With SIA now having played the IAC card, many people who bet their farm on the believe that this matter will not be brought forward to IAC (and hence full back-pay vs 6 months) by voting NO to the "package" on 2/1/01 will be less sure now.
Many in fact has suddenly lost their balls and gave excuses like : the REJECTED package not being explained fully to ALL the members prior to voting; The proxy system has failed them, they ACTUALLY wanted the (rejected) package but the person(s) whom they entrusted their vote(s) to in the last EGM has gone the other way, etc.
Did all those loud and emotional words spoken at the last EGM suddenly became hot air ? Are we now going to show the world how we can (un)skillfully backtrack on the overwhelming 92% majority decision reached a little over 2 months ago and gracefully swallow the "package" ?
I sincerely hope not, else it will make us look like a bunch of immature children. Not to mention the future ramifications that this backtrack will bring.
One last point (probably overlooked by Tosh26), from the latest "From The SVP's Desk" and I quote ".... we (SIA) could not enter into any further negotiations with the Association.... it (SIA) had conceded everything it could possibly could, for the sake of reaching an agreement, and to enter into further negotiations with the Union would have meant there was more that could be given. That would have demonstrated bad faith on the Company's part in the earlier negotiations....". My question is this : If SIA (and its negotiators) were negotating on "good" faith, why on earth did SIA increases its initial offer of a raise of S$150 (Captain) and S$75 (FO) from the on set of the CA negotiation ?
Remember this : together we stand; Divided, we will rue this day in decades to come.