FDXLAG

No nerve hit your example suggest a nuetral MEC that is not the case here. Nothing wrong with that just a statement.

iarapilot

True I suppose. But I would argue that some of the "word" that they are putting out is not correct; as in no leverage concerning the FDA stuff, calling this a bridge contract to explain why they are not including other sections that need to be changed, having the ALPA lawyer video which IMO explains nothing. Yes, I watched it but didnt not agree with many of his assertions.

FDXLAG

Since JJ has missed that this thread was started by a guy who thinks one of the MEC members went behind the MECs back in writting a letter to his block that contained different information; I didnt think it was worth the effort to point out to him that the MEC is not necessarily "making as much information as they have" available.

Jetjok

Regardless of who started this thread, my post was of my opinion, and what I believe to be true. I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with that opinion, as you're certainly welcome to believe whatever you want, but please, you continue to speak of your assumptions as if they were facts, and continue to build upon them, one after another. Again, that's fine by me, because you're certainly within your rights to do so. I just hope that others see your statements for what they are.

JJ

FDXLAG

You said: "...(the MEC) are making as much information as they have, available to as many FedEx pilots, in as many ways as they can."

It is not an assumption the block 5 rep letter is information is it? Is the Mec making it available to as many FDX pilots in as many ways as they can?

The only assumption that I speak of as fact is the MEC is pushing this TA, do you have information to counter my assumption?

I am not denying I am biased. I think the TA gives up far more than we get. The MEC is certainly within their rights to push this TA. Just dont push it and claim that you are nuetral. That smells to me like they are trying to cover their arse for when the company refuses to bargain in good faith (dont blame us you voted for it). You know when this bridge contract turns into a tunnel with a bright light at the end of it contract.

AerisArmis

TC has been active in union politics for a long time. Some of us here can remember when he had a tag line that said "13% and proud" signifying that he was part of the 13% who voted against the contract. I think it also fair to say (I've been told by many on the union inside) that he is/was part of DW's inner circle. That's not a slam, in fact, some might consider it positive. IMO, if you lined up our MEC from left to right, with the hard core trade unionists on the left, and the (less confrontational) willing to compromise guys on the right, TC's track record suggests that he occupies the left edge. Not an accusation, not a criticism, just my opinion from years of reading his posts and watching his work. What's his motivation? Beats me and I'm sure he can't come on here and say. The fact that he was one of two who voted against sending the TA to us for a vote was not surprising to me nor many others. I think his no vote was very consistent with his union philosophy.

ROSSI

I believe TC explained the difficulty of communicating his opinions to the membership in his letter. There is a process put in place to harmonize communication from the MEC to the membership, which I find reasonable. However, considering the multitude of follies that our previous Union Leaders have executed (Parking lot agreement '98 (FF), age 65 vote against the wishes of membership (DW), FDA LOA (DW,BC), passover pay agreement). Frankly, I appreciate the transparency provided by TC's communique.

If there's a question of motives, my mind is on the motives of the vp for trying to silence the dissenting opinion. Had a detailed dissenting opinion been published prior to the vote for FDA LOA v 1.0, we might not be voting on FDA LOA v 2.0 today. In fact, perhaps we should learn from this experience and demand a more detailed dissenting opinion from our MEC for any LOA/TA in the future since our membership has a poor history of ratifying most every LOA/TA (good or bad) that they've had an opportunity to vote on.

imho, the prudent stewardship that TC has displayed in his vote and his communication, are what I'm paying for with my dues money, vice the foibles of past administrations.

DLax85

If there is any doubt/disagreement in what transpired it can be easily solved/corrected right now.

The MEC can immediately post TCs letter on the ALPA website and e-mail it to the general membership at large.

That will surely end the debate on whether or not they are "currently" practicing any censorship or withholding information now.

We should expect/demand TRANSPARENCY in all matters.

Let's see what happens next.

In Unity,

DLax

Sleepyflyer

I give it a 0% chance of that happening!!!

DLax85

Ah, but it's now up to the MEC leadership to decide what they will do?

How can anyone defend them if they don't make it public knowledge thru formal ALPA communication channels?

(...OBTW, the whole letter --- not an edited summary)