It’s all about the Pay Rates!” (Rich’s Perspective)
I had an interesting encounter the other day with a non-council 20 Pilot, who took the time out of his busy day to take issue with the C20 position on the TA, and told me emphatically, “I’ve been here 28 years, and it’s all about the pay rates, always has been”.
That’s certainly his (or her) perspective, and they have every right to it. As it turns out, this individual’s LEC Representative echoed that view, and so it would seem that the process reflects this pilot’s views, so he/she should feel well represented.
On the other hand, I have had several new hires, who came from carriers that operate equipment essentially identical to the EMB-190, give me an opposing view point.
One such comment was: “I was near the top of the seniority list making near six figures, but every day was a hassle, from scheduling, to work rules, to interaction with management. I came to Delta because of ‘the culture’ and quality of life, and took a substantial pay & seniority cut in the process. If I wanted to be hassled about sick leave, I would have stayed where I was.”
So which is the prevailing viewpoint? There is a certain amount of hyperbole in both ends of the spectrum, but after I looked at the TA, with all of its tentacles, I came to the conclusion that BOTH viewpoints led to the same endpoint: The TA was insufficient.
As a Representative, I usually can’t afford to be a “single issue voter”. I have to consider all viewpoints, ranging from the new hire pilot to the senior pilot who is months from retirement. However, when the sick leave language was briefed to the MEC some weeks ago, I took a long pause, and came to the conclusion that no amount of money could assuage the level of complexity that we are setting ourselves up to deal with on a daily basis. Sick leave issues (along with training) represent the bulk of the pilot issues that Bill, Tom and I (along with our C20 Contract Admin folks) deal with on a regular basis, and that is with the current sick leave language.
The area of sick leave in the TA in particular which gives me significant pause is in Section 14 G. 1. B. and 14 G. 3.:
1. The DHS or his designee may request further information from a pilot who is required to verify regarding his sickness or may require a pilot to provide a medical release when:
b. verification is required, or has been sought under Section 14 F and the DHS is not able to assess the medical basis for the use of sick leave. Note: Prior to requiring a medical release, the pilot must first be provided with an additional opportunity to submit verification that is acceptable to the DHS.
3. If, following the review of information provided pursuant to a medical release, the DHS is not able to satisfactorily assess the medical basis for the use of sick leave, the release may be expanded to include a Company designated doctor or other health care professional(s) and the Director – Health Services and the Senior Vice- President of Flight Operations.
Issues with verification top the list of sick leave topics we deal with, and with the above language if the pilot is unable to verify his/her sick leave to the DHS’s (a company employee) satisfaction, then that pilot will be forced to execute a medical release (supplying the medical records for the event that caused the sick leave). Most individuals are very touchy about releasing medical records (and rightly so), and the company could decide that it is still “insufficient”, expanding the medical issue beyond the DHS to other doctors and management (in this case, the Senior VP of Flight Ops.). From the above language, it appears this requirement can occur with any verification (consecutive/work day limits) event, and not just with the 24/56 work day medical release threshold (which is also an overreach, in my opinion).
What are the consequences of non-compliance? In the past, the PWA was silent on this issue, but the TA adds the following in Section 14.F.5:
If a sickness is not verified and verification for that sickness is required, the pilot will not be paid for the duty missed due to sickness and the pilot may be referred to the Chief Pilot’s Office.
This clearly has the potential to place the pilot in pay and disciplinary jeopardy for getting into a disagreement with the company as to what constitutes description of an illness or the extent, reach and interpretation of medical records. The disposition of any records released to the company, after they have been used for the purposes stated above, has still not been resolved to my satisfaction. A simple “after we use them, we toss them in the shredder” would be a start, but there is no such language, and as best as we can tell, the company may retain any medical records provided indefinitely.
For me, this was simply a line that should never be crossed, and this is only one part of the issues that I have with Section 14 of the TA.
The bonus round of this section includes the fact that the FAA has an Aviation Rule Making Committee (an “ARC”, similar to the one that produced FAR 117) in progress on “pilot fitness” that is wide ranging, and may lead to any number of changes regarding pilot medical qualification. To make industrial changes of this magnitude, prior to what the FAA ultimately decides, is, in my humble opinion, a really bad idea.
