FDX-Block 5 Rep email
03-04-2011, 08:16 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
After reading TC's lengthy email, a couple of things stood out:
1. He is someone that will directly benefit from the TA. Being HKG based, his housing allowance will go up immediately (I believe $1800/month) and will enjoy the other benefits that the package offered. I believe if the TA is voted down that we will eventually receive back pay (probably around 3%). And, to me, the time value of a 3% raise is next to nothing. However, if we vote down the TA, I can't imagine those that are HKG based will ever receive any payback for lost housing allowance. So, this individual is saying he will wait a year or two for a full contract TA even though it will cost him over 20K/year. That's real money and money he won't get back. Obviously, he thinks we can do better and he is putting his own wallet on the line. This should tell you something!
2. I agree with his concerns of the makeup of the next NMB. Who will they be? We have no idea, but my guess is that the group now will be as labor friendly as we'll get. I'm sure many of you are paying attention to what is happening around the country (particularly Wisc and Ohio). Union busting is becoming a national pastime. The next group could be better, but if I had to guess, I don't think that will be the case.
3. The vote was 10-2, however my block rep sent an email saying that he just thought it was worthy of consideration. He wasn't pro or con, just thought that we deserved the right to vote on it.
4. I also agree about the company's motivation to pay our millions of dollars in raises. Fedex doesn't give away money. We can argue if the FDAs are the motivation or if they want labor peace or just want be nice guys and give us a raise. I think they want the FDAs, but that is just my opinion, I don't know and frankly I doubt the negotiating committee really knows what is motivating them to offer us a raise. But, I think we can all agree that they are motivated to deal with us. I say we keep them motivated and we complete a contract in short order.
5. I believe most of us are reasonable. While we would like a 20% raise, I just don't think we will achieve it. However, we can lock down annual raises for the next four years while taking care of several irritating parts of our contract. I want 4.A.2.b. to be truly reworked, all aircraft added to the spreads, a min pay for reserve day to protect a large portion of our workforce, etc. I'd be happy to table Hours of Service until the NPRM comes out. Most of the contract repairs are very easy and not too expensive for the company. They've been "working on" a fix for accepted fares for years now, how about finally fixing it? Accepted fares are just a small issue, but one that we want taken care of. I am not asking for a complete rewrite of the CBA, just take care of some parts that we told the union we wanted to address (Wilson polls).
1. He is someone that will directly benefit from the TA. Being HKG based, his housing allowance will go up immediately (I believe $1800/month) and will enjoy the other benefits that the package offered. I believe if the TA is voted down that we will eventually receive back pay (probably around 3%). And, to me, the time value of a 3% raise is next to nothing. However, if we vote down the TA, I can't imagine those that are HKG based will ever receive any payback for lost housing allowance. So, this individual is saying he will wait a year or two for a full contract TA even though it will cost him over 20K/year. That's real money and money he won't get back. Obviously, he thinks we can do better and he is putting his own wallet on the line. This should tell you something!
2. I agree with his concerns of the makeup of the next NMB. Who will they be? We have no idea, but my guess is that the group now will be as labor friendly as we'll get. I'm sure many of you are paying attention to what is happening around the country (particularly Wisc and Ohio). Union busting is becoming a national pastime. The next group could be better, but if I had to guess, I don't think that will be the case.
3. The vote was 10-2, however my block rep sent an email saying that he just thought it was worthy of consideration. He wasn't pro or con, just thought that we deserved the right to vote on it.
4. I also agree about the company's motivation to pay our millions of dollars in raises. Fedex doesn't give away money. We can argue if the FDAs are the motivation or if they want labor peace or just want be nice guys and give us a raise. I think they want the FDAs, but that is just my opinion, I don't know and frankly I doubt the negotiating committee really knows what is motivating them to offer us a raise. But, I think we can all agree that they are motivated to deal with us. I say we keep them motivated and we complete a contract in short order.
5. I believe most of us are reasonable. While we would like a 20% raise, I just don't think we will achieve it. However, we can lock down annual raises for the next four years while taking care of several irritating parts of our contract. I want 4.A.2.b. to be truly reworked, all aircraft added to the spreads, a min pay for reserve day to protect a large portion of our workforce, etc. I'd be happy to table Hours of Service until the NPRM comes out. Most of the contract repairs are very easy and not too expensive for the company. They've been "working on" a fix for accepted fares for years now, how about finally fixing it? Accepted fares are just a small issue, but one that we want taken care of. I am not asking for a complete rewrite of the CBA, just take care of some parts that we told the union we wanted to address (Wilson polls).
03-04-2011, 09:57 AM
#42
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Watergate, all over! Thank heavens that TC stood up and let the voice of reason be heard.
Why is this "essay" more convincing than the alternative point of view? Must be because he dares to speak for the minority, everyone loves an underdog.
If it fails, I am sure his FO's in HKG will appreciate his martyr status as they continue to live on 2700 bucks.
If he is all about revealing the truth, how come he never told his block that he had bid on and been awarded a HKG CA position BEFORE he ran for a MEM block rep opening? Seems like not the thing to do if he was truly a man of truth, honor and the American way.
Politics and Spin, I thought the MEC was NOT GOING TO SELL!!!! Well I guess they must have meant they would not sell a yes vote, but a NO vote can be lobbied and sold by one of their own, that is obviously a different animal.
Why is this "essay" more convincing than the alternative point of view? Must be because he dares to speak for the minority, everyone loves an underdog.
If it fails, I am sure his FO's in HKG will appreciate his martyr status as they continue to live on 2700 bucks.
If he is all about revealing the truth, how come he never told his block that he had bid on and been awarded a HKG CA position BEFORE he ran for a MEM block rep opening? Seems like not the thing to do if he was truly a man of truth, honor and the American way.
Politics and Spin, I thought the MEC was NOT GOING TO SELL!!!! Well I guess they must have meant they would not sell a yes vote, but a NO vote can be lobbied and sold by one of their own, that is obviously a different animal.
Additionally, I am pretty sure that he was excessed out of two other CA positions and bid HKG to maintain his widebody captain income level. I have absolutely no problem with that and I can't imagine anybody else would either. Its not like he bid a new aircraft without a pay rate, as some of our other "leaders" and former "leaders" did.
I believe there are some legitimate complaints about some of our block reps (I have an incredible issue with mine for bidding the 777) but bidding the HKG domicile is certainly not one of them, in my humble opinion.
03-04-2011, 01:19 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: ANC-Based MD-11 FO
Posts: 328
I find it amusing and yet insulting that when members criticize their leadership, the initial reaction is to discredit those criticizing by suggesting if they could do better then they should run for office. That reaction has but one purpose: deflect attention away from the facts that highlight misdeeds of the leadership. The real answer is to take care of those who elected you. If you can't take critical review, then you need to resign. Don't tell me it's my fault that I found flaws in what you did. It is my right in fact, my responsibility to hold your feet to the fire until you behave and represent the masses who elected you in the best possible way. So to the MEC and block reps: stop blaming the membership who identify your misdeeds and get down to the business of doing the people's work. If you can't make that your priority, then resign.
03-04-2011, 02:48 PM
#44
Fill'er Up Again
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 1,090
I find it amusing and yet insulting that when members criticize their leadership, the initial reaction is to discredit those criticizing by suggesting if they could do better then they should run for office. That reaction has but one purpose: deflect attention away from the facts that highlight misdeeds of the leadership. The real answer is to take care of those who elected you. If you can't take critical review, then you need to resign. Don't tell me it's my fault that I found flaws in what you did. It is my right in fact, my responsibility to hold your feet to the fire until you behave and represent the masses who elected you in the best possible way. So to the MEC and block reps: stop blaming the membership who identify your misdeeds and get down to the business of doing the people's work. If you can't make that your priority, then resign.
03-04-2011, 05:05 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,198
For the record, when I was a rep under the previous administration, I sent out a few notes directly to my block as Tony did here. You always have that option, and at times it is a tool that can be used be an elected rep.
I think many of you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. I am no longer a rep (whew!) but I can say the 12 folks that discussed this TA all had the same long range vision...a better contract that largely addresses many of the inputs made by the crew force. The desired timeline for that goal is soon. The NPRM complicated things according to some experts, and this TA was viewed as one option. As we discussed our options, several folks thought this might help us in the short term and not slow down our long term goals. Two members ultimately thought maybe it would. So---that is the disagreement. What was NOT in disagreement is everyone wants the same thing on the back side of our next TA.
In any tough decision, there are pros and cons. TC and BM leaned Con, the rest of us Pro. But I don't think that any of those differences should convince you there all 12 of us weren't working towards the same ultimate goal. Each of you gets a vote, and I hope you weigh the arguments and make the best decision for you and your families.
What I do think everyone needs to understand, however, is sometimes in the hard work of hammering out ideas and issues at the table, feelings get hurt and people get angry. Making the leadership changes two years ago in the MEC created a lot of angst and ill will, and even today our MEC officers sometimes face some resentment and resistance from people both inside and outside the union since "their team" isn't in the leadership role. I would ask everyone on here a simple question...do you think the changes in tone, communication, and effectiveness in your union have been positive or negative? I obviously think its been largely positive, and a lot of that is due to the efforts of your current officers. I would simply ask as you read different accounts and opinions that you keep the big picture on where the author's perspective might be on a given issue and if there might also be underlying motives or perspectives that might bias that view. Fox News and MSNBC might both report an event, but I think we would agree each might paint the same event in very different manners. Try to keep your eyes open, get some different opinions, then make a smart, educated decision. There are no heros here, nor are there any huge villains. There are, however, a lot of people working hard for you that sometimes see the world from very different perspectives, and that is going to create some inevitable friction at times.
My take for those of you screaming the loudest is simple. Take up the challenge I did to get off your ass, get off the boards, and go get involved. What you will find, as did my friend the late Fred Buesser, is that it is much harder than it looks and requires a level of commitment that might surprise you. You'll find plenty of folks who are giving it their best shot, and they could probably use your help.
I think many of you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. I am no longer a rep (whew!) but I can say the 12 folks that discussed this TA all had the same long range vision...a better contract that largely addresses many of the inputs made by the crew force. The desired timeline for that goal is soon. The NPRM complicated things according to some experts, and this TA was viewed as one option. As we discussed our options, several folks thought this might help us in the short term and not slow down our long term goals. Two members ultimately thought maybe it would. So---that is the disagreement. What was NOT in disagreement is everyone wants the same thing on the back side of our next TA.
In any tough decision, there are pros and cons. TC and BM leaned Con, the rest of us Pro. But I don't think that any of those differences should convince you there all 12 of us weren't working towards the same ultimate goal. Each of you gets a vote, and I hope you weigh the arguments and make the best decision for you and your families.
What I do think everyone needs to understand, however, is sometimes in the hard work of hammering out ideas and issues at the table, feelings get hurt and people get angry. Making the leadership changes two years ago in the MEC created a lot of angst and ill will, and even today our MEC officers sometimes face some resentment and resistance from people both inside and outside the union since "their team" isn't in the leadership role. I would ask everyone on here a simple question...do you think the changes in tone, communication, and effectiveness in your union have been positive or negative? I obviously think its been largely positive, and a lot of that is due to the efforts of your current officers. I would simply ask as you read different accounts and opinions that you keep the big picture on where the author's perspective might be on a given issue and if there might also be underlying motives or perspectives that might bias that view. Fox News and MSNBC might both report an event, but I think we would agree each might paint the same event in very different manners. Try to keep your eyes open, get some different opinions, then make a smart, educated decision. There are no heros here, nor are there any huge villains. There are, however, a lot of people working hard for you that sometimes see the world from very different perspectives, and that is going to create some inevitable friction at times.
My take for those of you screaming the loudest is simple. Take up the challenge I did to get off your ass, get off the boards, and go get involved. What you will find, as did my friend the late Fred Buesser, is that it is much harder than it looks and requires a level of commitment that might surprise you. You'll find plenty of folks who are giving it their best shot, and they could probably use your help.
Glad to see you're still monitoring the boards (...more on that later).
Once again, a very balanced and worthwile post.
To answer your specific question: Do you think the changes in tone, communication, and effectiveness in your union have been positive or negative?
My answer --- a definitive "Yes" to the first two (tone & communication) and "We don't know yet" to the third (effectiveness)
I greatly appreciate the level, frequency and diversity in communication the MEC & NC have used under the current leadership.
IMHO, BIG IMPROVEMENT!
I think the NC Chairman's written communications leading up to this TA has been superb.
There were clearly two audiences in each update he provides --- the membership and management --- and he does a great job communicating messages to both.
In summary, I think the leadership has taken 2-3 steps forward in that regard.
That is until I hear they may have blocked TC from posting his well written views on the ALPA website and from membership wide e-mail distribution.
If true, that's at least 1 step back.
The membership at-large has every right to hear the views of every elected Block Rep and that information needs to be readily accessible. 4,600 different members shouldn't have to go searching for it or distribute it themselves via other sources.
Anything less is a serious lack of transparency in the process.
And that ties into my final point.
While I agree with the vast majority of your post, I strongly disagree with one portion of your closing:
My take for those of you screaming the loudest is simple. Take up the challenge I did to get off your ass, get off the boards, and go get involved.
While I do support people getting involved in many facets of their life (...their union, their church, their kids schools, etc), I wonder why you feel they should "get off the boards"...???
What value has APC brought to the TA discussion (....or the discussion about previous LOAs)? ...none?
Why do you continue to monitor "the boards"?
Why does mgmt monitor them too?
I don't always agree with the editorials written in my local newspaper, or those on Fox, or MSNBC or CNN --- but, that doesn't mean they have no value or I don't listen to them.
Yes, members should get involved (...see above), but let's not discourage critical thinking/debate.
When posters label some on "the boards" as 'lazy', 'angry' or 'proponents of hysteria', I think they lose their own credibility.
No one is forcing anyone to log on, read or post.
If one doesn't like the debate/commentary on CNN, MSNBC or Fox --- then change the channel.
(There's typically a funny Family Guy re-run on
)Thanks again for all your contributions and service --- it's almost always very useful.
In Unity,
DLax
Last edited by DLax85; 03-04-2011 at 05:34 PM. Reason: added verbiage
03-04-2011, 06:43 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
You cannot really do much as a committee person or rep and post. That was my point about "getting off the boards..." Plenty of posters have been here for years and complained, and found hours to piddle here. Some (but not all...) of those folks cannot find the time to do anything for the union.
I'm not saying you cannot do both, but doing only one limits your options. I don't care if you decide to join the training department, become a flight manager, or be a union volunteer--go try to make a difference. However, anything that takes you from being an anonymous name and puts a name on a door somewhere invites critics. At some point, however, you need to step up. Fred, aka Micro...did it. I did it. Plenty of other folks have as well. And although I still did post here and there doing so was always an irritant to my fellow union officials due to the past disasters at other airlines. Eventually I just quit out of respect for my fellow reps--not the cajoling of the lawyers or the former or current officers. Now I can post again, but I plan to concentrate my posting on helping folks find jobs in the airlines or other DOD positions I can sometimes help fill. Otherwise, I'm going to let GA, my replacement, and CF, my rep do most of my union talking. I'll stay informed, and down the road maybe dive in again in a volunteer role in a committee, but for now I am staying away to let the process of turnover work and let the new guys run the show without feeling like I am looking over anyone's shoulders.
As for comm censorship...here's the facts. The ALPA policy manual allows block reps to send comm VFR direct to their block without any legal chop or review. It has since I was a rep, and I did that a few times. There is no limit to the comm you can offer. What happened, however, is there was a discussion on what was considered "appropriate" comm. The "collective" group decided to use the format you saw. Since then (and I wasn't involved in this) the dissenters used their rights under the policy manual to express their opinion in more detail. There aren't any black helicopters...at least that I know about. And when I felt constrained in previous times, I wasn't above going VFR direct to my block or even posting here. I certainly won't try to squelch anyone else. But if someone says the 10 guys who voted to allow you to vote on this TA are trying keep info from you, I would simply as you to look at the last 3 years and who joined the MEC during that time and ask yourself if you really think we would try to keep info from anyone. On March 2, there was a LIVE webcast. When I was elected, the powers that be didn't even want a video camera in the MEC/LEC meetings. How much more comm do you get now? How approachable is YOUR rep? I may not always agree with the other reps, but I don't think anyone in this group is actively trying to squelch anyone else.
