|
|
Management knows we hate being considered hourly employees. So they bring in the negotiators, show them some confidential pie charts, and use some five dollar management buzzwords. Viola, now ALPA is "part of the team," and as such can be manipulated to do things "for the good of the company" and not necessarily for the good of the pilots. Dude, why did we need any negotiators at all last time. You could've done it single-handedly!! :rolleyes: We are hourly wage earners. We are not managers or executives. Of course it's possible to be professionals, and add value to the company in such a capacity. We show that every single day. But we are not now, and never will be, managers or executives. Let's stop fooling ourselves any differently, because we do so at the peril of our leverage at the bargaining table. |
I beg to differ. You don't have to be a manager or executive to be a salaried employee, regardless of the industry. Virtually every other profession has salaried employees. The hourly wage thing has always been an issue with me. I know why the airline industry does it. Doesn't make it right. If you require college degrees and years of training, you should be salaried. Just like every other non-aircrew employee at DAL. Pay attention Purple. Buzzpat writes books for a living, he's a sharp tool! Plus, he's probably the only author who has worked for a previous & future POTUS!! :D GJ P.S. What's the scoop on her Buzz? Hill is way more ruthless than Bill, right? |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1499002)
Bolded is not correct. Off the street interviews are going on right now and they will be in classes in jan.
I have no personal inside knowledge regarding the official plan, except what I was told. I, more than most can't wait for significant new hires to start rolling in! |
Someone forgot to switch gearjerk to decaf today I see...
|
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1499036)
P.S. What's the scoop on her Buzz? Hill is way more ruthless than Bill, right?
|
Someone forgot to switch gearjerk to decaf today I see... |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1499034)
Wow PD. You have it all figured out. That's exactly what happened. "The negotiators were shown confidential pie charts, & swindled over the company's use of some $5 buzz words." (No offense Buzzpat.) :) The very reason why we only received an 4/8.5/3/3 raise.
Dude, why did we need any negotiators at all last time. You could've done it single-handedly!! :rolleyes: : Gearjerk, While I don't agree, with purple, that we could have gotten 25% each year pay raises, I do believe we should have gotten much more. Giving back a part of our profit sharing, that we already paid once for in letter 51, was a real special kind of stupid. The only reason the company wanted that back was so they could go to the other employee groups and take it from them. That is their problem not ours. To say that we would have gotten even less of percentage raises than 3% the last two years without giving it back is rich to say the least. This has been the same cycle for the almost 14 years I've been here. It's time to negotiate, well it's time to manufacture some immediate reason the company needs something or else we lose. My bet for the 2015 negotiations is widebody orders. They will need relief from FAR 117, JV, code share or large RJ's and the carrot will be a widebody order that will make every pilot on the seniority list salivate. Just my take/opinion |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1498931)
Did you read Purple's post? The one I quoted? How about you try not coming off as such a biased <expletive>?
Thanks Nu, look forward to your "fair & balanced" posting soon. :rolleyes: GJ Nu |
Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the fool who follows him? Nu So, Purple Drank & I are both fools, :D but he's still buying the first beer if we ever cross paths. GJ |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1498793)
Agreed.
... You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want? We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA. Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened. ... What if we did this: 1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT. 2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %. 3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections. 4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment. 5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc. 6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases. There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already. Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table. I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's: Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table. Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:48 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands