Furlough pay
07-04-2020 | 07:02 PM
#61
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 533
Likes: 35
From: 330
07-05-2020 | 03:19 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,128
Likes: 91
400ish. But many are retiring/early-retiring in August.
My understanding is that they're being offered "furlough protection" lasting less than a year from now (through 2Q 2021) IF they vote to extend their current 25% pay cut. I think the cut is actually 25% fewer work shifts yielding that reduced pay. If they don't take the deal by July, they're being told it's off the table and will see ~20% furloughed for 2-3 years. All the August retirees will vote on the deal (or have the opportunity to) despite the fact that they'll not work under the resulting (or rejected) agreement.
My understanding is that they're being offered "furlough protection" lasting less than a year from now (through 2Q 2021) IF they vote to extend their current 25% pay cut. I think the cut is actually 25% fewer work shifts yielding that reduced pay. If they don't take the deal by July, they're being told it's off the table and will see ~20% furloughed for 2-3 years. All the August retirees will vote on the deal (or have the opportunity to) despite the fact that they'll not work under the resulting (or rejected) agreement.
07-05-2020 | 10:37 AM
#64
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 301
Likes: 3
From: Sic semper tomato
400ish. But many are retiring/early-retiring in August.
My understanding is that they're being offered "furlough protection" lasting less than a year from now (through 2Q 2021) IF they vote to extend their current 25% pay cut. I think the cut is actually 25% fewer work shifts yielding that reduced pay. If they don't take the deal by July, they're being told it's off the table and will see ~20% furloughed for 2-3 years. All the August retirees will vote on the deal (or have the opportunity to) despite the fact that they'll not work under the resulting (or rejected) agreement.
My understanding is that they're being offered "furlough protection" lasting less than a year from now (through 2Q 2021) IF they vote to extend their current 25% pay cut. I think the cut is actually 25% fewer work shifts yielding that reduced pay. If they don't take the deal by July, they're being told it's off the table and will see ~20% furloughed for 2-3 years. All the August retirees will vote on the deal (or have the opportunity to) despite the fact that they'll not work under the resulting (or rejected) agreement.
07-05-2020 | 01:58 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 168
From: window seat
464 on the seniority list, 335 active. Your information above is correct, it's a 25% reduction in hours (read ALV) versus rate which as we all know that once conceded, it's a generational affair to come back IF they ever do. The retirees will have the ability to vote and there is no guarantee that if it's sunk, the company will allow another vote after they are off property. Put simply, the fates of potentially 100ish Dispatchers for the next 2-3 years and possibly beyond rests heavily on 80 or so retirees who will either vote to protect their own pay until August or vote to pass the hit and save the jobs. Either way? It stinks. No carrot and stick, just stick and larger stick with the potential of furloughs never too far off the horizon.
07-05-2020 | 02:33 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 93
That's how unions work. If we had a concessionary LOA go to MEMRAT, all pilots on the list would be able to vote. If we have a new TA, it's not like we would prevent pilots that are 64 from voting since they won't be around before it goes into effect.
07-05-2020 | 02:39 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 168
From: window seat
I get that if there is a TA then everyone can vote. But why not do a separate one a few weeks later in this specific case for that specific reason? Especially when it could easily make the difference? We're always going to have some amount of age 64 pilots. But the percentage of their retiring dispatchers over just a month or so who could tank a deal that the majority of the rest would want seems like a really silly way to time it.
07-05-2020 | 02:43 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 93
Do we actually know if they have an unusually large amount retiring in a few months? If not, wouldn't there always be a group of dispatchers who would retire before or shortly after the proposed cut in shifts?
07-05-2020 | 03:07 PM
#69
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 301
Likes: 3
From: Sic semper tomato
Excellent question. The sense is that they want it to fail, not allow a re-vote and then end up furloughing. This seems to best position them for that. The endgame being to be able to say to the noncons "see, representation can't save you". That's the general consensus...
07-05-2020 | 03:11 PM
#70
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 301
Likes: 3
From: Sic semper tomato
And the number planning to retire was only around 10-15.
Last edited by WickedSmaht; 07-05-2020 at 03:22 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
