There's more to TC's story
03-10-2011, 10:00 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
And your complaint about hyperbole is just another attempt to silence me. If you cant find the humor there your problem.
I simply said the majority gets to decide what the majority opinion looks like and the minority opinion looks like. They get to push this TA without actually have to man up and say I recommend this TA. If there are some false hoods in the block 5 letter in the interest of getting the information out I would hope the MEC would correct them. Instead of publishing a lecture about how they acted in accordance with the policy manual when they blocked his letter.
I simply said the majority gets to decide what the majority opinion looks like and the minority opinion looks like. They get to push this TA without actually have to man up and say I recommend this TA. If there are some false hoods in the block 5 letter in the interest of getting the information out I would hope the MEC would correct them. Instead of publishing a lecture about how they acted in accordance with the policy manual when they blocked his letter.
Call up TC and ask him what the problem was with his letter. I was reading the MEC letter different than you, and they obviously do not put out stuff that directly contradicts one of their own without much debate I would think. The one thing that is clear from the letter is that block 5 allegations on the Vice Chair are without warrant.
03-10-2011, 10:24 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
There were no allegations. TC wrote a letter, the MEC wanted to change the wording, TC didn't want the changes and sent it out unfiltered. He didn't allege anything other than not wanting to omits facts. SS was asked at the last Q&A what part of his letter they didn't like, but he did not answer. He said to wait for the results of the meeting on the 8th. Well, I waited, but still no answer.
03-10-2011, 10:44 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
There were no allegations. TC wrote a letter, the MEC wanted to change the wording, TC didn't want the changes and sent it out unfiltered. He didn't allege anything other than not wanting to omits facts. SS was asked at the last Q&A what part of his letter they didn't like, but he did not answer. He said to wait for the results of the meeting on the 8th. Well, I waited, but still no answer.
From the other thread, that posted his letter:
"I submitted the following Block 5 Update according to the protocol, and I have incorporated many of the recommended changes. I am appreciative of the time and effort which was dedicated to improving the final draft. However, the MEC Vice Chairman has refused to publish this via our normal venues of communication, i.e., through e-mail and on the FDX ALPA website. While I do not expect him to share my opinions, I do not believe there is anything in this update which is factually incorrect. Having reached an impasse, and being entitled to communicate freely with you, I must regretfully resort to communicating to you without his blessing. I have tried to work within the protocol, but I will not be silenced, nor will I compromise my message to you."
Once could read that the "silenced" part is the allegation, also I hear from MEC folks that they NEVER get their work chopped based on what their opinion is, unless there is a factual or legal concern. If this was done to "silence" his factual and legally correct opinion, I am sure the MEC would back TC and not the process? I am sure TC will offer his side soon, I would hope.
03-10-2011, 11:04 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,797
If there is an allegation it would be that the "MEC Vice Chairman has refused to publish this via our normal venues of communication, i.e., through e-mail and on the FDX ALPA website." But it is not an allegation if it is true. From the union letter, "Vice Chairman Manning was required by policy and procedure to decline this communication for publication via FDX MEC media." Looks to me that both sides are saying the same thing. Therefore no allegation, only fact.
03-10-2011, 11:31 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
If there is an allegation it would be that the "MEC Vice Chairman has refused to publish this via our normal venues of communication, i.e., through e-mail and on the FDX ALPA website." But it is not an allegation if it is true. From the union letter, "Vice Chairman Manning was required by policy and procedure to decline this communication for publication via FDX MEC media." Looks to me that both sides are saying the same thing. Therefore no allegation, only fact.
Since they made an obvious attempt to point out the fact that the Vice Chair was acting properly it sure sounds like TC or others may have made some remarks to the contrary that were not part of his letter?
Fellow FedEx pilots,
In a recent communication by Seniority Block 5, Representative Cutler made accusations that MEC Vice Chairman Manning had attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his Block. Your MEC takes accusations of this sort very seriously. In response to these allegations, a Special MEC meeting (including all parties involved) was convened on March 8th to thoroughly investigate the facts.
03-10-2011, 01:11 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
no complaints or silencing of you LAG, once again you try and play poor me and twist what I wrote, which is my opinion of your post. No silencing there, debate is present however.
Call up TC and ask him what the problem was with his letter. I was reading the MEC letter different than you, and they obviously do not put out stuff that directly contradicts one of their own without much debate I would think. The one thing that is clear from the letter is that block 5 allegations on the Vice Chair are without warrant.
Call up TC and ask him what the problem was with his letter. I was reading the MEC letter different than you, and they obviously do not put out stuff that directly contradicts one of their own without much debate I would think. The one thing that is clear from the letter is that block 5 allegations on the Vice Chair are without warrant.
03-10-2011, 01:33 PM
#48
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
It seems pretty obvious to me. TC knew that the policies would not allow him to distribute his letter to the full membership; just his block 5 guys. So that is what he did.
The MEC seems to feel that they need to do some sort of rebuttal/damage control, and they did. End of story to me.
I would imagine that TC is taking some heat from within the MEC political establishment. Good for him.
It can be said that the birth of this country was founded on the principle of disagreeing with higher "authority". If you disagree with those running the show and air that disagreement in the proper way, more power to you.
The MEC seems to feel that they need to do some sort of rebuttal/damage control, and they did. End of story to me.
I would imagine that TC is taking some heat from within the MEC political establishment. Good for him.
It can be said that the birth of this country was founded on the principle of disagreeing with higher "authority". If you disagree with those running the show and air that disagreement in the proper way, more power to you.
03-10-2011, 02:02 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
So, the MEC has a meeting and releases a letter pertaining to the "allegations" in TC's letter. If the MEC, or membership, thinks that is the most important aspect of his letter...We really are in trouble.
Let's not forget that there would be no "allegations", if they would have just published his letter in the first place. I'd rather hear from the MEC on the Vice Chair's reasoning for not publishing it for all to read, think about and come to their own decision on the TA.
Let's not forget that there would be no "allegations", if they would have just published his letter in the first place. I'd rather hear from the MEC on the Vice Chair's reasoning for not publishing it for all to read, think about and come to their own decision on the TA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
