Originally Posted by
Splash
I agree with you that all contract items are at risk. After that, you're playing cute. You're focused on the vocabulary, and not the intent.
I'm focused on the words because they're DALPA's words. I didn't define profit sharing as "at risk" compensation, DALPA did. Words mean things.
Originally Posted by
Splash
To classify hourly rates as being as much at risk as profit sharing payouts is disingenuous.
Your point (and DALPA's) point is the one that's disingenuous. In our history, hourly rates have NEVER gone up without negotiation, but they've sure gone down without them. But profit sharing can go down, OR UP without any negotiations or court interventions. Our recent history should show you that hourly rates are every bit as risk based as profit sharing. As I said earlier, every single word in our PWA is "at risk." DALPA's use of the term "at risk" is entirely specious.
Originally Posted by
Splash
Changes to our pay rates require negotiation, agreement, and ratification by all of us.
No they don't Splash and you know better than that. They only require agreement by our reps and management, or by a court.
Originally Posted by
Splash
Maybe the term "at risk" is a poor one. There needs to be a better way to express the varying degrees of vulnerability. I don't have one, but I understand the difference. You do too.
I don't disagree, but that shouldn't bother you. What should bother you is the fact that management didn't come up with this specious term of "at risk" compensation, DALPA did. Our own bargaining agent. The guys that are supposed to be on our side. Why DALPA would do this should cause everyone to critically think.
Carl