But while this was a single issue, there were many other aspects of the TA that were also, in my view, insufficient, or clearly concessionary, such as Scope and OE/TOE FO bidding.
Even if one were to consider the selling of the work rules, in aggregate, to be OK, would the overall compensation increase warrant approval considering the negotiating environment? Even if one focuses only on pure W2 as a measure (which includes swapping profit sharing for pay rates), to the exclusion of everything else, would this TA be sufficient?
Some have the perspective that it is OK to trade quality of life, benefit, and other items to increase the pay rates. Again, everyone needs to evaluate their needs and desires as it suits them individually. I would ask, however, that “net value” of any such trades be examined. Surely we can look at what the company gave us in exchange for “our gives”, but they should also be examined from the perspective of what it would cost us to regain those gives should it become necessary. If the cost to regain items relinquished is out of proportion to what we received in value, then perhaps the bargain should be reconsidered.
In my view, the TA fails the test from any of these perspectives. And at what point do we run out of things to “sell off” for our next raise?
Many have asked how we got to this position. To answer that, I will provide an unadulterated opinion. The “prevailing worldview” of the MEC (which would include some of the 11 Reps who voted to send the TA to ratification) seems to be “pay, pay, pay”, which is heartily reflected in the MEC communications, roadshows, Negotiator’s Notepads, and Pilot-to-Pilot interaction. In fact, a large proportion of the roadshow presentation is occupied with pay rates.
The extent to which pay rates are an exclusionary consideration is reflected in both communications from some of the councils which supported the TA, and the use of other properties’ negotiating priorities as an example of what “not to do”.
To quote one Representative’s viewpoint from a recent communication: “Back in 2008 we had a tentative agreement on the table in February, but we were unable to execute on that agreement. Just four months later we had a follow on agreement that shaved 2% off of our pay and eliminated DC payment parity for pre‐merger NWA pilots for a loss in value for that agreement of $250M.”
What is left unsaid is that the agreement was contingent on acceptance of a seniority list integration that was unpalatable to a large proportion of the participants. But even if that had been mentioned, the clear implication would have been that the participants were foolish not to trade perhaps their most precious item, seniority, for a relatively small amount of compensation. That begs the question: How much money is seniority worth? In my opinion, seniority is not for sale at any price, and to try to imply that it should be is a very unpleasant precedent by those using this particular “factoid”.
This worldview is also reflected in the various MEC communications’ comments regarding the “undesirable state” of mediation in which the Southwest and FedEx pilots are currently occupied. In the case of the FedEx pilots, their management desires to sunset their defined benefit pension and to implement PBS bidding. In the case of the Southwest pilots, their management is also asking for PBS bidding and other “productivity enhancements”.
All pilots are acutely sensitive to both retirement and productivity issues. PBS, in particular, comes with an entire host of related productivity issues (“touching trips” possibly eliminated, for example). However, to paint either group as being unreasonable, with the implication that “cashing it out” would serve them better to move the process along, is simply an imposition of the “pay rates at any cost” mantra on another group’s negotiating priorities. I’m sure if all Delta pilots currently had a well-funded active defined benefit plan, we would also be guarding it with similar vigor, and would probably have similar compensatory expectations for an acceptable resolution as well.
While pay rates are very important, I do not believe they should be held to the exclusion of other supremely important sections of the PWA, including benefits, quality of life, scope and, obviously, seniority. I believe that Delta pilots are intelligent enough to realize that pay rates alone do not tell the whole story.
Another Few Days to Go. (Bill’s Perspective)
Soon we’ll know whether or not the pilot group accepts this early deal at a discount, seemingly with minimal to no funding in the “good will” column of the agreement. This deal appears to be designed to get as close to 50% as possible, with any excess “support” likely being duly noted to help “better” calibrate the C2018 “last, best, and final offer”.
If ratification is successful, it will probably occur with a majority of the membership having a negative view of the Agreement, with much of the “success” attributable to fear, threats and the uncertainty of a different path.
The ultimate referendum about the satisfaction level regarding this agreement and the manner in which it was reached will again fall to the membership when they choose to exert their control over how the MEC conducts business and reaches solutions, by choosing to participate in the regular process of selecting their Local Representatives.
