eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,956
- 9,372
I don't think that interpretation is entirely true. I understood that the APA negotiated a deeper pay cut initially in order to get work rule changes and training in place then have a partial snap back.
No, I'm fairly certain in my interpretation -- snapback implies status quo ante bellum.
You can flip the situation around to say it was partial restoration based on meeting certain productivity or financial targets, but that's really not the way it went down based on my seat in Centerport at the time.
APA's cuts of X% were based on AA's timeline for implementing those changes, which was seen as resulting in a lot of disruption to the membership.
APA countered with an extended phase-in period which was less disruptive to the membership, and as an offset for the longer phase-in, proposed an additional Y% cut for the duration of the extended phase-in. There were no criteria or thresholds, and no uncertainty about when the additional cuts would expire.
For it to be a snap-back, you'd have to have restoration of the associated workrules and rates, none of which happened.
What you were hypothesizing regarding targeted pay restoration would have been an interesting approach, but only if there had been some risk of the changes not being fully implemented due to conditions that the union had control over. Something to ponder for the S1113 discussion, perhaps...