How much $$ is enough?

[SpiceWeasel]

So in your mind it would be better to waste negotiating capital on the pay rate that you'll spend one year of your life at rather than the 12-year rate where you'll likely spend 20 years at? Doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.

That's another strategy problem in my mind. There should never *ever* be a ceiling rate. While you can't possibly clog every page of a contract with a scale that goes to, for example, 50 years longevity, you should have a formula that accomodates those who EXCEED the longevity listed in the contract, and no, not just a COLA. It should be COLA + Raise for every year not listed on the pay scale. For that matter, the union should make the pay section fluid and have it changed EVERY year for the COLA, instead of just having a "it should be this in 2010,2011,2012"

Section XX, Pay

The numbers in this section will be revised every year and re-published based on a cost-of-living-adjustment published by the government. If a pilot exceeds the number of years on this scale, the pay formula used to draw the scale out for his or her payrate will be X+Y=Z etc.

If a pilot chooses XYZ domicile he will receive an adjustment to accomodate the cost of living in that particular area, though he or she will not be required to live there.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That's another strategy problem in my mind. There should never *ever* be a ceiling rate. While you can't possibly clog every page of a contract with a scale that goes to, for example, 50 years longevity, you should have a formula that accomodates those who EXCEED the longevity listed in the contract

Bad idea. Management decides on a top rate, and they aren't going above that top rate, so you have to decide where you want that top rate to fall. If they're bottom line is that they aren't going above $185/hr, then you're either going to get it at year 12, or if you do what you're talking about, then you can get it at year 30. Which is better for us?

Yr Rate

1 $150
5 $170
9 $180
12 $185

or

Yr Rate

1 $150
5 $156
9 $161
12 $164
15 $168
20 $173
25 $179
30 $185

Think this through a little better. ALPA's professional negotiators have been doing this for decades. They know what they're doing. The strategy is sound.

For that matter, the union should make the pay section fluid and have it changed EVERY year for the COLA, instead of just having a "it should be this in 2010,2011,2012"

Companies will never accept such a thing. They can't get loans from banks if they don't know what their costs are going forward, and they can't get investors to buy shares of their stock. That's what creates some of our leverage in negotiations. No company will accept continually variable costs, because they wouldn't be able to do business.

If a pilot chooses XYZ domicile he will receive an adjustment to accomodate the cost of living in that particular area, though he or she will not be required to live there.

I have no idea how I could possibly justify that at the bargaining table. Paying someone a cost of living premium for New York, but not requiring the pilot to live there? What manager in his right mind would accept such a thing?

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Bad idea. Management decides on a top rate, and they aren't going above that top rate, so you have to decide where you want that top rate to fall. If they're bottom line is that they aren't going above $185/hr, then you're either going to get it at year 12, or if you do what you're talking about, then you can get it at year 30. Which is better for us?

Yr Rate

1 $150
5 $170
9 $180
12 $185

or

Yr Rate

1 $150
5 $156
9 $161
12 $164
15 $168
20 $173
25 $179
30 $185

Fine, if there's a top rate, then it's obviously better to have a smaller scale with which to get to that top rate. However:

Think this through a little better. ALPA's professional negotiators have been doing this for decades. They know what they're doing. The strategy is sound.

Companies will never accept such a thing. They can't get loans from banks if they don't know what their costs are going forward, and they can't get investors to buy shares of their stock. That's what creates some of our leverage in negotiations. No company will accept continually variable costs, because they wouldn't be able to do business.

I'm a bit confused, the company would never accept a COLA? Or they wouldn't accept that you don't project your COLAs? With your proposal, above, I would want only one scale, not a year-based scale. This "one" scale gets modified based on COLA every year. I think you understand what I meant.... ie, $50 one year is $52.12 the next, then based on $52.12 * COLA, etc...

If there is no cost of living adjustment one year (ie the government says it all stayed the same), the formula would just be, you keep it where it's at.

I would go on strike to get COLA in my contract. It's crazy not to have it, especially not to have it the way I suggest.

I have no idea how I could possibly justify that at the bargaining table. Paying someone a cost of living premium for New York, but not requiring the pilot to live there? What manager in his right mind would accept such a thing?

The living wage based on location is a bit of a stretch, yes, but what the heck, threw it out there.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm a bit confused, the company would never accept a COLA? Or they wouldn't accept that you don't project your COLAs?

