Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1888340)

Vapor TA thoughts here: I was reading about how our contract was when I started. 7 weeks of vacation, trips touching, cap, authorized leave, 300 hours of annual sick leave, pension, the list goes on.

I've tried to make this point before. They are playing chess. The game is called "slow boil". As in, gently direct us into the pot and slowly increase the heat. Before you know it, it's too hot to do anything about your predicament, you're cooked.

I made the point in C2012 that the sick leave section gave the company too much leeway to abuse us for using sick leave. Way too many loopholes for the company. I was flatly dismissed by my reps, and a lot of folks on here. "no, the company would never do that!" ---now we have an entire department dedicated to doing just that, and it wasn't enough for them. Now they want more.

Our predicament will be this if we continue to sell our protections for pay: You will be beholden to fly a lot more, with less control of your schedule and your life in order to make a living. Verifying your sick leave may become such a hassle that you may just decide to fly sick (or not well) instead of dealing with the paper chase. But it's not just sick leave.

If we are not careful, they'll have us in the trick bag. The last thing they'll come for is the money. Once they get us strapped to the wheel, then they come for the compensation and we can do nothing to stop it because of: Sick leave, Joint Ventures, Scope, Recovery Compacts, Staffing Requirements and so on. In other words, when they come for the money and you decide you want a day off or want to start pursuing other avenues of work, forget it. We Own You.

Don't get Owned. That's the game we need to be playing.

One last thing: The concept that you have to give to get in negotiations is a farce. We aren't negotiating a peace treaty or a divorce. When a Goldman Sachs employee goes into his boss and asks for a raise following a record-breaking year, does his boss ask him what he's going to give up for that raise? We are making billions because of our efforts. Our execs haven't been asked to give up anything for their raises. Our contracts 'matured' because of incremental gains, not from selling contractual protections that are essential to our careers.

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1888340)

Don't get Owned. That's the game we need to be playing.

One last thing: The concept that you have to give to get in negotiations is a farce. We aren't negotiating a peace treaty or a divorce. When a Goldman Sachs employee goes into his boss and asks for a raise following a record-breaking year, does his boss ask him what he's going to give up for that raise? We are making billions because of our efforts. Our execs haven't been asked to give up anything for their raises. Our contracts 'matured' because of incremental gains, not from selling contractual protections that are essential to our careers.

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1888340)

Vapor TA thoughts here: I was reading about how our contract was when I started. 7 weeks of vacation, trips touching, cap, authorized leave, 300 hours of annual sick leave, pension, the list goes on.

I've tried to make this point before. They are playing chess. The game is called "slow boil". As in, gently direct us into the pot and slowly increase the heat. Before you know it, it's too hot to do anything about your predicament, you're cooked.

I made the point in C2012 that the sick leave section gave the company too much leeway to abuse us for using sick leave. Way too many loopholes for the company. I was flatly dismissed by my reps, and a lot of folks on here. "no, the company would never do that!" ---now we have an entire department dedicated to doing just that, and it wasn't enough for them. Now they want more.

Our predicament will be this if we continue to sell our protections for pay: You will be beholden to fly a lot more, with less control of your schedule and your life in order to make a living. Verifying your sick leave may become such a hassle that you may just decide to fly sick (or not well) instead of dealing with the paper chase. But it's not just sick leave.

If we are not careful, they'll have us in the trick bag. The last thing they'll come for is the money. Once they get us strapped to the wheel, then they come for the compensation and we can do nothing to stop it because of: Sick leave, Joint Ventures, Scope, Recovery Compacts, Staffing Requirements and so on. In other words, when they come for the money and you decide you want a day off or want to start pursuing other avenues of work, forget it. We Own You.

Don't get Owned. That's the game we need to be playing.

One last thing: The concept that you have to give to get in negotiations is a farce. We aren't negotiating a peace treaty or a divorce. When a Goldman Sachs employee goes into his boss and asks for a raise following a record-breaking year, does his boss ask him what he's going to give up for that raise? We are making billions because of our efforts. Our execs haven't been asked to give up anything for their raises. Our contracts 'matured' because of incremental gains, not from selling contractual protections that are essential to our careers.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1888437)

I've heard theories as to why the company needs this so fast, but none that have convinced me we need to oblige with trades.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1888336)

I think you mean section 6. And I agree with the majority of this post. However if they come up with a TA that includes a reduction in PS and a pay increase, I'll look at it. It had better be pretty significant in terms of that pay increase, and I will deduct the percentage of pay increase from the loss of PS and make my decision based on that. I told my reps that I would be pretty unhappy if they did negotiate PS down in this, but never say never I guess.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1888411)

I agree. For decades SWA has been publicly stating, to the investment community, that they put employees first, customers second and the shareholder third. While they may not have done it WRT profit sharing to the extent DL is right now, they sure did it to an even greater extent in regular pay for many years. Has their stock tanked?

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1888404)

I'm not saying hold out to "swing for the fences" or whatever. I'm talking about not falling for numerous, embedded and DEEP concessions all through the potential TA like the ones that are rumored. I would rather be parked instead of that ANY DAY.

If you're saying you're in range of retirement and will take anything as long as its a raise to you even if it guts scope and QOL for everyone else, have fun with that stratedgy. But unless we sign 10 year deals the demographics will never support that, even during the big retirement wave, which isn't until the next contract most likely.

This isn't a matter of hey we can get a 30% raise today but that's not a Cadillac per month or C2K+ full inflation (and retro!) so lets hold out until we get the motherload! I get the time value of money argument, and while I don't think that means we should roll over too easy, there is some level of value in TVM. I get it. But this is about us not falling for numerous, DEEP concessions in the most critical section of the contract (scope, at ALL levels) and inheriting a pathetic sick/harassment program that will harm far more pilots for far more years than those who will get a few bucks prior to punching out (not to mention, its that same demographic that uses the most sick time in the first place).

I want positive gains form everyone, including the "dead zoners" and every other group all the way down to new hires. And I understand time value of money to a certain extent. But we should not sell management deep and permanent concessions for slightly more money sooner. That's just dumb. More importantly, the demographics simply don't support it anyway, even if we embrace a stratedgy of selling the majority down the river to get a few extra pieces of silver today.

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO (Post 1888444)

No I mean section 3, payrates, in the contract. I want the union to negotiate section 3 then if the company wants to talk PS we can talk but I hate the way they did the payrates in C2012. 4/8.5/3/3 but they would have been less if we had not given up profit sharing? I do believe most Delta pilots would have voted no to say a 0(that was early anyway)/6.5/3/3 or even an 8.5/3/3. Funny how many Dalpa guys were in the lounge saying don't worry we won't ever see those 3/3 with a wink like we were going to get another bite at the apple before they took effect.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1888415)

So what then are you willing to GIVE UP to get that?

If its from the minority its OK though, right? You paid your dues, so they can eat cake, right? Is that really what you're trying to say because that's exactly how its coming across.

Again, I'm not talking about time value of money and you thinking a nice raise sooner is better than a bigger raise later or maybe never. Fine, I get that. But whatever it is that YOU want, NOW, what are you willing to gut in the current contract, which is already heavily concessionary, to achieve that modest quicker raise for YOU?

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1888132)

Ah, there it is. The ubiquitous ALPA straw man argument. The "just say no crowd." Hint: that crowd is growing exponentially every day.

And it's stunning how fast ALPA went from promising an "historic" contract to dispatching messengers here to tell us that if we vote down a crappy TA, we have "unreasonable contract demands."

I'm happy to wind the clock and cash profit sharing checks until RA figures it out. I'd wager many of "those approaching retirement" will be just fine doing the same.