Originally Posted by
Iwa Washi
During that time, I personally never bought into the belief that the company implemented 4.A.2.B. to prevent a furlough. I don't feel they needed to furlough or wanted to furlough. Also, even if they did, they were in no position to do so (Hong Kong). I felt they were merely exploiting loose contract language for nothing more than financial gain at our expense. Just my humble opinion.
I agree somewhat. I think it did help to prevent a furlough. But after almost 2yrs of 4.a.2.b, the company was exploiting it. I felt the CBA language should have been that the company either furlough after a year or some time period or buy up the lines to what they should have been. I'm not in favor of furloughing guys, its just that the CBA language was too vague. The company currently buys up lines that fall short of min guarantee, they could have done it back then. And the fact that there were lines with large carryovers was total bs. Guys could still make a regulars month pay by bidding carryover.