So we helped "pattern bargain" the rest of the profession into bankruptcy level compensation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we took the largest pay cuts of anyone (42% cumulative to be specific). So a 42% pay cut requires a 73% increase to get back to square one. That's just straight math. Therefore, if restoration is the goal then the "pattern" has to be pretty aggressive.

We've indicated (through both our actions and the tone we have set) that we don't expect an aggressive pattern. We've indicated that we're more interested in being "reasonable" than we are in restoring our profession and our careers. At least in part because of the success of our company post bankruptcy, we've been in a position of leadership within our profession. In some ways, we've set a tone (and a pattern) that works against anyone else being able to get the kinds of improvements that are necessary for restoration.

I agree we all "want" to have our pay restored. But if we're going to hang our hat on pattern bargaining, we're going to have to find a way to create a more aggressive pattern. Novel idea: Perhaps that could start with setting an objective and quantifying it.

Or we could just focus on how unprecedented it would be to get the level of improvements necessary and how no one else is doing it first. In other words, we could give up and resign ourselves to accepting bankruptcy as a reset...