Originally Posted by
Gooner
I don’t think I was the one belittling a new idea for tweaking non rev benefits by condescendingly telling them life isn’t fair. Now I will admit that usually I agree with much of what you post. I just really hate when someone is condescending, particularly when they imply the issue is nuanced and difficult so we should just not try.
I for one like nonrev benefits but also admit they feel watered down and would probably put it in top 5 of issues to at least spending some time on in the next contract. One of the four pillars, no but it’s something I’d like to be looked into. My opinion would be to get annual spirit passes for at least employee plus one, have them bank so people with larger families can use it but less often.
Guess I need to go write a proposal to fix the ADA now since we are spitballing ideas about non rev change on the internet.
Fair enough. Poor choice of words on my part and I need to work on my delivery. In the end, though, “life isn’t fair” is probably the most efficient way I can sum up the challenges to “improving” a benefit that I don’t think will ever resemble the proposal. Allowing tens of thousands of employees to assign a benefit to any person - and specifically one whom the employee thinks could get the most use out of it -
would in my not so humble opinion wreak havoc on an already degraded benefit. Y’all can hash out all the intricacies, but I’m confident it won’t look significantly different a decade from now no matter what campaign you pull together.