Originally Posted by
Tuck
So kind of weird that the campaign statements for block reps don't appear to include a guarantee they will only back a TA that offers full retirement benefits to amendable date. Probably a good thing as that is very unlikely to ever get passed - like saying I won't support any TA that doesn't have $900/hour pay - just another way of saying you will always vote NO. And there are quite a lot of people that do always vote NO and advertise it here regularly.
Tuck
I see your line of thinking and would like to know more. How many retirees since amenable date is acceptable for no retirement improvement? My number is zero. Since amenable date, we will reach about +500 retirees at end of 2024 then hit near 700 at end of 2025. Would 700 be acceptable if our negotiations dragged out until then? How about 500? Something in between?
I guess I am in the camp that I hope enough see it as important enough issue that “unlikely” becomes standard and core feature of how we value our members.
Everyone has to take care of their self interest, in light of that do you think folks near retirement will be more willing to accept substandard areas in other parts of the TA knowing that they need to get theirs now (retirement improvement vs being another retirees who did not make the cut off date)?
I think it should be a core part of our CBA that if you are on property at amenable date and retire thereafter one should always get the retirement bump negotiated. Retirement is one of the Crown Jewels of this place and to deny that to retirees just does not sit right. TA 1.0 was all about retirement. I have inquired about this on the road and folks seem to be 50-50. As a junior guy here, it is interesting to see the sentiment that one was just not lucky enough to make the cut off date (i.e. 300 retirees with no improvement in TA1.0).
Thanks for chiming in and your future reply.