threeighteen

Different kind of contract though. They own their delivery routes, pay everything out of pocket (oil changes/truck mx/washes/benefits/etc). They are as much of FedEx employees as the guys who fly the caravans.

TonyC

Walrus asked a question. I answered it.

We're the only employee group which has a Collective Bargaining Agreement under the Railway Labor Act, but we're not the only employees covered by a contract.


They paint their trucks the way FedEx says, they wear the uniform FedEx says, they carry their packages the way FedEx says (as a former courier I can speak with authority on this -- you put your truck keys in one hand, clipboard and package ... follow the "best practices" in order to get incentive pay, or do it your own way and forgo money and perhaps risk your job), as far as customers know, they are employees of FedEx -- they are supposed to appear to be FedEx employees.

The drivers have contracts with FedEx. The guys who fly Caravans are employees of companies who contract with FedEx -- Mountain Air Cargo, Baron Aviation, WestAir, etc. They, the pilots, do not have a contract with FedEx.



To get back on track, none of the contracts trump federal, state, or local laws.





.

TonyC

You see, that's a big problem. It should NOT be something we can all argue. It should be simply and clearly defined, a standard which does not cause confusion or leave room for argument.

In a recent e-mail to a married Hong Kong pilot receiving the Housing Allowance, our Managing Director, System Chief Pilot said, Wouldn't that be nice!?! If the rules are so clear and unambiguous, why do we have attorneys fighting over what they mean, and why won't he be more specific when asked in person at the meeting in Hong Kong or when publishing written communication?




Where the pilots are during their free time is none of anybody's business. I don't know how that fits into your understanding of "live there," but the SCP spoke to the matter in the same e-mail he wrote to a married Hong Kong pilot receiving the Housing Allowance. Here are a few excerpts: If that's the case, why did his boss, the VP of Flight Operations, write us to tell us that Pilot 1's wife was only present in HKG for 9 days? If you can "live your life and enjoy your time off as you wish," why are they counting days?

Who do you trust? The ACP who says you're OK, the VP of Flight Operations who says you're a criminal, or the SCP who says you can do whatever you want in your free time?

Clear and unambiguous my backside.






.

golfandfly

They aren't employees at FedEx, which was the crux of the lawsuit. I believe they are considered vendors.

TonyC

That's arguable, and the courts will make the final determination.






.

4A2B

I believe the part missing is that apparently you can do everything stated in his (SCPs) email but what the pilot (and your spouse and dependent children) can't do is maintain another primary residence other than the one in the FDA they are paying for. That appears to be the crux of the discrepancy, they only look at the location of the pilot and family if you are (or they believe you are) a "commuter". From reading your quote of the SCP he is saying you can travel around the world, never be home on days off, as long as your travel is not always to and from your "real" home. Not sure if that is what he says, sure reads that way to me.

In this business most of us know if we are commuters or live in base. States have gone after pilots that claimed state residency in non tax location while their family was located elsewhere so I think I would be vary cautious hanging my defense on only on discrimination laws. I know they (IRS) looked at the spouse, where the kids go to school etc. and I would assume that test would violate the same US laws being looked at here?

I am not sure if the question at hand is as simple as "do you commute?" but sure looks that way from reading the information. I guess an arbitrator will determine (first at least) whether or not the LOA and CBA were bargained in this manner and if they comply with all applicable laws.

Tony, just curious, do you receive the HA? If you do not why not?

Either way this is a nightmare and I hope that we see a positive decision and clarity going forward for all.

golfandfly

So far FedEx has won this argument.

TonyC

It appears to me you're reading more into the language than is actually there. In fact, it looks like you're reading "the Company doesn't want commuters in the FDAs" into the language. That may be what was said during bargaining sessions, but I don't read that in the work product. You would know the bargaining history better than most of us.




No, I do not receive the housing allowance.

Shortly after beginning ITU Training for the assignment, I learned that one of my dependent children doesn't fit the Hong Kong mold for dependent children -- Unmarried, Under the age of 18. Difficulties obtaining his visa caused delays getting my own, and therefore delays moving. By that time, the Housing Allowance witch hunt had begun, and I didn't particularly care for the environment it created, the cloud of threat. My wife's enthusiasm for the move quickly waned, so I chose to commute.



We are in complete agreement here.






.

HKFlyr

Tony,

Maybe you should be the Hong Kong rep..there seems to be a vacancy...

I'm sure that would make the SS crowd in Melvis very happy...I believe he suggested you run for office at the last HK pilot meeting...

FLMD11CAPT

Good Luck with that........and be careful what you wish for.