Quote:
It depends on how and where the 10% is. From looking at openers from us and the company over the last two decades, we generally end up about 10-20% above the company's initial proposal but a few years down the road. The question that the group needs to ask themselves and then communicate it to their reps is the one you ask above. If we take three years for 10% that is 3.33% a year and in effect hardly worth the extra time. Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Agreed. But here's the $64,000 question come 2012. Do we try to get 80% of what we think is "fair", realizing it will take 3+ years of extended contract negotiations to get that. Or do we settle for 70% and wrap it up in a year, but be labeled as caving again?
To play devil's advocate, you agree to a contract in 2012-12013. 48 months later it is 2017-2018. Doing your charting where does that leave the world economy? It might prove wise to do a quickie here and drag the next one out, or vice verse depending on how you read the economy and world politics.
Quote:
And before anybody says I'm caving to accept 70-80%, realize that 70% to us is 100% to the company, and 80% is 110%. We will never agree on what's "fair". We will point to C2K plus inflation; the company will point to industry standard. My bet is we'll end up at the top of the industry, but below C2K + inflation.
I think that it depends on the profitability of the company. It would be a huge win to get the buying power of C2K. Most would just be happy with the rates, and maybe a 10% bump on that. We need to realize also that we have given the company a ton of flexibility with work rules, training, etc. There is some latitude with those as well.And before anybody says I'm caving to accept 70-80%, realize that 70% to us is 100% to the company, and 80% is 110%. We will never agree on what's "fair". We will point to C2K plus inflation; the company will point to industry standard. My bet is we'll end up at the top of the industry, but below C2K + inflation.