HazCan

It's not secret, it's been sent out to all 79 members.

ConnerP

Is this the same executive session material that BC got up and spewed about as part of his diatribe at the 15 Feb LEC 7 meeting?
It certainly was no secret after that even if he did only tell half the story! Maybe all this is doing is revealing his source.

FDX Block 8

No. Executive session is MEC member only. Strategic direction of the union.

For now you can read about some of what was discussed in the ANC Chair "snippet" on the FDX ALPA site.

MaxKts

OK, so party A accuses party B of wrongdoing and states that the facts are privaledged information. The APC crowd demands facts to back up their accusations. Party A comes forward with facts and now are reviled for exposing privaledged information. Now I understand how this all works.

FLMD11CAPT

It is with great disappointment and unmitigated disgust that I confirm Don’s Post. The Anchorage Reps reckless and irresponsible communiqué (in classic TH, CB fashion) has resulted in the resignation of our Negotiating Chairman. How could he not with such a public (although invalid ) expression of no confidence out there. Make no mistake folks, what could not be accomplished through the normal democratic process has now been attempted through out of bounds communication, subterfuge, half truths and outright lies. The desired derailing of our current negotiating process, against the clear will of a landslide majority of our crewforce has begun. How can we stand for this? How can the ANC Rep be allowed to release Executive Session material, falsely impugn the reputation of our Neg. Chair, and engage publicly on a course that is in direct countervention of the Unity pledge that all Reps signed at their last MEC meeting in DEC-JAN?


In her “Snippet” the ANC Rep says: [COLOR="Yellow"]“what has sadly been permitted to occur is that certain influential committee members have misused their statuses and very publicly spoken out in opposition to these Block Reps, in some cases using their committee titles and resources to express their opinions, which is in conflct with MEC Policy.” And, “all volunteers are subject to MEC policy and have a responsibility to properly represent the MEC.”[/COLOR]
Really ? It seems she feels the need to lay a public charge with no names, dates, incidences or circumstances. Really? Was the ALPA National audit that was conducted to evaluate use of funds and allocation (which found absolutely nothing wrong) not good enough? If these things were going on against MEC Policy then why weren’t the internal protocols used to investigate, determine and if needed discipline any transgressors? In any case, How is this any different from what she has allowed CB and TH to do via their direct comm to LEC7? Do the elected MEC reps not have a responsibility to properly represent the MEC?
Also from the same “Snippet”: [I]some of the proposals that are already on the table including Sections 24, 8, 5, and 4.A.2.b. Despite our previous sordid history with 4.A.2.b, shockingly a 4.A.2.b proposal was sent to the company without proper vetting by the MEC. There are many (myself included) on the MEC that are extremely troubled that our leadership allowed this exclusion to occur, especially after repeated requests by the MEC to be included in the discussion. There were provisions of this proposal that the MEC overwhelmingly disagreed with. As a result, the MEC has since further instructed the Negotiating Committee on how to proceed regarding further discussions on 4.A.2.b.
The entire highlighted portion was under the cloak of "executive session". NOTHING discussed in executive session is supposed to be publicly released or discussed outside of executive session. Isn’t that “against MEC Policy”?


And yet again from the “Snippet”: As your elected representatives, all negotiating concepts must be clearly vetted by the MEC prior to submission to the company. The MEC’s disapproval of this misconduct has been communicated to the leadership previously and now once again. Per the MEC Policy Manual, the MEC “is the policy-making body for the ALPA Members at FedEx Express.” It’s impossible to set a policy if the MEC is not included in the process.[/COLOR] [/COLOR]The MEC has been briefed time and again regarding openers, strategic vision and macro table positions as evidenced by the Post MEC Negotiating communiqués, MEC reports and numerous individual Block Rep. letters to their constituency.
This craziness has to stop so that we can get back to the real, non-self destructive business of negotiating our next contract. Unfortunately unless the ANC Rep resigns or is recalled I fear this insanity will continue.

HDawg

Christ there is less drama on my daughters 8th grade cheer squad. Maybe the LEC reps should go on Facebook and call each other fat. Oh wait they have APC.

ConnerP

I know. And some of what BC alluded to is this same stuff that is in the snippet. Executive session stuff that had been handled previously but he didn't mention that it had been handled. He just left it hanging.

2005 Blues

Openers, strategic vision, and macro table positions are nice sounding bullet points. However, what is specifically relevant to me is "Was the MEC briefed on this specific 4A2b proposal before it was proffered to the company?"

The 4A2b debacle and fixing it in the future has been such a huge source of concern and interest in this pilot group it would be shocking to me if a proposal was forwarded to the company without it at least being reviewed by the MEC first. Am I wrong to feel this way?

FLMD11CAPT

Ok, I get it. You don't like my selection of terms. But to answer your question, yes they were, on more than one occasion. The hipocresy displayed by this latest snippet makes me nauseous.

2005 Blues

So SL is telling an outright lie when she says the proposal was not properly vetted by the MEC before sending it to the company? Your reply makes it seem that we're not talking about a "half truth" here.