dogbone

An excellent point.

In over 20 years I have never seen Management as much as make a public peep regarding terminations of Pilots. Must be much concern about the large number Pilots bidding out of the FDA's.

Whats unfortunate is, judging from what I have been reading on this post, some are falling for the Company's point of view.

Dogbone

Alaskan

Courts don’t change the terms of a contract, they void them, throwing out either just the offensive terms or the whole contract, depending on whether there’s a severability clause. As recently as 2001, a federal court reminded FedEx and its ATA trade association pals that local anti-discrimination laws apply to employees who are covered under the RLA, not just the NLRA.
From Air Transport Association v. City of San Francisco, 9th Circuit, 2001:
“The RLA, however, does not preempt state or local efforts to prevent discrimination or set minimal substantive requirements on contract terms. Norris, 512 U.S. at 257, 114 S.Ct. 2239; Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 372 U.S. 714, 724, 83 S.Ct. 1022, 10 L.Ed.2d 84 (1963); Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 318 U.S. 1, 6, 63 S.Ct. 420, 87 L.Ed. 571 (1943); see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985).”
Here’s what the US Supreme Court said in the Terminal RR case back in 1943:
“We hold that the enactment by Congress of the Railway Labor Act was not a pre-emption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves.”
There’s no way FedEx’s Labor Relations attorneys didn’t already know this when they appealed the San Francisco case to the 9th Circuit – it’s basically RLA Law 101. What they got from that appeal, though, is a very clearly-worded ruling telling them to comply with state and local antidiscrimination laws, that applies in all 9th Circuit states, including AK. Ooops!
As others have noted, the amount of energy the company is suddenly devoting to trying to win the hearts and minds of pilots not directly affected by the HKG situation is “interesting.” And the state civil rights accusations haven’t even been formally filed yet, nor adverse (to the company) arbitration decisions rendered. I read JB’s efforts to publicly condemn the fired pilots as a sign of company vulnerability.

742Dash

This is an industry wide problem (and to be clear, I not a FDX pilot). In the here and now the labor tactics from the 1950s are worse than ineffective. What unions need are good lawyers who are willing to go to the mat -- and that means money. Dues money, not chest pounding in the crew rooms, is what will win battles.

HazCan

I find it thoroughly disgusting that certain "pilots" on here are willing to take the company and its lawyers word at face value, yet won't give the same respect to their fellow brothers and sisters. I have talked to three of these people face to face and there is no doubt in my mind that they were trying very hard to color within the lines. The company did not clarify or provide additional information/guidance when it was repeatedly asked for. JB has basically admitted that in writing. Management is the only one that can unf$ck this and they are digging their heels in hard. Unbelievable. I cannot fathom running an organization like they are. I hope they get spanked hard.

If you can't remain impartial during this time and let it play out, then at least refrain from crapping all over your fellow pilots. We are our own worst enemy

EighteenWheeler

Some new info to share…

One of the pilots is drafting a response to JB’s letter. Look for it circulating soon. Or check out the google-somethingorother that the HK FedEx pilots go to. I don’t know the proper address or name. Maybe someone can post it?

JB’s letter says FedEx doesn’t discriminate against married pilots, but then cites that the most extreme cases all “happened” to be married pilots. He conveniently sidesteps the critical point. They would never have been in that position if they hadn’t been married. Since the only pilots you found that were supposedly being so unscrupulous were married, doesn’t that make you ask WHY only married people had these problems? It sidesteps the deeper issue, which is that married pilots definitely have a disproportionately heavier burden in order to receive the SAME housing allowance.

Three more cases I recently learned more details about:

Did you know that one HK pilot got married after he went to HK? His new spouse was living/working in the US and could not/ did not want to move to HK. The company promptly cut off his housing allowance. The only factor that changed was that he was now married. The other kicker to this case is he still had not made it through the 18 months allowed to relocate! He still had 3 more months in which his spouse could potentially have still relocated. The company didn’t even give him that. What, you’re married? She’s not living with you? Chop! No more HA for you! He grieved it and it has already gone to appeal, waiting for the decision.

Second case is probably not well known, but details will come out soon. To protect the individual, I can’t say too much until the details are made more widely available. But, there is a case of a married pilot in HK who was married, but the company deemed not to be married anymore, because, basically, they decided not to recognize his marriage certificate. For example, in Alaska and a few other states, one can choose to have an “officiator” who the state gives legal authority to for one day to officiate and legalize a marriage. They don’t have to be a priest or clergy or anything like that. But they can legally marry two people. It is perfectly legal in that state. That’s not the specific case for this individual, but it is very similar. FedEx decided he wasn’t legally married anymore, even though he was. What happened? He got the reverse treatment that married pilots get. Suddenly he found that the company did not care at all about his whereabouts or his spouse’s. His HA has never been an issue, and he and his spouse are free to come and go as they please without any of the entrapments of other married pilots.

Third, a pilot actually did get a divorce before going to HK. He now has a girlfriend instead of a wife, who happens to be the same person. Perhaps they separated, then got back together? Who am I to question or even care? Neither should FedEx, but they do only if you’re married. Either way, he is not under any scrutiny for the HA either.

If these three examples don’t indicate an unfair burden on married people, I don’t know what does.

I say again, FedEx has put itself in the position of policing relationships, and the result of that kind of policy will only be messy and unfair. FIX the PROBLEM. And stop ram-rodding these pilots into untenable positions.

EighteenWheeler

They want to release private, detailed information on specific pilots and outright lie in a companywide letter to all pilots in an effort to spread their viewpoint?

Okay. Game on.

They have a LOT more dirty laundry than all of these pilots combined, as alluded to by JB himself.

Signing off for a couple days, but will return with gusto. Some of that dirty laundry "may" be forthcoming. Stay posted.

iarapilot

+1 on that.................

4A2B

FYI that one is true, but no hair splitting that is straight from the CBA:

31. DOMICILE
An airport or co-terminal airports, designated by the Company, to which pilots are permanently assigned. A domicile is aircraft and base specific. A pilot’s base is his domicile, except for pilots assigned to an FDA or temporary vacancy.

41. FOREIGN DUTY ASSIGNMENT
An assignment of a pilot to a base outside the United States, or its territories, designated by the Company, for greater than 3 bid periods. A pilot holding an FDA shall be permanently domiciled in MEM

PurpleKoolAid

Wow, a guy goes away for a couple days and all hell breaks loose!

Or maybe I have a way with first Threads! (Delusions of granduer...I know, but I like...)


Gotta say...
outing people on their personal financial information is waaayyyyyyy uncool in my book...

Anyone else feel a liiiiiittle uncomfortable reading JB's letter when he mentioned that AK fund stuff???

Alaskan

Great points, Wheeler! Which brings me to a point we haven't really talked about here: the personal burden all this has had on real people's marriages. After the company failed to respond to at least two requests for more clarity, at least one of the terminated pilots seriously considered getting a divorce just to end the stress the uncertainty was having. Ultimately the pilot and spouse decided not to let a corporation make such a deeply personal choice for them, but they never should have felt this pressure in the first place.

Had the pilot divorced, nothing would have changed in the pilot's and spouse's lives except that maybe they would have had to draft new wills and file their taxes differently. And, of course, the pilot would still have a job.

JB and any other FedEx management types who are reading this, just wait until the fan is well and truly fodded and the rest of the world finds out what a great, "family friendly" corporation FedEx is to work for. Tearing families apart, hacking non-employees' facebook accounts, demanding spouses' detailed health information under threat of firing the pilot, challenging other pilot's marriage separation documents, telling spouses which jobs they can and cannot have and where they have to give birth, and on and on.