Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
DW negotiated the LOA v1. Then management started direct dealing with the crew force while it was out for a vote, fearing it would fail based on the extremely negative response it received.
The only thing that changed between the original FDA LOA and the one that was voted on was the length of an inverse STV. As I stated above, that was by agreement between The Company and The Association, first agreed to by your elected representatives, the MEC, and then ratified by membership vote.
That is not direct dealing.
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
So, yes I think if you bid HK you should get the housing allowance.
I bid Hong Kong. I commuted. I did not lease an apartment. Do you think I should have gotten the Rental Allowance?
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
The issues is the with how DW diverted the scope penalty that is distributed to all union members according to the CBA to fund the $25K that was "an incentive to retire."
You skipped past this part in your reply by accident?
I was at the hub meeting when DW & BC discussed it using those terms. And there is no loss of control with a trust, actually it is required to be used exactly for the purpose it was created for. Companies provide retirement incentives all the time without any legal issues. Delta allowed pilots to retire early, was that discrimination? If you are FORCED to retire before the regulated age while others are not, you are a victim of age discrimination. Volunteering to take an incentive that "
removes an impediment" is not. Remember the money is not being "paid to retire", it is to offset the cost of health care.
Just like the DW administration wanted. DW didn't pay people to retire, he paid those over age 53 money to "remove an impediment to retiring" with money obligated by the CBA to be paid to all members in good standing. When someone asked about those younger than 53 on the signing date, DW said that age 53 was used to provide the union enough time for them to negotiate a similar deal in the next contract. That is a Ponzi scheme! How did that work out for Bernie? This Ponzi scheme is very unpalatable. Perhaps the qualification of "over 53" was age discrimination.
Apparently you aren't too familiar with the actual workings of a Ponzi scheme. That's certainly NOT what the Health Reimbursement Account was. The HRA was funded by a VEBA with a $25,000 cash payment per pilot by The Company. The pilot gets the money, with accrued interest, on his 59th birthday. Having that money to offset medical costs until the pilot qualifies for Medicare removes an impediment to retiring.
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
Perfect segway, this should educational for many here and make them even more disappointed in the DW administration and better prepared to judge the TA when it eventually is presented. (BOLD added to emphasis what you & DW omitted in the discussion of VEBA)
Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association Plan (VEBA) Definition | Investopedia
"DEFINITION OF 'VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION PLAN - VEBA'
A tax-free post-retirement medical expense account used by retirees and their eligible dependents to pay for any eligible medical expenses.
The plan is funded by the amount of unused sick leave that an employee has at the time of retirement, which is contributed by the employer into the plan. The benefit of this plan is the amount of sick leave left at retirement is paid out in full to the plan and is not subject to tax, which would reduce the amount one would receive."
Well, here's a problem. Instead of finding the definition of a generic VEBA, you've pulled one off of Investopedia, and it's not what we have. The HSA (Pre-Medicare) VEBA is not funded with unused sick leave -- it was funded by a $25,000 cash payment by The Company, per pilot.
Then ...
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
So, the $0.50 per credit hour could have been one source of funding VEBA with the other from your unused sick leave? INTERESTING! And perhaps the scope penalty on top of that! something we all benefit from! Wow, that…might…lead...to…unity!
I guess you, DW, & BC missed that part of the definition.
That's because, A) you're using a bad definition, and B) you have your VEBAs confused. The $0.50 per credit hour goes into a different VEBA, also not funded by unused sick leave, to be used by EVERY pilot once he reaches Medicare eligibility, to supplement his "post-Medicare" health care costs.
AS many times as we've gone over this, it still amazes me that college-educated pilots can't figure out we have 2 separate VEBAs for 2 different purposes.
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
I can't claim to be as snarky of a poster as you are Tony, but here is my feeble attempt!
FIXED IT FOR YOU!
At the time of C2006, CAL had different pay scales for different sizes of similar narrow bodies.
Good for CAL. We're not CAL. The rest of this conversation is pointless.
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
Again, speeding past the reality of life. Pilots do not "bid to take his family on The Company's dime" on their monthly schedules, except when they want too. 90 days is a very long "bid to take his family on the Company's dime." So to the senior it "may" be a good deal for those dreaming of a Parisian vacation, but you get the choice. But DW forced this 90 day "good deal" to HK during the winter on the junior, regardless of their own schedule. Most pilots have obligations where they live, which is why they live there. Whether it is kids in school, spouses that work, doesn't really matter. If you were worried about the junior pilots having more "family time", negotiate to shorten the years of service to accrue vacation!
90-day Inverse STVs were dinosaurs before the membership voted. How many STVs has The Company ever used? Zero. You were afraid you'd get drafted, and Dave Webb was certain you wouldn't. Who was right?
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
I addressed this earlier, please see above about how v. 2 came about. If you have pretty detailed records, use them the first time. Otherwise someone might get the impression you putting a spin on past actions.
Well, I was there, I have originals, markups, meeting minutes, resolutions ... I'm just telling you what happened.
Originally Posted by
Flying Boxes
DW negotiated v. 1, which was for 90 days! Way to long of a "good deal" to force on anyone.
Well, it is obvious you did not understand what I was saying. Sorry I didn't communicate it better. Why should it start over at the bottom after any amount of time, instead of continuing up the list? What is the thought for forcing the junior pilots to endure an involuntary assignment more than once, when others are not sharing in the pain of protecting the FDA freight? Protecting the freight from foreign pilots is everyone's responsibility, not just the junior. Just like everyone should not volunteerily fly DPs, not just the junior! Learning form the quote "a good tide raises all boats". "When the tide is low all boats should become beached". That builds unity, while still respecting seniority. Guess this is too radical of an idea.
Like I said. Webb said junior guys wouldn't have to worry about being inversed to an STV. It looks like he was right after all.
.