I do remember 5-4-3, however if the membership votes to accept a change, then that is the nature of democracy.
In the case of 5-4-3, the company was very determined to do away with it and I appreciate it is perhaps a simplification to say we voted it away, however the majority accepted RPs that did not have 5-4-3. The majority accepted that the HDP/overtime provisions compensated them for the loss of 5-4-3. Such is the nature of the give and take in the negotiation process.
Applying that principle further, I suppose if the company offered a price for a three-month rolling average overtime that was acceptable to the majority of the membership, then such is the nature of a democracy.
If the NY base opened and the company stipulated a unique overtime threshold for that base, if some members found that acceptable, should the AOA oppose the Base?
Most of the bases have unique features. Some bad, some good. The Australians get long-service leave, however I don't. Should I be upset over that? Of course not, it just compensates them for having a shoite cricket team
