ATI Numbers Leaked
03-17-2018, 04:25 PM
#214
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2015
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by boiler
Lol what a joke!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-17-2018, 06:31 PM
#217
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 493
As somebody with no dog in the hunt, I was interested to read the stupid, counterproductive letter.
I think if they left out a few sentences/concepts and just highlighted what they see as the significant benefits and important features of the contract, it would have been unnecessary and kinda-dumb but not horribly-counterproductive. Something like, "Here's what we see as important features of the TA: ... Thanks for listening to our perspective, and have a great day."
But apparently its authors had no sensitivity to the obvious fact that the letter was going to be more-carefully-scrutinized by its recipients than it apparently was by its authors. (It is replete with typos.)
Normally, one would assume that a consultant or attorney or such would have written this, and the bullet points smack of that, but I actually read it as the authors thinking that if only they could make their case directly, the employees would understand what a big deal this TA was for them to do.
Which is why employers that think that way should never try to do something like this: the people opposed to the contract are going to view it through the most-negative-possible prism and then blab loudly about the letter's worst features, thus totally-defeating the purpose of sending it in the first place.
Hey, ATI, your pilots are educated people whose profession regularly requires them to do rational and computational analysis, so they can be expected to pick the TA apart, identify its beneficial features, and run its numbers all by themselves. They don't need your help.
They also don't need to be told by you that ratification involves a calculation of whether the dollars today are more beneficial in the long term than a possible moderate improvement in a contract to be ratified a year or two down the line, if indeed it takes that long. They don't need to be told this because it's always a feature in every contract negotiation.
And they sure as hell don't need to be told the mediator's schedule. It may absolutely be the case that the guy's busy and that rejecting the contract means kicking the can down the road a year. But for you to be saying it is dumb dumb dumb, because it makes you look sweaty and can be interpreted, as it has been, as a threat.
It sounds like this TA was headed for ratification, and in that situation the best thing the company can do is sit back, let the negotiating committee explain the deal to its membership, and wait for it to be approved.
The TA may still be ratified, but sending out a letter like this, even if it was done in a lily-pure effort to make sure that all features the company's offer were fully-appreciated by the membership, is -- and frankly always will be -- completely-counterproductive.
If the lawyers and advisors signed off on this, they deserve a spanking.
I guess the best thing that can be said about this is that it's quite clear that out there in Bumpkinville, they haven't been hiring a lot of social psychologists and political-campaign-veterans to try to manipulate the membership into a Yes vote. Because those guys would be embarrassed even to have to read something like this.
I think if they left out a few sentences/concepts and just highlighted what they see as the significant benefits and important features of the contract, it would have been unnecessary and kinda-dumb but not horribly-counterproductive. Something like, "Here's what we see as important features of the TA: ... Thanks for listening to our perspective, and have a great day."
But apparently its authors had no sensitivity to the obvious fact that the letter was going to be more-carefully-scrutinized by its recipients than it apparently was by its authors. (It is replete with typos.)
Normally, one would assume that a consultant or attorney or such would have written this, and the bullet points smack of that, but I actually read it as the authors thinking that if only they could make their case directly, the employees would understand what a big deal this TA was for them to do.
Which is why employers that think that way should never try to do something like this: the people opposed to the contract are going to view it through the most-negative-possible prism and then blab loudly about the letter's worst features, thus totally-defeating the purpose of sending it in the first place.
Hey, ATI, your pilots are educated people whose profession regularly requires them to do rational and computational analysis, so they can be expected to pick the TA apart, identify its beneficial features, and run its numbers all by themselves. They don't need your help.
They also don't need to be told by you that ratification involves a calculation of whether the dollars today are more beneficial in the long term than a possible moderate improvement in a contract to be ratified a year or two down the line, if indeed it takes that long. They don't need to be told this because it's always a feature in every contract negotiation.
And they sure as hell don't need to be told the mediator's schedule. It may absolutely be the case that the guy's busy and that rejecting the contract means kicking the can down the road a year. But for you to be saying it is dumb dumb dumb, because it makes you look sweaty and can be interpreted, as it has been, as a threat.
It sounds like this TA was headed for ratification, and in that situation the best thing the company can do is sit back, let the negotiating committee explain the deal to its membership, and wait for it to be approved.
The TA may still be ratified, but sending out a letter like this, even if it was done in a lily-pure effort to make sure that all features the company's offer were fully-appreciated by the membership, is -- and frankly always will be -- completely-counterproductive.
If the lawyers and advisors signed off on this, they deserve a spanking.
I guess the best thing that can be said about this is that it's quite clear that out there in Bumpkinville, they haven't been hiring a lot of social psychologists and political-campaign-veterans to try to manipulate the membership into a Yes vote. Because those guys would be embarrassed even to have to read something like this.
03-17-2018, 07:30 PM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by boiler
Lol what a joke!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ATI WILL VOTE THIS IN!!!!
- overwhelmingly -
That letter broke the spine of what little oppisition it had. Legacy captains are already on their back with legs in the air.
03-18-2018, 06:31 AM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 747
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by midnightshuttle
ATI WILL VOTE THIS IN!!!!
- overwhelmingly -
That letter broke the spine of what little oppisition it had. Legacy captains are already on their back with legs in the air.
- overwhelmingly -
That letter broke the spine of what little oppisition it had. Legacy captains are already on their back with legs in the air.
ATI pilots are much smarter and stronger than that!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
