Originally Posted by
Name User
Posting the APA's pay rates directly from the union website is certainly a questionable source.
Everyone knows about the things that we "lose". Apparently, a lot are still confused about what we gain, for whatever reason. Such as the poster I responded to. Hell, in your case you're still confused on the actual pay rates because you're referencing a document that is three weeks older than the final one.
He thought the $1.8 bil gap would be closed by pay parity in 2016. This isn't accurate. It's an additional over and above from our pay parity.
The pay rates are of little interest to me, it's not the first, or even close to, thing I go to look for in the proposal. After you posted your screen shot it did become clear to me that there are at least 2 versions of the pay tables on the negotiations website - I remain unimpressed by either.
I am also unimpressed by the lack of clarity from APA. That's what happens when you respond to managements desire to rush something through.
If you strip out the pay rates, then look at the JCBA, it is useless.
I am not blinded by money, but I do see that the pay rates in the JCBA are incredibly bright and shiny; based on that alone, anyone who knows anything at all about Doug and his team should run like hell away from it.
There is no such thing as a free lunch with Doug.
You can be sure that while he is giving you a shiny new quarter, Labor Relations is in your house stealing everything else.
I make sufficient money with the Green Book as-is. At least temporarily I will make even more if this 'proposal' passes, with an immediate inferior QOL because of the concessions.
Even with the immediate marginal pay increase though, I will be under no illusion as to who the real winner will be if it's a 'Yes' vote.