Would You?
 

If management came to you tomorrow and asked if you wanted to take $10 an hour of a pay rate and convert it into an equivalent profit-sharing percentage, what would you say? Unless you were insane, you'd tell them to pound sand. The pay rate is far more secure and is delivered every two weeks.

So why is there such outcry when I support doing the opposite?

And, to be very clear, I do not support "trading" it for higher pay. Get the best rates we possibly can, and then (only then) try to convert some defined PS percentage into a higher pay rate on top of what was negotiated, leaving the upper end of PS intact so we can share in the bounty if Delta continues to prosper.

To be clear, I know that this is a moot point. PS is somehow a sacred cow now, even though DALPA was ridiculed when they negotiated it.

Walk me through the next cycle of negotiations following your scenario. At that point, my pay rates would be significantly above the industry. My PS might be industry average.

I could agree to this. Unfortunately they didn't think of this last year. Last year's TA had the PS "monetized" into a "there's now way you won't come out ahead under any scenario" in year 2 and muddying the waters.

I'd be fine with the scenario you just laid out. But then our payrates would be so far above UAL/AA that we'd have a target on our backs.

Sure, Ted. Valid question.

In any negotiation (like today's), Delta is not going to agree to pay us drastically above the market in total compensation (rates, work rules, PS, retirement, etc.). Further, the NMB is going to factor all of those things when they determine the "zone of reasonableness."

It's almost as if we negotiate a big pie with the company, and we get to decide how to slice it up. The size of the pie will stay the same regardless of how we label the slices.

The idea that PS payments are somehow hidden is just not realistic. The current negotiations prove that.

But that's not what they are trying to do is it? Let's negotiate our pay rate without PS being in play and see how that looks.

That's what we're doing. I just wish we'd take the next step after that.

Apparently, however, that makes me a sellout.

I'll trade PS quid pro quo for industry- leading vacation and training pay and credit (or vacation accrual). Base it on this year's profit sharing payment. I don't think I even care if vacation is enhanced with pay/credit, a number of weeks added, or a mixture. Any weeks added need to be added identically to all longevity tiers. I'll accept voluntary sell-back of vacation over 4 weeks. Any remaining PS after the swap remains pensionable

Napkin math makes it look like converting all of our PS to vacation would be 11 extra weeks if they didn't increase credit and value.

Do all that, match UAL rates, band similar to UAL (CS100 and 717 to 88, 320 to 73N and 321 to 757/767), allow self-verification, and I think I'm a YES!

I'll buy that. Any way we can convert "maybe" compensation to "definitely" compensation (in whatever form) is fine with me.

I don't support moving money from one section of the contract to another. Let's work on each section and improve it, not move money from one to another.

Where would you draw the line? Eliminate hotels for another $25/hr? Skip per diem for $5/hr?

I argue that the company wants, and could possible need, industry standard pay. The rest of our contract they'd happily gut.

The OP has been at this lately like it's his/her full time job.