What would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote?
08-01-2007, 11:01 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
What would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote?
We have seen a myriad of posts regarding what it would take for a "No" voter to change their vote to a "Yes"....
...remove STV
...increase the housing allowance
...add an education benefit
...increase the weight allowance
...add definitive scope language
...make tax equalization optional
But, let's ask a similarly insightful question --- what would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote to a "No"?
...what length of STV would you actually find unacceptable?
...how low would you allow the housing allowance to drop?
...what if the overseas medical benefits were not offered to children, in the same way no educational benefits are being provided?
...would you accept a weight allowance below 500lbs over and 3,000lbs back?
...would you allow the word "scope" to not actually exist within the LOA?
(...wait, nevermind, it doesn't)
...what if tax equalization wasn't offered?
Basically, I am asking "How low will you go?"
How cheaply are you willing to work to "lock up this flying"?
I really think it's a fair question because the folks who are stating it's inadequate are being painted as greedy, ignorant of the business aspects of the LOA, and demanding.
The MEC and the company say there's no room to talk --- that there is absolutely no room to go a day shorter on STV, a dollar higher on housing or education, a pound more on household goods, or an additional word when it comes to articulating scope.
Hmmmm....so we've defined an upper limit, what is the lower limit?
For all who feel we should quit debating and tow the union line please enligten us....how low would you go before you would change your "Yes" vote to a "No"?
Please stop and ponder it.
In Unity,
DLax
...remove STV
...increase the housing allowance
...add an education benefit
...increase the weight allowance
...add definitive scope language
...make tax equalization optional
But, let's ask a similarly insightful question --- what would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote to a "No"?
...what length of STV would you actually find unacceptable?
...how low would you allow the housing allowance to drop?
...what if the overseas medical benefits were not offered to children, in the same way no educational benefits are being provided?
...would you accept a weight allowance below 500lbs over and 3,000lbs back?
...would you allow the word "scope" to not actually exist within the LOA?
(...wait, nevermind, it doesn't)
...what if tax equalization wasn't offered?
Basically, I am asking "How low will you go?"
How cheaply are you willing to work to "lock up this flying"?
I really think it's a fair question because the folks who are stating it's inadequate are being painted as greedy, ignorant of the business aspects of the LOA, and demanding.
The MEC and the company say there's no room to talk --- that there is absolutely no room to go a day shorter on STV, a dollar higher on housing or education, a pound more on household goods, or an additional word when it comes to articulating scope.
Hmmmm....so we've defined an upper limit, what is the lower limit?
For all who feel we should quit debating and tow the union line please enligten us....how low would you go before you would change your "Yes" vote to a "No"?
Please stop and ponder it.
In Unity,
DLax
08-01-2007, 11:04 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by DLax85
We have seen a myriad of posts regarding what it would take for a "No" voter to change their vote to a "Yes"....
...remove STV
...increase the housing allowance
...add an education benefit
...increase the weight allowance
...add definitive scope language
...make tax equalization optional
But, let's ask a similarly insightful question --- what would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote to a "No"?
...what length of STV would you actually find unacceptable?
...how low would you allow the housing allowance to drop?
...what if the overseas medical benefits were not offered to children, in the same way no educational benefits are being provided?
...would you accept a weight allowance below 500lbs over and 3,000lbs back?
...would you allow the word "scope" to not actually exist within the LOA?
(...wait, nevermind, it doesn't)
...what if tax equalization wasn't offered?
Basically, I am asking "How low will you go?"
How cheaply are you willing to work to "lock up this flying"?
I really think it's a fair question because the folks who are stating it's inadequate are being painted as greedy, ignorant of the business aspects of the LOA, and demanding.
The MEC and the company say there's no room to talk --- that there is absolutely no room to go a day shorter on STV, a dollar higher on housing or education, a pound more on household goods, or an additional word when it comes to articulating scope.
Hmmmm....so we've defined an upper limit, what is the lower limit?
For all who feel we should quit debating and tow the union line please enligten us....how low would you go before you would change your "Yes" vote to a "No"?
Please stop and ponder it.
In Unity,
DLax
...remove STV
...increase the housing allowance
...add an education benefit
...increase the weight allowance
...add definitive scope language
...make tax equalization optional
But, let's ask a similarly insightful question --- what would it take for a "Yes" voter to change their vote to a "No"?
...what length of STV would you actually find unacceptable?
...how low would you allow the housing allowance to drop?
...what if the overseas medical benefits were not offered to children, in the same way no educational benefits are being provided?
...would you accept a weight allowance below 500lbs over and 3,000lbs back?
...would you allow the word "scope" to not actually exist within the LOA?
