Originally Posted by Chainsaw

Do you know if this is the avenue the union is pursuing?

Originally Posted by TonyC

In his June 12, 2012, Positive Rate article, MEC Vice Chairman John Cardaci said, "Currently, we are talking with the company trying to come up with a procedure that gives clear guidance for those who operate in an FDA to follow." Notice he didn't say we're trying to clarify the existing procedure -- he said they're trying to come up with one............
.

Originally Posted by 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.






.

Originally Posted by seefive

Your act is old. The MEC shouldn't assess money from us to pay anyone. Volunteering money is another story.
But your efforts to constantly criticize are really childish. Give it a rest.

Originally Posted by TonyC

But let's put a bookmark here and take a look at the point I tried to make originally.

That's the way that I see it, and that's the way the large group of Hong Kong pilots who attended their Local Council meeting saw it when they voted unanimously to recommend the MEC adopt an assessment. The MEC considered their resolution and adopted a different strategy. I disagree with the strategy, but I did not attempt to argue their decision in this thread. When they rejected the Council 14 resolution, they committed to engage in an enhanced communication campaign to keep the issue on the minds of all FedEx pilots.

They said they were going to do something -- communicate. Their Chairman, their spokesman, the voice of the MEC ... what has he said? What has he communicated?

I'm not here to argue that there should be an assessment. My point is that the promise to engage in an enhanced communication campaign regarding the pilots who were wrongfully terminated has not been kept. They are being ignored.

Originally Posted by Underdog

Some similarities in the way the MEC agreed to the "virtual" training letter, which delayed passover pay by more than two years for individuals who qualified for it under the prior existing "contract."

Originally Posted by Underdog

Another classic was the side letter of agreement allowing the company to forego a standing bid when the CDG bid was cancelled, placing those awarded CDG into their previously bid second and third choices. The MEC didn't pursue the existing/negotiated agreement back then either. Sounds like business as usual, eh?

Originally Posted by seefive

The language says "but not limited to" with regards to what constitutes a move. The problem is clearly the language.
I have my opinion about what constitutes the move the company wanted. It hasn't changed. But my opinion is irrelevant. The company's opinion is what matters and the contract clearly gives them a lot of wiggle room for the definition they want to use.

Originally Posted by seefive

There are many reasons not to try and work through this problem in an open forum. I have spoken to my rep and others about what's been going on. I encourage you to do the same as well as any other members.

Take a look in the mirror and ask why you stopped posting on the message boards when you were an elected representative. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Underdog

Some similarities in the way the MEC agreed to the "virtual" training letter, which delayed passover pay by more than two years for individuals who qualified for it under the prior existing "contract."Another classic was the side letter of agreement allowing the company to forego a standing bid when the CDG bid was cancelled, placing those awarded CDG into their previously bid second and third choices. The MEC didn't pursue the existing/negotiated agreement back then either. Sounds like business as usual, eh?