Originally Posted by
Ad Lib
Can't believe folks on this web board were giving your post the "high five." You are making management's argument which justifies Interest Based Bargaining. It sounds great coming from Ford & Harrison lawyer. I'm saddened to hear it from a pilot, despite your expert and rational presentation.
Lets look at the history of Interest Based Bargaining (IBB). Interest Based Bargaining was dreamed up by management consultants to cap and reduce their exposure to positional bargaining. The managers realized if they threw a budget on the table, then let the union decide how to allocate it, that the union would fight amongst itself over the pot of money. Meanwhile management could step back and watch the fur fly, as senior ate junior. The result of this change was a transformation from unions negotiating positions with management to internalizing those fights and negotiating with other union members. Unity was harmed in the process since now the union itself picked the winners and losers from amongst its membership. (Consider the DFR exposure United's MEC just got hit with and consider the effect of IBB practices)
Among your list of priorities you listed above the most obvious omission is SCOPE. In using your budget based approach to bargaining scope was on the table, it just wasn't a priority, so it got sold. However, the pilots never received the benefits of these "bargaining credits" because they got washed away in the subsequent deluge of bankruptcy.
Sir, IBB is a trap. It is a trap we must understand and deal with, but it is not something we should adopt in our own negotiations. Unions are more unified behind realistic positions.
It is my hope that my career progression is not again sacrificed to create credit for someone Else's budget item.
Go back and read it again, pal. I never said anything about interest based bargaining, whatever that means. You give some tortured definition, but I doubt that is the real one. There is no real budget established and the size of the pilot contract is not dictated by management, it is determined by economic conditions and the determination of the pilot group. I clearly indicated that I was using a metaphor for real bargaining because pilots that are not experienced in this type of negotiations can have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concepts. I also clearly indicated that the process of establishing the value of the contract and the areas where the value will be used is a parallel process that takes place in one sequence. You might want to actually read what was written before you start flaming like a fool.
Do you agree that there will, at some point, be a finite value in the pilot contract or is it just infinite? If it is infinite then I want a million dollars an hour, I will work for a month and then quit. If it is finite then priorities will have to be established by the pilots and the MEC. If you want to have to have more vacation then you will have to accept less gains in other areas of the contract and so on and so on. Why do you think they have a big contract survey? To establish priorities. Duh.
I did not mention scope, not because it is not important, but as you can see, you can't say the word scope on here without starting a massive food fight. Also, scope is not viewed as a quantifiable item per se, and I can't remember anytime "bargaining credits" were obtained through scope at Delta. Even in Chapter 11 we protected the vast majority of our scope language. Remember, that scope language is what saved us from the US Air takeover and saved about 1500 jobs of our most junior pilots. Quantify that, bub.