The Five Stages of TA Grieving. After having been through these TA ratifications a few times, in good times and in bad, and thinking in broad, general terms, I came up with the partially satirical five stages of TA grieving:
Anger
Rationalization
Submission
Compliance & Advocacy
Reassertion of Exceptionalism
Most of us have likely been though stage 1 at some level and many may still be there. The percentage of the group that gets through stages 2 and 3 will determine the vote, assisted of course by those who are in or maybe even started in stage 4. Stage 5 is reserved for those heavily invested in this agreement as described at the beginning.
I’ve been told that my conventional wisdom perspective of how this vote will turn out is stale and outdated because of social media and the speed of the transmission of information. We’ll certainly see soon enough. Thanks to all of you for your patience, participation and high level of engagement in the process.
PROCESS? (Tom’s Prospective)
First, I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to read our updates and (hopefully) the updates from other councils. It has always been my desire that pilots be educated and make an informed decision.
You have been inundated with constant communications from various sources, so I’ll try and keep this perspective short and to the point, addressing a single issue: Delta Policy Manual Section 9.B.2. This was addressed earlier in the update but I wanted to expand the commentary and express my dissatisfaction of this TA being sent to you (pilot’s) without an approval OR recommendation from the MEC!
To re-emphasize, the applicable section of Section 9.B.2 of the Delta Policy Manual states:
No agreement will be submitted to the membership for ratification unless it has first been approved by the MEC.
When an agreement is to be submitted for membership ratification, following MEC approval and prior to the opening of membership balloting, the complete and final language will be provided to the members for a period of time as determined by the MEC as appropriate under the existing circumstances.
Here’s my problem………………………
You elected LEC members to represent you at the MEC level. These members sign confidentiality agreements giving them, in many cases, “privileged” information that the pilots will never be privy to. With this privileged information comes great responsibility. After receiving pilots’ direction via personal contact, council meetings, phone calls, emails, Survey’s, etc, these MEC members are tasked with ensuring your direction is met! If the TA falls short of the pilots’ direction, then it should NEVER be approved……period! In this case, the MEC felt that even with all their extensive knowledge, research and debate, and clearly knowing the pilots’ direction, instead of acting on their pilots’ behalf, thought it prudent to send the TA to the pilot group WITHOUT an approval or recommendation!
Bill (Council 20 CH) openly objected to the MEC apparently disregarding the Policy Manual procedures, however the majority ruled and drafted a resolution to send the TA to the pilot group WITHOUT MEC Approval.
This is where I have the biggest problem………………..
Several members of the MEC wanted to draft a PRO-CON letter, detailing a comprehensive breakdown of the TA. This would have been a unified effort by the MEC to produce one document in which we could all endorse and educate the pilots about every area of the TA.
Instead, the majority once again ruled and a MEC generated PRO-CON report was denied, leaving every council on their own to present the TA via local updates.
To summarize……..with the extensive knowledge the members of the MEC possess, instead of voting on this TA, knowing the pilots’ direction; they instead sent it to you, without a recommendation, to approve or reject.
If you had ALL the privileged information the MEC had access to (and certainly some that is considered “confidential” unnecessarily), then you could make a very informed decision. However, that is not the case. Instead of having the full background on every section of the TA, the MEC Leadership hamstrings your decision by only generating the positives of the TA. My question is, how are you supposed to make an educated decision without possessing all the information that your MEC representatives possess?
That leaves us with individual councils trying to fully inform their pilots via updates without breaching the “Confidentially” agreement signed when taking office. So without the survey results, without months and months of background information and endless debate, you are tasked with making a decision, that IN MY OPINION, should have been made at the MEC level FIRST!
Some have asked, “Why do we have an MEC if they are not going to make a recommendation?” I agree and really do not have a good answer for them.
In closing, take the time to cast an informed vote. Do not be swayed by threats made by the MEC admin or upper management. I encourage you to read every council’s updates and form a well-rounded opinion, then make an informed vote.
Fraternally,
Bill, Rich, and Tom
Captain Bill Bartels
LEC Chairman/ Capt. Rep
[email protected]
(734) 834-5634
Rich Wheeler
LEC Vice Chairman/ F/O Rep
[email protected]
(954) 494-5086
Captain Tom Bell
Secretary-Treasurer