Busboy

Uhhhh.... I thought that's what I said.

iarapilot

You did. Just felt like saying it again!

FreightDawgyDog

Yep. Which is why thy need to be publicly identified visa vie a non members type list after their second transgression. They need to be left on there for a period of 3-6 months after their last flown DP and go back on permanently the next time they fly one. I have sent in the example below but it was rejected by ALPA legal. They could give me no reason other than they felt it was a risk they did not want to take. Their job is to not have to do their job unless absolutely necessary IMO. I guess that's all lawyers jobs in a nutshell. The only reason we need lawyers in the first place is to protect ourselves from other lawyers but I digress. Anyway here was the rejected example..


"As of 03/29/2009 the following crew-members, for different reasons, have chosen to fly Disputed Pairings as identified by the SIG."

Freeagent Ima 367/02JAN, 456/05FEB
Loser Sucha 458/11FEB, 236/15MAR, 645/27MAR
Mine Ivegot 346/15JAN, 423/02FEB
Restofu Screwthe 587/26JAN, 768/02FEB

We encourage all of our members to make responsible and professional efforts to recruit these fellow pilots to stop undermining the SIG's effort for safer schedules. It is the FedEx MEC's intention that the pilots on this list be afforded the same level of professional courtesy and respect as any other member pilot. Any suggestion by individual pilots to the contrary is not condoned by the FedEx MEC. Should any on this list feel that they have been subjected to any form of harassment or intimidation they should immediately report this to the FedEx MEC Professional Standards Committee for corrective action. This information is published for administrative purposes only. If an information on this list is inaccurate please contact the MEC so appropriate corrections can be made.



It's that freakin' easy and the MEC will not do it. Email your Reps with this and get their point of view. As long as these pilots feel no repercussions whatsoever they will continue to fly DP's IMO.

onetime

Dawg, I agree with you in that it would be nice to have a public list, though I don't think it would change anything. We obviously have a non-member list, yet we have a lot of non-members. I am curious why ALPA legal would not push this? Lazy maybe?

MEMFO4Ever

I disagree. As ridiculous as it seems, they are not doing anything that the CBA does not allow. ALPA legal is right on the money. There may be the potential for legal action (creating a hostile workplace, etc.) of some kind if the association starts publishing the names of people that are doing things that the contract currently allows.

What's next? Carryover flyers? Vacation sell-backs? Where does it end? I'm assuming it is when the vocal minority decides.

Busboy

The contract also allows for people to be non members...Yet, we print their names.

FDXLAG

Hey that all sounds good to me, how about a data base where I can look up who I'm flying with this week and give us something to talk about sitting around the BHM food court. For the really sensitive they can choose to block that column on the data base. Here are my suggestions for columns:

Name, Member Status, Union Office, # of DPs Flown, Delta from BLG.

Buckwheat Jones

Nice hyperbole. The actual %'s are:

Non Members Not Subject to Agency Shop: 1.9%
DCO Non Members Not Subject to Agency Shop: 0.3%
Non Members Subject to Agency Shop: 0.09%
Total percentage of no freqs/no volts/no load: 2.3%

I guess that makes you a "glass half empty" kind of guy!

FXDX

I agree wholeheartedly that the DP process is broke. No fault of the SIG, they do a great job working within the confines of the contract. We have 4700 pilots going 4700 different ways, and there will always be guys who don't get it and will fly DPs, for whatever reasons. As long as the contract allows it, I don't see any way of policing them.

I also think that the union could publish the names if they wanted to, as onetime points out they publish the non member list. So I think they certainly could highlight DP fliers each month without legal ramifications, not that I think it would do any good (for reasons in the paragraph above).

Again, I support the SIG and don't fly DPs. I'd love to see the process overhauled in the next contract go around, by preventing our independent contractors from hosing the rest of us. I don't hold out much hope, particularly due to the fact that the VP and the company seem determined to do whatever they want anyway, contract or no. The cost of those hard parameters might be pretty steep as well.

onetime

Good point. Just curious, what is the average # of DPs each month (which bascially equals # DPs flown) versus the average # of total pairings? If you want to make a true comparison.

Glass, what glass?