FAA Reauthorization - RLA amendment`
06-21-2009, 08:54 PM
#121
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 29
Quote from HDriver
Now, FedEx Express drivers delivering the same package from the same location to the same destination by the same mode (truck) as UPS drivers, have radically fewer rights and benefits. The one winner, of course, is FedEx, which turns this classification disparity into an unfair competitive advantage and takes it all the way to the bank.
I thought you guys did not use "trucks" but used "package cars"? Something about giving you a tax advantage.
So with your reasoning it would be appropriate for FedEx to call the IRS and say "no fair their trucks are just like ours but they are getting a better deal".
The fact is UPS wants to be under the RLA. They were unsuccessful. So now they are behaving like a 5 year old at a table game that sees they are not going to win. They just kick the thing over so no one can win.
Now, FedEx Express drivers delivering the same package from the same location to the same destination by the same mode (truck) as UPS drivers, have radically fewer rights and benefits. The one winner, of course, is FedEx, which turns this classification disparity into an unfair competitive advantage and takes it all the way to the bank.
I thought you guys did not use "trucks" but used "package cars"? Something about giving you a tax advantage.
So with your reasoning it would be appropriate for FedEx to call the IRS and say "no fair their trucks are just like ours but they are getting a better deal".
The fact is UPS wants to be under the RLA. They were unsuccessful. So now they are behaving like a 5 year old at a table game that sees they are not going to win. They just kick the thing over so no one can win.
06-21-2009, 09:19 PM
#122
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 29
Quote from HDriver
"Finally, it is clear that FedEx is the financial beneficiary of an unlevel playing field given how determined it is to preserve the status quo through the very expensive and very negative campaign it has launched."
All this talk of an unlevel playing field is unending. What if the law changes and they still don't form a union? What if they form a union but they are still making X dollars an hour less than your guys, or our guys don't have a pension like your guys and on and on. You guys will keep crying unlevel playing field unless we have the exact same labor cost as you.
I don't think many people have thought this whole thing thru. Lets say the law changes and a few stations form a union. Lets say they go on strike. How long do you think it will take to replace them? Not very long at all. REMEMBER THE NORTHWEST MECHANICS? Hundreds were replaced in one day without so much as a hickup to the system. The thing that determines how easy it is to replace a work force is how long it takes to train them. The only thing preventing them from doing it to us is the fact that it takes 2-3 months to train a pilot. In the future they could potentially do it to us if they could find labor cheap enough to get trained and just be standing in the wings to walk on the property the day we walk off. (Think pilots from another country who would be happy with 40K a year)
If they want to form a union GREAT! However, it needs to be national to have any hope of accomplishing anything substantial.
"Finally, it is clear that FedEx is the financial beneficiary of an unlevel playing field given how determined it is to preserve the status quo through the very expensive and very negative campaign it has launched."
All this talk of an unlevel playing field is unending. What if the law changes and they still don't form a union? What if they form a union but they are still making X dollars an hour less than your guys, or our guys don't have a pension like your guys and on and on. You guys will keep crying unlevel playing field unless we have the exact same labor cost as you.
I don't think many people have thought this whole thing thru. Lets say the law changes and a few stations form a union. Lets say they go on strike. How long do you think it will take to replace them? Not very long at all. REMEMBER THE NORTHWEST MECHANICS? Hundreds were replaced in one day without so much as a hickup to the system. The thing that determines how easy it is to replace a work force is how long it takes to train them. The only thing preventing them from doing it to us is the fact that it takes 2-3 months to train a pilot. In the future they could potentially do it to us if they could find labor cheap enough to get trained and just be standing in the wings to walk on the property the day we walk off. (Think pilots from another country who would be happy with 40K a year)
If they want to form a union GREAT! However, it needs to be national to have any hope of accomplishing anything substantial.
Last edited by purple101; 06-21-2009 at 09:45 PM.
06-21-2009, 10:02 PM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 276
FedEx Ground has been stressing to it's "non-employees" for years the benefits of being "independent contractors." I believe FedEx's energetic response to this legislation provides an excellent litmus test of just how "independent" those contractors really are.
So should the baggage handlers at Delta be covered by the RLA or the NLRA?
