A Perspective and Opinion of the Current TA
09-28-2015, 08:08 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
I don't think we took the first offer, think the first offer truly would have been concessionary or COLA raises (pay raise isn't a COLA raise, also not a 3% slope raise...but a COLA raise would have been a 1.6sh slope) Whether it's an acceptable raise is a totally different point.
I do believe our Lawyers and NC when them mentioned during the last MEC meeting that once $$ start bouncing accross the table that the end game comes quickly.
Do believe it's quite possible that our NC stopped too soon out of the all too human desire to Git R dun, which is a common negotiating mistake.
I think FedEx has a contingency plan to get through peak. I don't think Mgt is going to be throwing $$ at us in November to get an acceptable TA across the table. That'd simply send the wrong message, because there Will be subsequent contract negotiations and nobody has ever said FedEx mgt doesn't play hardball when they're negotiating.
But that's also not a reason to vote Yes
I do believe our Lawyers and NC when them mentioned during the last MEC meeting that once $$ start bouncing accross the table that the end game comes quickly.
Do believe it's quite possible that our NC stopped too soon out of the all too human desire to Git R dun, which is a common negotiating mistake.
I think FedEx has a contingency plan to get through peak. I don't think Mgt is going to be throwing $$ at us in November to get an acceptable TA across the table. That'd simply send the wrong message, because there Will be subsequent contract negotiations and nobody has ever said FedEx mgt doesn't play hardball when they're negotiating.
But that's also not a reason to vote Yes
09-28-2015, 08:29 AM
#122
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Rock
Jolly, take a look at Dan's timeline calculations again. Remember that the vote for this TA closes 20 Oct. At one point Dan mentions 60 days. That would be roughly 20 Dec. At another he says "by Thanksgiving". That would be just over 35 days.
Originally Posted by JollyF15
Rock,
I hear what you're saying, but I think the "60 Day Period" Guido refers to is nothing to hang our hats on. It's an estimate, best guess, maybe best case.
Originally Posted by iarapilot
Who cares? You keep talking about a timeline for getting a new TA. If that is your main worry it is not much to worry about.
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
I too noticed that Dan's timeline didn't agree with Dan's timeline but ...
... So what ... we should keep doing this until we get it right.
Captain V sent this to me and asked that I post this addendum. (He didn't send the original message to me, but he gave permission for it to be forwarded. This addendum came directly from him.)
Greetings:
It has been called to my attention that some readers of my TA Opinion paper are interpreting my desires of what a post-no vote negotiations process should be with what reality more than likely will provide. To be honest, I know little about labor law and negotiation processes. I'm told that we remain in "mediation" until a TA is accepted or we return to negotiate. The mediation board may not be able to provide a mediator for months and that the overall process could be lengthy. As such, anyone's vote should be based on TA content and not future processes. Meanwhile, I stand by my statements. Thanks for staying engaged and for listening.
Dan Ventre
It has been called to my attention that some readers of my TA Opinion paper are interpreting my desires of what a post-no vote negotiations process should be with what reality more than likely will provide. To be honest, I know little about labor law and negotiation processes. I'm told that we remain in "mediation" until a TA is accepted or we return to negotiate. The mediation board may not be able to provide a mediator for months and that the overall process could be lengthy. As such, anyone's vote should be based on TA content and not future processes. Meanwhile, I stand by my statements. Thanks for staying engaged and for listening.
Dan Ventre
.
09-28-2015, 08:52 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Raptor
I feel we took the first offer and wonder why we didn't go back and forth another month or so as peak loomed ever closer?
09-28-2015, 09:05 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by pinseeker
I would suggest the same for you.
March 1, 2013-Feb 28, 2014 3%
March 1, 2014-Feb 28, 2015 3%
March 1, 2015-Nov 1, 2015 2% (2/3 X 3%)
If you get 3% in March of 2015 and then 2% in Nov of 2015, isn't that two raises in one year?
Maybe you can still get that GED.
March 1, 2013-Feb 28, 2014 3%
March 1, 2014-Feb 28, 2015 3%
March 1, 2015-Nov 1, 2015 2% (2/3 X 3%)
If you get 3% in March of 2015 and then 2% in Nov of 2015, isn't that two raises in one year?
Maybe you can still get that GED.
First of all...How many months has it been since we have RECEIVED a raise. (Not, how many since we have missed a raise) I'll help. Our last raise was Mar 2012.
If you divide the number of months since we RECEIVED our last raise by 12, you will come up with the number of raises we have missed. You will see that the number is more more than 3.
At 3%/yr, our WB/CAP pay rates would look like this:
~ 3/2012 -- 260.61
~ 3/2013 -- 268.43
~ 3/2014 -- 276.48
~ 3/2015 -- 284.77
~11/2015-- 290.47(interpolated 8/12) TA rate on 11/2015 -- 286.67(-3.80)
~ 3/2016 -- 293.31 -------------------- TA rate on 03/2016 -- 286.67(-6.64)
This TA is less than a 3%/yr progression.
And, I would argue that 3%/yr is a pretty low bar to begin with.
09-28-2015, 09:23 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
And, if your argument is that on 11/2015 the TA rate is higher than the 3/2015(normal raise date)...this is true. So, for 4 months each year the TA rates would be higher and for 8 months every year...are lower than a 3% progression.
Either way you look at it. Overall, the TA is less than 3%/yr.
Either way you look at it. Overall, the TA is less than 3%/yr.