Companies have no problem accepting COLA adjustments (usually), but they need to know up front what the COLA adjustment is going to be and have it in the agreement. They'll agree to a 3% adjustment every year, but they won't agree to a contract that just says "pay rates will be adjusted upwards on Jan 1st of every year based on the previous year's CPI." They have no idea what inflation will be for each year, so they can't provide accurate projections of labor costs to banks and investors. Next year inflation could be 6% instead of 3%. With no idea of knowing that, it makes it difficult to budget, and sometimes impossible to get loans. This is why airlines are working so hard on getting energy reform from the government to reduce the wild oil price fluctuations.

I would go on strike to get COLA in my contract. It's crazy not to have it, especially not to have it the way I suggest.

Even the Obama NMB wouldn't let you strike to get a variable COLA adjustment based on CPI. Even a pro-labor NMB will side with management on their need to have a stable projection of labor costs.

The living wage based on location is a bit of a stretch, yes, but what the heck, threw it out there.

Remember, you're trying to get the NMB on your side when you're at the bargaining table. Throwing out unreasonable proposals will just piss off the mediator, and he'll start siding with the company. If you can't make a logical argument at the table for why you're making a proposal, then it's best not to make that proposal.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Companies have no problem accepting COLA adjustments (usually), but they need to know up front what the COLA adjustment is going to be and have it in the agreement. They'll agree to a 3% adjustment every year, but they won't agree to a contract that just says "pay rates will be adjusted upwards on Jan 1st of every year based on the previous year's CPI." They have no idea what inflation will be for each year, so they can't provide accurate projections of labor costs to banks and investors. Next year inflation could be 6% instead of 3%. With no idea of knowing that, it makes it difficult to budget, and sometimes impossible to get loans. This is why airlines are working so hard on getting energy reform from the government to reduce the wild oil price fluctuations.

Even the Obama NMB wouldn't let you strike to get a variable COLA adjustment based on CPI. Even a pro-labor NMB will side with management on their need to have a stable projection of labor costs.

Well, for my education in pay rates then, do you happen to know what the historical 10 year average CPI or COLA has been? I am not trying to screw the company obviously I just want it to be fair. Whatever works best for everyone.

Remember, you're trying to get the NMB on your side when you're at the bargaining table. Throwing out unreasonable proposals will just piss off the mediator, and he'll start siding with the company. If you can't make a logical argument at the table for why you're making a proposal, then it's best not to make that proposal.

There.... appropriate icon for dumb idea #1,342,352 That's why I throw out the ideas and people with more experience are better able to meld them into good concepts.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Well, for my education in pay rates then, do you happen to know what the historical 10 year average CPI or COLA has been? I am not trying to screw the company obviously I just want it to be fair. Whatever works best for everyone.

The average for the past 10 years has been 3.03%. Most contracts contain 2.5-3% COLA adjustments, which has been the historical average.

There.... appropriate icon for dumb idea #1,342,352 That's why I throw out the ideas and people with more experience are better able to meld them into good concepts.

I'm just glad that you're coming up with ideas. Most pilots just sit on their asses and expect "the union" to take care of everything for them. :banghead:

What happened with the election? Did you end up running?

 

[SpiceWeasel]

The average for the past 10 years has been 3.03%. Most contracts contain 2.5-3% COLA adjustments, which has been the historical average.



I'm just glad that you're coming up with ideas. Most pilots just sit on their asses and expect "the union" to take care of everything for them. :banghead:

What happened with the election? Did you end up running?

I ran and lost... it was 66% for the winning FO Rep to my 34%, 25% of the base voted. Well I'll try that again in 3 years or so but in the meantime I'll just pester the LEC reps!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I ran and lost... it was 66% for the winning FO Rep to my 34%, 25% of the base voted. Well I'll try that again in 3 years or so but in the meantime I'll just pester the LEC reps!

Who got it? Anyone I would know?

You should get involved in a committee in the mean time. No reason to wait three years.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Who got it? Anyone I would know?

You should get involved in a committee in the mean time. No reason to wait three years.

There is a committee I'm hoping to get on - reference a thread from a couple of months back :-D

I believe the guy is currently seniority 926 at the company... Butcher....

 

[aloft]

First-year rates are the only thing putting this issue on the national radar at the moment. Efforts to spend that political capital to raise everything BUT first-year rates are doomed to fail.