Originally Posted by
ERflyer
Reducing the bottom portion of profit sharing is not a big deal as long as you're aware of what it means.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
I see what you're saying. I'm against touching it, at all, until and unless C2015 is current book. Then if they want to shift some in an equitable way to pay, from the bottom tier only, then they can show us that bifurcated proposal and we can vote on it. I may still say no. I will always say no to reducing or eliminating the top tier because that is potentially unlimited.
One thing about PS that isn't discussed much in the current light is the concessionary "at risk" vulnerability in a massive crisis environment. Maybe we've turned the corner and will never see another 2000-2006 era where the bottom droppes out of revenue and other events hit us hard and we go into BK. But if it ever does happen again, its a lot harder to reduce existing PS than it is to take a huge bite out of pay rates. So in that respect, PS is much less "at risk" than pay table rates in a truly concessionary environment. Hopefully we'll never have to find out.
So far, and despite somewhat justified conjecture/suspicion to the contrary, everything we're hearing from the company and DALPA seem to be in favor of keeping PS as is, at least for this round. We need to watch it, but there's way bigger threats to watch out for in C2015 than PS which looks to be fairly secure in the negotiating room from what we can see. Scope, training freezes, sick leave, block time and other work rule "productivity" increases are far more likely to sneak in this time around than a reduction in PS, which would at least be pretty easy to see.