Originally Posted by
NotMrNiceGuy
I take your point, but I don’t think I am. I’ll give you an example based on the graphs.
Retro is number one on graph two. If the company raises retro to $125K/$85K, that would address the major changes requested. But if they don’t add cash over cap to the new MBCBP, then we are headed to another no vote.
Flip the roles and let’s say we get 25% MBCBP with cash over cap and retro is bumped up to $50K/$35K. That will easily pass. You have to take in account the priority in graph 1 and weight it with the the desire for major/minor changes. Retirement is a behemoth. If you get massive retirement and massive pay rates, then the retro becomes less significant even though it polled highly for major changes. Just my opinion. You’re free to disagree.
Retirement wasn't perfect, but I don't think it's the reason it failed. The graph seems to show that. We fix pay/retro to industry leading, get rid of the QOL concessions, alleviate scope concerns, and I think retirement is fine. Of course, I'll take more money in retirement, but if I had a choice, I'd prefer more in the DC side instead of increasing beyond the 11% in MBCBP.