When UA tried the Tumi TA, it was on the table that the MC considered pulling it back without a vote once they realized it was doomed. Could we potentially save a bunch of time by pulling ours on, say, Monday?

What gets us a legitimate deal sooner? Pull this now and get back to the table or let it run its course? What are the considerations as pertains to what's happening with the Teamsters at UPS? Are we going to miss another leverage point while we waste another few months declining this insult?

Way more questions than answers right now. Unnecessarily.

 

As far as I know, the only mechanisms that UA had of pulling their TA were voting it down or proposing a new TA in its stead. They delayed the vote, but they could not pull it.

 

We better not pull the TA.

Let’s show the company we mean business and vote this thing down with record no votes.

 

This. I'd like a 99% no vote, but I am realistic. I'll settle for 80%. It needs to be a resounding "no" if we are going to be able to fix this mess.

 

While I patiently await my opportunity to fervently express my disdain for this TA by depressing my left mouse button with the searing, white-hot intensity of a thousand burning suns, I do not do so under the pretense that the company will in any way be alarmed or swayed. I am more interested in sending a resounding message back to the MEC and NC that "listened to our complaints and our surveys". The company will, in my mind, approach this nearly the exact same way were we to go back to the table. I merely just want a different group of people there that do a better job of "listening to our complaints/surveys" and maybe even, perchance, possess a better overall reading comprehension (for binding legal language, you know, because it's a legal contract we're drawing up here). These skills, coupled with a renewed vigor, a healthy set of vertebrae, and a keen desire to use those vertebrae for a healthy negotiation, will ultimately send a message to the company where it counts. Don't get me wrong, I think voting NO in historic numbers is a message for all involved, but this is what I see as the true purpose of the NO vote.

With regard to the OP's original premise, I agree with the sentiment of others insofar as having this thing summarily rejected is much more effective at sending a message here than anything else. I don't know if there's any means for withdrawing the TA to expedite this whole process, but I don't know that I would want to forego an opportunity to remit a hearty and endearing FU right back at those who so delightfully sent one to me.

 

I don't disagree. I'm just spitballing with regard to what might might be the fastest way to start bailing water out of this sinking ship.

 

This! 17 days and counting. Let’s go for a record here

90+% NO! We should arrive so quickly at the NO threshold in the first 12 hours to send the message this TA is unacceptable on so many levels.

 

Measure your expectations. They only need 51% and after the re-education camps, er, roadshows 🙄 start they maybe able to spread enough FUD to convince people that this is their last best option.
It's really important that we counter the union messaging that the crewforce spoke and they responded. How they can say with a straight face that they delivered on their openers escapes me but they've all decided to March in lock step with that message.

Fact of the matter is they've been gravely concerned with all the company's positions.

• Their position on pensions
• the declining volumes
• the drive initiative

Your Negotiating Chair and your MEC heard them loud and clear. They then crafted a TA that would meet and serve those positions. They committed to bringing the messaging to the crew force through leading survey questions that obscured the end to OUR defined benefit plan in place of something inferior.

Don't believe it's inferior? Ask these questions

• Under the MBCBP who guarantees the AMOUNT of your benefit? 28.C.9.a
• Can a MBCBP have a 0% return ie can your cumulative returns are negative and what is the plans obligated investment credit? See 28.C.9.a
• Does the agreement require or guarantee a 6.5% return? 28.C.11
• Can the company amend the portfolio mix and can the association refuse? 28.C.11.d
• Which party pays for the fees to administrate the MBCBP?
• How does Military leave effect the 1000 hours annual required vesting period? 28.C.10

Several members of the MEC have commented that this is not a "sales job". Yet they only tout the benefits and minimize (or worse fail to mention) the downside risks, it makes it seem suspiciously like the marketing and disclaimers in a drug commercial. Ie This drug is great but some of you could die if you take it.

When they give you projections and models every last one of you better understand that those are best case numbers with no provision to evaluate the worst case

 

​​​​​​
Excellent post!

So true about many marketing campaigns - the Big print giveth, and the small print, at the bottom, taketh away.

Details matter - in every section of the CBA.

In Unity (for Everyone),
DLax

 

Just focus on voting it down and then voting out the MEC except Tony and the NC