TonyC

Had my remark been a gratuitous poke, I would agree with your analysis. However, the thrust of your comment was that a) the MEC Officers have a bigger picture and b) they are expending vast resources so c) we should trust them that they're doing the best thing. My comment was intended to highlight a flaw in that hopeful reasoning.

I agree that they have a better picture of the details of the settlement offers.

I am not impressed with the way they can expend resources.

So, no, I don't trust that they're doing the best thing.





As for bringing up the stewardship of union dues issue ... yea, a few of us tried that.






.

MaydayMark

It seems to me that with the FDA/LOA housing allowance that the HKG folks could be/should be living like Kings on their widebody Captain pay (sarcasm intended)

Hong Kong apartment fetches record $61 million - Yahoo! News Canada

HIFLYR

[QUOTE=TonyC;1251645]Had my remark been a gratuitous poke, I would agree with your analysis. However, the thrust of your comment was that a) the MEC Officers have a bigger picture and b) they are expending vast resources so c) we should trust them that they're doing the best thing. My comment was intended to highlight a flaw in that hopeful reasoning.

I agree that they have a better picture of the details of the settlement offers.

I am not impressed with the way they can expend resources.

So, no, I don't trust that they're doing the best thing.

Yes sort of like when you help sell us the first LOA you know the one that set this all in motion. I say you because I was a 32% person I knew it was a bad deal. The deal was checked out by the old MEC leaders when they did a quick flyby thru HKG for a day. Yes that was a good way to spend union resources.

BTW I am against this ability of the MEC to be able to work from home also.

appDude

I am not hardline against work from home, but certainly it should be the exception to the rule, monitored very well, transparent and published who is doing it and when.
Otherwise, way to easy to take advantage of the dues paying member.

Gunter

I understand you are unhappy with the MEC's efforts.

Pondering this issue I eventually point toward the effort of the MEC in place when BC asked the MEC to offer up FDA LOA #1 to the membership with all these poorly worded parts. I was assured BC was brilliant and it made sense. I doubted that very much then and now even more. That is the first time I lost faith the MEC could fix everything they should. I also believe they simply can't fix everything even under the best of circumstances.

Where was your outrage then? What were doing during that error prone time? Did you support the poorly worded, and compensating, LOA then?

TonyC

I've lost track of the number of times I've answered that question on APC. My opinion of the first FDA LOA is a matter of public record, as I signed my name and published it via e-mail to my Local Council and it was on the FedEx ALPA website for all to read. To summarize, I was not satisfied with the dollar amounts, but I was supportive of the structure, a method to provide pilots with a monthly stipend, an option which did not previously exist. I believed that the dollar amounts would be increased and benefits added -- and that has happened.

What I did not do is claim special knowledge of things you didn't or couldn't know, and then ask you to trust me. No secrets, no big picture that I was privy to but you couldn't see. Everything was public, and I gave you my opinion about it. I asked you to read it in order to educate yourself, and then to vote.

As for poorly worded parts ... let's talk about that for a minute. The standard for relocation seemed simple then, and it seems simple now. The FDA LOA says, Which part of that stands out -- to you -- as being problematic? And yet, that's where the problems seem to be occurring. You see, The Company isn't using that as a standard. They're using something else, and they refuse to tell us what it is. Their favorite answer to the question about relocation is, "There is no formula."

Really? No formula? What about the standard in Section 6? What does that say?

Section 6 RELOCATION EXPENSES(I took the liberty of formatting the paragraph to emphasize the existence of a list of acceptable documentation.)

Once the pilot meets his obligation to submit the requested documentation, The Company is obligated to give the relocation benefit. In the case of the FDA pilot, one of those relocation benefits is a monthly housing allowance.

Now, I admit that the list in Section 6 of the CBA doesn't fit the FDA pilot all that well. He's not likely to have any statement relating to the purchase of a residence in Hong Kong, but he might have a statement relating to the sale of the house he left. He's not likely to have a driver's license and automobile registration, but he might -- a few do. He will most definitely not be allowed to register to vote, but he will have verification of the movement of household goods.

The concept is simple, valid, and tested. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is the list. Lease agreement, utility bills, and other similar documents should be added to the list.

Well, that's not exactly true. The list is NOT the only thing that needs to be adjusted. What also needs to be adjusted is THE COMPANY's view of what relocation is. We don't need another method to qualify for the Housing Allowance, a relocation benefit, when we already have the way in writing. We need to force The Company to recognize their own Standard, and we need to force The Company to HONOR their standard.

Inventing a different standard, like counting the number of days you happen to be in a particular city, fails to address the original problem. By ignoring the problem, it compounds the problem.

The problem is not the language -- it's The Company's refusal to honor it.






.

Chainsaw

Tony, well said. Nice synopsis. I couldn't agree with you more. Do you know if this is the avenue the union is pursuing?

TonyC

[THREAD DRIFT]

I am not absolutely opposed to being compensated for work accomplished outside of the office, either. But why should it be the exception to the rule? Why should it be monitored very well? Why should it be transparent? Why should it be published? Because it's an invitation for abuse, and we, as dues paying members, deserve that degree of accountability when our dues are involved.

In addition to the number of work days for which each officer is responsible, we also have a Policy Manual requirement to have 2 officers in the office each day. Working from home meets the first obligation (number of days per month), but it does not meet the second (body in the office). Travel days are counted towards work days, too, but they don't put a warm body in the office. If you wonder if this Policy Manual requirement is being followed, drop by the office on Kirby some Monday before lunch or Friday after noon.

But don't fret -- the Financial Oversight ... umm, sorry, we renamed that ... the Financial Review Committee will assure you that everything is A-OK.

Transparency? I've heard that word used frequently, but it doesn't apply when it comes to publishing officers' calendars. The last time we tried to do that they squealed like stuck pigs. Members might not understand what they would see.

[/THREAD DRIFT]






.

appDude

Just curious, how many travel days a month are allowed to be counted as work days?

4A2B

F. COMPENSATION AND GUIDELINES
1. The compensation and work guidelines for the MEC officers will be reviewed and amended as appropriate by the MEC. Prior to the election cycle for the officers, the MEC will make a determination for each officer position as to whether that position will be assigned to full-time or part-time duty with the Association. Any change to the duty
assignment of an individual officer prior to the end of the current term will be made by the MEC in consultation with that officer.

2. MEC officers assigned to full-time duty with the Association shall be governed by the following policies.