|
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1854559)
Love these patronizing, condescending posts.....:rolleyes: they never get old.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1854945)
Profit sharing should have nothing to do with the pay rate negotiated. I view it as a "bonus" in the good times. Negotiate a great pay rate for the not so good times.
Denny |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1854951)
Indeed. Whether it's the old heads like Alfaromeo and Karnak, or their (wink wink) reincarnations like Bender and the Tool, the arrogance and narcissism always comes through. I guess that DALPA "special committee" has just got to stay busy somehow.
Carl |
Denny,
No it wasn't compensation for past sacrifices. It was the best we could do for future compensation based on a very weak hand we were dealt post-bankruptcy. We would've opted for fixed pay increases if we would have had the negotiating leverage. I understand you value the insurance as a "bonus". Nothing wrong with that. What that insurance is worth is the question. The value changes with the business cycle. Are you willing to pay the premium when risk changes? That is the question. Profit sharing is a tool in which its value changes in the business cycle. We should look to monetize when its value is high and likely to be lower in the future. We can initiate it when its value is low and likely to increase in the future. It isn't good or bad. I'm saying I think it is a good time to capture value and reduce risk. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1854951)
Indeed. Whether it's the old heads like Alfaromeo and Karnak, or their (wink wink) reincarnations like Bender and the Tool, the arrogance and narcissism always comes through. I guess that DALPA "special committee" has just got to stay busy somehow.
Carl |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1854621)
If our hourly rates appear to be less than AA's, meh.
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1854621)
I'll take that nice pay bump in the first quarter of the year and get that 401k working faster, and perhaps a little less each month. Yup. TVM. It's real. But if the group wants to monetize it and smoke AA's hourly rates, I am fine with that too.
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1854621)
But I do not think the PS should be monetized in section 6. Get our rates for the contract solidified, THEN come back and talk about PS.
Carl |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1854672)
New hires are gonna retire rich unless they are complete driveling idiots when it comes to investing.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1854971)
There are no "appearances" in pay rates. They are either higher, lower or equal.
Twice in the same paragraph, you tie pay rates to profit sharing. The members don't want that. What you wrote below doesn't wash with what you wrote above. Contradicting yourself in the same post doesn't help. Carl |
Originally Posted by SharpestTool
(Post 1854966)
I'm saying I think it is a good time to capture value and reduce risk.
|
Originally Posted by SharpestTool
(Post 1854966)
Denny,
No it wasn't compensation for past sacrifices. It was the best we could do for future compensation based on a very weak hand we were dealt post-bankruptcy. We would've opted for fixed pay increases if we would have had the negotiating leverage. I understand you value the insurance as a "bonus". Nothing wrong with that. What that insurance is worth is the question. The value changes with the business cycle. Are you willing to pay the premium when risk changes? That is the question. Profit sharing is a tool in which its value changes in the business cycle. We should look to monetize when its value is high and likely to be lower in the future. We can initiate it when its value is low and likely to increase in the future. It isn't good or bad. I'm saying I think it is a good time to capture value and reduce risk. The survey has spoken. Maybe 2018. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands