Points to Ponder

TWU informer

Veteran
Nov 4, 2003
7,550
3,767
Your only Union leverage left as this point is that NO plan of Reorganization has ever been approved by a Bankruptcy Court without consensual agreements from Unions on the property. You must force negotiations to move closer to the emergence plan deadline to succeed.

Voting NO will require negotiations to continue with a deadline for AA to get a plan together.

AS the deadline nears AA will have to move closer to the Unions demand or no plan to emerge will be approved because consensual agreements with the Unions must be in place before judge will approve a plan of reorganization.

Removing this leverage now is the worst thing a Union person could do.

The TWU is attempting to use unfounded fear to get you to vote to remove the only leverage we have left.

The reason the TWU is doing this is to attempt to save jobs and dues payers.

If you are willing to sellout the future of the profession, then vote YES.

If you are willing to take a stand and stop the bleeding this profession has suffered then vote NO.

AA is not even asking to cancel your contract, they are asking to modify your contract to reduce cost.

If the contract were to be cancelled then job actions could take place and the company could not obtain injunctions to stop job actions.

If the contract were to be cancelled then there would be NO closed shop and the TWU would suffer loss of dues income.

Your contract will NOT be cancelled, it will be modified and negotiations must resume.

Neither AA or the TWU will seek complete cancellation of your contract.

TWU is the only Union "tapping" out before the fight even begins.

AA Pilots and F/A's are not in any hurry to sellout their members like the TWU is.

AA Pilots and F/S's are basically sitting and whittling sticks while the TWU is running around like a chicken without a head.

The TWU is only doing this to save some jobs and cannot even give you an exact number being saved.

The Outsource Language will allow AA to reduce headcount anyway over the six agreement period. No jobs are really being saved at all.

In 1995 we gave them 25% SRP's and 6 1/2% over 6 years in pay raises to save jobs and turn this company around.

In 2003 we gave 17.5% paycut, Holidays, Vacation, and Sick time to turn this company around.

2012....17 years later, you are being asked to give again.

We cannot save AA from itself with concessions. This has been proven over 17 years.

Now is the time to take a stand and stop the concessions for jobs that does nothing to secure your overall future.

How many times must you allow the TWU to use FEAR to destroy your own future and job to save an imaginary headcount that turns out to be untrue?


VOTE NO, TAKE A STAND, DO NOT BEND TO TWU FEAR!!!
 
Now please limit this thread to one sentence lines of points to ponder.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND ABIDE
 
For five years the TWU blasted AMFA for attempting to fight off the exact things that are happening at AA today.

Only today the TWU is using FEAR to get the membership to accept even worse than what was happening at those Carriers.
 
Copy and Paste of these points and distributed via a handout at the Spirit Event Center this Saturday in Tulsa would be an admirable thing for a real Union Man to do.
 
getting layed off under both plans I GOT MINE

you understand informer dont ya
 
Way to fight AMFA at UAL!

According to AMFA National Director O.V. Delle-Femine, "Our members accepted this agreement through democratic voting. Our choice was to consent to concessions from the company or risk even worse terms imposed by the bankruptcy judge, who has shown a proclivity to agree to company demands. The bankruptcy laws, the court system and federal agencies like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation are strongly biased in favor of the large airline corporations. Thanks to Congress, these laws show little concern for average workers."
 
Now please limit this thread to one sentence lines of points to ponder.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND ABIDE
<_< ----- Why infor, ain't you the one who kept bashing those who voted "NO" in 2003?----- Isn't it just a little hypocritical to be advocating a "NO" vote now?