(...wait, nevermind, it doesn't)
...what if tax equalization wasn't offered?
Basically, I am asking "How low will you go?"
How cheaply are you willing to work to "lock up this flying"?
I really think it's a fair question because the folks who are stating it's inadequate are being painted as greedy, ignorant of the business aspects of the LOA, and demanding.
The MEC and the company say there's no room to talk --- that there is absolutely no room to go a day shorter on STV, a dollar higher on housing or education, a pound more on household goods, or an additional word when it comes to articulating scope.
Hmmmm....so we've defined an upper limit, what is the lower limit?
For all who feel we should quit debating and tow the union line please enligten us....how low would you go before you would change your "Yes" vote to a "No"?
Please stop and ponder it.
In Unity,
DLax
BTW I don't think the MEC said there is no room to talk, nor did they state they wouldn't like higher numbers.
They stated that the company informed the Negotiating Committee that this is it and you have all witnessed direct Negotiations to the Pilots from the former SCP saying exactly that.
Either it is enough for each one of us or it isn't. Pretty simple really.
Do you really want to telegraph to the company just how low you would go? Isn't it low enough already?
08-01-2007, 11:25 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
I am not sure I get your drift....
....Isn't it low enough already?
....Isn't it low enough already?
If you are a "Yes" voter --- it clearly isn't.
The question is "How low will you go?"
It's been asserted the "No" voters are greedy. They want too much.
What I am trying to ascertain is how "generous" are the "Yes" voters?
Is their generosity to the company's profits boundless?
Is there a cornerstone aspect of this LOA, that if removed, would make them change their vote to "No"?
If the "No" voters are being asked to reconsider their positions, I think it is equally as important for the "yes" voters to articulate what aspect of the LOA put them "over the top" and convinced them to vote "Yes".
So, once again -- "Yes" voters --- How low will you go?
08-01-2007, 11:30 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by DLax85
If you are a "No" voter --- yes it already is too low.
If you are a "Yes" voter --- it clearly isn't.
The question is "How low will you go?"
It's been asserted the "No" voters are greedy. They want too much.
What I am trying to ascertain is how "generous" are the "Yes" voters?
Is their generosity to the company's profits boundless?
Is there a cornerstone aspect of this LOA, that if removed, would make them change their vote to "No"?
If the "No" voters are being asked to reconsider their positions, I think it is equally as important for the "yes" voters to articulate what aspect of the LOA put them "over the top" and convinced them to vote "Yes".
So, once again -- "Yes" voters --- How low will you go?
If you are a "Yes" voter --- it clearly isn't.
The question is "How low will you go?"
It's been asserted the "No" voters are greedy. They want too much.
What I am trying to ascertain is how "generous" are the "Yes" voters?
Is their generosity to the company's profits boundless?
Is there a cornerstone aspect of this LOA, that if removed, would make them change their vote to "No"?
If the "No" voters are being asked to reconsider their positions, I think it is equally as important for the "yes" voters to articulate what aspect of the LOA put them "over the top" and convinced them to vote "Yes".
So, once again -- "Yes" voters --- How low will you go?
Wouldn't you agree?
08-02-2007, 12:19 AM
#5
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Vacation
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Again I caution you. If this LOA does fail ( as it appears likely) is it really prudent to request lower numbers some are willing to accept? Why would you want to give MGT, who obviously have lurkers here, lower numbers?
Wouldn't you agree?
Wouldn't you agree?
I have to agree with RedEye on this one.
08-02-2007, 12:29 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 129
I get you DLax. Your questions are simply rhetorical in nature, in order to have "yes" voters to ponder the low ball nature of this LOA that they support. I appreciate the time you put into coming up with these questions.
08-02-2007, 04:14 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by Jaxman187
I get you DLax. Your questions are simply rhetorical in nature, in order to have "yes" voters to ponder the low ball nature of this LOA that they support. I appreciate the time you put into coming up with these questions.
If the LOA fails because it sucks (AND it does), why would someone saying they would have taken less help the company? If it fails, they were already a minority opinion?
Let's consider the numbers. Assume 50% +1 voters vote this down. Now assume for the sake of argument that 20(an astronomically high number for this board) yes voters chime in that they would accept paying their own way, no allowances, no equalization, and alimony for all of Fred's children. What does the company do with that??
I assumed the questions were rhetorical anyway.
08-02-2007, 04:15 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Again I caution you. If this LOA does fail ( as it appears likely) is it really prudent to request lower numbers some are willing to accept? Why would you want to give MGT, who obviously have lurkers here, lower numbers?
Wouldn't you agree?
Wouldn't you agree?
