PicklePausePull

Gunter:

How does taking the 3% now and foregoing contract negotiations for another year indicate to the company how important the issues are to us? I think it communicates precisely the opposite, that we are satisfied with the status quo, or that the status quo is worth exactly 3% for one year.

As I recall, the purpose of taking the original 3% was to wait and see what the FAA had to say about crew rest so that we didn't waste negotiating capital on rules that would be gifted to us by the FAA. Since that has proven to be a lost cause, I don't see the merit in waiting another year to accomplish the improvements we have been clamoring for since the contract was amendable.

4A2B

well if the survey results as indicated by the OP are accurate then TH will have to go against his campaign email to vote against the pilots. thankfully the meeting actions and results will not be hidden with this ruthless truth warrior working on our behalf.


Fellow Council 7 Members,

Please vote if you haven’t already. A few folks still have some confusion about whether they have voted or not. If you did not vote via the ALPA website or Ballotpoint, then you did not vote. The ballot that many of you sent in via US mail was just for the nomination not the election. So, if you have not done so, please log on to the members site at ALPA.org and vote.

I have so far not been able to give you much in defined differences between myself and my opponent due to the fact that my opponent has never worked in any Union job in the past; and therefore, I cannot compare policy differences with him. I will try and remedy this right now.

There was an MEC meeting last week and a new Negotiating Committee was selected. Our current interim Block 4 representative voted in favor of installing the new team. I would have voted against it. Let me explain why. First, we already have had past experience determining how many members need to be on a negotiating team. We had 3 members in 1997, 1998, and at the end for the 2006 negotiations. Originally, when we started in 2004, our chairman asked for 4. Some time later, after working with his group and adding one more member he came back to the MEC and reported that 5 members were too unwieldy and requested the committee be reduced to 3. We learned from the experience and it was changed back to 3. Unfortunately, we now lack the experience to remember that lesson learned. I would have insisted on 3.

Second, I would not have agreed to make membership of the committee be solely based on past or current membership in the SIG/PSIT. Maybe one guy could be from that committee to bring in some expertise on line building and pairing construction but definitely not all of them. That is a recipe for disaster. The PSIT works with the company every month to build our lines. How do you like our lines? I don’t like them much. You see, every month they engage in what is essentially interest based bargaining. They sit down with the company (paid partly by the company) and collectively beg to improve our lines. You have witnessed first hand how well that has worked for us. Collective begging will work no better when they try it in negotiations.

There is a reason why members of flight management and the SIG/PSIT team came to the interim block representative meeting and voted together to put in my opponent for Block 4 and Vic Liberti for Block 1. The Management/PSIT team does not want me or Captain Baker to represent you- with good reason. When flight management and a Union committee (SIG/PSIT) team up together to vote for our representatives, a red flag must be raised. I will not agree to interest based bargaining/collective begging. I will not agree to quietly sit back and allow negotiations to commence, run and conclude without you the pilot being directly involved. That is what the SIG/PSIT does every month. That is what our MEC Chairman did to us last round of negotiations. I’m sure he felt it was a lot easier to not have to worry about what our pilots might say or do while our secret negotiations went on. My position on the other hand is that I would welcome your involvement.

So why do we care what our MEC Chairman did in our last contract negotiations in regard to this election? We care because my opponent has been hand picked by him to run against me. So, if you think a change of direction from the secret negotiations and interest based bargaining is in order, then vote for me. I will not be quiet as your representative. I will challenge you to get involved. I will challenge your Negotiating Committee to engage in positional bargaining (not interest based bargaining/collective begging). I will challenge our MEC officers to work the days that we pay them to work and to lead us in building adequate leverage, and I will challenge our committees to put their loyalty to you ahead of their personal friendships with the MEC Chairman.

It is high time that you got the aggressive, direct, and unapologetic efforts to enhance your interests. As your representative, I will promise to put your goals in front of every other consideration as I make my decisions. Then I will report to you what has been done. You won’t have to research our policy manual or dig thru our meeting minutes to discover what has occurred at MEC meetings.

To conclude:

I have over 6 years of Union leadership experience-- my opponent has none.

I will advocate for positional based bargaining-- my opponent just selected 4 members for your negotiating committee schooled in the arts of interest based bargaining.

I have no loyalty to anyone but you. No one recruited me or needs to teach me how to function at an MEC meeting within Roberts Rules or in the face of future management intimidation-- my opponent will have to get OJT from the MEC Chairman who recruited him and see everything through the lenses of the glasses he is given.

I will closely review the trip pay loss that you pay for and see to it that you are getting your money’s worth. The union patronage for political alliances that has become epidemic has to cease immediately. I will use my 4 years experience as your Secretary/Treasurer to accomplish this. I know just where to look-- my opponent would have no clue as to how to dig into the details of something like that.

I will advocate for a return of FedEx pilots to chair and contribute to ALPA National committees. I have worked for ALPA National overseeing the MCF expenses of other MEC’s who were engaged in contract negotiations in order to protect your assets-- my opponent would need “Google Map” just to find the Herndon offices of ALPA.

