[QUOTE=tsquare;919196]How do you figure? Show me your math? Are you saying that there will be no raises unless we maintain the current retardation of pay? This is classic... the keepers of the flame have the absolute ONLY answer to any of the questions, and will poo poo or squash anything that doesn't fit their mantra. OK Einstein.. show me your math. And don't try to flip the argument... you said it couldn't be done because "it's just math" Prove to me there is only one way to skin the cat and I will forever shut up.[/QUOTE


This type of pay system has been looked at many times. There was a excellent letter that was about 2 pages long that talked of all the pros and cons of going to this type of system. I wish I still had a copy of the letter because there were lots of issues that most would not even think about that it causes. The one interesting conclusion was that it would not reduce overall training nearly as much as most people believe. The total training reduction was expected to only be in the 15 to 20 percent range. In addition you would have to rebid the system. That rebid would create a massive training load over 2 to 3 year period. It also of course eliminates all pay raises from new equipment. I was at first interested as it would have benefited but after reading a well researched letter and talking with a few others it became clear that the current system is flawed but better.