FDX - Communications from the NC
02-02-2009 | 08:44 AM
#141
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
Had a consensus on this exact issue between me, my FO and my jumpseater yesterday. ANY contract changing this will get an automatic NO vote!
02-02-2009 | 06:37 PM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
02-02-2009 | 08:30 PM
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
There is no sound reason for members to want to extend the retirement to age 65, but you can bet that we'll be forced to give something up to keep it. Whether it stays at 60 or is negotiatied away to 65 we will lose.
Put yourself in management's position: "What's it worth to you?"
Put yourself in management's position: "What's it worth to you?"
02-02-2009 | 09:19 PM
#146
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Previous comm from the NC chair:
"...let me be very clear to you that our ability to retire at age 60 without any penalty in the pension and retiree health care arenas must not change! I don’t care if you want to continue past 60, that is certainly your prerogative; I want the option to go at 60 unimpeded. Additionally, although management would desperately like us to expend great energy and bargaining chips to hold onto this basic tenet of our Agreement, there will be none of that."
"...let me be very clear to you that our ability to retire at age 60 without any penalty in the pension and retiree health care arenas must not change! I don’t care if you want to continue past 60, that is certainly your prerogative; I want the option to go at 60 unimpeded. Additionally, although management would desperately like us to expend great energy and bargaining chips to hold onto this basic tenet of our Agreement, there will be none of that."
02-02-2009 | 09:24 PM
#147
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 CAPT
There is no sound reason for members to want to extend the retirement to age 65, but you can bet that we'll be forced to give something up to keep it. Whether it stays at 60 or is negotiatied away to 65 we will lose.
Put yourself in management's position: "What's it worth to you?"
Put yourself in management's position: "What's it worth to you?"
This is how that conversation should go: "So you want the retirement age to change to 65? Well, we'll have to have another week of vacation per year and an additional $30 an hour per seat. What do you mean you can't do that? Well, I guess we'll have to leave it at 60. Next topic?"
02-03-2009 | 07:11 AM
#148
...Whatever It Is!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Likes: 0
I think you're looking at it wrong. Actually, it's already in the contract. So the question is "What's it worth to them to change it?" The obvious answer to me is that we make it too expensive to change.
This is how that conversation should go: "So you want the retirement age to change to 65? Well, we'll have to have another week of vacation per year and an additional $30 an hour per seat. What do you mean you can't do that? Well, I guess we'll have to leave it at 60. Next topic?"
This is how that conversation should go: "So you want the retirement age to change to 65? Well, we'll have to have another week of vacation per year and an additional $30 an hour per seat. What do you mean you can't do that? Well, I guess we'll have to leave it at 60. Next topic?"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
