![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1670869)
Sounds like the "accepted" meaning of the first amendment being separation of church and state. Even though "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the first amendment.
Interesting. Carl |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1670731)
Everyone needs to take the rotation construction survey. I am not making this up.
It asks what age you intend to retire and states that this has something to do with rotation construction. Even Sailing cannot make this management water carrying seem ok. Do they really think we are that dumb? A new low and that is saying a lot. Right now they have 0 idea of when guys are planning to retire and are looking for any opportunity to gather some data. The bigger issue is the preamble that basically has said since we are now short staffed expect the crappy schedules to continue. |
Originally Posted by Dorfman
(Post 1670929)
Please tell me what the big issue on that question is? I agree it has little to do with RC but I think they are trying to gather a data point when they can.
Right now they have 0 idea of when guys are planning to retire and are looking for any opportunity to gather some data. The bigger issue is the preamble that basically has said since we are now short staffed expect the crappy schedules to continue. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1670925)
I am struggling to understand you here, Flamer. The Company published a memo requiring pilots to perform a duty not required under the PWA. MD published a retort, saying that ALPA would fully back any pilot who held to his contractual rights. Some number did so, and were financially punished by the Company.
Four months after the infamous memo from the Company, a settlement was reached in which pilots are no longer required to perform the duty described in the memo, those who had been punished for not doing so were made whole, and the pilot group now costs some $30-40M per year more than it did before. From what I understand, while this was not particularly quick or easy, all was made right in the end to the benefit of both the harmed pilots and the pilot group as a whole. What goal did this brilliant move by the Company achieve? |
Originally Posted by Dorfman
(Post 1670929)
Please tell me what the big issue on that question is? I agree it has little to do with RC but I think they are trying to gather a data point when they can.
Right now they have 0 idea of when guys are planning to retire and are looking for any opportunity to gather some data. The bigger issue is the preamble that basically has said since we are now short staffed expect the crappy schedules to continue. I said I was going to retire at 29 just to skew the data. |
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1670945)
I see your perspective. Mine is that it was an intentional violation of the contract to test the union's resolve. They got their answer. They also got a free four month loan from the pilots caught up in the matter. Had there not been a necessity to negotiate, which there was in this case, the outcome might have been far different.
The outcome would then have been up to him. |
[QUOTE=Flamer;1670946]I didn't have an issue with that question personally. Besides, how could they have possibly seen a staffing shortage on the horizon?
They read the forum and believed you guys. They were not going to have to hire for years with the massive job loss promised here with contract 2012. Who would have thought the unions numbers would be dead on and they would end up short! |
[QUOTE=sailingfun;1670959]
Originally Posted by Flamer
(Post 1670946)
I didn't have an issue with that question personally. Besides, how could they have possibly seen a staffing shortage on the horizon?
They read the forum and believed you guys. They were not going to have to hire for years with the massive job loss promised here with contract 2012. Who would have thought the unions numbers would be dead on and they would end up short! |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1670948)
Fair enough. I'm assuming, though, that your view of the answer they got and mine may not be the same. Absent a negotiated settlement, ALPA would have been forced to file a grievance on the matter, which would then have been settled by an arbitrator.
The outcome would then have been up to him. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1670775)
Harva'd
$198,400 Average salary for a full professor in 2012 $201,600 Average salary for a male full professors in 2012 $187,500 Average salary for a female full professors in 2012 +$69,500 Change in average full professor salary at Harvard since 2000 1,084 Number of full professors at Harvard $54,496 Cost of undergraduate attendance at Harvard 2012-13 3.4 The average number of student tuitions needed to pay the average Harvard professor $120,900 Average salary for associate professors in 2012 $109,800 Average salary for assistant professors in 2012 $56,700 Average salary for non-ladder instructors in 2012 $875,331 Total compensation for Drew Faust in 2010 #1 Harvard’s rank for average faculty salaries in the world Cool. What does it mean? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands