Originally Posted by
Oberon
Here's an example. I don't like going to Atlanta for training. If I didn't have to go as often I'd think that was pretty good. It also costs the company money to train me. If there was a way to train me less and pay me more I'd probably be in favor of that.
Got it. We'll put you down as favoring longer training freezes (a significant concession) to fund our improvements.
Here's another question for you:
Why should we fund our own improvements when the company is making billions?
Alan Shore (a DALPA operative) also attempted to paint longer training freezes as a positive using that same (ridiculous) straw man argument. Apparently you two are the only guys on the property who think longer freezes will improve our QOL.
Again:
why are we debating concessions? Why is DALPA entertaining the notion of concessions?
I think this bears repeating, as it unmasks Oberon as a proponent of self-funded improvements (see also: "cost neutral")
Originally Posted by
Oberon
I don't like going to Atlanta for training. If I didn't have to go as often I'd think that was pretty good. It also costs the company money to train me. If there was a way to train me less and pay me more I'd probably be in favor of that.