You’re still not getting it quite right. In the past, the company contributed 8% no matter what you did. Then they matched whatever you contributed up to 5%. So, if you contributed nothing, you got 8% from the company. If you contributed 5%, you got your 5% plus 13% from the company for 18% total. Now, a 0% contribution from you gets 15% from the company and a 5% contribution by you gets your 5% and the company’s 15% for a total of 20%.

Bottom line: if you used to contribute 5% or more and you plan to continue to contribute 5% or more, the contract only increases your contribution by 2% (from the company). If you didn’t contribute, it’s obviosly a bigger gain since you weren’t previously getting the match.

 

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

Just saying 15% is easier now 😀

 

Still not correct. You got a full 13% from the company, provided you contributed the 5% minimum, for a total of 18% including your 5%.

 

74% is simply mob rule. It's not the most intelligent nor best solution.



We need to "move forward" and isolate all the flaws of the contract now, and there are MANY. Keep a running list, decide which ones are requirements vs. nice to have, and use that to determine if we can say "mission accomplished" instead of how it was done by the MEC/NC and their surveys. It's far too easy for remove requirements from the criteria we use to arrive at a singable contract. For example, who decided it was acceptable to keep the dependability policy, which is in fact, worse now!?



What we need is a system where a small number of people can introduce a constraint, but only a large majority (e.g.95%) can vote to remove it from being used in negotiations. For example, if 5 people say "we want a snap-up clause", then it becomes a requirement for the company to agree to, or else we push to strike. However, if 95% of all members (not just those who attend or use the ALPA proxy vote scam) vote it down, then it becomes a "nice to have" and therefore disposable at negotiations.



The goal is to set a high bar to meet or else strike. During strike, then we can start picking and choosing what to further convert from requirement to nice-to-have. It's crucial that we decrease our demands *only* after a strike is in play BECAUSE that's the only time we have an immediate bargaining position. The reason we got a bad contract is, besides the MEC/NC & B6 Pilots having low RJ standards, is because we're all complicit in allowing the terms of negotiation to be rewritten outside of strike.

 

Um, no.

It was 8% provided plus a 5% match for a total of 13% from the company. This meant around 18% was going to retirement. 5% from you, 13% from them.

It was a 2% improvement.

Like most of it.

That may be why guys are so jazzed about our pay. Because it is so AWESOME now! And we get a 2% pay raise next year on top of it!? Gonna buy me some hookers and blow with all that scratch.

 

Going on a DR run?

 

Hopefully it's a longer run...

 

Sigh..... finally..

 

I can't afford a Dr. with our (still) crap medical.

Badum tish!

I'll be hear all week.

 

I got a free Eat Up box. Pretty awesome. Enough sodium to cover me for the week too!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk