Makes sense obviously. My question to you based on your fire starter post(s): Is it once again time for those tactics years ago of attempting to ward everyone away to achieve the above “inadequate staffing” in even greater numbers for contract improvements? Or, is it something folks just have hard tuned in their DNA and is in play at all times as primal focus, revenge, or resentment - either way a common tactic. Enlighten me how this worked out last time “toxic” tactics were used. Companies are able or not able to hire with or without you, me or any other keyboard warrior on here. This company in particular can expand and let the air out on a dime comparably speaking. We’re (single digits) just not that important, collectively as a group perhaps but $ drives all. Hmmm, Art 33, it’s working for them (me too for now) isn’t it.

*Once again the earlier inputs were lifestyle benefits at Atlas that meet specific requirements since everyone is different. Agree, we need to be part of the industry “standard” in many areas. Bottom line, there is no one outfit that can be declared the “winner” that folks pine away for in every negotiated area universally. Pick one, there will be a chink or two in the armor just find your niche and don’t be a lemming. You know what makes you tick. Everything is cyclic so the podium has always been rotational and subjective at best. Utter chaos out there.