O'l Shep, I think it's safe to assume the FAAA is not aligned with it's members when they emphatically endorse a yes vote which ends up getting voted down by 9 out of 10 members. Even 6 out of 10 would get you thinking but 9 out of 10 hmmm. For a union to recommend a YES vote you'd expect at leat 55% of it's members to be thinking the same. Why did the FAAA not spend more time finding out what we it's members wanted rather than shoving what the company wanted down our throats.
My guess is this ... Think of your current EBA as long haul Flt CEBA, your new EBA as destination NEBA and Workchoices as a change in climate or weather front. CEBA's flight plan has overall not been too turbulent. The Captain anticipates an unconfirmed windshear at NEBA and broadcasts. The broadcast however criticises part of the original flight plan which has served his crew up until that point, by referring to it as "utter stupidity":
1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2.5 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.3 3.3.1iv 3.3.3a 3.6.2 3.9.4e.i 3.9.6 3.9.7 3.13 3.13.1 3.15h 3.16.2 2nd 3.17 3.18.1 3.18.2c 3.19 4.2.4a 4.2.10 5.4c are all part of CEBA. (His crew aren't aware of the contradiction.)
He suggests a go around to the crew which means they have to fly back into the climate through which he had already safely navigated. Any changes to the weather front are unknown. Without knowing all the fors and againsts, the crew democratically decide that CEBA is the safer option.
My guess as an outsider is the FAAA recommended a Yes vote for a number of reasons but one of the reasons is that they are the climate specialists. Outsiders only have limited public access to information over the net, but they know what's happening to FA's contractwise in all airlines. They know more than us outsiders. But as union members you have access to the inside information, the best case outcomes having regard to the climate forecast.