Mantooth and ERflier
08-14-2016 | 03:57 AM
#51
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
In a perfect world that would be correct - if and only if the management compensation came off of the bottom line vice employee PS. Since neither qualifier exists I will have to disagree with your premise.
Do you remember that DAL management, in secret until they were exposed, set up BK proof pensions for management at the exact time they were planning the demise of the other employee groups pensions.
I would rather not rely on BOD or management "goodwill," ethics or morals as a mechanism for governing our PWA - a quick review of history reveals it would be imprudent to say the least.
If they were serious about this whole issue it would have to strictly defined with a % of profit sharing ceiling. But we already negotiated and agreed to a PS system - one that can not be easily manipulated, try our best to keep it.
Finally I think we are debating a moot point - I don't see this clause surviving and have heard from Reps that think it is a throwaway clause.
Scoop
08-14-2016 | 04:51 AM
#52
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
How does knowing what past compensation was limit future compensation? Hint-it does not.
Additionally in the past management incentive compensation reduced company profitability - if this change were to be allowed management incentive compensation would no longer reduce the companies profitability but would reduce the employee PS.
So while the incentive plan may be currently defined - what is to prevent them from changing it in the future. Especially when it is coming from a different pot of money.
It would be very foolish of us to agree to this.
Scoop
Additionally in the past management incentive compensation reduced company profitability - if this change were to be allowed management incentive compensation would no longer reduce the companies profitability but would reduce the employee PS.
So while the incentive plan may be currently defined - what is to prevent them from changing it in the future. Especially when it is coming from a different pot of money.
It would be very foolish of us to agree to this.
Scoop
Ask your reps.
This is insane.
Why are we making concessions?
Why are we making concessions in return for nothing but empty promises.
Repeat of the failed TA.
08-14-2016 | 05:16 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 137
Likes: 1
From: Gold-Braided Lesser French Fort Commander
The entire problem is that the Company, and by complicity, our own Union, has us chasing so many time-bomb Easter Egg grenades thrown behind our line that we have little time to look for the significant straight-forward gains.
Quit distracting us with baffling BS, keep what we started with and just get some simple, significant gains.
08-14-2016 | 08:02 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: 7ERA
The definition is to align the definition with the GAPP definition.
There are ways to get what we want. a max escalator per year of 1-2% with a max cap. The bonus go down, thats the new limit and then they can only grow it 1-2% a year.
Keep your eye on the ball. One is much more costly than the other.
08-14-2016 | 12:00 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Dharma,
In a perfect world that would be correct - if and only if the management compensation came off of the bottom line vice employee PS. Since neither qualifier exists I will have to disagree with your premise.
Do you remember that DAL management, in secret until they were exposed, set up BK proof pensions for management at the exact time they were planning the demise of the other employee groups pensions.
I would rather not rely on BOD or management "goodwill," ethics or morals as a mechanism for governing our PWA - a quick review of history reveals it would be imprudent to say the least.
If they were serious about this whole issue it would have to strictly defined with a % of profit sharing ceiling. But we already negotiated and agreed to a PS system - one that can not be easily manipulated, try our best to keep it.
Finally I think we are debating a moot point - I don't see this clause surviving and have heard from Reps that think it is a throwaway clause.
Scoop
In a perfect world that would be correct - if and only if the management compensation came off of the bottom line vice employee PS. Since neither qualifier exists I will have to disagree with your premise.
Do you remember that DAL management, in secret until they were exposed, set up BK proof pensions for management at the exact time they were planning the demise of the other employee groups pensions.
I would rather not rely on BOD or management "goodwill," ethics or morals as a mechanism for governing our PWA - a quick review of history reveals it would be imprudent to say the least.
If they were serious about this whole issue it would have to strictly defined with a % of profit sharing ceiling. But we already negotiated and agreed to a PS system - one that can not be easily manipulated, try our best to keep it.
Finally I think we are debating a moot point - I don't see this clause surviving and have heard from Reps that think it is a throwaway clause.
Scoop
08-14-2016 | 12:58 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,223
Likes: 670
From: ir.delta.com
You do realized we have an ownership stake. We are in the first position to collect on profits paid for not by money or represented in shares, but paid for in reductions in contractual obligations of pay, retirements, and other savings to the company. We already paid for that. We bought our profit sharing, it was not given.
08-14-2016 | 06:06 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,128
Likes: 91
I've never heard about this. Do you have any more details? This would be a valuable lesson to those who weren't around.for BK.
08-14-2016 | 06:18 PM
#58
Sick of whiners
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
From: 767 VEOP
gzsg : Do you mean 4%-6% of the profit sharing check or 4%-6% of total annual pay?
How did you calculate this?
Thanks in advance.
.
08-14-2016 | 07:42 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
08-14-2016 | 08:29 PM
#60
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
I dont remember the exact details. But it was a bankruptcy proof offshore pension deal to retain top talent. Leo got 8 million and it went lower from there down to, IIRC vickie mascara got $2M. The most ridiculous one was $6M for the nitwit that went to United...fmr marine cant recall his name. Within a year all but 1 were gone.
