Rouge MEC Block Reps or no negotiation plan?
09-17-2024, 03:56 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,113
🗑️🔥😀
Rouge MEC Block reps or no negotiating plan?
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
1. I don't think it's correct to characterize the months long wait between negotiating dates as the Nmb putting us on ice. If you want to say we put ourselves on ice, I probably wouldn't disagree too harshly.
2. I also think you are misunderstanding the block 11 comm. To me, it's him saying that despite no mention of instructor pay, he is advocating for it. That doesn't mean his advocacy has persuaded any of the other 13 reps. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.
3. As for your question on what other things in scope will we be negotiating other than job protections? Other than 1A Recognition, all other subsections are about job protections. Even recognition can be defined as job protection.
Last edited by FXLAX; 09-17-2024 at 04:02 PM. Reason: Grammar
09-17-2024, 07:11 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 277
Rouge MEC Block reps or no negotiating plan?
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
Have you actively campaign to get other members to run that may more align with what you are pushing for here? It is the period for members to raise their hand to undergo the process to be our reps. Please note I am not telling you to run, I am saying you can use this energy to get candidates to run who may be more friendly and supportive of your views.
Yesterday, 03:11 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 79
Rouge MEC Block reps or no negotiating plan?
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
MEC Resolution AUG 09, 2024
“RESOLUTION 24-37 WHEREAS the FedEx MEC unanimously selected Cpt. John Gustafson as Negotiating Committee Chair; and
WHEREAS the FedEx MEC has provided direction to the Negotiating Committee;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the FedEx MEC places their complete confidence in the FedEx Negotiating Committee to achieve a Collective Bargaining Agreement that will unify the membership by garnering their overwhelming support; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Negotiating Committee shall have the authority to conclude an agreement with FedEx, subject to the provisions of Article XVIII of the Constitution and By-Laws. MOVED: SBSR 4 Chris Comer SECOND: SBSR6 Bryan Watson
VOTE: PASSED BY ACCLAMATION”
It was interesting to read the MEC resolution (above) that passed by acclimation (no objections) on August 9. It appeared it was written to prove the new MEC has gained control and is allowing the new NC to do its job. This would be convenient for their scheduled “Status Conference” that occurred on August 21. Importantly, it clearly states that the MEC has “provided direction to the [NC]”.
This direction would be expected as there was a break in negotiations due to the MEC’s decision to prematurely request a Proffer of Arbitration (release from mediation). The National Mediation Board rapidly denied that ineffective decision. Following that decision, the NMB placed our side in a 6-month timeout to ponder their failed strategy. Now we get to re-engage on September 24th.
Considering MEC Resolution 24-37, there has been new direction provided to the NC in order to proceed in negotiations. That's great...however:
What communications have been clear and transparent to let us know what the negotiating goals are? Let's look at the Sep 5 NC update below.
SEP 5, 2024 Negotiating Committee Update:“We are committed to aggressively advocating on your behalf. There have been some questions about our "openers" and the subjects we are bargaining over. This upcoming bargaining continues the formal RLA Section Six bargaining that began in May '21. Therefore, there are no new "openers," …What does this mean? As communicated to the NMB, we are not advocating for a 31-section rewrite. Our present position and circumstances do not allow for that. More importantly, your patience won't allow that; we are not confused by those sentiments. The focused priorities aligned with the openers proffered in May '21 remain, as do newly arisen issues.”
“To say that we will become "industry-leading" in all categories would require a lot of "cherry-picking" of the industry CBAs. That's not how we operate.”
LEC 26 (Blocks 3,6,11) published this: “For the sake of transparency, we want to reiterate that our goals have not changed, except for an increased emphasis on job protections in response to recent company actions. We remain laser-focused on our four cornerstones: Scope, Retirement, Pay, and Quality of Life.”
Based on Negotiating and LEC communications, there are no new “openers” but Scope has become a priority. That is understandable, but what are the new “openers” regarding Scope? So, we know that the NC is opening a Section not previously opened by ALPA in 2021, but are there other Sections to be opened? Is job protection our only new goal in Section 1? Apparently, that is not the case.
Despite what we have been told, it appears there are new MEC priorities if you review the Block 11 update below.
SEP 10, 2024 BLOCK 11 Update:“Our instructor pay compared to the other carriers is now well below “industry standard.” I will post the instructor comparison soon. My viewpoint is that our instructor pay clearly falls under one of our four cornerstones, the cornerstone of Pay... As your direct representative, I am advocating for an improvement in our instructor compensation.”
Section 11 covers training and check pilots. Section 11 was not opened in 2021. The Block 11 rep's faulty assertion that Instructor and Check Airman bid period override is “pay” confuses and obfuscates the real issue - as pay rates (Section 3) improve, this increases everyone's pay not just a select few. What about Section 9 pilots (FPS and TAA), should we also target their bid period override and further water-down any pay rate improvements we are able to achieve so a few can benefit more?
