry Leading?