Please don’t leave our future here at FedEx to chance. If you haven’t voted yet, please do so right away. We need your participation to succeed. In fact it is the only thing that has ever given us success. The time is now.

Sincerely,

Captain Tony Hauserman, Council 7

Gunter

I think you missed that part I wrote about some crewmembers not being financially ready for the ordeal. You also ignored someone else's comment about our "me, me" attitude around here. Timing is important. Now might be a good time to start negotiations. One year from now may be better. Last year not so.

The waiting to see was because the company was going to stall talks until the rules came out. How does "still negotiating now" factor in your spreadsheet? The last 3% would have been lost to another department. As in not in the budget for us in any future year.

I think you are too quick to throw out a negotiated 3% raise that a majority of pilots surveyed want. Do you always ignore what the majority wants?

PicklePausePull

Since I have to live where I do for family purposes, I must utilize commercial transportation. Said transportation is unreliable from the jump seat perspective, so I buy tickets, like most who commute out of my home city. The lines in my domicile having changed drastically over the past two years, most of my contemporaries also find commuting commercially a necessary evil. The flights are just too full to jump. Fedex service is negligible.

60% of our crew force commutes, many from cities not served regularly by FDX. Commuting is a big "quality of life" and financial issue to a large part of this crew force.

Many commuters also have to pay for travel to/from training. The compensation rate for training also does not come close to the loss of BLG on dropped trips. Training on days off destroys seniority twice a year. These two issue alone are worth far more than 3% for one year to me. I lose far more than 3% after two training cycles (sorry, no dozing for dollars in our domicile).

I realize the answer is "move to Memphis." But that is not possible for me, as it is not for many of the 60% of us who commute. Nor is it in the company's interest. They want to man these domiciles. The domiciles make money. Carrying bank money for one more month would solve a lot of issues at little added expense to the company (they already have budgeted the travel costs). Compensating us for a full days work during training would make up for a lot of lost revenue from dropped trips. As I said, one more year of the status quo is a greater loss to me than the 3%. I suspect there are plenty of others similarly situated (though I doubt they live in Memphis).

Gunter

We'll soon find out if he is true to word. Not sure at this point.

PicklePausePull

The majority will most likely have their way, but that does not mean that the minority should not have their voice heard. Last I checked I still lived in a democratic country where the minority view point is still considered before a decision is made, and I pay dues to a union that is required to hear my voice too. Most decisions are not zero sum games.

Tyranny of the Majority: Stamp out the opposing viewpoint. The majority in this country elected Obama. I suppose because it was the majority, that made it a good decision? Not!

Also, our reps are not required to vote exactly how the majority wishes. We elected them as representatives to gather information and make decisions based upon their conclusions. That is what representative democracy means. If we want true Tyranny of the Majority, we can move to a system where each decision is voted upon by the membership. So, the mass of members who look at every decision only in their own light (me included), or who don't even care, would be voting. The Athenians tried this. Didn't work so well.

If we want to recall our representative every time they don't vote exactly how we wish, we will have a never ending revolving representative body that will accomplish nothing.

Of course I will abide by our representatives decisions, as will you. But I will continue to add to the discourse by offering my reasoned opinion, and will not be bullied by the majority opinion. If the shoe were on the other foot, I suspect you would do the same.

Pakagecheck

PPP,
I totally agree that having even quarterly expense banks would be better. The company doesn't make money per say from deviations but actually saves money, to the tune of millions. This is a big issue with them and will be a difficult fight, which I think we need to fight. I just believe to **** away something now when IMHO think the negotiating committee is still making ground is not smart. I to am a commuter, but when I got hired here years ago, my sponsor gave me this advice, "life is easier for work to live in domicile, however wife is a lot easier if you commute". We choose to commute from our own locations. With that comes our own acceptance to the difficulties of transportation.

As to your next post. I want to hear all of the opposing opinions. As do I want the representatives to hear them. You want your group to be like herding cats. Someone just might have an angle that I was too narrow or simple minded to consider. But in the end, a decision has to be made. This isn't like crm that all make inputs but the boss has to make the final call. Once the masses have spoken, the rep has a responsibility to vote as the majority of his constituents wish. His union position requires him or her to look past their own personal opinion. This is where we differ. The point of the union is to represent the masses and the wants of the majority. The Rep is to make informed decisions when the masses aren't privy to given information.

finedavefine

P-cubed,

I agree with everything you said in your above post, everything that is except your second paragraph, or more specifically, your last two sentences ("I suppose because it was the majority, that made it a good decision? Not!"). While "it" might not have been a good decision, in my opinion, it was The Best decision that could have been made, given the candidates. I wholeheartedly agree that it is not our representatives duty to vote on any given issue, bases only on the wishes of the majority in his or her block. If that were the case, anyone could do that job.

HIFLYR

That was 50% of the reason to wait the other was the bad state of the economy which last time I checked is still bad.

PicklePausePull

I disagree. The job of the Rep is to take into account the opinions of his constituency, review the matters, and make a decision based upon his best judgment. If the majority is upset, they can vote him out next election cycle. Rarely does a representative agree with the majority every time.