|
What Oberon said.
|
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1737445)
Here's our main difference of opinion. You think your (or my) estimation of our value has some relevance in our negotiations and I think it's mostly irrelevant (there is a place for rhetoric if/when the company isn't cooperating to rally the groups leading up to a strike vote). We will get what we can negotiate which is determined by the leverage we have or can generate. Historical pay rates aren't leverage.
That's not to say we can't get the pay rates you want. If we do it won't be because Delta pilots used to make equivalent rates, it will be because we have the leverage to get there. We have a lot of leverage right now. Delta is making more money than they ever have so it should be able to pay its pilots more than it ever has. All the major airlines have similar contracts. There is no US Airways dragging us down. Unfortunately there is no one pulling us up; Southwest helps, maybe UPS and FedEx could help. The company values labor peace enough to mention it to investors. I'm guessing they value it enough to pay a little more to keep it. Does this add up to the pay rates you want? I hope so. I couldn't say with any certainty though. I'm going to try to address your questions a little more directly but there was a pretty clear slant to them. Sort of like when Stephen Colbert used to ask guests "George Bush; great President or greatest President?". Anyway... This question is straight forward enough. I wasn't the most well informed student. I didn't go to college planning on being a pilot, I chose it because flying seemed better than going to an office and I knew I liked airplanes and flying because my dad had a small plane when I was a kid. When researching the profession I was told pilots got a lot of time off, made a lot of money, and the "Vietnam era" pilots would be retiring in masse so there was demand. Needless to say, I've learned a lot since then. Overall, I'd say very little of what I thought when I was 20 years old has relevence to my life today, career expectations included. Decide for yourself. I honestly don't spend much time concentrating on the value of the profession. If I didn't fly I'd probably be in the house flipping/rental property business. I'm guessing I could make more money and have more time off later in my life if I quit flying tomorrow and concentrated on that but the trade off would be way longer hours in the near and mid term. I've determined my personal value of the profession is greater than the alternative. Apparently, you have too since you continue to work for Delta. My determination for how much our pay rates should be (I realize there is more to the contract than pay rates but that is the one thing that can be easily compared over time) is based on what our leverage is. I think we have a lot of leverage and expect a significant pay raise. Is it enough to get to historical levels? I don't know. How does our leverage compare to historical levels? This is your Stephen Colbert question. I've never said and bankruptcy should be accepted as a new baseline. I've said our contract would be decided by the leverage we have and that "restoration" gives us no leverage. I can't answer a question based on a false premise. What happened in bankruptcy is irrelevant to C2015 just like what happened in C2001 is irrelevant. Sorry... I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand how you could see it that way. You're a big supporter of the way DALPA has handled things the past 10 years, right? In other words, you're a big supporter of proactive engagement. The premise of proactive engagement is a good, respectful, working relationship between labor and management. So.... if we have this good, respectful, working relationship then why would it be that the only way we can get anything is by using leverage against management? Leverage is something you use against an adversary. The very definition of proactive engagement is non-confrontational... the opposite of adversarial. The way I see things is that proactive engagement is exactly the way things should work. But in order to have true proactive engagement, both parties have to demonstrate respect to each other. It can't be a one-way street. It has to be mutually respectful. We're currently being compensated at a level comparable to the way we were being compensated after we were strong-armed with the threat of bankruptcy into a 32.5% pay cut. I just don't see that as being respectful of us in any way. So, yeah. If we have a confrontational relationship with management... if management is the enemy, then your leverage idea is pretty much all there can be to it. But if we have proactive engagement (real proactive engagement, not window dressing) in a mutually respectful partnership with our management... it sure seems to me like there's a lot more to it than just leverage. You can't have it both ways, Oberon... so which is it? And I still think you're confusing objective with techniques. Leverage is one technique that can be used to achieve an objective. It's not an objective in and of itself. But if you don't have a clearly defined objective, then you don't know what technique is appropriate to be used. What do you think DALPA's objective should be? (Be sure and show your work.) |
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1737445)
Here's our main difference of opinion. You think your (or my) estimation of our value has some relevance in our negotiations and I think it's mostly irrelevant (there is a place for rhetoric if/when the company isn't cooperating to rally the groups leading up to a strike vote). We will get what we can negotiate which is determined by the leverage we have or can generate. Historical pay rates aren't leverage.
