Yes
TWU Screw is about to be implemented
- Thread starter TWU informer
- Start date
Yes
Rather than play 20 questions, why don't you just look on the Local 513 website, they've posted a copy for Stores & M&R.
http://www.twulocal513.org/docs/signedresults.pdf
So did you or didn't you get a copy, or are you just playing your usual games?
Why didnt you just post the link from the beginning?
Who is playing games here?
I said the only place I saw where 108 votes were thrown out was on this blog.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
SPEAKING OF PLAYING GAMES
Not that I would have a reason to not trust James C. Little or the TWU, but the PDF document properties of the voting results that you have linked us all to shows that it was saved as a "No Security" PDF file and was creted on 8/21/2012
These means that this PDF Document could have been edited. And this Document was created on 8/21/2012 not 8/07/2012 or 8/08/2012
NOTE: The "CHANGING DOCUMENT - ALLOWED
If you doubt what I am telling then simple open the PDF right click on the document and select "properties" and then the "security" tab.
After all the previous comments from the AMFA diehards questioning the vote NO results, why didn't you just post the certified results and put the issue to rest? Did you post it on your Local 562 website? I doubt it.
#49
TWU informer
Posted Today, 01:30 PM
Veteran[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][indent=4.375]
[background=rgb(242, 242, 242)]
Realityck, on 09 September 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]
Rather than play 20 questions, why don't you just look on the Local 513 website, they've posted a copy for Stores & M&R.
http://www.twulocal5...gnedresults.pdf
So did you or didn't you get a copy, or are you just playing your usual games?[/background]
SPEAKING OF PLAYING GAMES
Not that I would have a reason to not trust James C. Little or the TWU, but the PDF document properties shows that you linked to shows that is saved as a "No Security" PDF file.
These means that this PDF Document could have been edited.
I sure hope you don'y really believe your own BS.
[/background][/indent]
Posted Today, 01:30 PM
Veteran
[background=rgb(242, 242, 242)]
Realityck, on 09 September 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Rather than play 20 questions, why don't you just look on the Local 513 website, they've posted a copy for Stores & M&R.
http://www.twulocal5...gnedresults.pdf
So did you or didn't you get a copy, or are you just playing your usual games?[/background]
SPEAKING OF PLAYING GAMES
Not that I would have a reason to not trust James C. Little or the TWU, but the PDF document properties shows that you linked to shows that is saved as a "No Security" PDF file.
These means that this PDF Document could have been edited.
I sure hope you don'y really believe your own BS.
[/background][/indent]
Why didnt you?
I posted the results back on August 8th, they are still on the website-
http://www.twu562.org/
For my members that was sufficient, what they and we wanted, and did not get, was the full package that has the breakdown of how each Local voted, something that only recently started being withheld.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
SPEAKING OF PLAYING GAMES
Not that I would have a reason to not trust James C. Little or the TWU, but the PDF document properties of the voting results that you have linked us all to shows that it was saved as a "No Security" PDF file and was creted on 8/21/2012
These means that this PDF Document could have been edited. And this Document was created on 8/21/2012 not 8/07/2012 or 8/08/2012
NOTE: The "CHANGING DOCUMENT - ALLOWED
If you doubt what I am telling then simple open the PDF right click on the document and select "properties" and then the "security" tab.
Please show us a link to voting results that were created on 8/08/2012 and have security that restricts changing the PDF document.
Again, not that anyone would have a reason to suspect the TWU or James C Little would do something under handed or anything.
If you would like for me to prove my concerns, I will modify this PDF document, and it will show the T/A was rejected and I will repost it, but I would prefer that you understand my point without going to that extreme.
Basically means the A319 being an airbus will have a crappy interior so the CFp crew which is being farmed out will go to a domestic mro. The 767 will be done at an intl city say exe,lhr,scl etc etc
In other words OUTSOURCED just like the A319.
Everyone is looking at this all wrong as soon as those planes land here in the us write the crap out of it do you job and look for things. Eventually after numerous Mel's and Nefs the company will say wtf is going on ate we getting our monies worth? The minute I go out to an aircraft that had had an a check done over seas I will look for things and write them up. If its a serious issue I will call the FAA .
Yea like you are going to do that. Give away all the pay and benefits then fight for the work.
