I wouldn't be too worried about this rumor except for the fact that C12k started as a nearly identical rumor (and has been trumpeted as a success by all involved, so why wouldn't they go for a repeat?). 9/6/4/4 on its own isn't bad, but funded by significant PS givebacks is extremely underwhelming. I'd likely be a no vote in that case as status quo has little downside, with the potential for future raises after further negotiation. I'm not against "monetizing" profit-sharing by any means, but it needs to be at a decent "exchange rate," and on top of rate increases commensurate with a wildly profitable company.

The only thing that could turn me into a yes vote would be significant scope recapture, but I suspect the very opposite will hold true...rolling the ongoing violation into the TA with some language that suddenly finds them in compliance (for now). That, frankly, worries me a hell of a lot more than 9/6/4/4. The trend vector with our joint ventures has been going the wrong way for a long time, and the company has grown increasingly brazen at disregarding the protections in the contract.

Emailing my rep. A rumor is just a rumor, but a little preventative medicine never hurt.