06-22-2009, 04:41 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
There is nothing in this legislation that requires FedEx to "change it's business model." They can still employ thousands of subcontractors to perform one category and class of work, if they deem that a better or more efficient way to operate. Rather than dealing with one bargaining unit, they may have to deal with hundreds or even thousands of bargaining units, but that is a result of how FedEx has chosen to structure their business model. Nobody is requiring, or even suggesting, that they change it.
FedEx Ground has been stressing to it's "non-employees" for years the benefits of being "independent contractors." I believe FedEx's energetic response to this legislation provides an excellent litmus test of just how "independent" those contractors really are. I'm sure there will be language in the final bill spelling out exactly what constitutes "airline-specific functions," but on the face of it I'd guess that baggage-handlers at Delta (I.E., those who actually load the planes) will fall under the RLA, while the Skycaps will fall under the NLRB.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 06-22-2009 at 04:56 AM.
06-22-2009, 04:46 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I guess we are going political.
Albie,
I appreciate the response and also look forward to our discussion. I am anxious to hear how publicly supporting McCain has helped you achieve your stated goal of representing the "home team". (I think we both know his voting record on pilot issues). Also, in a previous post you mentioned that many of our issues are not party dependent. I beg to differ. Just look at the voting records in terms of pension reform, scope, flight time duty time and the like. In fact, during the election, despite an invitation from ALPA to comment on issues affecting our careers, I believe McCain didn't even take the time to respond?
Once again, I look forward to your call. I will be available in the afternoons if that works for you.
I appreciate the response and also look forward to our discussion. I am anxious to hear how publicly supporting McCain has helped you achieve your stated goal of representing the "home team". (I think we both know his voting record on pilot issues). Also, in a previous post you mentioned that many of our issues are not party dependent. I beg to differ. Just look at the voting records in terms of pension reform, scope, flight time duty time and the like. In fact, during the election, despite an invitation from ALPA to comment on issues affecting our careers, I believe McCain didn't even take the time to respond?
Once again, I look forward to your call. I will be available in the afternoons if that works for you.
06-22-2009, 06:20 AM
#126
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
Fdxlag
Well at least we agree on the importance of jobs. Under Reagan, Bush I and II, loose regulation and massive deficit spending and nary a peep from the conservatives in the R party? So America finally gets it's fill and O's administration inherits the mess and now has to decide, do we try to stimulate the economy or just let it ride? (Which by the way was begun under the previous admin. through TARP) Now, all the self righteous types come crawling out from the under woodwork to suddenly cry foul? Where where these people before when their party was spending like a bunch of drunken sailors? (No offense to drunken sailors, as some of them are my very good friends). Makes you question their real motivation. Had the party focused less on Republicanism and more on Conservatism, perhaps we wouldn't be in this dilemma. I guess it is the job of the minority party to throw stones, but at some point, being an American and doing what is right is more important than partisan politics.
So in my book it comes down to this, you either subscribe to the concept of a stimulus or you do not. If you do not, you had better have been prepared to bet your job on it, because almost everyone, (including most R's when pressed to put aside their minority partisan agenda) agree that a stimulus is needed and that the outcome of letting banks just fail, along with large companies, would have put incredible "additional" stress on an already stressed out economy. Putting several hundred thousand more people on the street and causing additional strain on the stock market, most economists agree would have started a domino effect and downward spiral from which we might not have recovered. If you think FedEx had a hard time of it now.......imagine what could have happened? Furloughs or worse?
No one likes where we find ourselves and there aren't many easy choices, but as Americans we need to begin to get ourselves out of this mess and put safeguards in place to avoid a similar calamity in the future. Do we run the risk of increased deficits and mounting debt in the future? Absolutely. There is much at stake, but hopefully if the economy is sufficiently stabilized, if the stimulus begins to take hold and we see better job numbers...we may be on the road to recovery.
So yes, we agree about the importance of jobs and so it seems do the majority of Americans. I fully support this president, his party and those republicans who are working together to make this right.
PS. Since you brought up Albie....he is a good man and he has been gracious with his time, but honestly, I think there is a vast difference between maintaining your independence as a Union Rep and supporting a candidate whose agenda violates the very essence of our core union principles. Baseball Style arbitration would have decimated the RLA by taking away your one and only form of leverage and that is just one example of his record. It's like calling yourself an American, but then flying a hammer and sickle.