And yeah...it gets old taking heat here and there from guys with no names. So step up, put a face with name out there, and go make a difference somewhere. Micro was Fred Buesser, Albie is me....and I know some but not all of you.
Big picture...look at it this way. 10 guys said you get to vote on this TA. 2 guys said you shouldn't even get a choice. I think there are some reasons this thing might be a good idea. I understand completely the frustration that there isn't more to it, and if you vote it down the world will go on. TAs get voted down all the time at other airlines, and life goes on. What I don't like, however, is the idea that a disagreement on the best way forward somehow means someone is lying, hiding, or withholding info from the pilot group. Conversely, I think the very transparent environment that the current MEC has helped create has allowed the pilots more, not less info into the process. If you want that kind of info, and don't want to be controlled or spoon fed, then you need to understand at times its messy and there aren't any perfect answers. And the place you can find that out probably is closer to the work, and farther back from a bunch of anonymous folks.
So...get informed, make your best call, and vote. This retired rep just wanted you to have the facts and make your own choice. But please...have a little confidence that the guys and gals on both sides of the issue are just trying to help and do the best they can. In this case, lots of experts said this course of action would not hurt our timeline. 10 of us decided perhaps they were right. Two guys disagreed. It ain't rocket science, its trying to read the poker hand across the table. And we won't know who is right until around Jan 2012...
I'm not saying you cannot do both, but doing only one limits your options. I don't care if you decide to join the training department, become a flight manager, or be a union volunteer--go try to make a difference. However, anything that takes you from being an anonymous name and puts a name on a door somewhere invites critics. At some point, however, you need to step up. Fred, aka Micro...did it. I did it. Plenty of other folks have as well. And although I still did post here and there doing so was always an irritant to my fellow union officials due to the past disasters at other airlines. Eventually I just quit out of respect for my fellow reps--not the cajoling of the lawyers or the former or current officers. Now I can post again, but I plan to concentrate my posting on helping folks find jobs in the airlines or other DOD positions I can sometimes help fill. Otherwise, I'm going to let GA, my replacement, and CF, my rep do most of my union talking. I'll stay informed, and down the road maybe dive in again in a volunteer role in a committee, but for now I am staying away to let the process of turnover work and let the new guys run the show without feeling like I am looking over anyone's shoulders.
As for comm censorship...here's the facts. The ALPA policy manual allows block reps to send comm VFR direct to their block without any legal chop or review. It has since I was a rep, and I did that a few times. There is no limit to the comm you can offer. What happened, however, is there was a discussion on what was considered "appropriate" comm. The "collective" group decided to use the format you saw. Since then (and I wasn't involved in this) the dissenters used their rights under the policy manual to express their opinion in more detail. There aren't any black helicopters...at least that I know about. And when I felt constrained in previous times, I wasn't above going VFR direct to my block or even posting here. I certainly won't try to squelch anyone else. But if someone says the 10 guys who voted to allow you to vote on this TA are trying keep info from you, I would simply as you to look at the last 3 years and who joined the MEC during that time and ask yourself if you really think we would try to keep info from anyone. On March 2, there was a LIVE webcast. When I was elected, the powers that be didn't even want a video camera in the MEC/LEC meetings. How much more comm do you get now? How approachable is YOUR rep? I may not always agree with the other reps, but I don't think anyone in this group is actively trying to squelch anyone else.
And yeah...it gets old taking heat here and there from guys with no names. So step up, put a face with name out there, and go make a difference somewhere. Micro was Fred Buesser, Albie is me....and I know some but not all of you.
