Originally Posted by
Sink r8
There is no link to any "me-too" agreement that doesn't go through the company. Whether it's voluntary or contractual, they seem to get a lot of the good things we get. It's not always diserved, but it's also truly a problem between the company and the F/A's. If they want to give them anything, it doesn't belong n our liability column. It's simply not our problem. To suggest we need to factor in what the company will do to a third party as a result of our agreements is beyond the scope of what we negotiate. It's not our problem, it's not our fault, it's not our concern. Period.
Heyas Sink,
And therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter if there is official "me too" language or not...it's the expectation and the action that management actually takes that is the problem.
And while it SHOULDN'T go in our liability column, you can bet that every trinket that they give the pilots, there is a "tax" added to the price tag to cover the eventual "me too" bone they throw the FAs to keep the union wolf at bay.
The NWA Call in Honest policy is a PERFECT example. It would cost the company VERY little to implement it, because the NWA numbers show that it actually saves money in the long run. But the rumor is that DAL management WON'T buy off on that because THEY HAVE to give it to the FAs also.
So while, in theory, there is no "me too", in practice there is, and while it shouldn't go in our liability column, it does. And while it shouldn't be our problem, it seems to be.
Now, I'm all for letting the FAs work out their own issues, and I do believe strongly that we should stay out of it. I'm just discussing the ramifications of a vote one way or the other.
Nu