That's not to say we can't get the pay rates you want. If we do it won't be because Delta pilots used to make equivalent rates, it will be because we have the leverage to get there. We have a lot of leverage right now. Delta is making more money than they ever have so it should be able to pay its pilots more than it ever has. All the major airlines have similar contracts. There is no US Airways dragging us down. Unfortunately there is no one pulling us up; Southwest helps, maybe UPS and FedEx could help. The company values labor peace enough to mention it to investors. I'm guessing they value it enough to pay a little more to keep it. Does this add up to the pay rates you want? I hope so. I couldn't say with any certainty though. I'm going to try to address your questions a little more directly but there was a pretty clear slant to them. Sort of like when Stephen Colbert used to ask guests "George Bush; great President or greatest President?". Anyway... This question is straight forward enough. I wasn't the most well informed student. I didn't go to college planning on being a pilot, I chose it because flying seemed better than going to an office and I knew I liked airplanes and flying because my dad had a small plane when I was a kid. When researching the profession I was told pilots got a lot of time off, made a lot of money, and the "Vietnam era" pilots would be retiring in masse so there was demand. Needless to say, I've learned a lot since then. Overall, I'd say very little of what I thought when I was 20 years old has relevence to my life today, career expectations included. Decide for yourself. I honestly don't spend much time concentrating on the value of the profession. If I didn't fly I'd probably be in the house flipping/rental property business. I'm guessing I could make more money and have more time off later in my life if I quit flying tomorrow and concentrated on that but the trade off would be way longer hours in the near and mid term. I've determined my personal value of the profession is greater than the alternative. Apparently, you have too since you continue to work for Delta. My determination for how much our pay rates should be (I realize there is more to the contract than pay rates but that is the one thing that can be easily compared over time) is based on what our leverage is. I think we have a lot of leverage and expect a significant pay raise. Is it enough to get to historical levels? I don't know. How does our leverage compare to historical levels? This is your Stephen Colbert question. I've never said and bankruptcy should be accepted as a new baseline. I've said our contract would be decided by the leverage we have and that "restoration" gives us no leverage. I can't answer a question based on a false premise. What happened in bankruptcy is irrelevant to C2015 just like what happened in C2001 is irrelevant. All I can say is, those that don't know history are doomed to repeat those mistakes....:rolleyes: |
The standard unit of measurement for leverage is the Moak.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1737699)
The standard unit of measurement for leverage is the Moak.
0 Moak = infinite leverage. |
From Oberon's post above;
"Here's our main difference of opinion. You think your (or my) estimation of our value has some relevance in our negotiations and I think it's mostly irrelevant (there is a place for rhetoric if/when the company isn't cooperating to rally the groups leading up to a strike vote). We will get what we can negotiate which is determined by the leverage we have or can generate. Historical pay rates aren't leverage." And he wasn't even working for Delta until a few months ago... Sounds like Oberon has accepted the bankruptcy pay rates as a reset. I have not. I have 29 years invested here. I lost a whole lot of money in the bankruptcy and now I want it back! The company cannot say they cannot afford to repay us for our sacrifices. Certainly not when they are making $4 Billion per year! ($2 Billion of which was our contribution) |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1737667)
Okay. To sum up your argument. It's all about leverage. Past precedent, doing the right thing, valuing employees as an asset rather than just a cost item to be minimized... those are all things that are irrelevant. It's ALL about the leverage.
Sorry... I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand how you could see it that way. You're a big supporter of the way DALPA has handled things the past 10 years, right? In other words, you're a big supporter of proactive engagement. The premise of proactive engagement is a good, respectful, working relationship between labor and management. So.... if we have this good, respectful, working relationship then why would it be that the only way we can get anything is by using leverage against management? Leverage is something you use against an adversary. The very definition of proactive engagement is non-confrontational... the opposite of adversarial. The way I see things is that proactive engagement is exactly the way things should work. But in order to have true proactive engagement, both parties have to demonstrate respect to each other. It can't be a one-way street. It has to be mutually respectful. We're currently being compensated at a level comparable to the way we were being compensated after we were strong-armed with the threat of bankruptcy into a 32.5% pay cut. I just don't see that as being respectful of us in any way. So, yeah. If we have a confrontational relationship with management... if management is the enemy, then your leverage idea is pretty much all there can be to it. But if we have proactive engagement (real proactive engagement, not window dressing) in a mutually respectful partnership with our management... it sure seems to me like there's a lot more to it than just leverage. You can't have it both ways, Oberon... so which is it? And I still think you're confusing objective with techniques. Leverage is one technique that can be used to achieve an objective. It's not an objective in and of itself. But if you don't have a clearly defined objective, then you don't know what technique is appropriate to be used. What do you think DALPA's objective should be? (Be sure and show your work.) I wouldn't say I'm a "big supporter" of the way DALPA has operated in the past decade. I thought it was pretty crappy that they threw Compass out of the MEC while claiming we would somehow be better on our own. It's too late to write any more... |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1737736)
I have 29 years invested here. I lost a whole lot of money in the bankruptcy and now I want it back! The company cannot say they cannot afford to repay us for our sacrifices.
That said, it does not matter what the company says they can afford to pay us or what they want to pay us. The only thing that matters in the end -- the only thing -- is what we can force them to pay us. I believe that was Oberon's point. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1737700)
1 Moak = no leverage
0 Moak = infinite leverage. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1737791)
If it makes you feel any better, I understand that we'll be at 0 Moak well before openers are exchanged. ;)
Carl |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands