Terminated HKG pilots - update...
06-04-2012, 11:16 PM
#31
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,054
Night:
Because they didn't do what the company said. You really believe everything this company puts out simply because it comes from the company??
Anyway, I'm through discussing it here. Courts, real courts, not a FedEx-paid-for-arbitrator, will decide what happens here.
Read the council 14 June 4th letter too:
FDX Pilots > Home > Content > Content View
Because they didn't do what the company said. You really believe everything this company puts out simply because it comes from the company??
Anyway, I'm through discussing it here. Courts, real courts, not a FedEx-paid-for-arbitrator, will decide what happens here.
Read the council 14 June 4th letter too:
FDX Pilots > Home > Content > Content View
06-04-2012, 11:24 PM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 94
If you have:
an Alaska drivers license,
an Alaska Resident hunting and fishing license,
are an Alaska Permanent Fund recipient ($1,281 in 2010)
submit a FedEx pilot APP showing Alaska residency,
show your permanent mailing address in Alaska,
& home phone listed in Alaska,
Currently are crew based in Alaska,
& have a vehicle licensed in Alaska,
Can you still claim to be a Hong Kong resident for purposes of the FedEx FDA? Doesn't pass my smell test but I'm not a lawyer.
an Alaska drivers license,
an Alaska Resident hunting and fishing license,
are an Alaska Permanent Fund recipient ($1,281 in 2010)
submit a FedEx pilot APP showing Alaska residency,
show your permanent mailing address in Alaska,
& home phone listed in Alaska,
Currently are crew based in Alaska,
& have a vehicle licensed in Alaska,
Can you still claim to be a Hong Kong resident for purposes of the FedEx FDA? Doesn't pass my smell test but I'm not a lawyer.
06-05-2012, 12:07 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,395
CB, you just don't get it. We aren't allowed to think for ourselves.
Listen to skypine. Repeat after me. Nothing that you said is true.
It's all a big misunderstanding.
Note to skypine: if what the company says is untrue, it's time for the union to step up and refute it. The union is losing the propaganda campaign.
Seriously, CB, it doesn't pass my smell test either.
Listen to skypine. Repeat after me. Nothing that you said is true.
It's all a big misunderstanding.
Note to skypine: if what the company says is untrue, it's time for the union to step up and refute it. The union is losing the propaganda campaign.
Seriously, CB, it doesn't pass my smell test either.
06-05-2012, 01:18 AM
#34
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Piper Cub
Posts: 12
Now you see the ferocity with which this company has been treating these pilots. And with this kind of approach, why any negotiations have failed. JB’s letter is full of inaccuracies, virtually every word specifically chosen to lead the reader into believing something that is simply not the way it is cleverly implied.
Many of the allegations stem from the company’s own insular interpretation of the FDA LOA. Those interpretations are flawed, sometimes radically so, but they stick to them nonetheless. Once they make their flawed assumptions, then the litany of incendiary and offensive accusations follow, because they then see “theft and fraud” everywhere.
Here’s an example: The company confuses the terms “residency” and “resident.” Did you know that under Hong Kong law, nobody can become a permanent resident of Hong Kong until they have lived there for 7 years? Yet the company implies that they require this. Read the Ordinance yourself.
http://law.hku.hk/lawgovtsociety/post1997immigration.htm Refer to Schedule 1 of the HKSAR, 2(d).
(d) A person not of Chinese nationality who has entered Hong Kong with a valid travel document, has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 7 years and has taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
You are only allowed the “Right to Abode” in HK at first, and only after you have had a place of permanent residence for 7 continuous years can you apply for resident status. There is clearly a difference between living in a residence vs. being a resident in HK. The first is referring to where a person lives, the dwelling, and the second is the legal status of a person.
FedEx management confuses the two. In their allegations, they make the implicit assumption (and requirement) that if you have a home in HK, then you must also be a resident there. Yet, the government of HK does not allow it. How can this conflict be in the contract???
The company included stipulations that were originally written for relocating from one US state to another US state, and thought it would work for relocating to another COUNTRY, without doing their homework first. Both Section 6.G and the FDA LOA specifically reference a permanent [primary] residence. That’s the DWELLING. In addition, they stipulate that they can request documentation [Section 6.G.4] for establishment of a pilot’s residency (again, the DWELLING) state income taxes, driver’s license, …and voter’s registration. Obviously, you can’t pay state income taxes in Hong Kong. Virtually nobody drives there, so few have driver’s licenses. (Ask the Subic pilots, most of whom have maintained their home state’s driver’s licenses for years.) And is the company really going to insist that a US Citizen must give up their fundamental right to vote? That wouldn’t even make it to court.
The main point is that the language of the agreements (besides requiring the impossible) only refers to the dwelling. Maybe because the words are similar, the company thinks they can give them the same meaning? Nowhere does the language say US state resident status is forbidden. And if it did, it would be illegal at the highest Federal level.
Bear with me here. I know it’s tricky, but the company is taking advantage of that fact to make you believe some pilots have done something wrong that they absolutely haven’t. Every pilot in HK has the absolute right to maintain their state resident status. This in no way conflicts with housing allowance issues.
