Whilst I don't disagree with your point about selfish greed, all the chest beating rhetoric in the world about underpaid FOs doesn't escape the fact that the company rejected the EAA proposal as being too costly. It was never going to happen. I can see why the EAA pilot council would want to make this about Sunstate considering they're now almost two years into an EBA negotiation with nothing to show.
The Sunstate proposal gives a baseline of what the company finds acceptable. There's nothing to say the end result won't lie somewhere between the two proposals if this gets voted down. What you can be assured of is you won't get anything the company doesn't agree to, no matter how many times you ask. History has proven that.
Whilst the new FO pay is terrible on both proposals I would suggest the removal of the bond is a fairly significant saving for those who do move on within the 3 years.
I'd be more concerned about the lifestyle aspects of the agreement. I wonder if the company's decision to withdraw their claim about removing work rules from the EBA was a neat strategy to take lifestyle and rostering issues off the table altogether.