|
Originally Posted by JamesBond
(Post 3515859)
Personally, if they got increases for CPI inflation plus even 1% for the years prior to the China Flu, and the big increase based on inflation plus a lot more for 2022, that would be a reasonable compromise. I don't expect a 20% pay increase back to the amendable, that is not reasonable nor is it fair to the company. But to give the company a free pass and not get ANYTHING for the last 3 years is completely unacceptable and gives the company the go ahead to drag out any future contracts without fear of actually paying you for work done. This is YOUR contract. If you are willing to reward management for this behavior, don't whine when they do it the next time.. and the next... and the next....
|
Originally Posted by Boatbuilder
(Post 3514601)
A rose by any other name. As long as the $$ is there, call it what you will.
"Punish the company for dragging their feet!!" is non productive. It's also a two-way street mentality. $$$ and/or improvements is the ultimate goal. Getting hung up on labels is a waste of time. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 3515840)
What is it with you? Interesting to know I occupy so much room in your mind. Why don't you just block me since everything I post you feel you must respond to?
I responded to this particular post because it seems to me you requested information that you wouldn’t provide yourself and has nothing to do with the thoughts conveyed. |
Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux
(Post 3515922)
This is the correct attitude, I think.
"Punish the company for dragging their feet!!" is non productive. It's also a two-way street mentality. $$$ and/or improvements is the ultimate goal. Getting hung up on labels is a waste of time. |
Originally Posted by tunes
(Post 3515916)
retro should be as if we had a contract in 2019 since if the company had negotiated in good faith we would have had a contract then. This pay negotiation is essentially negotiating 2 pay contracts.
|
It’s important to me that we preserve the notion that even if a contract isn’t signed until after you’ve left/retired, you’ll get your back pay. That association unity is what will keep us from unnecessarily fracturing our vote - at least any more than 15,000 pilots already fracture.
I’ll gladly take a smaller retro check than a larger signing bonus if the former ensures everyone who worked after the amendable date is back-payed appropriately. The company would love to lock in the 2019 rate labor costs they got away with for all the high-earning retirees, and instead pay pennies on the dollar to the 1-5 year longevity newbies with a signing bonus. None of us should be incentivized to grab what we can with a hold-your-nose yes vote to a crappy TA because that’s the only way to salvage some partial back pay. Stay strong, advocate for the profession and resist its perpetual erosion…and you’ll eventually get what’s owed to you. That should be the contract that we can all…hang our hat on. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 3516019)
It’s important to me that we preserve the notion that even if a contract isn’t signed until after you’ve left/retired, you’ll get your back pay. That association unity is what will keep us from unnecessarily fracturing our vote - at least any more than 15,000 pilots already fracture.
I’ll gladly take a smaller retro check than a larger signing bonus if the former ensures everyone who worked after the amendable date is back-payed appropriately. The company would love to lock in the 2019 rate labor costs they got away with for all the high-earning retirees, and instead pay pennies on the dollar to the 1-5 year longevity newbies with a signing bonus. None of us should be incentivized to grab what we can with a hold-your-nose yes vote to a crappy TA because that’s the only way to salvage some partial back pay. Stay strong, advocate for the profession and resist its perpetual erosion…and you’ll eventually get what’s owed to you. That should be the contract that we can all…hang our hat on. |
Originally Posted by marcal
(Post 3515603)
This seems dumb to me.
Why not just amend our bylaws to say, “we must have ten percent raises every year”? Its nice that we put it in, but that doesn’t mean anything to the company in regards to what gets signed in the end. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 3516028)
I find this ^^^^ to be very profound. The folks that say "money is money...doesn't matter if it is a retro check or a signing bonus", miss the boat IMHO. They either miss the nuances of the two(retro/signing bonus), or understand the nuances and are content to feather their bed at the expense of those that have/will retire since the amendable date.
Signed, not someone super senior. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3515008)
The RLA favors management in dragging out negotiations. An IRONCLAD retro policy is the only possible way to offset that. And it needs to be implemented ALPA-wide, profession wide if possible. (FWIW I work at NK, not DAL) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands