Well that makes it as clear as mud, which is probably to each individual's advantage. You have to say, if a score system is adopted to be fair, an even weight needs to be given to "last on first off". I think 99% one way or the other is a bit crook
I agree. Sorry to be confusing. Remember we are dealing with idiots in management. We have to request 99% so we are in a position to negotiate any value at all for your years of service.
To put it a different way. To be somewhat realistic and comply with the EA I reckon half your score should be based on years as LAME/service with company and the other half based on licences you hold. In an Engineers world, I would pick up the phone to the manager Harris and say - Hey mate this is what I reckon is fair. He would most likely agree.
In the Qantas world it is more like this. We have meetings, they turn up with 10 Lawyers and argue that LOFO is discrimination against younger people. We say wtf did you agree to it in the EA then. They get offended that someone swore and remind us that their are ladies present. Then one of the managers will swear. They show some Ppt presentations about the word "regard" trying to pretend that the entire clause is meaningless because regard is not the same as obligate. We say, we will see you in FWA. They say hold on, we are willing to negotiate and put a starting bid of 1% value to LOFO. Its like a circus.
I know why the company can't make any profit.