So in my book it comes down to this, you either subscribe to the concept of a stimulus or you do not. If you do not, you had better have been prepared to bet your job on it, because almost everyone, (including most R's when pressed to put aside their minority partisan agenda) agree that a stimulus is needed and that the outcome of letting banks just fail, along with large companies, would have put incredible "additional" stress on an already stressed out economy. Putting several hundred thousand more people on the street and causing additional strain on the stock market, most economists agree would have started a domino effect and downward spiral from which we might not have recovered. If you think FedEx had a hard time of it now.......imagine what could have happened? Furloughs or worse?
No one likes where we find ourselves and there aren't many easy choices, but as Americans we need to begin to get ourselves out of this mess and put safeguards in place to avoid a similar calamity in the future. Do we run the risk of increased deficits and mounting debt in the future? Absolutely. There is much at stake, but hopefully if the economy is sufficiently stabilized, if the stimulus begins to take hold and we see better job numbers...we may be on the road to recovery.
So yes, we agree about the importance of jobs and so it seems do the majority of Americans. I fully support this president, his party and those republicans who are working together to make this right.
PS. Since you brought up Albie....he is a good man and he has been gracious with his time, but honestly, I think there is a vast difference between maintaining your independence as a Union Rep and supporting a candidate whose agenda violates the very essence of our core union principles. Baseball Style arbitration would have decimated the RLA by taking away your one and only form of leverage and that is just one example of his record. It's like calling yourself an American, but then flying a hammer and sickle.
06-22-2009, 07:09 AM
#127
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
06-22-2009, 07:15 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Well at least we agree on the importance of jobs. Under Reagan, Bush I and II, loose regulation and massive deficit spending and nary a peep from the conservatives in the R party? So America finally gets it's fill and O's administration inherits the mess and now has to decide, do we try to stimulate the economy or just let it ride? (Which by the way was begun under the previous admin. through TARP) Now, all the self righteous types come crawling out from the under woodwork to suddenly cry foul? Where where these people before when their party was spending like a bunch of drunken sailors? (No offense to drunken sailors, as some of them are my very good friends). Makes you question their real motivation. Had the party focused less on Republicanism and more on Conservatism, perhaps we wouldn't be in this dilemma. I guess it is the job of the minority party to throw stones, but at some point, being an American and doing what is right is more important than partisan politics.
So in my book it comes down to this, you either subscribe to the concept of a stimulus or you do not. If you do not, you had better have been prepared to bet your job on it, because almost everyone, (including most R's when pressed to put aside their minority partisan agenda) agree that a stimulus is needed and that the outcome of letting banks just fail, along with large companies, would have put incredible "additional" stress on an already stressed out economy. Putting several hundred thousand more people on the street and causing additional strain on the stock market, most economists agree would have started a domino effect and downward spiral from which we might not have recovered. If you think FedEx had a hard time of it now.......imagine what could have happened? Furloughs or worse?
No one likes where we find ourselves and there aren't many easy choices, but as Americans we need to begin to get ourselves out of this mess and put safeguards in place to avoid a similar calamity in the future. Do we run the risk of increased deficits and mounting debt in the future? Absolutely. There is much at stake, but hopefully if the economy is sufficiently stabilized, if the stimulus begins to take hold and we see better job numbers...we may be on the road to recovery.
So yes, we agree about the importance of jobs and so it seems do the majority of Americans. I fully support this president, his party and those republicans who are working together to make this right.
PS. Since you brought up Albie....he is a good man and he has been gracious with his time, but honestly, I think there is a vast difference between maintaining your independence as a Union Rep and supporting a candidate whose agenda violates the very essence of our core union principles. Baseball Style arbitration would have decimated the RLA by taking away your one and only form of leverage and that is just one example of his record. It's like calling yourself an American, but then flying a hammer and sickle.
So in my book it comes down to this, you either subscribe to the concept of a stimulus or you do not. If you do not, you had better have been prepared to bet your job on it, because almost everyone, (including most R's when pressed to put aside their minority partisan agenda) agree that a stimulus is needed and that the outcome of letting banks just fail, along with large companies, would have put incredible "additional" stress on an already stressed out economy. Putting several hundred thousand more people on the street and causing additional strain on the stock market, most economists agree would have started a domino effect and downward spiral from which we might not have recovered. If you think FedEx had a hard time of it now.......imagine what could have happened? Furloughs or worse?
