Originally Posted by
ERflyer
Huh?
That's not trading 1:1 and your math is wrong.
If we trade 10% profit sharing (of 20% PS) for a 10% raise then: $100,000 + $10,000 = $110,000 + $11,000 = $121,000.
$110,000 with 10% profit sharing is $121,000. Which is $1,000 more than just 20% profit sharing on $100,000. So trading profit sharing 1:1 for pay rates you get more.
And the rumor is trading 5.75%. If true I am for it.
In the first sentence of my response I figured a 0.8% difference as equal. So yes, 10% from that side of the ledger to 10% to that side of the ledger = 8 tenths of 1% or $1000 over $100,000.
In the second part I wanted to ask about reducing PS greater than the guaranteed rate and see how one feels about that. Because I believe if you said to RA would be more inclined to pay a base plus PS then to pay a base that's equal to that number. So in order to get the base up, you'll have to make a sacrifice somewhere since they're taking a risk that they can afford a higher base.
So, how about a 10% reduction in PS for a 7% raise vs say 0% raise and 20% PS? Which is better? It's a subjective call when you don't know what the profits will be, so which iyho is better?