Merger Seniority Lists
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merger Seniority Lists
two low cost companies merging.
1st company started in 2004
2nd company started in 2006
Any ideas on a fair way for all both companies to merge seniority?
The second company once to do a zipper type , 1 of first and 1 of second company one for one.
If one started working for s company 2004.
Then would be looking at having people from the other company who started in 2006 go ahead in seniority after merge
What is correct for both and all ?
If we merged strictly on date of hire all the guys from the second company ( 2006 start ) would be below 1st company.
Please read below interested in hearing experiences of merging seniority of course not everyone will be happy but what is the fairest for both ?
What do you think, would like to learn from your experience ?
Please see below.
Do you agree that the options below are to the advantage of Company 2 ?
Option 1
This first option integrates the technical scales following a “zipper” model. Up to date both companies have had a different criteria when they execute the technical scale (Company 1x decides by date of “release” and Company 2x by contractual date on the position). This model allows to integrate the scales without modifying the criteria followed until now by both companies. You can see the results on the following file (as an example it has been taken the first position of an individual coming from Company 2x but in practice, if this would have been the preselected option, the first position will be assigned by draw. For the same token it has been taken as date of technical scale the date of seniority on the category but in this model it won´t be a problem to make the “zipper” model following the current criteria of “release to the fleet” for Company 1x Technical Scale Document Option 1
Option 2
Considering that the first flight of Company 2x was done on October 1st 2006 and from that moment the time lasted at same time for both companies, all individuals in the position equal or after that date will be organized by the position date. Due to the fact that there are a number of individuals in Company 1x with positions date before October 1st 2006, it has been taken equal number of individuals of Company 2x and it has been created a “zipper” until the first individual at Company 1x reaches that date. You can see the result by clicking on the following link (as in previous case the position will be chosen by draw among both companies but in this model, where the date is relevant, the unique criteria agreed will be the seniority (contractual date in the position).
Any other options out there ?
Is it not right to respect the date of hire only ?
Neither pilot group has a strong union but company 2 appears to have the new management on its side. Company 1 may have the support a union.
1st company started in 2004
2nd company started in 2006
Any ideas on a fair way for all both companies to merge seniority?
The second company once to do a zipper type , 1 of first and 1 of second company one for one.
If one started working for s company 2004.
Then would be looking at having people from the other company who started in 2006 go ahead in seniority after merge
What is correct for both and all ?
If we merged strictly on date of hire all the guys from the second company ( 2006 start ) would be below 1st company.
Please read below interested in hearing experiences of merging seniority of course not everyone will be happy but what is the fairest for both ?
What do you think, would like to learn from your experience ?
Please see below.
Do you agree that the options below are to the advantage of Company 2 ?
Option 1
This first option integrates the technical scales following a “zipper” model. Up to date both companies have had a different criteria when they execute the technical scale (Company 1x decides by date of “release” and Company 2x by contractual date on the position). This model allows to integrate the scales without modifying the criteria followed until now by both companies. You can see the results on the following file (as an example it has been taken the first position of an individual coming from Company 2x but in practice, if this would have been the preselected option, the first position will be assigned by draw. For the same token it has been taken as date of technical scale the date of seniority on the category but in this model it won´t be a problem to make the “zipper” model following the current criteria of “release to the fleet” for Company 1x Technical Scale Document Option 1
Option 2
Considering that the first flight of Company 2x was done on October 1st 2006 and from that moment the time lasted at same time for both companies, all individuals in the position equal or after that date will be organized by the position date. Due to the fact that there are a number of individuals in Company 1x with positions date before October 1st 2006, it has been taken equal number of individuals of Company 2x and it has been created a “zipper” until the first individual at Company 1x reaches that date. You can see the result by clicking on the following link (as in previous case the position will be chosen by draw among both companies but in this model, where the date is relevant, the unique criteria agreed will be the seniority (contractual date in the position).
Any other options out there ?
Is it not right to respect the date of hire only ?
Neither pilot group has a strong union but company 2 appears to have the new management on its side. Company 1 may have the support a union.
Last edited by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks; 9th May 2009 at 19:06.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an old chestnut and there are always a variety of different ways of doing it. The one thing you can be sure of is that you will not end up pleasing everybody! However, I will assume here that you are considering seniority with regard to pilot employees, changing fleets and posts within fleets.
Fundamentally, in my opinion, the fairest way is on date of joining - in other words, in order of length of service within either company. If however, one company is taking over the other, there is always an argument in biasing any joint list in favour of the employees of the company doing the "taking over". Also, if you think either of these principles will produce an unacceptable distortion of opportunity for one or other group, you can always superimpose grandfather rights to posts in each company for "home" bids, which you can offer either for just the first bid after merger, any one bid to be chosen by the individual, or even give indefinite preferential bids for "home" posts.
It goes without saying that employees joining after any merger would be added to the bottom of the joint list.
Frankly, there are so many different aspects that may need to be considered that it is difficult to suggest further without knowing more detail.
I wish you luck ... and I certainly think you'll need it
JD
Fundamentally, in my opinion, the fairest way is on date of joining - in other words, in order of length of service within either company. If however, one company is taking over the other, there is always an argument in biasing any joint list in favour of the employees of the company doing the "taking over". Also, if you think either of these principles will produce an unacceptable distortion of opportunity for one or other group, you can always superimpose grandfather rights to posts in each company for "home" bids, which you can offer either for just the first bid after merger, any one bid to be chosen by the individual, or even give indefinite preferential bids for "home" posts.
It goes without saying that employees joining after any merger would be added to the bottom of the joint list.
Frankly, there are so many different aspects that may need to be considered that it is difficult to suggest further without knowing more detail.
I wish you luck ... and I certainly think you'll need it
JD
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one way to merge seniority is by the percentage method.
Let the date of merger be the date of reckoning. (DOR).
Pilots joining after DOR slot in to the merged company.
The problem is always the pilots who joined before DOR.
One of the best way is to make a percentage of time served in the company (TS) to the total time of existence (TE) in the company.
Each pilot then gets a score in % as on the DOR = TS/TE x100.
Asuming the same tech criteria is used for both. Incase of different or multiple criteria, both companies have to be given the benefit by factoring the criteria for both with a weightage. That is If it is Release date, compute similarly a fraction for release date to the first relaease date for both employees like the Date of joining and multiply both or add both to get a number.
Sequence in numerical order descending, higher score being senior.
This score determines the sequence in the list as on DOR.
Any plan will have opposition if it does not suit someone. The aim is ti have least dissatisfied people.
Can also use a decision making matrix ... PM if required
Regards
Let the date of merger be the date of reckoning. (DOR).
Pilots joining after DOR slot in to the merged company.
The problem is always the pilots who joined before DOR.
One of the best way is to make a percentage of time served in the company (TS) to the total time of existence (TE) in the company.
Each pilot then gets a score in % as on the DOR = TS/TE x100.
Asuming the same tech criteria is used for both. Incase of different or multiple criteria, both companies have to be given the benefit by factoring the criteria for both with a weightage. That is If it is Release date, compute similarly a fraction for release date to the first relaease date for both employees like the Date of joining and multiply both or add both to get a number.
Sequence in numerical order descending, higher score being senior.
This score determines the sequence in the list as on DOR.
Any plan will have opposition if it does not suit someone. The aim is ti have least dissatisfied people.
Can also use a decision making matrix ... PM if required
Regards
