Breakdown of FDX junior 700
01-08-2009, 02:09 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Not to rain on your parade, but they can furlough. However, it would be so costly for the company, both in time and money, that it would take 100 years before they recouped their investment in the furlough. So, in actuality, in my opinion, they cannot furlough unless they jump through some major hoops, which will take a good deal of time to put in place.
JJ
JJ
01-08-2009, 02:30 PM
#12
Living the dream!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 915
Not to rain on your parade, but they can furlough. However, it would be so costly for the company, both in time and money, that it would take 100 years before they recouped their investment in the furlough. So, in actuality, in my opinion, they cannot furlough unless they jump through some major hoops, which will take a good deal of time to put in place.
JJ
JJ
There is no way FedEx can furlough!
PC has tied FedEx's hands with his hiring and FDA LOA. Too costly to park people.
01-08-2009, 03:13 PM
#13
Beverage Consultant
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Bartender & cabana boy
Posts: 167
Just to stir the pot, why does the company have to furlough in senority order? That is everyone's assumption, but how big of a step is it for them to violate the contract by furloughing whomever they want if they are already violating the contract for the reduction of BLG's?
I realize it is a bit of a domino effect argument, but everyone is claiming the company can't furlough for a variety of reasons that in essence come down to the cost to FedEx. What if they take that out of the equation and just do what is the most cost effective for the company and toss out the contract?
I know the whole idea sounds silly, but I thought I'd toss that grenade in the room then walk out. That is what we do on APC now, right?
Cheers,
Beertini
I realize it is a bit of a domino effect argument, but everyone is claiming the company can't furlough for a variety of reasons that in essence come down to the cost to FedEx. What if they take that out of the equation and just do what is the most cost effective for the company and toss out the contract?
I know the whole idea sounds silly, but I thought I'd toss that grenade in the room then walk out. That is what we do on APC now, right?
Cheers,
Beertini
01-08-2009, 03:20 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Beertini .... very interesting thought indeed. The problem with posting it here is now management has seen it ... thanks a bunch for that!*?
Mark
01-08-2009, 03:20 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 376
Just to stir the pot, why does the company have to furlough in senority order? That is everyone's assumption, but how big of a step is it for them to violate the contract by furloughing whomever they want if they are already violating the contract for the reduction of BLG's?
I realize it is a bit of a domino effect argument, but everyone is claiming the company can't furlough for a variety of reasons that in essence come down to the cost to FedEx. What if they take that out of the equation and just do what is the most cost effective for the company and toss out the contract?
I know the whole idea sounds silly, but I thought I'd toss that grenade in the room then walk out. That is what we do on APC now, right?
Cheers,
Beertini
I realize it is a bit of a domino effect argument, but everyone is claiming the company can't furlough for a variety of reasons that in essence come down to the cost to FedEx. What if they take that out of the equation and just do what is the most cost effective for the company and toss out the contract?
I know the whole idea sounds silly, but I thought I'd toss that grenade in the room then walk out. That is what we do on APC now, right?
Cheers,
Beertini
Except as provided in Section 23.A.1.b. and A.2., if the Company determines it is necessary to reduce the number of active pilots, the Company shall furlough pilots in reverse order of system seniority as listed on the Master Seniority List.
01-08-2009, 03:30 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
JJ
01-08-2009, 03:50 PM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 31
I hate to give any mgt genius any ideas, but what if they furloughed just 20 pilots just for sake of argument as a response to the grievance. Then they can say that they WERE in fact trying to prevent a furlough, they get away with BLG reduction and it doesn't affect their operation that much. It's evil but not inconceivable.
01-08-2009, 04:42 PM
#18
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
I hate to give any mgt genius any ideas, but what if they furloughed just 20 pilots just for sake of argument as a response to the grievance. Then they can say that they WERE in fact trying to prevent a furlough, they get away with BLG reduction and it doesn't affect their operation that much. It's evil but not inconceivable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
