Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
I understand your point about non-linear costs. Of course. And I'm fine with starting with "best of everything in the industry" including DTZ. But when things need to be trimmed, some, it should come from an area of the CBA that gets used the least, and benefits (or harms) the smallest proportion of the group possible.
While I understand your logic and theory as to why the ZERO has an non-linear cost, are we guaranteed management will see it the same way? Are you SURE? Does management always follow the data? Or do they sometimes have philosophical lines in the sand? Would it not be plausible that the company negotiators say "you are asking me for this thing, saying you must have it, but no one will use it?"
If they, for whatever reason, simply refuse to place a low value on the FULL ZERO, why is it not reasonable for the group to take BIG wins in other areas in exchange for DT25?
If it's a non-linear cost to the company, is not a non-linear benefit to the group? As in, if few use the FULL ZERO, then wouldn't the majority still benefit greatly with DT25? How about DT25 plus BIG wins in other areas?
My problem is the absolutism that I've seen from some. Has to be DTZ, FULL ZERO, can't even be DT-0.5, or it's a concession no matter what else is in it. That's an irrational starting point and one that if allowed to go unaddressed would almost certainly result in a JCBA that is weak in other areas, areas that we all use, at the expense of 100% perfection in an area few FULLY use, the FULL ZERO.
As I said, I want best of everything, but also a JCBA where the benefits are equitably distributed among the largest proportion of the group possible.
Absolutism on EITHER side is unreasonable. But I think people need to make an effort to understand the TRUE costs and benefits before they go making decisions, dogmatic or otherwise. And will management see things the way we do? How would we ever know that until negotiations start?
You and I went round and round about the issue of a REVENUE SHARING proposal in lieu of a profit sharing proposal once. Instead of asking for a percentage of profits (which are prone to accounting trip manipulation) why not just have revenue sharing where a certain percentage of ticket sales simply goes to the pilots - a cost of doing business akin to a sales tax and not subject to manipulation by changing how you are amortizing equipment and other scams. It’s also self adjusting for inflation. Now I’m pretty sure the management would scream bloody murder, but that doesn’t mean the NC shouldn’t throw that out on the table, and see how management prices it out. Or if it intimidates management into coming up with a deal on profit sharing less amenable to management manipulation.
Dogmatism and it-wasn’t-invented-here-ism, and parochialism on either side should be avoided, IMHO. We all ought to keep open minds. The JCBA could be great leverage because management NEEDS it, rather than management benefitting by stalling like happens with most CBAs.
We need to not screw this up.