Originally Posted by
Denny Crane
Why would I expect them to exceed our rates? Because if the bar we set was so abysmally low, I would of thought that other unions, especially independent ones, would never have settled for less. Heck, they went years without achieving restoration. Why not continue that battle? If pattern bargaining is not alive and well, they should have been able to far exceed what we have and yet they cannot even equal it.
I believe I'm a reasonable man. On the one hand I want restoration just as much as you and any one of us does and on the other is the NMB. Where I differ from you (I think) is I believe the NMB (via the RLA) is the single biggest hurdle to reaching that goal in a reasonable amount of time. IMO, if others cannot exceed our hourly wage, it makes it even more difficult for us to achieve significant gains because of the route we have to take thru the NMB. Do you believe the NMB would allow us, with the highest hourly wage of the legacies, to strike if we do not get a 32 percent hike in pay on top of that?
Our company is doing phenomenally well and I do believe significant gains are to be had but they have been made much more difficult to achieve by the lack of gains on top of ours by unions at other passenger carriers.
Denny
Look. An unreasonable cut requires what would normally be considered an unreasonable gain in order to restore. The NMB should be smart enough to know that the cuts we took were not reasonable and that this is therefore not a "normal" situation. But if our bargaining agent is acting like it IS a normal situation, then what incentive do they (or management) have to reevaluate?
Certainly, it's more difficult to achieve restoration when nobody else is achieving it. But IMO we've made it very difficult on ourselves by acting like we don't expect restoration. We're in a position of leadership among formerly bankrupt carriers. At this point in time, we have the best opportunity to make the case for restoration. And our bargaining agent is not doing it. That hurts us, and it hurts everybody else too. I realize that's difficult to hear, but I don't see why it's so difficult to comprehend.
Oh, and by the way, a 32.5% cut requires a 48% increase to restore. I'd probably vote for 32.5%, even spread out over 2 or 3 years. See, I can be reasonable too!
