Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Big picture on this new attempt at 1.5>80:
It's very, very important to understand how we split hypothetical dollars gained in negotiations. I agree with the anonymous author that there are plenty of ways to increase W-2's.
Payrates help everyone equally, in theory, but give the highest absolute $ amount to the highest earners, obviously. Conversely, flat-rate items, such as better health insurance, or uniform allowances, help the lowest earners the most, in terms of % "increase", but give everyone the same amount.
I'm all for giving more in flat-rate items, because I'm sick of subsidizing my job with uniforms, health care, etc. I'm OK with helping the junior guys a little more in that sense, because I want a higher DC%, higher payrates to steer some money towards senior guys in proportion to income.
I'm just dead-set against giving extra-special benefits, above and beyond, to guys who fly even more. Especially when we already have great system (GS) to help guys that help the company in a bind, at 2X pay. Anyone who flies a normal schedule, anyone who understands that incentivizing routine overtime hurts advancement, and anyone who relies on GS to supplement their income, needs to understand this is a barely disguised reach into their wallet.
I completely disagree. I've never seen a green slip. Ever. But that's a different topic. Under this plan, you'd still have green slips...it's just that the wealth would be more evenly distributed. 75 to 85 hours at 1.5X pay does that. 2X pay over 85 would again spread the wealth at the same rate of pay. Also, traditional green slips are still preserved. It takes us away from the winner take all super seniority green slip model. But again, if you're going to burn the place down over that, fine...dump it. What about the rest of the letter? Or are you just feeling grumpy that this didn't come from the MEC?
Carl