Originally Posted by
subicpilot
Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.
She can't come back because of age 65, as LJ suggested tongue-in-cheek, any more than we can give her a pay raise because of it, as I suggested tongue-in-cheek.
My little witty sarcastic "jab" was meant to show that it is just as silly to suggest that we allow a person who has retired to come back to work because of financial hardship, as it is to suggest giving someone a targeted pay raise because they didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have.
Ah but see that is where your logic fails. It makes sense to reward seat progression when progression is available. When progression is artificially limited it is just as logical to reward longevity. It is not "didn't get promoted as fast as they thought they should have" it is their potential for promotion was undermined by their union. I could just as logically argue that the payscales should be adjusted so I can retire at 60 with the same high 5 that I would have had before my union hosed me.