Originally Posted by
mooney
I'm gonna agree with Axial (someone please pinch me).
Say there are 2 XJ furloghs....1 with a 2008 hire date and one with a 2009 hire date. 2008 passes on getting hired at 9e with longevity bennies, but 2009 guy gets employed at 9e with XJ longevity. What gives the right for the guy who voluntarily said "no thanks" in the first round and is still unemployed to think he should be senior to the guy who showed incentive and took the 9e job? i think all XJ furloughs that took jobs at 9e should end up senior to the ones that didn't. The 2008 guy gambled when offered a job and lost. That happens in this industry...
And what would you propose happen to the more senior people that took voluntary furloughs and pursued other options with the intent that a more junior people might keep their jobs? There can't be a set of rules for those at the bottom of the list that is different for those in the middle or top. This isn't a black and white issue. Like it was said before, let the SLI people do their job, and when it's all over with lets all come back and complain about it. There's is nothing we can do about what they come up with.