- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #46
No problemo, Art. Remember, as one of the 1200 subject to furlough I have a particularly vested interest in the attrition rate. In looking at the years of service of some of the retirees, I'm thinking that maybe some of them have decided that waiting for a new contract or a better retirement package is a fool's mission.
The company has no incentive whatsoever to reach a new contract with any of the unions since the RLA stipulates that the previous contract remains in force until a new one is ratified. Why should the company rush toward paying higher wages? And, they know as well as we do, that no contract without pay raises is going to get ratified--particularly with the bad blood caused by the executive bonusses over the past couple of years.
Also, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to take away retirement benefits from people already collecting those benefits. Shedding pension plans in a pre-packaged bankruptcy has been proven to be not so hard.
Maybe some of them are thinking that they had better get on the retirement rolls while the getting is good.
The company has no incentive whatsoever to reach a new contract with any of the unions since the RLA stipulates that the previous contract remains in force until a new one is ratified. Why should the company rush toward paying higher wages? And, they know as well as we do, that no contract without pay raises is going to get ratified--particularly with the bad blood caused by the executive bonusses over the past couple of years.
Also, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to take away retirement benefits from people already collecting those benefits. Shedding pension plans in a pre-packaged bankruptcy has been proven to be not so hard.
Maybe some of them are thinking that they had better get on the retirement rolls while the getting is good.