R1200RT

I'm in block 4 and I hate that he is the only voice of reason in LEC7. Thank goodness he is there. And the other 2/3s of LEC7 it seems they read APC for their opinions (judging from their (CB and TH) latest rant. Hopefully lots of folks will show up on Feb15.

FLMD11CAPT

For those of us not in block 7 how about posting the latest rant here for our enlightenment?

MD11HOG

It doesn't it takes a lot of stones to ask the company to voluntarily adopt rules. --- From Union 30 Dec message
"b. I have officially asked FedEx their intentions on the opt-in option via letter and have strongly encouraged FedEx to voluntarily opt-in to Part 117 in the call for “One Level of Safety” and increased safety at FedEx
c. However, we will not be waiting on the FedEx “opt-in” response in the implementation of adapting a comprehensive plan "

It just show at best incredible naiveness. I don't know how the company kept a straight face. A message 3 weeks later- " On a related note, the Cargo Airline Association, of which FedEx is a member, has entered the case in support of the FAA and the cargo exemption. "

Hoping that the company has gone thru a miraculous change and now wants to engage in talks is just as naive but that's what most FedEx pilots believe. (Because that's what the negotiating committee told us) No we don't want any improvements for seven years because we can get 3% now. OK, that's fine. I don't agree (I believe it's like interest based or cost neutral- just another delay tactic. And were eating it up just like before) but the MEC voted and it's over. So now we need to move on and start working together. I can see both sides of this spat and am glad we have a someone to balance out the naiveness. Throwing stones at each other only helps our common opponent. So I wish LEC 7 could tone it down but that's not how politics work. I (maybe naively) believe all 3 guys are genuinely after the best interest of the crew force, they just disagree on the methods. So everyone please ease up on the personal attacks. That's more dangerous and harmful than taking either direction these guys advocate.

FDX Block 8

"You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution.....otherwise you're just part of the landscape."

FDX Block 8

January 19, 2012

To the Pilots of Council 7,

I am writing to you again after having not signed off on the last two communications sent to the council. Although our Local Council Chairman, Captain Chris Baker was of a mind that this letter should not go to the entire local council, the ALPA Administration Manual clearly affords me, as a duly elected representative of Local Council 7, the opportunity to communicate unfettered to the entire council and not just Block 8.

Several people have asked if I have been included in the process of sending out the recent council updates. The Local Council Chairman has certainly afforded me the opportunity to review the communication pieces and decide whether I wished to have my name attached. The simple reason I did not put my name on these messages is that I did not agree with the content of the messages or the tone in which they were delivered. I thought the message in the 6Jan2012 Council 7 update seemed to minimize the role of the pilot force in MEC decision-making. I had particular problems with the following statements:

“Some were happy to just go with the polling numbers. Others felt that our job is tougher than that and requires us to do what is best given the facts at the time.”

“Do we just want our elected body to reflect the current sentiments or do we expect them to give due consideration to all the facts in a case before we decide? Are our pilots ready and willing to trust their elected officials to perhaps take a different direction than the one indicated by the electorate who may not have all the data or the latest data?”

In my opinion, the clear message here is that anyone who was initially in support of continuing the interim discussions was simply just going with the polling numbers and the expressed desire of the pilots. They were not interested in gathering all the facts or listening to other considerations/dissenting opinions and were just taking the “easy” way out. I could not disagree more. To suggest that I did not weigh all the facts or do what was best given the facts at the time is insulting. Here are the facts. The MEC received an economics briefing from ALPA experts covering world and national economies as well as FedEx’s financial position. Overall, this information weighed in favor of retaining the 3% and continuing interim discussions. Bruce York, ALPA’s Director of Representation, covered a variety of topics to including ongoing negotiations at other airlines, the National Mediation Board (composition and their view on labor negotiations), considerations on public support/sentiment, pilot support for different path options and potential timelines resulting from choosing either path. Once again, the information provided by Mr. York weighed in favor of retaining the 3% raise and continuing with interim discussions.

The last brief we received on Wednesday (January 4) was from Rick Irgens, Chairman of the Negotiating Committee. He characterized the interim discussions as having greater depth and engagement than those experienced in Section 6 negotiations. This assertion was confirmed by ALPA Representation staff who has participated in our bargaining dating back to the 2006 CBA. Rick expressed optimism in our ability to continue to work through complex, contentious material which much be solved before we have the full range of improvements identified as necessary and valuable by the pilot group. He renewed his pledge to let the MEC know if the pace or substance of the discussions takes a turn for the worse. He stated that he still believes the best road for success would be continuation of the interim discussions.

So, the MEC received three detailed briefings and the information separately and collectively suggested that we continue with interim discussions and retain the 3% raise. The polling information, e-mails and everything we were hearing from the crew force indicated that their desire was to continue. I believe that the right decision was made and the right process was followed in arriving at that decision. I know there are arguments that could be made for entering Section 6 negotiations now, but I didn’t hear any that compelled me to change my mind after weighing all the facts. More importantly, I wasn’t presented any current or updated data that would have caused me to consider voting against your wishes.

Here is the fundamental difference between myself and some others on the MEC - I view myself as a representative of my block and by extension, a representative of our council and the entire crew force. I was elected to represent the voice of the pilots of Block 8. It is my responsibility to make sure your interests are heard at the table. In that light, I view your input (whether it be through polls, surveys, e-mails or personal interactions) as not only valuable, but largely directive. If I am in possession of information that indicates another course of action is prudent, then it is my job to make sure you get that information. It is my responsibility to ensure you know what is going on in a dynamic situation. I don’t think it is right to tell you to just sit back and trust me to know what is best for you because I know more than you do.

I apologize for the length of this message. I wanted to keep it shorter, but I felt that you should know what is going on. The message sent out by the entire MEC on 6Jan2012 was a coordinated effort by all 13 members of the MEC and the officers. This message pledged mutual support by all of us and I think the Council 7 message sent out that same day detracted from that goal.

I do agree with the final sentiment expressed in the council message. We will continue to monitor the progress of the interim discussions and will definitely let you know if the company decides to change their level of engagement or commitment to the process. Thank you for your time and consideration of this message.


Lloyd Ballard
Block 8 Representative/LEC 7 Secretary Treasurer
[email protected]

FDX Block 8

January 20, 2012
Dear Council 7 Pilots,

When we ran for the office as status representatives for Blocks 1 and 4 we committed to giving you an honest and thorough evaluation of our union leadership and our opinion as to what improvements should be implemented. We believe it is high time that you get that promised report.

We have serious misgivings about where our union is headed and how it is being currently managed. You may have heard that there were discussions about leadership issues in the last MEC meeting. While much of the wild-eyed rumors on APC were false, it is true that our leadership issues were discussed. To clear the record, there was no recall resolution submitted at that meeting and no vote was taken.

The way we see it, there are multiple issues concerning our MEC leadership that are unsatisfactory. It is our belief that if we do not do something to fix our ongoing leadership issues, we will have seen the high-water mark of the FedEx pilots’ careers vis-à-vis future collective bargaining agreements. It is, however, not ours to call in a vacuum. You must weigh in. Most of what we see is not obvious to the line pilot, so it is not surprising that there is not more of a concern out on the line. Our job is to inform you of the conditions as we see them.

The key issues come down to this—management of your money, the ability to get a new and improved contract, pilot involvement, and the preservation of our democratic structure. We will take a look at each of these.

Management of your money
Both of us are former secretary-treasurers. We are appalled at what we have seen concerning the guardianship of your dues money. Let us start with the easiest to describe. Union officers are paid for one extra month when they leave office so that they can conduct a transition with the incoming officers. The pay that they receive is not free money. It is designed to pay them for work performed. Under the current leadership, outgoing officers were paid tens of thousands of dollars for nothing. When challenged on this practice, the response given was that there was no clear definition as to what constitutes a transition; therefore, they felt that costing the union nearly $29,000 (in one instance alone) for an officer no longer in office to sit at home with his family in case anyone called was an adequate way to spend your money. We strongly disagree.

The current flight pay loss practice is to allow committee workers to be trip-removed on holidays even though they perform no work on those days. We have always felt that being a union worker does not constitute super seniority. We feel our pilots expect our union workers to live under the same rules as a line pilot under our contract. If a line pilot cannot drop a workday on Thanksgiving or Christmas, neither should a union worker be allowed to do so, especially at your expense. Imagine if you are the pilot who has an R day on Thanksgiving and you get called in to fly away from your family because a trip is left in open time. Then you find out that the reason you were away from your family was because someone junior to you got a super deal from our MEC officers to drop his Thanksgiving day trip, so he could stay at home with his family. We don’t think that would pass the crew room smell test. We now have had union workers off for Thanksgiving, Christmas, Christmas Eve, New Year’s Day, and New Year’s Eve, in just this last year alone. Someone had to fly those trips.

It is not our desire to vilify our hardworking committee folks. The environment that has allowed this to develop is not of their making. It is our belief that this type of behavior is a result of poor leadership and the setting of flawed policies by our MEC chairman. Most of our current committee workers came in after our MEC chairman took office and don’t know any different. They think this is the normal way to do business. Most were not part of past leadership teams and have no reference to the ethical standards practiced in the past by multiple leaders.

In addition, the budgeting process is seriously flawed. The last two quarterly reports given to the MEC had flaws that prevented us from properly evaluating how your money was spent. When committees went significantly over budget, no corrective action was taken or reported to us. The $7.3 million 2012 budget was approved via teleconference with only five days’ prior notice (two of which were over a weekend) and the data provided for evaluation was incomplete. We were not given any details on fund use by committee. We had no way to tell if spending was planned for trip pay loss, subcontractors, living expenses, or other items. Furthermore, it was presented as a “hybrid” budget, which meant that it was partly meant to cover us if we were in Section 6 negotiations, and partly meant to cover us if we extended the contract. So, in our view, no matter what we did, it could not be an accurate depiction of how our money would be spent. When we combine a flawed budget with error-filled quarterly reports, we wind up with no way to properly keep track of your money. We feel it is our job to oversee how your money is spent. Right now, that is nearly impossible.

