2cylinderdriver

The Union has posted the actual side letter on the inverse STV issue. Interestingly it is NOT signed by BC, just as he announced during the hub turn meeting I was at. Why ?

Here is the crux of why I think the 4 MEC guys voted against the addition of this letter to the LOA:

"However, we will agree to this change only if this is the only modification the parties agree to make to the LOA. If this is an acceptable approach, please accept this as the Company's written commitment that the language in the HKG/CDG FDA Letter of Agreement will be considered modified accordingly."

This letter basically says that we will not seek further changes to the LOA, so if it fails to pass I think they can and will throw this back in our face. The Union should have had Management send a letter to confirm intent on the STV since it was talked about in great detail during "negotiations" and was just a matter of clarification. Now we have signed off, well not yet, on not changing the LOA terms. Maybe Bob is doing us a favor by not signing this POS until we see what happens.

I voted NO, on day one, but after attending the meeting in the hub I have to say I am considering a change in my vote. I was totally put off by BC, he needs to move on, however, both he and Dave made some valid points.

The only reason I can think of voting yes is the simple fact of getting this deal done and not having to put out negotiating dollars in 2010 to just get back to where this LOA starts us at today because we ALL know this will happen either under the LOA or under the current CBA. The entire LOA from STV to "scope" protection is a load of BS. I am astonished by the hard sell the Union is putting on this deal, it makes me think there is either more on the table than we know or it has become personal for some other reason with our leadership.

As everyone else has said, you NEED to Vote !