Below the line all those who vote No expect a better offer, those who vote yes don't.
All the rest is just noise.
Arguments for a No only because of the umbrella argument are not justified. All what could happen is the loss of something you guys reject to receive in the first place. In other words, IA would just bring us back to where we are now.
The rejection two years ago is costing me about 10 000 USD per year, CN on B scale. I don't know the figure for other contracts and ranks, but we are all losing money, that is for sure.
How likely is it that the company gives in to our demands this time ? That, and only that, is the question.
Let's remember for a moment all the heated arguments 2 years ago. I was basically crucified in here, most of you thought the company will come back with a better offer. Now we get an offer that is even lower, plus the lost income of the years without agreement. Why would that be a sign for IA working?
You guys are mixing up measurements that hurt and those that change behaviour. It is pointless to speculate what the company hurts and how much that would be as long as it doesn't produce a better offer.
What I find remarkable is that it seems common opinion in here that the company basically is evil and wants to destroy us, in a nutshell. However, at the same time you believe the company will improve the last offer. After again today very clearly publicly announcing they won't, see the last message from the GMA. In other words, you expect the company to publicly declare defeat. You must understand this will never happen. Hell will freeze over first.
Voting no is easy. Don't go the easy way, sit down with a calculator and look at the numbers. The offer is better than what we have now, it would be foolish (again) to reject it.