I don't get your post. I think you're asking why people feel that we're entitled to get the cost of living covered as an automatic matter, or maybe you're taking to task people that talk about restoration (in an industry that no longer exists) plus inflation. I suppose everyone struggles, in every industry, to have pay increases that exceed increases in the cost of living. From what I can tell, labor (not just organized labor) is losing the fight. This is a universal problem.

Which doesn't mean we should accept it.

I personally would have liked to see us retain the profit-sharing and some sort of inflation adjustment as part of this TA. Didn't happen.

But is that a reason to vote against?

The problem when looking at inflation, is that it significantly reduces the value of the TA in real dollar terms. What I never see any "firm No's" admit, is that it also eats at our current wages. IOW, if the difference between the early (marginal) TA and the normal Section 6 track covers the full 3 years (quite likely), then the difference between the two tracks is about 20%. That's because, under the "normal" Section 6 track, every week/month/year that passes without another TA means an inflation hit, equal to the hit on the "early" track. After about 3 years, you're probably well below 90% of the real value of current wages under the "slow" track.

I'm not leaning yes on the TA based on section 3, but if I was, it wouldn't be based on the great rates. It would be based on the difference between marginal, and just plain awful.