09-28-2015, 09:25 AM
#126
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Busboy
At 3%/yr, our WB/CAP pay rates would look like this:
~ 3/2012 -- 260.61
~ 3/2013 -- 268.43
~ 3/2014 -- 276.48
~ 3/2015 -- 284.77
~11/2015-- 290.47(interpolated 8/12) TA rate on 11/2015 -- 286.67(-3.80)
~ 3/2016 -- 293.31 -------------------- TA rate on 03/2016 -- 286.67(-6.64)
This TA is less than a 3%/yr progression.
And, I would argue that 3%/yr is a pretty low bar to begin with.
The gap between where we should be on November 1st on the 3% slope and where this TA would put us is 2.5%, almost a whole year's pay rate increase. In other words, an initial 12.5% pay rate increase would be break even. We would need more that 12.5% to constitute a real raise. They slid the date from October to March, and then from March to November, and hoped we wouldn't notice the missing year.
(Better explained here: Let's try this math and Now let's get a bit more complicated.)
.
09-28-2015, 09:42 AM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by TonyC
I agree with all the above except the due date for that last pay rate increase. If you'll recall, the "Bridge Contract" was just supposed to get us to the "Real Deal" and it moved the pay rate increases 4 months to the right. We need to move them back to where they started, which was on October 30 of each year (DOS anniversaries). Therefore, the last rate you listed should occur on October 30, 2015. November 1st, what's 2 days among friends? (Well, actually it's a lot if that's when you're working a trip.)
The gap between where we should be on November 1st on the 3% slope and where this TA would put us is 2.5%, almost a whole year's pay rate increase. In other words, an initial 12.5% pay rate increase would be break even. We would need more that 12.5% to constitute a real raise. They slid the date from October to March, and then from March to November, and hoped we wouldn't notice the missing year.
(Better explained here: Let's try this math and Now let's get a bit more complicated.)
.
The gap between where we should be on November 1st on the 3% slope and where this TA would put us is 2.5%, almost a whole year's pay rate increase. In other words, an initial 12.5% pay rate increase would be break even. We would need more that 12.5% to constitute a real raise. They slid the date from October to March, and then from March to November, and hoped we wouldn't notice the missing year.
(Better explained here: Let's try this math and Now let's get a bit more complicated.)
.
Just trying to keep it simple.
09-28-2015, 11:49 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Except to break even = a COLA raise.
Push it back even farther and start in 2011,
So, hit your pay recap and then add the 5.9% of the cumulative rate of inflation since 2011.
Or,if you want to be a bit more accurate-go with the 3.8% since 2012.
100% confident that the TA rates will be above a simple COLA.
Just as I'm 100% confident that the pay raise doesn't equate to a 3% slope as so ably proven by our Block 1 rep
Push it back even farther and start in 2011,
So, hit your pay recap and then add the 5.9% of the cumulative rate of inflation since 2011.
Or,if you want to be a bit more accurate-go with the 3.8% since 2012.
100% confident that the TA rates will be above a simple COLA.
Just as I'm 100% confident that the pay raise doesn't equate to a 3% slope as so ably proven by our Block 1 rep
09-28-2015, 12:39 PM
#129
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Rock
We have every right to ask for more. My point all along has been, if we do, and we actually expect to get more, we need a more convincing argument than "give us more because we think we deserve more." As I mentioned previously, you do a great job of listing all the things you don't like about the current TA. But complaining about something is the easy part. Finding solutions to what you are complaining about takes real work. So far, the most common solution I've read is, "we reject this TA and reopen negotiations." That isn't a solution. That's just the next step. To believe it's a solution, you must assume that our current NC didn't spend four years exhausting every approach to wrestle as much as they could from the company. They must have missed some opportunity that would have convinced the company to increase our payrates above what is listed in the TA, and improve our A plan, and fix all the other countless things you've listed over the last couple weeks. Your solution seems to be that by simply informing our NC and the company through a no vote, that we want more, they will have a eureka moment and quickly adjust everything upward to make us happy.
I'm not buying it. So before I vote to shelve the gains our NC did accomplish in this TA, I want to see some evidence that we aren't trying to move forward without an effective strategy to accomplish what someone else characterized as "eye-watering" improvements. Our MEC chair said in his recent email that "we have plans." He mentioned informational picketing and unity events. Sound familiar? Can you help him out?
I'm not buying it. So before I vote to shelve the gains our NC did accomplish in this TA, I want to see some evidence that we aren't trying to move forward without an effective strategy to accomplish what someone else characterized as "eye-watering" improvements. Our MEC chair said in his recent email that "we have plans." He mentioned informational picketing and unity events. Sound familiar? Can you help him out?
Here you go Rock. I couldnt have said it better...
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/fe...ncil-26-a.html
And, do you think Fred would let us go on strike and ruin his brand? I am willing to bet no. If it should come to that.
09-28-2015, 01:28 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by iarapilot
Here you go Rock. I couldnt have said it better...
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/fe...ncil-26-a.html
And, do you think Fred would let us go on strike and ruin his brand? I am willing to bet no. If it should come to that.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/fe...ncil-26-a.html
And, do you think Fred would let us go on strike and ruin his brand? I am willing to bet no. If it should come to that.
I live in the real world. If striking is our ultimate trump card...we have no trump card. And if you are taking comfort in the words of an LEC chairman who thinks we can strike, you are opening yourself wide open to major disappointment.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
