There's more to TC's story
03-11-2011, 03:43 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
GolfAndFly:
I believe you misunderstood my post (easy to see how though, since it was only 1 line).
I was not disagreeing with some of the short comings and oversights in this TA.
What I was referring to, when I made my previous post, was this:
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.
I never believed this accusation from TonyC to be true in the first place. And after reading the new email from our MEC, I hope no one else believes the above accusation either.
I believe you misunderstood my post (easy to see how though, since it was only 1 line).
I was not disagreeing with some of the short comings and oversights in this TA.
What I was referring to, when I made my previous post, was this:
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.
I never believed this accusation from TonyC to be true in the first place. And after reading the new email from our MEC, I hope no one else believes the above accusation either.
03-11-2011, 04:29 AM
#62
Contract 2021
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 438
Geez LAG,
Seems clear as a bell. TC says TM "attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his block". As Skypine explains that wasn't in fact true. TM wouldn't allow him to post his letter as written on the MEC website in its written form as outlined in the joint response from the MEC Officers and Block Reps. He never tried to stop him from sending it to his block via ALPA National or e-mail...and thats why you got to read it after it made its way here!
Either way, I guess thats their battle!
Maybe your a little tired from that TUL-IND leg last week? Did you go to the 757?
Seems clear as a bell. TC says TM "attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his block". As Skypine explains that wasn't in fact true. TM wouldn't allow him to post his letter as written on the MEC website in its written form as outlined in the joint response from the MEC Officers and Block Reps. He never tried to stop him from sending it to his block via ALPA National or e-mail...and thats why you got to read it after it made its way here!
Either way, I guess thats their battle!
Maybe your a little tired from that TUL-IND leg last week? Did you go to the 757?
03-11-2011, 06:11 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Geez LAG,
Seems clear as a bell. TC says TM "attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his block". As Skypine explains that wasn't in fact true. TM wouldn't allow him to post his letter as written on the MEC website in its written form as outlined in the joint response from the MEC Officers and Block Reps. He never tried to stop him from sending it to his block via ALPA National or e-mail...and thats why you got to read it after it made its way here!
Either way, I guess thats their battle!
Maybe your a little tired from that TUL-IND leg last week? Did you go to the 757?
Seems clear as a bell. TC says TM "attempted to silence his ability to communicate with the members of his block". As Skypine explains that wasn't in fact true. TM wouldn't allow him to post his letter as written on the MEC website in its written form as outlined in the joint response from the MEC Officers and Block Reps. He never tried to stop him from sending it to his block via ALPA National or e-mail...and thats why you got to read it after it made its way here!
Either way, I guess thats their battle!
Maybe your a little tired from that TUL-IND leg last week? Did you go to the 757?
Looks like the truth to me.
As always it is not the Tul-Ind leg that kills you it is the DH on either end! Still on the slave ship cant get in the mood to do a walk around. Like the MEC, always waiting for the contract after next before we make improvements, I guess I am always waiting for the bid after next before I make a jump.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 03-11-2011 at 07:18 AM.
03-11-2011, 07:05 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Almost here is what TC said: " 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. "
Looks like the truth to me.
Looks like the truth to me.
03-11-2011, 07:16 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Around and round we go. You obviously read the letter what in it did the Mec find objectionable and if nothing why did they not allow it to published via normal channels (silence)? In other words why did they try to amke him compromise something they dont seem to have an objection to?
03-11-2011, 07:49 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Lag,
In an earlier post you asked "are you making an accusation that TC made an accusation?" Some have simply stated where they think TC made an accusation. You obviously don't think TC made any accusations. As far as what the MEC thinks, why don't you ask them? I have, and think they have taken the high road with this issue.
In an earlier post you asked "are you making an accusation that TC made an accusation?" Some have simply stated where they think TC made an accusation. You obviously don't think TC made any accusations. As far as what the MEC thinks, why don't you ask them? I have, and think they have taken the high road with this issue.
03-11-2011, 07:56 AM
#67
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Lag,
In an earlier post you asked "are you making an accusation that TC made an accusation?" Some have simply stated where they think TC made an accusation. You obviously don't think TC made any accusations. As far as what the MEC thinks, why don't you ask them? I have, and think they have taken the high road with this issue.
In an earlier post you asked "are you making an accusation that TC made an accusation?" Some have simply stated where they think TC made an accusation. You obviously don't think TC made any accusations. As far as what the MEC thinks, why don't you ask them? I have, and think they have taken the high road with this issue.
As did DW and the rest of the MEC on the age change and the FDA LOA.
The real question ought to be, does the membership think they have taken the high road?
03-11-2011, 02:58 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Dont tell your AME. To me it is simple. The MEC refused to publish TC letter as is. They object when Tony says they wont let him publish his letter as is. The only thing they havent told us is what in TC letter is objectionable to them.
03-11-2011, 03:21 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
...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.
TRANSPARENCY Gentleman....TRANSPARENCY.
Excellent organizations are not scared of it....Members should demand it!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
