Would You?
09-12-2016 | 09:15 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
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.
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.
09-12-2016 | 09:20 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,130
Likes: 92
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.
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.
09-12-2016 | 09:30 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 6,549
Likes: 291
From: Sitting SC at the Five Towns
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.
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.
09-12-2016 | 09:36 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
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.
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.
09-12-2016 | 09:46 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 1
From: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
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.
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.
09-12-2016 | 09:59 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
09-12-2016 | 10:11 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,130
Likes: 92
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!
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!
09-12-2016 | 10:35 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
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.
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.
