Why would we bargain for something that helps management? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with your proposal but that needs to be on the company's side of the balance sheet, not ours.

 

How about we shoot for what is fair. 100% retro pay starting 01/01/2016. We might not get it, but hopefully end up with something more than nothing, and call it a partial win. If it doesn't cost management something for blowing off the amendable date, how long will it take to get a contract next time?

I agree with Mike on realigning our sick time too. I'm fine with Month of hire for resetting our sick year, but we need to get something for helping them solve a problem of theirs. I've got an idea, full retro starting 01/01/2016. See there, problem solved. We've almost got the contract done already. What's next?

 

Why do we need to be "shooting" for realigning sick leave renewal, or any other aspect of sick leave?? Their issue.

 

Yeah, that's it. Guaranteed.

Just stop.

 

I have an idea for anyone who doesn't like gzsg's posts - don't click on them. I happen to appreciate what he's doing on here and would like to point out the following:

- This is a free, anonymous forum and anyone is free to express opinions within the guidelines set forth by the moderators. gzsg is simply stating facts then formulating an opinion based on those facts. I don't see any "whining" or "tirades".

- gzsg has provided his name on several occasions. He's not hiding behind the anonymity provided by the forum. I think he's got every right to voice his opinion since he's laying it out there. I'd like to invite WhatNow and JamesBond to introduce themselves so that we know who you are.

- I agree gzsg is taking the hard line when it comes to what he wants out of this contract, but it's a good balance to what I see from some who are tripping over themselves in a hurry to advocate what's reasonable for the company, a company that would rather blow billions on fuel hedges, stock buy backs and dividend increases instead of restoring what's been taken from their pilot group.

 

Nice post. Both sides of the spectrum. Some want restoration, some would accept something in between and some are hoping the new MEC falls flat on their face.

 

I never said it was on our side. But sometimes you can bring something to the negotiating table that doesn't really cost us anything but can get us something tangible in our pockets.

When you are "costing" items on the terms sheet, it really is no cost to either side (xcpt maybe for an appropriate pro-rate [in our favor] to move from one system to the other that first year). But, if you believe the Crew Resources monthly "Graphs for Laughs" claims that there is an alleged spike in sick leave useage during April and May which is costly to the operation (more premium time issued to cover the alleged increase in sick), then any reform to the current system (which, of course, the company had to have in TA2012) would be a fiscal gain for the company. Good negotiators should recoup as much of that gain as possible by, for instance, increasing per diem rates by an amount greater than TA2015's proposed $0.05 increase in per diem.

However, demanding full retro back to the date of the first stock buyback is merely a waste of keystrokes. It isn't going to put an extra dime in our pockets.

Cheers.....

 

By the simple fact that you disagree with his message and delivery, his credibility has gone up exponentially in my view.

 

Exactly....ask for X knowing you will likely get 1/2 X....and you get to show the mediators you came off your original position by 50%. 😆

I have long felt the RLA should be amended to require that the last established pay rates of a CBA receive an annual increase based upon some established index (CPI perhaps) for each year the CBA has not been amended. At least we would retain some purchasing power during protracted negotiations.

 

Please DON'T stop posting. These posts are the true essence of fairness. I know this is business and what is fair has no place in business.

The reality is that to be fair and do the right thing the company should pay back the employees who through no fault of their own found themselves in a position to either give concessions or watch their company and their jobs disappear. The fact that the employees saved Delta and are responsible for its current success seems lost when it comes to rewarding them in a real financial way.

Our management would rather reward themselves and the "owners" who did nothing more than notice this success and spend some money in the hopes that their investment would grow on the backs of labors concessions.

Instead of returning the pilots to 12 year old pay rates and continuing the agree upon profit sharing, management would rather reward late comers and themselves.

Instead of doing the right thing and making the pilots whole for their sacrifices, management would rather use the RLA to extract additional time under a concessionary contract during record profits.

Instead of acting with a sense of fairness that would align the pilots with other employees who returned to pre-bankruptcy wages as early as 2014 and were then rewarded them with an additional 18%, management would have pilots pay for their own raises.

Instead of being honorable and adjusting our rates per the current contract, management decided to intentional circumvent pay raises temporarily by scheduling other employee pay rate increases a month before their other compensation changes were enacted on January 1st.

I think gzsg has every right to post his passionate opinion.

What I find troubling is that the outrage is directed at a pilot who points out the truth and what he sees as fair, while managements action go unchecked and never criticized. The true colors come out on this board and I am glad there are posters with the courage to speak against injustices.