This is an interesting line of argument. The problem is that it does nothing to help those that are in their maximum piece of equipment. (How much hourly increase would you need to see coupled with a 75 hour cap in order to not view it as a paycut?) Then the argument becomes "well, if guys were paid enough, they wouldn't have to work as many hours". THAT is a hollow argument because once guys were paid more they would become accustomed to that extra income and the then resultant cut in hours would be called a paycut. It is a fine line. Kind of like the pay banding/seniority pay argument. If it all happened simultaneously it could be pulled off but if it is done one piece at a time it won't work although pay banding is a good start toward seniority pay.