Originally Posted by
gloopy
Also agree.
That would be such an obviously dumb stratedgy even the B-School morons of the 90s wouldn't be doing it. Zero chance of success.
Oh look, we're trashing your QOL to make you sign a POS TA leaving in place the same gaps and loopholes that enable it in the first place, so sign that POS TA and we will hire to the point of being so fat no one will have to ever work on reserve etc.
Literally no one would fall for it and they would look obviously bad for trying.
I don’t think that’s the strategy... I believe the idea is to have us concentrate/distracted with work rules during negotiations. We tighten the rules up, which makes our lives better. However, we use leverage to do so, which leaves less capitol to negotiate other sections. When the company compares our staffing levels/efficiency for the new contract to 2016-2017 levels, it’s going to similar. This is a section that will be cost neutral, which Ed will be proud of....he knows the operation is stretched thin but just needs to hold out for the new contract.
This is no different than the deadhead issues. They’ve gone to crap because they are going to require us to pay for it. This leaves less negotiation leverage for other sections. Deadhead rules are a distraction.
I don’t believe a trade for one item in order to benefit another is required in the current state of the industry but a lot of guys in Atlanta and other bases do.