No one likes where we find ourselves and there aren't many easy choices, but as Americans we need to begin to get ourselves out of this mess and put safeguards in place to avoid a similar calamity in the future. Do we run the risk of increased deficits and mounting debt in the future? Absolutely. There is much at stake, but hopefully if the economy is sufficiently stabilized, if the stimulus begins to take hold and we see better job numbers...we may be on the road to recovery.
So yes, we agree about the importance of jobs and so it seems do the majority of Americans. I fully support this president, his party and those republicans who are working together to make this right.
PS. Since you brought up Albie....he is a good man and he has been gracious with his time, but honestly, I think there is a vast difference between maintaining your independence as a Union Rep and supporting a candidate whose agenda violates the very essence of our core union principles. Baseball Style arbitration would have decimated the RLA by taking away your one and only form of leverage and that is just one example of his record. It's like calling yourself an American, but then flying a hammer and sickle.
Standby for thread closure...Don't worry though. Another RLA amendment thread will be opened shortly by some UPS guy.
Last edited by Busboy; 06-22-2009 at 07:27 AM. Reason: last word?
06-22-2009, 07:42 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 276
Again, the advantages to freds business model is that FEDEX Express operates under the RLA. FEDEX Ground Operates under the NLRA. This requires a significant expense. If the advantage goes away you can not justify the expense. Either FEDEX Ground or FEDEX Express delivery operations will go away. Wouldn't it be funny if Express went to the independent contractor model?
It might not impact service that much, but it would be a disaster for the pilots. (At last it would be pretty easy to get a job flying for "Not-FedEx" and that would give guys a chance to get some civilian and/or wide-body time in order to spruce-up their applications...to UPS)
My sense is that in Fred Smith, you have a leader who basically likes airplanes, and likes the guys (and gals) who fly them. That may not always be the case, however. It's very possible that at some point, FedEx will fall under the leadership of a "bottom-line" sort of CEO who WILL try to emulate the "independent contractor" model of FedEx ground. Remember, Continental Airlines was a very different carrier under Frank Lorenzo than it had been under Bob Six. Likewise, Flying Tigers under Steve Wolfe vs. Bob Prescott.
What is the purpose of the RLA? I thought we went over this once. It is to prevent service interruptions.
Most Sky Caps don't work for the airlines, the 100K they bring hoime is mostly tip money. So you are saying the employees who work for the airline should be RLA but the ones who don't should be NLRA. Got it.
06-22-2009, 07:49 AM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: missionary
Posts: 320
McCain's anti-pilot/anti-union stance was quite disturbing. For that, and a few other reasons, he was not my first choice in the Primaries. I think Guilliani was the only one who had a chance of pulling it off, but he had no idea how to run a campaign.
That said, I will never in a million years vote for a Dummycrat. Once in a while, when a decent one comes along whom I could support, like Lieberman, they string him up by his sack and ostracize him.
There have been some good points on both sides of the fence in this thread. I do believe it ought to be the number one and only job of union leadership to serve the best interests of the union, and leave personal politics out of it.
Above all else, I am an American before I am a pilot. The number one job of the POTUS is Commander in Chief. It's his job to keep Americans safe. Like him or not, you have to give Bush 43 credit for keeping Americans safe. It's nothing short of remarkable that we didn't even have one tiny terrorist hit since 9/11. That didn't happen by accident. That was the result of his policies.
Barry's position on national security is both impotent and frightening. One of many examples is how N Korea and Iran are going to continue to show us their middle finger, because they know he's not going to do anything about it. I could go on and on, but I won't.
That said, I will never in a million years vote for a Dummycrat. Once in a while, when a decent one comes along whom I could support, like Lieberman, they string him up by his sack and ostracize him.
There have been some good points on both sides of the fence in this thread. I do believe it ought to be the number one and only job of union leadership to serve the best interests of the union, and leave personal politics out of it.
Above all else, I am an American before I am a pilot. The number one job of the POTUS is Commander in Chief. It's his job to keep Americans safe. Like him or not, you have to give Bush 43 credit for keeping Americans safe. It's nothing short of remarkable that we didn't even have one tiny terrorist hit since 9/11. That didn't happen by accident. That was the result of his policies.
Barry's position on national security is both impotent and frightening. One of many examples is how N Korea and Iran are going to continue to show us their middle finger, because they know he's not going to do anything about it. I could go on and on, but I won't.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