Big picture...look at it this way. 10 guys said you get to vote on this TA. 2 guys said you shouldn't even get a choice. I think there are some reasons this thing might be a good idea. I understand completely the frustration that there isn't more to it, and if you vote it down the world will go on. TAs get voted down all the time at other airlines, and life goes on. What I don't like, however, is the idea that a disagreement on the best way forward somehow means someone is lying, hiding, or withholding info from the pilot group. Conversely, I think the very transparent environment that the current MEC has helped create has allowed the pilots more, not less info into the process. If you want that kind of info, and don't want to be controlled or spoon fed, then you need to understand at times its messy and there aren't any perfect answers. And the place you can find that out probably is closer to the work, and farther back from a bunch of anonymous folks.
So...get informed, make your best call, and vote. This retired rep just wanted you to have the facts and make your own choice. But please...have a little confidence that the guys and gals on both sides of the issue are just trying to help and do the best they can. In this case, lots of experts said this course of action would not hurt our timeline. 10 of us decided perhaps they were right. Two guys disagreed. It ain't rocket science, its trying to read the poker hand across the table. And we won't know who is right until around Jan 2012...
03-04-2011, 07:29 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I haven’t seen anyone claim anyone is lying cheating or hiding. Just about every no post I have seen is just pointing out they think the MEC is aiming low. You may not agree, you may think this is the best we are gonna get, but someone saying the mec settled cheaply is not a personal attack. And yes the Mec is more open. But all of the "dues money" is going towards promoting the TA. While the comm flow has slowed down we were getting 2 or 3 emails or videos a week selling the TA with very little new information; in fact the only new information I have seen is the email last week that sort of answered questions.
You may say the 10-2 vote was a vote to let us have a say but it also all but guaranteed passage. If my block rep thought we have leverage that we aren’t using he should have voted no. If he thinks that we don’t he should have voted yes. Because that is how the vote is interpreted. Look back and count all the personal attacks on us clueless nay sayers (who can’t possibly know everything that the NC and the Mec know) and you will understand it was more than a vote to send it to the membership.
I guess what I am trying to say is it is hard to get informed if the only place you see an alternate opinion is on APC.
You may say the 10-2 vote was a vote to let us have a say but it also all but guaranteed passage. If my block rep thought we have leverage that we aren’t using he should have voted no. If he thinks that we don’t he should have voted yes. Because that is how the vote is interpreted. Look back and count all the personal attacks on us clueless nay sayers (who can’t possibly know everything that the NC and the Mec know) and you will understand it was more than a vote to send it to the membership.
I guess what I am trying to say is it is hard to get informed if the only place you see an alternate opinion is on APC.
03-04-2011, 10:28 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 390
Albie, first Thank You. Second, nothing against the MEC or the NC, but I feel that we as a pilot group deserve better. We filled out polls, gave our opinions, and hopefully let our LECs know what we wanted. I might be crazy, but I would rather have our current contract tightened up then get a small pay raise. I also did not want a LOA instead of a real contract. I know there will be a delay on rest rules, but there is no legitimate reason to delay the rest of the negotiations. I feel it was a poor attempt to just grab something. We need to do the long term solution, and this is not it. Just one person's opinion.
Last edited by angry tanker; 03-04-2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason: Stupid auto correct
03-05-2011, 05:59 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
I understand your point but I think the MEC members knew they were damned if did and damned if they didn't.
On the one hand they knew it would be awhile before any money will be coming our way if this TA is not accepted. If they didn't send it out for a vote lots of folks would be putting a finger in their chest.
They also knew if they sent it out many folks would be wondering why they didn't "force" the company to offer more. (4a2b reparations or better wording, pay raise, accepted fare policy restoration, instructor block issues, 777 pay rate, whatever) Perhaps some reps didn't see the leverage some think is available.
So here we are....
Last edited by Gunter; 03-05-2011 at 06:15 AM.
03-05-2011, 06:10 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
I've heard it argued the old guard, which TC is a supporter of and was mostly voted out 2-3 years ago, have and will continue to sacrifice a lot in pursuit of the A380 and a new 777 payrate.
How much is working that rate worth to YOU?
How much is working that rate worth to YOU?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
