OpenClimb

And if they were represented by the same union, would the union be justified in telling the WalMart workers they should expect to be paid less than the Target workers?

Edited to add: Especially when WalMart is more profitable than Target?

DENpilot

It blows my mind how ignorant some of you are to the workings of ALPA and the why it is that way.

Our union is not like grocer unions or hotel workers or culinary unions or anything else... The scenarios all of you are citing are different.

I suggest educating yourselves before spouting all this nonsense and comparing ourselves to Walmart and Target workers as if they are us vs. UAL.

dracir1

This is a very good point. However, you minimize the time of the contract.

If we vote no we'd miss out on a potential $60k we could've had, had we accepted a year earlier. But, instead, we held out for a measly $5 more per hour. That $5 more means that for the NEXT 5-8 years, we'll earn an additional $4500 more per year vs. this AIP. Over the next 8 years, that's $36k. So we'd only be out $24k less. All the while, we'd be earning retirement and LTD privilges on a higher wage scale. But MOST important, we have less ground to make up on the next contract. Because, during those same 5-8 years, you, JB, Alaska and everyone else will renegotiate their contracts again pushing us further below market value. If we're $65 behind, then it's $65. We can make up 1/2 now and possibly 1/2 later but I'd rather make up $55 now and try for $25 later (settling for $10 if we have to). Now is the time for the money grab.

TBH, I have no idea if $5 / hr more is attainable. Probably not. You're absolutely right in that attaining that difference should've occurred in negotiations. We fornicated the pooch on that one... My example was just to show what the difference in salaries can make. As I've mentioned many times before - voting yes because you think it's the best we're gonna get is one thing but ACTUALLY thinking this deal isn't that bad (which ive seen on here) is another. THIS DEAL STINKS worse than yours IMO. Your negotiators did a better job given the conditions of the TRO, etc. It is what it is.

However, if we vote no, I say we vote no to get the contract duration lowered to 4 or even 3 years. Seems like an easier feat to accomplish and costs this management nothing.

Either that or a "me too" clause where anytime the AVERAGE A-321 salary increases, our wage is brought up to that amount . . . say, starting year 3 of this contract.

OpenClimb

I suspect I’ve forgotten more about labor unions and their workings than you’ll ever know, but please, feel free to educate me oh wise one.

Wheelswatch

Remember how ardently we (the union) insisted: If we ever get a proffer of "arbitration" we will never agree to "arbitration?"

Now all of a sudden we're willing to hand over the meat of our scheduling section to "arbitrators!" With PBS conceded to in advance.

What the he!! is going on here?

dracir1

Plain and simple. ALPA sold us out. Just like w/ ALPA regional (XJT, etc.) ALPA is here for United and the bigger carriers.

And we all paid a premium to have it happen to us.

No Vaseline...

BiffleBalls

Well everyone knows the “M” is not captalized in Walmart for starters..

TransWorld

“Hi, welcome to Walmart.” I am qualified to be a Walmart greeter in retirement.

BiffleBalls

Here’s the calculator that had been mentioned in other posts:

https://tinyurl.com/yd8pjzcs

AncientAliens

This is largely irrelevant because it doesn’t take into account the ratification bonus. Indigo has set a precedent by offering 75 million for the roughly 32 months of bargaining since the amenable date. That equates to 2.34 million for each month of stalled negotiations, which is $1800 per pilot. I won’t get into the distribution percentage for CA v. FO. The calculator needs to reflect this in order to give us accurate break even point.