![]() |
LOA 24-05 Officially failed
Membership Votes Down LOA 24-05 Market Based Cash Plan Implementation
Letter of Agreement 24-05 Implementation of the Cash Balance Plan (CBP) failed on a 71% to 29% vote with 73% participating. |
Originally Posted by UALinIAH
(Post 3859977)
Membership Votes Down LOA 24-05 Market Based Cash Plan Implementation
Letter of Agreement 24-05 Implementation of the Cash Balance Plan (CBP) failed on a 71% to 29% vote with 73% participating. |
Originally Posted by UALinIAH
(Post 3859977)
Membership Votes Down LOA 24-05 Market Based Cash Plan Implementation
Letter of Agreement 24-05 Implementation of the Cash Balance Plan (CBP) failed on a 71% to 29% vote with 73% participating. |
Tumi 2
Easy to complain, harder to build, create and implement. |
Glad this failed. The absolute cope of a sell job they were doing trying to push this turd onto everyone was pretty laughable.
They straight up knew this was awful compared to Delta's MBCBP, and their only rationalization was "we will fix it eventually". Is this the mindset we want them to approach our next UPA with? |
Glad it failed, but we really need to work on 73% only participating
|
Originally Posted by ClappedOut145
(Post 3859984)
Good. The reps who pushed this LOA now have their own Tumi 2.0 moment to face the music from their membership.
It wasn’t a totally unreasonable LOA. It would have started a tax sheltered program earlier than otherwise possible in exchange for starting it more conservatively than otherwise (likely) necessary. I didn’t think the tradeoff was worth it, but it wasn’t a crazy option to propose and let the membership weigh in. |
Originally Posted by Gooselives
(Post 3859979)
Recall reps that pushed this
|
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 3859999)
I get why the membership voted this down, but I can’t figure out why people are mad about it and calling for recalls.
It wasn’t a totally unreasonable LOA. It would have started a tax sheltered program earlier than otherwise possible in exchange for starting it more conservatively than otherwise (likely) necessary. I didn’t think the tradeoff was worth it, but it wasn’t a crazy option to propose and let the membership weigh in. |
Originally Posted by But seriously
(Post 3859999)
I get why the membership voted this down, but I can’t figure out why people are mad about it and calling for recalls.
It wasn’t a totally unreasonable LOA. It would have started a tax sheltered program earlier than otherwise possible in exchange for starting it more conservatively than otherwise (likely) necessary. I didn’t think the tradeoff was worth it, but it wasn’t a crazy option to propose and let the membership weigh in.
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 3860002)
It was bad, but agree they shouldn't be fired. They sold a turd, they look bad, now they can go back to the drawing board and give the membership what it wanted in the first place.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:09 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands