FedEx MEC on wrong Track
03-03-2012, 06:27 AM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
I believe the representatives on our MEC should work for the betterment of the FedEx pilots above all other issues. I believe the MEC should listen to all points of view and give respectful voice to those with a different opinion than the majority...I believe our most junior pilot’s career should be protected with the same zeal as the most senior pilot’s. I believe our MEC should never forget they work for us, not ALPA.
I believe our MEC’s actions indicate they do not share any of these opinions.
The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).
I don’t believe I’m the only one who found it curious that the issues of TPL brought up by Captains Hauserman and Baker led to an attack on them. “If you can’t dispute the accusation then discredit the accuser” is a well-established tenet of the current MEC. I guess the MEC can’t have the membership look too deeply in this area.
The poison of these individual agendas and their willingness to curry favor with DC does far more harm to our pilot unity and support of the union than any concerns voiced by members about the direction of MEC actions.
Our MEC members need to listen to those who have concerns and answer them, not just silence them. The lack of transparency of our MEC and how our dues money is spent is scary. I overheard a past MEC member telling a pilot (about the scope money owed the pilots transferred to the VEBA account) say “We can do whatever the F&** we want with that money!”
Is it any wonder the silencing of MEC members who speak out is worrisome?
My MEC rep excuses their lack of response or concern with, ”well, they work for ALPA not us."
My MEC needs to remember we are their number one priority--with ALPA, SS’s quest for ALPA president, the AFL/CIO’s choice for president and other issues on the distant second and “if time permits” list!
BTW, those that suggest union members with different views hurt unity are wrong;
IMO,
Steamgauge
I believe our MEC’s actions indicate they do not share any of these opinions.
The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).
I don’t believe I’m the only one who found it curious that the issues of TPL brought up by Captains Hauserman and Baker led to an attack on them. “If you can’t dispute the accusation then discredit the accuser” is a well-established tenet of the current MEC. I guess the MEC can’t have the membership look too deeply in this area.
The poison of these individual agendas and their willingness to curry favor with DC does far more harm to our pilot unity and support of the union than any concerns voiced by members about the direction of MEC actions.
Our MEC members need to listen to those who have concerns and answer them, not just silence them. The lack of transparency of our MEC and how our dues money is spent is scary. I overheard a past MEC member telling a pilot (about the scope money owed the pilots transferred to the VEBA account) say “We can do whatever the F&** we want with that money!”
Is it any wonder the silencing of MEC members who speak out is worrisome?
My MEC rep excuses their lack of response or concern with, ”well, they work for ALPA not us."
My MEC needs to remember we are their number one priority--with ALPA, SS’s quest for ALPA president, the AFL/CIO’s choice for president and other issues on the distant second and “if time permits” list!
BTW, those that suggest union members with different views hurt unity are wrong;
IMO,
Steamgauge
The only personal attacks I saw were on SS and RI. The ones on RI were more private but were persistent. If you're calling recall efforts an attack you need to reassess. I don't care who they are, every block rep should remember we can recall them at any time. That knowledge should encourage them to serve as best as they can. It's nothing to be afraid of. If they are still doing what their membership wants they'll get thru it without an issue.
You really need to figure out who is was responsible and supportive of the regulated age change with retroactive clause. Hint: It's those you support. That's hindsight but they don't give the support to the juniority that you attribute to them.
The poison is from public attacks on integrity. I don't believe you've read the message lines that have come out or have attended LEC meetings. You might have mixed up who said what to whom. Go back and read them. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and nasty personal attack campaigns. The latter leaves out critical details and has improper innuendo. You sir have been swayed by a slick marketing campaign.
Responsive reps and MEC? You either get or don't get this one. The guys you like are responsive only to their own agenda. They supported and are supported by those who did what they wanted with our money on issues like VEBA, HSA, 757 payrate, scheduling rules.
Lack of transparency? Remember the city purity letter. Secret negotiations happened. Comm during that era, under BM, was minimal. It was tightly controlled and we had much less. You may have been happy because you didn't know what was being done on your behalf. Or to your detriment. It was done all in the name of unity. It was about controlling the message to massage the membership. We don't have that from the current leadership.
Once and for all, we're having HUGE issues with the wording that came from the 2006 contract. BC set in motion the contract enforcement frustration we have now. He couldn't be bothered to ask lawyers to review his language and he's been bugging CE since before the ink was dry because the company is "interpreting it wrong". I wish he could accept his failures like a man. CBA 2006 was a great step forward but he gooned up some of the paperwork. Don't even get me started on FDA LOA 1, which the guys you support like a lot. That was not support for the junior fella. They all knew, as did I, that newhires would be going there. BC claims we were working on a "B scale" with recent 4a2b negotiations. I think he was working on a B scale with his concessionary FDA LOA. Guess who BC gives his support to. If you guessed CB and TH you're right.
In defense of BC, working on language in the CBA is very time consuming. It's tedious and progress is slowly gained. That's why I'm unhappy with the ouster of RI from the NC. That's what he was working on. But the POISON from the side you think is all good has stopped that work. If you're unhappy with contract enforcement you have YOUR poisoners to blame for more of the same.
Last edited by Gunter; 03-03-2012 at 04:45 PM.
03-04-2012, 04:54 AM
#146
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
I also think BM was forced out if you want more neutral spin.
Last edited by Gunter; 03-04-2012 at 05:06 AM.
03-04-2012, 11:18 AM
#147
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
29.A. Conditions
1. As limited by the letter regarding Transition to Union Security dated August 26, 2006, each pilot covered by the Agreement who fails to acquire and maintain membership in the Association will be required, as a condition of continued employment, beginning 60 days following the completion of his probationary period or 60 days following the effective date of the Agreement, whichever is later, to pay to the Association each month a service charge as a contribution for the administration of the Agreement and the representation of the pilot. The Association has established that the service charge shall be an amount equal to the Association's regular dues and periodic assessments. In calculation of each non-member's monthly obligation, the Association will allocate and adjust charges in the same manner it followed with respect to its members.
03-04-2012, 11:56 AM
#149
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
How did we end up with a section in the 2006 contract that goes against Federal Law?
You would think the lawyers and ALPA National would have caught this!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
