That's a great post and definitely well said.

The ones who spoke the loudest-replied all-bag tags-say it constantly

MY MEC SPEAKS FOR ME

Are suspiciously before and after the TA negotiating publically on Alyeska and APC. It's hard to take them seriously. Seems to just be some type of strange virtue signaling.

 

jayme, I would argue that at a minimum, since both the company and ALPA agreed negotiations restarted and an environment in which both parties were willing to negotiate existed on 09/01/21, this should be the date to which, "Full", retro should be applied. Then, for the time between 04/01/20-09/01/21, a, "penalty", or, "delay pay", should be applied. Retro to me means the difference in my pay between the agreed upon rate and the old rate, during the days which the contract was amendable and we were working during, "status quo". It also means all 401K, PBP, and ESPP contributions that would have been made during that time, are adjusted accordingly for the higher rate. I believe the delay pay penalty should apply to the company prior to the agreed upon date of 09/01/21, because the company was given hundreds of millions...close to 2 billion dollars in grants and cheap loans. The company used this time and money to pay off its debts from the VX acquisition. It exited the covid years in a stronger financial position than it entered.

 

Again. Goodbye

 

#s above are absolutely false.

Motivation for SWA folks being in this thread is the fear AS sets the floor in this pattern bargaining environment, by TAing sub inflation compensation and relying on me too clauses and shifting the heavy negotiation lifting to others.

 

I’ll give you the 401k/ESPP/PBP argument.

The agreed upon retro of 22k/33k is in the ballpark to pay us the TA rates going back to Sept ‘21 (the date you say the company and union agreed to start negotiating in earnest).

But why would there be “delay pay” for the period going further back to the amendable date when both the union and the company were not negotiating? It was a terrible environment for the union to negotiate because the economy was in shambles.

As far as the company coming out ahead because of government aid… well lots of employees got government aid too. Money was flowing all over the place. I don’t see how the company taking advantage of free money from the government during the pandemic somehow translates to more retro for us. I wish there was an argument for it, I just don’t see it.

 

How can you possibly conflate “My MEC speaks for me,” and the right to vote on a TA?

 

It's fun to put words into people mouths when there's a written record. Where exactly did I say you don't have the right to vote? By all means vote no or yes and let your rep know why.

 

I certainly didn’t put words in your mouth. Sounds like you were making the argument that so many others have - that if I was beating the “My MEC speaks for me” drum, that I somehow don’t have a right to say that this TA doesn’t live up to my expectations?

 

This realllllly depends on what you say you're for or against. This is purely subjective. Saying no to something that everyone else is saying yes to, can open you up to the exact same criticisms and critiques. Some of the yes voters are just as guilty as some no voters for contributing to this double edge sword. No one gets to claim moral high ground here.

 

You did put words into my mouth. Never have I heard or read someone saying my "MEC speaks for me" means you have to vote a certain way.

I was merely commenting on the strange virtue signaling that seems to be popping off from the no voters in particular.

Trying to negotiate specifics on X rule as if BM ST and ALPA have a live feed of APC up during negotiations. It's nonsensical and honestly kind of embarrassing.

Also nice job moving the goalposts from one post to another.