That's probably not going to happen since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed. Retro causes the corporation to have to go back and amend their earning from previous years. I believe it would also trigger, then, each pilot to have to go back and refile for the years that they earned the pay.
You'll get a bonus check.
And, I know our two companies are different animals, but... why would you want the money based on each pilot's actual work? Over here, we don't want to reward all the "hogs" that were at the trough while we were in contract negotiations that prolonged us even getting a TA. Not that I would personally discourage anyone from working overtime, since it is their contractual right, and we are not released to self-help. But many of us, individually and personally, thought that maybe spending time with our families was more important than spending time in an airplane, especially when our employer doesn't seem to value us by dragging their feet negotiating a CBA.
You might be correct about the company having to amend prior years' financials; I don't know for sure. But you're
incorrect about individuals--income is taxed the year it was
paid, regardless of the year it was
earned. That applies to all individual income. Retro would end up being a lump sum to us, presumidly paid
and taxed to us in 2015. Or 2016, if it takes that long.
Retro should be paid for actual work in the name of basic fairness. It represents
all pilots getting paid for their individual work efforts at the rates they
should have been getting all along, in the years we didn't have a contract simply because the company dragged its feet. Why should I, a "regular line" worker (averaging 100-ish TFPs/month), or anyone else not working overtime "to spend more time with their families," get paid part of the salary
earned by another pilot who worked harder than me/them? Also, why should a pilot who only averages 50 TFPs (say he/she has a rich spouse, and gives away a lot) get some of the money that -I- actually earned? Again, it's basic fairness.
Companies with CBAs that have gone beyond amenable dates pay retro when a contract is reached, as a disincentive to stalling, or slow-rolling negotiations; this way they pay all the money they would have if contractual raises had gone into effect on time. In all actuality, they should
really pay calculated retro
plus interest, as there's still a smaller incentive to stall, in the time-value of the workers' money they held for that period. Interest would make sure that neither the company benefitted, not the workers lost any money, for the delay. However, that never happens. Retro itself is generally thought of as making the workers "whole."
My other point was that the company can call it a "bonus" if they want (if it makes their financials easier, for instance), as long as they pay all the calculated money that each pilot earned while they stalled. That way, each pilot is made "whole," and the company has one less incentive to stall in future negotiations.
Bubba