08-02-2007, 04:24 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Yes, a few of you are "getting" my line of questioning.
For those of you who aren't --- are you "Yes" voters?
Are you actually willing to go lower and still accept this LOA?
If so, very enlightening --- and disappointing in some sense.
What are the cornerstone issues, that if removed, would have you change your vote to a "No"?
What are you passionate about when thinking about FDA compensation and benefits?
Please don't tell me you would really "buy into" this LOA for free....or vote "Yes" simply because your MEC told you it's the best we can do.
Hopefully, you felt there was still some need for you to judge it against some type of industry benchmarks.
Have you established any "personal minimums"for this LOA or for living in a FDA?
We're all taught to do this everyday when flying or preparing to fly ---sleep mins, alchohol mins/limitations, airspeed tolerance mins, etc.
It's interesting to note that the pilots who are most commonly viewed by their peers as being the most professional, are the ones that set "higher mins" then those required by Standards or by the FARs.
They are viewed as prudent, even conservative --- definitely not radicals.
It is very interesting that some of you have responded to my posts by saying why would we want management to know how low we will go?....I really don't think we should be doing that!
....I wholeheartedly agree!
But that is exactly what we will be signaling to management IF we accept this substandard LOA and move forward.
If this LOA is accepted as written, we will have firmly established a substandard minimum the company knows we are willing to accept and work under.
There is no future gaurantees that any facet of this LOA will be improved during the next round of negogiations.
The folks voicing why this LOA is substandard are not greedy, do not lack business sense, and are not part of some lunatic fringe of radical pilots.
They simply have come to grips with "how low they will go".
They are content with the risks of voting this LOA down because it is below what should be expected and is acceptable from such a highly profitable company; especially at a time when the company has such a great interest in expanding internationally with a known, highly reliable product delivery system.
They are also hopeful that our current MEC leadership can successfully bring the company back to the negogiation table and fix a few of the areas that need repair.
They believe the NC and MEC can succeed!
Once again, there is middle ground --- no need for condescending labels, scare tactics, threats or any form of brinksmanship from Mgt or the MEC.
FEDEX is a resounding, highly profitable, success every night and every day, because of the amazing hard work, cooperation and synchronicity that occurs on the flightline and in the hub.
Just a few thoughts and questions to ponder as you decide how to vote.....and we move forward with that outcome, together.
In Unity,
DLax
For those of you who aren't --- are you "Yes" voters?
Are you actually willing to go lower and still accept this LOA?
If so, very enlightening --- and disappointing in some sense.
What are the cornerstone issues, that if removed, would have you change your vote to a "No"?
What are you passionate about when thinking about FDA compensation and benefits?
Please don't tell me you would really "buy into" this LOA for free....or vote "Yes" simply because your MEC told you it's the best we can do.
Hopefully, you felt there was still some need for you to judge it against some type of industry benchmarks.
Have you established any "personal minimums"for this LOA or for living in a FDA?
We're all taught to do this everyday when flying or preparing to fly ---sleep mins, alchohol mins/limitations, airspeed tolerance mins, etc.
It's interesting to note that the pilots who are most commonly viewed by their peers as being the most professional, are the ones that set "higher mins" then those required by Standards or by the FARs.
They are viewed as prudent, even conservative --- definitely not radicals.
It is very interesting that some of you have responded to my posts by saying why would we want management to know how low we will go?....I really don't think we should be doing that!
....I wholeheartedly agree!
But that is exactly what we will be signaling to management IF we accept this substandard LOA and move forward.
If this LOA is accepted as written, we will have firmly established a substandard minimum the company knows we are willing to accept and work under.
There is no future gaurantees that any facet of this LOA will be improved during the next round of negogiations.
The folks voicing why this LOA is substandard are not greedy, do not lack business sense, and are not part of some lunatic fringe of radical pilots.
They simply have come to grips with "how low they will go".
They are content with the risks of voting this LOA down because it is below what should be expected and is acceptable from such a highly profitable company; especially at a time when the company has such a great interest in expanding internationally with a known, highly reliable product delivery system.
They are also hopeful that our current MEC leadership can successfully bring the company back to the negogiation table and fix a few of the areas that need repair.
They believe the NC and MEC can succeed!
Once again, there is middle ground --- no need for condescending labels, scare tactics, threats or any form of brinksmanship from Mgt or the MEC.
FEDEX is a resounding, highly profitable, success every night and every day, because of the amazing hard work, cooperation and synchronicity that occurs on the flightline and in the hub.
Just a few thoughts and questions to ponder as you decide how to vote.....and we move forward with that outcome, together.
In Unity,
DLax
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
