This. We should take a zero tolerance approach to any Bolshevik "me too" nonsense regardless of where it comes from.

That is also a prime example of how we can push for significant gains while still being "reasonable" in the eyes of the NMB.

So....
Does status quo mean the company cannot change the way it compensates other employees in an effort to avoid the "me too" clause in our contract with respect to AMR/UAL?

Serious question.

Status quo applies to the parties involved and their actions to influence the negotiations. The other employees compensation or cut in profit sharing is outside the scope of our contract. The short answer is they can compensate the other employees however they like.

The long answer is there could be a legal argument that a precedent has been set on timing and amount of compensation and a change to directly exclude us from benefiting from that provision is intentional and contrary to status quo. For this to become a reality we would need a much more aggressive stance and a union leadership at both the Delta and national levels willing to pursue that. I think that is out of the question with the current regime.

Serious answer.

We have a me too clause. It triggered a small raise last spring. Now, the company can give the other employees as large a raise as they choose anytime before the end of the year, and it will trigger nothing but a review. Since we are already at the top based on the language in the me too metric, we would get nothing as a result of that review.

Further, next year, they could give bonuses instead of raises, and it would have no effect on our pay.

Status quo is irrelevant.

All of this is correct and would be a deliberate choice to go down the road of bad labor relations. After 1/1/2016 the AA/UA raises will be in effect. Any raise from then on will trigger a 3% raise for us. The flight attendants are due to organize again in 2016 and will probably receive a raise as an incentive not to unionize. Their raise would trigger a review because they are slightly more than 30% of the domestic non-pilot workforce. Or you could ignore them and have two front line labor groups in negotiations at the same time. Their choice.

I understand what they could do. Would this be a change to status quo as they never used bonuses in lieu of pay raises? Sounds like you say NO. I think a more aggressive union would (or could) say YES.

Regardless of the technicalities of back alley trickery like that being allowable or not, if they tried that just to avoid a 3% parity raise while they were stonewalling us in negotiations and raking in over a billion per quarter, throwing it in our faces all "a contract is a contract, losers! SUCK IT! BOO YEAH!!" they would unite us in a way that no one on our side ever could on their own.

That's exactly my thought. Might not want to play with matches...

You have no idea if that's true or not. I think it would be a very interesting case to bring before the NMB as a violation of status quo based on what the company decided to do last year prior to our entry into Section 6.

Just another example of the Moak holdovers like yourself doing their best destroy this profession. Pathetic and shameful.

Carl

Last fall, Delta made a half payout of our anticipated Profit Sharing check.

Some said it was because Wall Street didn't like seeing large checks going to employees all at once. My Theory (opinion) was that it was a carefully designed incentive and threat towards the flight attendants coming up to their representation vote.

To be completely honest, I didn't pay much attention. What happened to their vote? Is a representation vote still pending?

Will Delta distribute another half of our anticipated PS check this fall? actions could be telling to what their true intentions are. I fully expect to hear from the same people that they don't care about what did or did not happen with any other employee group. However, it does set a pattern regarding their attitudes towards employees, or even a statement regarding their attitudes towards unions.

This year's payout will be even larger than last year. And would such a payout or lack there of, constitute "Status Quo" or a violation of it?