If this is not a new direction provided by the MEC, then advocating for new items this close to the first negotiating session is problematic. What is clear is this - there has been no direction or goals laid out to reset negotiations, it also proves the MEC has not set any goals and doesn't have a negotiating plan.
That said, if there wasn’t agreement on opening Section 11, how does this communication make it through the internal communication review process at the MEC? This process involves a legal review, a review by subject matter experts (NC), and final approval by the MEC Chair. After all, the Block 11 rep signed the above LEC 26 comm in which they emphatically stated, “we want to reiterate our goals have not changed”. Either they don’t understand that opening a new section is creating a new goal, or they are operating without any plan.
Bottom line: It appears the ‘new and improved’ MEC is rudderless and aimlessly communicating new negotiating items without any internal agreement as to what those items are. Even more problematic, the MEC has misled every FDX pilot in their Resolution 24-37 when they clearly state they have provided direction to the NC.
Ask your elected representative if they have provided direction to the NC and specifically what items will be newly negotiated. I have and the answer is "not really". I can be “All In” when I know exactly what I’m supposed to be all in for. My dues dollars require the MEC to do their job and I don’t provide blind trust. This is a zero-accountability strategy that is destined to fail. Demand accountability.
Failure to plan is a plan to fail.
Yesterday, 02:27 PM
#15
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: RJ Capt
Posts: 63
Let's say it again for the guys and loud mouth girls (you know who you are) in the back so they can hear it. When you try and rob the bank on the way out the door you find out the hard way the power of democracy. All your SM banter and open trashing of the MEC helps nobody - not even yourselves.
What would it look like for the SM stooges to say - "You know what guys, our banter isn't getting us anywhere. Maybe we need to add value to this new group or we will DEFINITELY be leaving without a pension bump until they sort out what we just tried to pull over on them."
What a concept.
FAFO you SM management plant one way's.
PS - Happy to take on you and your SM friends at the next council meeting again. It's kinda fun KILLING YOU on recall votes every other week. We are totally fine with who's steering the ship.
What would it look like for the SM stooges to say - "You know what guys, our banter isn't getting us anywhere. Maybe we need to add value to this new group or we will DEFINITELY be leaving without a pension bump until they sort out what we just tried to pull over on them."
What a concept.
FAFO you SM management plant one way's.
PS - Happy to take on you and your SM friends at the next council meeting again. It's kinda fun KILLING YOU on recall votes every other week. We are totally fine with who's steering the ship.
Yesterday, 04:20 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,118
It is refreshing to have a fat list of reps I can send an email to and not get a company apologist response or completely blown off/ignored. It sure wasn’t like that here a year ago, or any other previous year in my tenure here.
Yesterday, 04:21 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,237
FAFO you SM management plant one way's.
We built the biggest cargo airline in the world by doing things differently than in the RJ world.
I was at ASA when the only hard requirement to get in the training department was to be a non-member. We called them the Hitler Youth.
Hopefully some of the old guard in both management and ALPA can put this dumpster fire out. My personal Tony Ticker is over 100k.
Well, off to get my COVID booster shot and put my new Blue Dot sticker on my car. Eat your livers, boys......
Yesterday, 04:29 PM
#18
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: RJ Capt
Posts: 63
Your position is "RJ Capt" on your post and that sure fits.
We built the biggest cargo airline in the world by doing things differently than in the RJ world.
I was at ASA when the only hard requirement to get in the training department was to be a non-member. We called them the Hitler Youth.
Hopefully some of the old guard in both management and ALPA can put this dumpster fire out. My personal Tony Ticker is over 100k.
Well, off to get my COVID booster shot and put my new Blue Dot sticker on my car. Eat your livers, boys......
We built the biggest cargo airline in the world by doing things differently than in the RJ world.
I was at ASA when the only hard requirement to get in the training department was to be a non-member. We called them the Hitler Youth.
Hopefully some of the old guard in both management and ALPA can put this dumpster fire out. My personal Tony Ticker is over 100k.
Well, off to get my COVID booster shot and put my new Blue Dot sticker on my car. Eat your livers, boys......
Can you give us a good reason on why they divested all new hires of the pension, neutered the trip trading language, added company friendly currency requirements, didn't buy us out of our pensions if we weren't fully vested, and insulted us on the pay rates and BACK PAY? All after making $4B in a year?
Wouldn't matter to you - you're one foot out the door ya?
Hope you never see that back pay. Karma sucks.
Yesterday, 04:40 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,118
Let’s make something crystal clear:
You didn’t build anything.
Fred did.
Now that Wall Street is running the show, it’s being dismantled because guys like you prostituted yourselves to the company instead of fighting for a CBA and scope.
Showing up for work isn’t “building something.” Neither is voting yes on ****ty contracts because you don’t have the fortitude to fight.
Weak men like you create hard times. Thankfully, you’re the minority now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
