+1

With all the web access trouble the company might not seem to be the best on the technology front but they sure seem to be deadly good at programming in efficiencies and eliminating our flexibility and improving their control of manpower assets. They come out with proposals dressed as a win win that in implementation seem pretty one sided and don't seem to be unchallenged or sometimes even mentioned by the union.

1. The bank carryover and canceled hotel money seemed like a pretty straightforward small contract improvement. However, in implementation it seems purposely complicated and designed to have you waste your hotel money if you don't fully track and transfer previous month's bank money. Why hasn't the company been challenged on making that process usable and default towards using bank money first?

2. The massive VTO increase and back door PBS doesn't seem to have been challenged at all? Why did we allow a company defined "known r-day" istead of a defined trips to r-day ratio?

3. If it is so advantageous for the company to remove their funding requirements and move to the VB plan why shouldn't we openly keep the same or better accrual rules and just gain a percentage of company's savings as easily quantified improvements in lifetime payouts. Seems that the company wants both a reduction in the funding requirements and a plethora of rule changes to decrease overall payouts and incentivise manpower efficiency.

4. The rules that came with the retirement notification bonus is another great example of our gain being washed out with increased efficiencies. A one line x dollars for x months of notification would have been a true bonus.