Originally Posted by
IAV84DAL
They do indeed. Is your point that its good because they have it?
A couple of points
1. Its in the corporate by laws not their contract. They get it whether they like it or not. Current management holds it over their heads. To paraphrase one of my several "A" friends there: We demand a pay raise, management counters by implying profit sharing makes up for less in pay rates.
2. Its capped to IRS limits. I'll never make enough for this to matter but for many of them 9.8% (this year) puts a number of their A's into the cap and they get cutoff.
We're all about to get a very big check. The question we should be asking ourselves is why is it in managements interest to pay us a Valentines Day bonus and not a bi-monthly check??
If, hypothetically, we were to be approached by a TA (similar to AMR) that removed profit sharing altogether, what kind of pay percentage increase would you consider to be sufficient?
I realize this is an extreme scenario, but clearly you believe we should have profit sharing taken into account directly through compensation which would eliminate downturn risk. It's certainly a valid point, but it is extremely important to quantify that amount so we can say definitely that we conceded profit sharing (based on $XX billion profit) for a XX% compensation increase.