Point: None of the FedEx pilots can be a resident of HK.
Point: All FedEx pilots are US Citizens.
Point: If you are a US Citizen, and you cannot be a resident in HK, you must be a resident in some US state if you want to vote, have a driver’s license, etc. The company CANNOT prohibit this.
Therefore, there is no conflict with “establishing and maintaining a permanent [primary] residency” and maintaining your legal resident status in your home state. Almost every HK (and in the past, Subic) pilot does/did this. The company has known this and has never had a problem with it in the past.
Therefore, a pilot can very easily maintain their permanent residency in HK, and also have resident status in a state of their choosing. In the case of Alaska, where JB points out the PFD (go ahead, google it like I did) and other Alaska issues, an Alaska resident can rightfully obtain the PFD and have been absent from the state for much of the year, as long as they “have the intent to return.” You can be absent for 180 days a year and it is no problem whatsoever. More days than that and there are many “allowable absences.” You can see JB makes the same mistakes in confusing “residency” with “resident” when referring to Pilot 4’s case.
Incidentally, the company also splits hairs carefully on this issue when it is to their own advantage. Did you know that the HK pilots, according to the company, are NOT based in Hong Kong? True story. Check it out for yourself. The company claims, I believe because it is in their best interest for tax purposes, that all the HK pilots are actually “MEM based but domiciled in Hong Kong.” So, the company is well aware of, and employs to their advantage, these residency-related terms, and fully accepts them when it wants to. It is no stranger to fine distinctions, but picks and chooses when it wants to honor them.
Many of the allegations stem from the company’s own insular interpretation of the FDA LOA. Those interpretations are flawed, sometimes radically so, but they stick to them nonetheless. Once they make their flawed assumptions, then the litany of incendiary and offensive accusations follow, because they then see “theft and fraud” everywhere.
Here’s an example: The company confuses the terms “residency” and “resident.” Did you know that under Hong Kong law, nobody can become a permanent resident of Hong Kong until they have lived there for 7 years? Yet the company implies that they require this. Read the Ordinance yourself.
http://law.hku.hk/lawgovtsociety/post1997immigration.htm Refer to Schedule 1 of the HKSAR, 2(d).
(d) A person not of Chinese nationality who has entered Hong Kong with a valid travel document, has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 7 years and has taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
You are only allowed the “Right to Abode” in HK at first, and only after you have had a place of permanent residence for 7 continuous years can you apply for resident status. There is clearly a difference between living in a residence vs. being a resident in HK. The first is referring to where a person lives, the dwelling, and the second is the legal status of a person.
FedEx management confuses the two. In their allegations, they make the implicit assumption (and requirement) that if you have a home in HK, then you must also be a resident there. Yet, the government of HK does not allow it. How can this conflict be in the contract???
The company included stipulations that were originally written for relocating from one US state to another US state, and thought it would work for relocating to another COUNTRY, without doing their homework first. Both Section 6.G and the FDA LOA specifically reference a permanent [primary] residence. That’s the DWELLING. In addition, they stipulate that they can request documentation [Section 6.G.4] for establishment of a pilot’s residency (again, the DWELLING) state income taxes, driver’s license, …and voter’s registration. Obviously, you can’t pay state income taxes in Hong Kong. Virtually nobody drives there, so few have driver’s licenses. (Ask the Subic pilots, most of whom have maintained their home state’s driver’s licenses for years.) And is the company really going to insist that a US Citizen must give up their fundamental right to vote? That wouldn’t even make it to court.
The main point is that the language of the agreements (besides requiring the impossible) only refers to the dwelling. Maybe because the words are similar, the company thinks they can give them the same meaning? Nowhere does the language say US state resident status is forbidden. And if it did, it would be illegal at the highest Federal level.
Bear with me here. I know it’s tricky, but the company is taking advantage of that fact to make you believe some pilots have done something wrong that they absolutely haven’t. Every pilot in HK has the absolute right to maintain their state resident status. This in no way conflicts with housing allowance issues.
Point: None of the FedEx pilots can be a resident of HK.
Point: All FedEx pilots are US Citizens.
Point: If you are a US Citizen, and you cannot be a resident in HK, you must be a resident in some US state if you want to vote, have a driver’s license, etc. The company CANNOT prohibit this.
Therefore, there is no conflict with “establishing and maintaining a permanent [primary] residency” and maintaining your legal resident status in your home state. Almost every HK (and in the past, Subic) pilot does/did this. The company has known this and has never had a problem with it in the past.
Therefore, a pilot can very easily maintain their permanent residency in HK, and also have resident status in a state of their choosing. In the case of Alaska, where JB points out the PFD (go ahead, google it like I did) and other Alaska issues, an Alaska resident can rightfully obtain the PFD and have been absent from the state for much of the year, as long as they “have the intent to return.” You can be absent for 180 days a year and it is no problem whatsoever. More days than that and there are many “allowable absences.” You can see JB makes the same mistakes in confusing “residency” with “resident” when referring to Pilot 4’s case.
Incidentally, the company also splits hairs carefully on this issue when it is to their own advantage. Did you know that the HK pilots, according to the company, are NOT based in Hong Kong? True story. Check it out for yourself. The company claims, I believe because it is in their best interest for tax purposes, that all the HK pilots are actually “MEM based but domiciled in Hong Kong.” So, the company is well aware of, and employs to their advantage, these residency-related terms, and fully accepts them when it wants to. It is no stranger to fine distinctions, but picks and chooses when it wants to honor them.
06-05-2012, 02:02 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,091
Regarding the "HKG appeals", I am glad the company is able to share so much of the information that has lead to their point of view. I have a tremendous amount of respect for JB, and really appreciate the communication put out by him.
Hopefully the pilots involved accept the final settlement offer from the company that would reinstate their employment.
Hopefully the pilots involved accept the final settlement offer from the company that would reinstate their employment.
06-05-2012, 02:44 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Regarding the "HKG appeals", I am glad the company is able to share so much of the information that has lead to their point of view. I have a tremendous amount of respect for JB, and really appreciate the communication put out by him.
Hopefully the pilots involved accept the final settlement offer from the company that would reinstate their employment.
Hopefully the pilots involved accept the final settlement offer from the company that would reinstate their employment.
"Although we have already acknowledged this, I will restate it: the Company did not act optimally in every circumstance leading up to the disciplinary actions that needed to be taken. But imperfect management does not create a free pass for fraud and theft of company assets. "
(emphasis in the original)
Any idea what that means in management speak? I'll bet terminations have been reversed with less.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 06-05-2012 at 03:02 AM.
06-05-2012, 02:54 AM
#37
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Piper Cub
Posts: 12
If you have:
an Alaska drivers license,
an Alaska Resident hunting and fishing license,
are an Alaska Permanent Fund recipient ($1,281 in 2010)
submit a FedEx pilot APP showing Alaska residency,
show your permanent mailing address in Alaska,
& home phone listed in Alaska,
Currently are crew based in Alaska,
& have a vehicle licensed in Alaska,
Can you still claim to be a Hong Kong resident for purposes of the FedEx FDA? Doesn't pass my smell test but I'm not a lawyer.
an Alaska drivers license,
an Alaska Resident hunting and fishing license,
are an Alaska Permanent Fund recipient ($1,281 in 2010)
submit a FedEx pilot APP showing Alaska residency,
show your permanent mailing address in Alaska,
& home phone listed in Alaska,
Currently are crew based in Alaska,
& have a vehicle licensed in Alaska,
Can you still claim to be a Hong Kong resident for purposes of the FedEx FDA? Doesn't pass my smell test but I'm not a lawyer.
See the post explaining residency. You’re making the same errors many people unfamiliar with the situation make. Being a resident of a state is necessary. Every HK pilot does it. There is no requirement to sever all ties to your home state.
It is an unusual case, no argument there. But you might reserve judgment, as you are missing some pertinent facts.
What if said pilot also:
Had an equal number of HK documents
Was in HK every month in the past 4 years
Was not required to include layovers, vacation, training, etc. in the Postal Service calculation, just as any worldwide cargo pilot is not
Had a crashpad in ANC shared with other pilots, but a home with his wife in HK
Would that give you pause at all?
I can’t fill in all the dots for you in a public forum, but I would say that since there is no minimum time requirement for the spouse to be present in HK, said pilot could well have fulfilled both the FDA and Alaska requirements simultaneously, and frequented HK very regularly. I’ll leave it to you to figure out how that can be done by dovetailing a favorable schedule. Oh, and what if said pilot was already in HK just prior to his wife moving there, and was there continuously for just under 6 months when they established their home together, but that time also was not required to be calculated in the Postal Service time since it was less than a 6-month time frame? Then later being ANC based might make little difference, just being home on one end of a flight vs. the other.
Be careful of accepting the company’s line too readily. They purposely left out a lot of critical information, and molded the rest to their liking. It’s their way or the highway, and they have a big bully pulpit.
As I mentioned in another post, if you have questions, I believe the 4 terminated pilots would be receptive to talking about their cases. I know one captain dropped in on a HK layover and was warmly received. I too have gained a lot of good information by talking directly to them.
06-05-2012, 03:06 AM
#38
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Piper Cub
Posts: 12
Hopefully the company gets their arse kicked in arbitration and/or court. That is the only way the HKG FDA will become more Pilot friendly.
"Although we have already acknowledged this, I will restate it: the Company did not act optimally in every circumstance leading up to the disciplinary actions that needed to be taken. But imperfect management does not create a free pass for fraud and theft of company assets. "
Any idea what that means in management speak? I'll bet terminations have been reversed with less.
"Although we have already acknowledged this, I will restate it: the Company did not act optimally in every circumstance leading up to the disciplinary actions that needed to be taken. But imperfect management does not create a free pass for fraud and theft of company assets. "
Any idea what that means in management speak? I'll bet terminations have been reversed with less.
Wow, is that an understatement. In a couple days' time, I think some examples will be forthcoming. They are not at all flattering to the company. Another understatement.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
