FDX; Jeez Louise, Here we go again.......
12-31-2011, 06:03 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
3% is a pittance. Negotiations take years. There will be no pay increase next year or the year after that. Would it not be more advantageous to get the ball rolling again now, while the company is returning record profits and the global economy is slowly recovering?
One year later, after the FAA puts its rule out in favor of the company, the NC comes back and says that we're really not that serious about the issues in the contract because we'd rather take another 3% raise than address the scheduling, training, and other pay issues. The company, of course is pleased, because they can now put off addressing any costly modifications for another year while continuing to negotiate in non binding "discussions" those issues that don't cost them anything. All for a predictable 3% which they have budgeted for last year.
On going negotiations are non-binding as they fall outside of section six of the RLA. The company has the legal right to re-negotiate every provision we currently have "negotiated."
The company has budgeted the 3% we are about to take or give back. If negotiations take so long as you say I say take the 3%, it's only a short portion of the "years" it will take to come to agreement. If we give it back they'll spend it on executive bonuses. They won't save it for our next agreement.
You neglect to factor in that we would still be in negotiations now if we didn't take the first 3%. You would be 3% poorer right now. May not be a big deal to you but it is for some.
I'm not sure why no one is talking about this - The 4a2b hole in many pocketbooks is finally starting to be filled. Many who were excessed recently made it back and are recovered enough to focus on true negotiations. Too many needed a recovery period. We weren't, collectively, ready a year ago and may be ready now. We'll be even more ready after taking the last 3%. If you weren't one of those hurt by 4a2b I can understand why you don't take that into consideration.
As we near 4a2b recovery, I don't care the agreed upon sections are non-binding. That is just more ammo for arbitration if it goes there.
Don't let your mad get ahead of your money. Prepare for negotiations.
Last edited by Gunter; 12-31-2011 at 06:28 AM.
12-31-2011, 06:09 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: B-777
Posts: 455
Well, if I am the company, here is what I see. The NC comes to me in 2010 and says that there are issues in the current contract that we need to modify through the collective bargaining process. The company says, OK, but we are uncomfortable with the potential new rules on crew rest, so will you take a 3% pay raise and put it off until the FAA has issued its ruling? The NC says OK. One year later, after the FAA puts its rule out in favor of the company, the NC comes back and says that we're really not that serious about the issues in the contract because we'd rather take another 3% raise than address the scheduling, training, and other pay issues. The company, of course is pleased, because they can now put off addressing any costly modifications for another year while continuing to negotiate in non binding "discussions" those issues that don't cost them anything. All for a predictable 3% which they have budgeted for last year.
The message sent loud and clear: Throw them a bone and they'll walk away. They're not very serious about the truly costly items in the contract or they'd fight for them now, realizing the future value of money involved in scheduling, crew rest, training, etc.
As a side note, I spend more than the 3% pay increase just in commuting to/from work because we cannot keep bank money from one month to the next. That issue alone, assuming it can be negotiated, would save me more than this pay raise. So would the pay for training program we are currently under. So the 3% is a net loss to me as long as these other issues remain unaddressed.
The message sent loud and clear: Throw them a bone and they'll walk away. They're not very serious about the truly costly items in the contract or they'd fight for them now, realizing the future value of money involved in scheduling, crew rest, training, etc.
As a side note, I spend more than the 3% pay increase just in commuting to/from work because we cannot keep bank money from one month to the next. That issue alone, assuming it can be negotiated, would save me more than this pay raise. So would the pay for training program we are currently under. So the 3% is a net loss to me as long as these other issues remain unaddressed.
12-31-2011, 06:16 AM
#113
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
12-31-2011, 06:20 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Most were more hungry for extra flying right after 4a2b than they are now, or will be in one year.
12-31-2011, 06:25 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
As a side note, I spend more than the 3% pay increase just in commuting to/from work because we cannot keep bank money from one month to the next. That issue alone, assuming it can be negotiated, would save me more than this pay raise.
So the 3% is a net loss to me as long as these other issues remain unaddressed.
'Loss' is an interesting way to describe the 3%.
Last edited by Gunter; 12-31-2011 at 07:55 AM.
12-31-2011, 06:47 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11
Posts: 395
No madness here. It is precisely looking forward which I advocate. I think we do better if we look at the issue in light of the future value of money. 4A2b is the past.
One way to look at the issue is this: If you did a future value of money spread sheet on those monies expected to be gained through contract negotiations, versus the 3% raise over the first year, discounted for the expected term of the new contract, would you come out ahead or behind? Do we give up more money by losing a year of improvements through postponed negotiations, or do we gain more money by the 3% raise with a loss of a year's improvements reduced to a monetary value?
I suspect the improvements to the contract in the first year alone, when reduced to a monetary value, will far exceed the loss of 3% this year (including the opportunity costs thereof), if we achieve many of the improvements the NC indicated they were seeking last year. If this is true, I'd rather forego the 3% this year for a greater value negotiated a year earlier. If the spread sheet shows differently, then take the 3% now.
12-31-2011, 07:21 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Negotiation time is due to 3 factors. Coming to terms on how much to improve things, how to word them and the motivation of the parties to finally sign.
The MEC decides the first, the NC works on implementation and the second part and the pilot group helps out on the final part. After the first 2 are complete, signing the document can come quick under the right conditions.
They won't give up on work rule issues without an understanding of how important those items are to us. These are not easy gains to achieve. The recent White House/DOT/FAA cutout attests to that. I hope we are prepared to help them understand.
The MEC decides the first, the NC works on implementation and the second part and the pilot group helps out on the final part. After the first 2 are complete, signing the document can come quick under the right conditions.
They won't give up on work rule issues without an understanding of how important those items are to us. These are not easy gains to achieve. The recent White House/DOT/FAA cutout attests to that. I hope we are prepared to help them understand.
Last edited by Gunter; 12-31-2011 at 07:56 AM.
12-31-2011, 07:39 AM
#118
trip trading freak
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: MD-11
Posts: 673
PPP,
I agree that the travel bank needs revamping. As a commuter(by definition) we choose to have some travel expenses. But it has always been month to month. You choose to commute and to bid lines that are low on money. You spend 5k a year of your own coin on top of your travel bank? Not sure where you are commuting from or if you just try and stay on one carrier but that seams a bit much. That's a round trip ticket each month. Yes, there needs to be improvements but it really just sounds like another set of P's - Poor Planning on your Part.
I agree that the travel bank needs revamping. As a commuter(by definition) we choose to have some travel expenses. But it has always been month to month. You choose to commute and to bid lines that are low on money. You spend 5k a year of your own coin on top of your travel bank? Not sure where you are commuting from or if you just try and stay on one carrier but that seams a bit much. That's a round trip ticket each month. Yes, there needs to be improvements but it really just sounds like another set of P's - Poor Planning on your Part.
12-31-2011, 07:55 AM
#119
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
So, you consider extra flying as recovering what was taken by 4a2b?
No wonder the company is salivating so much!
All the extra flying in the world will not make up what was lost!
12-31-2011, 07:59 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
From a practical sense - Are you more able to resist flying draft during negotiations now or when we first got out of 4a2b?
I am in no way referring to being made whole after your losses under 4a2b.
Nice insult attempt though.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
