Phil Says It All
10-11-2016 | 12:20 PM
#21
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
With regard to the profit sharing:
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
10-11-2016 | 02:08 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
I flew with the Hypno-Toad not too long ago. Good guy, has good taste in beer too. He does enjoy his Bud light.
If one wonders what it's like to swing gear for the toad just watch this.
O.K. so it wasn't exactly like that. He does however make great points when it comes to all things contractual, he does have a big picture outlook on things.
If one wonders what it's like to swing gear for the toad just watch this.
O.K. so it wasn't exactly like that. He does however make great points when it comes to all things contractual, he does have a big picture outlook on things.
10-11-2016 | 02:23 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: Moving left
With regard to the profit sharing:
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
Exactly. Facts are getting in the way of the NN spin.
Damn it! Who released the TA before we could lie about it?!??!?
10-11-2016 | 02:28 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,869
Likes: 187
Now that we have the TA to compare to the NN documents, can you point out the portions of the contract that conflict with the notepads. I am not having much luck finding them.
10-11-2016 | 02:32 PM
#28
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,252
Likes: 95
From: DAL 330
With regard to the profit sharing:
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
People are saying it in various ways, but it seems pretty clear that the negotiating committee is not being entirely truthful when they make the statement that there has been no change to profit sharing.
It sure looks like the plan has been changed. There's been a backdoor alteration to the definition of pre-tax income via the settlement of outstanding grievances. By allowing expenses that were previously classified as "extra-ordinary, one-time or non-recurring" to now be counted as ordinary expenses the company is able to reduce the PTIX and thus reduce the profit sharing.
The real problem is where will it end now that we have opened that door? There are all kinds of expenses they could use to reduce our profit sharing payout. Looking at management's past behavior we can be sure they will exploit this new loophole we are providing to the maximum extent possible.
We should be tightening those definitions instead of broadening them.
Check,
I am not sure that you are correct on this. According to what guys are posting on FB and Chit Chat - the guys who have said the above have since retracted that, and admitted also that they were in error. They apparently misread the leaked TA.
I believe the contractual wording of there PS section is identical and has not changed from C-2012.
This issue is however complex - some are saying that by withdrawing our grievance we are in fact making it easier for the company to monkey with PTIX in the future. Since we withdrew our grievance and it was never adjudicated I have no idea if this sets a precedent on future grievances.
I am fairly certain that the contractual PTIX definition has not changed. I will try to verify this but hopefully one of these social media FPL loss guys can research it and post it.
Scoop
10-11-2016 | 04:05 PM
#29
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
I'm saying the grievance settlement makes that language mean something different than it did last year.
I hope the MEC will spell out exactly what they agreed to with management as far as whether Venezuelan currency losses and all the other one time charges can be used as ordinary expenses to reduce PTIX.
If management is now free to decide for themselves what is an ordinary expense and what is a one time charge then we have opened Pandora's box.
I'll tell you what's next - they are going to recognize a bunch of losses related to their investments in GOL and Brazil. Either a write down or a bailout in some form. And they are going to call it an ordinary expense and take it right out of our profit sharing.
10-11-2016 | 04:05 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
