Originally Posted by
Nevets
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying the same thing and calling it rationalizations for management getting a raise. You call them explanations. We only disagree in what we are naming it.
Someone said they got 73%?pay raises. That's is 100% correct. You didn't like it because they didn't pick your arbitrary date rather than their arbitrary date. In the end it's still a raise either way. And that alone would still make that person's point valid even if you disagree that we shouldn't get raises solely because management got raises.
I take back what I said in regards to providing capital. I was wrong and made bad assumptions. I believe you were speaking in a broader sense and not to this management.
Lastly, you brought up that management takes work home. I didn't disagree but I do argue with it as an excuse of why management gets raises and asks labor for concessions as being ok. To me it doesn't matter if they take their work home. If they get raises, they shouldn't ask for concessions. I can turn the argument around to you and say that if you don't want to take work home and have labor complain about your raises when you are asking for concessions of them, then don't become management.
Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree.
The term 'rationalization' is bothersome because it gives the impression that I agree with the information I am attempting to explain, such as concessions, which I do not.
This is retorical, however, but as far as the 73% is concerned let me ask you this. If BH was paid the same thing in 2010 and 2012, but still took the pay cut for 2011, would you still call it a pay raise? Yes, I know that it is 'technically speaking', but in reality, would he have received a raise over the 2 year period? If you make 50 bucks an hour, get a $5 cut in pay this year and a $5 raise in pay next year, have you actually gotten a raise? I would argue that you had not, in fact, gotten a raise.
I agree completely with your sentence about 'if they get raises thy shouldn't ask for concessions" because I, personally, would never do it that way. I did, however, attempt to explain, not rationalize because I don't support it, the reason for them asking for concessions. The biggest point I have attempted to make is that your/our value, as professional pilots, is independent of anything else, and that our compensation should be based on our value, nithing else, and surely not on what happens with management or other labor groups. If we use the argument 'we should get it because they got it" then they will turn that around on us the next time they take pay cuts and say 'well we took one so you should too'. It is irrelevant to our worth as pilots.
On a final not, I would agree that we agree on much more than we disagree on. I want this industry and company to be better when we leave it than it was when we found it.