Ability to negotiate contractual improvements
This is probably the biggest issue of all. Isn’t this why you pay dues? Contract negotiations is an art, not a science, and no one can give you guarantees. We can only view past history on our property and within our industry to learn our lessons and make judgments. When negotiating a contract we believe in a professional, businesslike approach. The RLA describes the roles of the participants. It can be much like a criminal trial, with a defense attorney and a prosecutor as opponents. The opponents are free to aggressively pursue their own objectives during the trial, but afterward can still hold mutual respect and appreciation. During the trial, however, the prosecutor doesn’t feel the need to try and help the defense with its case or vice versa.

Our MEC leadership has given us no indication that they have the stomach to stand up and face management in serious negotiations. You have seen that when management put out the concept that fuel costs were high, our leadership publicly agreed that profits would be hurt. When management said they could not negotiate under the shadow of the NPRM, our leadership again publicly agreed. Note that during this period three other ALPA carriers reached contract agreements. As far as we know, we were the only pilot group to halt negotiations for the NPRM. Of course, the result was we were cut out of the NPRM anyway! So after all that, our rules didn’t even change. During the time that the NPRM was nearing release, our leadership published a Positive Rate that said they thought FedEx had nothing to do with a cargo cut-out. Now we have many indications that, in fact, they were involved. Our leadership did a poor job of sticking to our objectives and not importing the problems of management. We see no evidence that they have learned from these past mistakes and will not repeat them.

Pilot involvement
We must be unashamed to request the improvements that you, the line pilot, tell us you want. But our only leverage comes from you. We have seen time and again the unwillingness of our current MEC leadership to involve you in a meaningful way. Simply look at the way this extension was negotiated a year ago without you even knowing that it was occurring until it was done. Look at the fact that we are totally unprepared to go into Section 6 negotiations today. It is the officers’ job, along with their support committees, to involve the pilots in preparation for and participation in contract negotiations. After almost two and a half years they have not done so. Ask yourself—were you prepared to enter negotiations by our leadership prior to this last extension? Instead, you were gently nudged by the Negotiating Committee during the poll to favor the direction that had already been picked out. We disagree with that style of leadership. You should have been given both sides of the argument, you should have been prepared to go in either direction should that be the vote of your MEC.

Preservation of our democratic process
We are now in the very unfortunate situation of having politicized our committee workers and chairmen. This is a disaster if allowed to continue. In the past, committee workers were kept out of the political arena. This was done for the very simple reason that they needed to work for and respect anyone you elected. Today, some of the same folks who get trip removal for Christmas and New Years are actively engaged in influencing block representative elections. Not surprisingly, they support candidates that are most favorable to the MEC chairman who grants them their trip removal. Why is this so important? Imagine that when a block rep confronts the MEC chairman with some criticism, he is then anonymously attacked on APC. This then is followed up with a recall of that block rep. Imagine then that union committees begin to use their organization to create a determined telephone campaign to influence an election.

Sadly, these are not imaginings, these things have already happened. And it seems to be getting worse. When it reaches its final conclusion, a line pilot would not be able to run for election unless he had the committee machine on his side. To get that, he must be accepted by the MEC chairman. Any block rep with the temerity to offer criticism could then be easily dispatched through recall by the same machine.

Our evaluation of where we are now is not pleasant. We think you deserve better. If you want to effect a change in your union’s future, help by getting more involved and voice your concern. The next local council meetings will take place February 15, 2012, at the Germantown Centre beginning at 1000. The MEC meeting will be from February 13–16, 2012. Plan to attend if you can. Either we fix our union now or begin the slow decline in contracts that our brothers and sisters at other properties have suffered. The choice is ours.

In Unity,

Chris Baker Tony Hauserman
LC7 Chairman, Block 1 LC7 Vice Chairman, Block 4

USMCFDX

I think they make some good points, but it is overshadowed by their actions on others.

FDX Block 8

If you agree with them everything is hunky-dory. If you don't they try to squash you then complain they're the ones being squashed when you push back. Unless they're daft enough to believe their own rhetoric I can only see them as hypocrites.


I've lost count on how many people the Block 1 and Block 4 reps have declared war on.

I don't think Block 8 will be the last.

Tuck

I don't agree with the messengers but does the message have any merit? With the transparency guaranteed by the current MEC Officers it should be relatively easy to discredit everything said in their email.

FlybyKnite

A note to all the indolent (not just you FLMD11 ):
How about digging out your ALPA number and password and you can read everybody's past, present, latest & greatest communiques here:

MEC Officers
LEC 7 (Blks 1,4,8)
LEC 22 (Blks 2,5,7)
LEC 26 (Blks 3,6,11)
LEC 79 (ANC)

Yesterday's 'rant' is even there.