Originally Posted by
scambo1
One thing that you learn rather quickly as an employer is that employees get paid what they get paid - you, as the business owner, get their share of the profit. Conversely, in bad times, you eat their share of the loss. If that loss goes on too long, you shrink, through layoffs....
It gets debated about once a year about how much additional ticket price we would have to charge to cover X% raises. In reality, for those that have been on the property for a while, I really don't have to care how they fund the raise. Management really doesn't want our input on any phase of operational improvements. Why would my opinion of how they fund my pay be important.
If they can afford to pay greenslip pay to get a 4 pilot trip to take off, after the first crew times out, I cannot see how restoration of C2K plus interest is out of the question. After all, greenslip pay today is just yesterday's straight pay.
You create a dichotomy with your first and second paragraphs.
How would Scambo the employer fund a raise that puts your employee costs substantially above their peer group? What would the result be for Scambo's business (and ultimately the employees) if Scambo's competition didn't match the increased labor costs? Remember C2K and the incomplete pattern bargaining? I remember AAA getting crushed in bankruptcy and APA voluntarily giving away the store to avoid Ch11. NWA signed on for about 80% of DAL rates in a very smart deal for the time. UAL followed in court soon after, and Delta was left alone.
Personally, I didn't like the results which that method of not caring produced. I thought that maybe a few folks had learned something from it.
Oh, the operational disruptions of which you speak will occur with pay at C2K or LOA 51 levels. I don't think that's applicable to the discussion I think you're trying to have.