Why I am voting Yes
09-27-2015, 09:34 PM
#151
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Okay, but you didn't actually fully answer my questions. Did you only fly your line and not fly draft? Or did you ever trade up or fly a makeup trip? Be honest here. I actually don't remember being called for draft over that time, I didn't think it existed. Did you only fly 60 hours or whatever was given on your line, for the entire time?
Are all your questions meant to detract from the points of my post? I am serious. Not trying to be a wise a$$.
If you havent figured it out yet, during 4a2b I flew my line only, just like I have, basically, for over 15 years. And, during 4a2b peak, there were many in the crew room the week before Xmas, on one particular day, blabbering about how they got drafted for this and that trip. Heck, I was called while I was on the bus from the plane to AOC.
I just shook my head then, as I do now.
09-27-2015, 10:04 PM
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Are all your questions meant to detract from the points of my post? I am serious. Not trying to be a wise a$$.
If you havent figured it out yet, during 4a2b I flew my line only, just like I have, basically, for over 15 years. And, during 4a2b peak, there were many in the crew room the week before Xmas, on one particular day, blabbering about how they got drafted for this and that trip. Heck, I was called while I was on the bus from the plane to AOC.
I just shook my head then, as I do now.
If you havent figured it out yet, during 4a2b I flew my line only, just like I have, basically, for over 15 years. And, during 4a2b peak, there were many in the crew room the week before Xmas, on one particular day, blabbering about how they got drafted for this and that trip. Heck, I was called while I was on the bus from the plane to AOC.
I just shook my head then, as I do now.
People have different sorts of lives and priorities. In over 20 years, I doubt that I have ever actually flown my assigned line one time. However, I do not live in Memphis, I generally get junk, I never get draft calls, and if I had to commute in, 4-6 times per month, it would probably kill me. If I was unable to drop trips and hope to find things that were better, it would be very painful.
I am merely wondering if people who are making comments on those who were affected by 4a2b building their lines up a bit, were those who were flying full schedules anyways. Apparently you weren't.
09-30-2015, 03:34 AM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Reposted from FB JF
My “Business Decision “ I’m voting YES
AH wrote a very well thought out letter. I believe he nailed it. I suggest everyone read it.
I’ve been pretty silent since I left office in March.
Is this TA perfect? Nope…
Is it great? Other than section 28, I think it’s pretty good! I think the Negotiating Committee did heck of job! Considering the environment they negotiated in.
In almost any negotiation, there are two primary factors that determine the outcome.
Market Conditions: The economy, the ability for the company to pay and the market value of pilot labor.
Pressure: The need for one or both sides to get a deal done.
This is very important, and I’ll elaborate further after a little history.
In my opinion, but more importantly in the opinion of our National and FDX MEC R&I Chairman and all the big brains with the pocket protectors at ALPA National, the company was NEVER, EVER going to permanently enhance the Defined Benefit (A-plan). Period!
Why: Because regulations enacted in 2006 (Pension Protection Act of 2006) have resulted in burdensome liability and funding issues for corporations.
The resulting changes in accounting can make the liability on the books approach many times the value of the benefit. The volatility of the markets when applied to a pension the size of ours, currently $23.5B, further magnifies the funding issue. A 10% market decline in the assets of the pension creates $2.35B of unfunded liability or in other words almost an entire year of adjusted net income for the entirety of FedEx Corporation (not just Express).
So what happened? Our openers called for an increase to the DB cap. Gotta start somewhere. This is what the senior guys wanted. I can’t blame them for wanting it; it’s an increased benefit out the door and it’s equitable to everyone as long as it’s attainable, able to increase over time and it’s still around to collect by the time you retire.
The company pushed back; it was their "line in the sand."
The R&I committee, the NC, and a majority of MEC Reps wanted to look for alternative ways to equitably enhance the retirement benefit for everyone.
Furthermore, many of us did not want to spend multiple dollars of the pie for a $1 promise of future benefit that may go poof at the stroke of a bankruptcy judge’s pen. The same $1 that is subject to a survivor benefit reduction and/or completely disappears at death.
Politics and the Bull$hit: I always thought we (The MEC) would listen to the arguments, hash it out, agree to disagree, vote and move forward.
“Machiavellian” is the term that best describes what happen next. Information and or partial information from executive session was leaked to assassinate those who wanted to explore other options. All this was more than I could stomach, I had enough and chose not run for another term. My bad, I should’ve chose to stay and fight, but life is too short.
"The compromise", was to push the problem down the road and employ a 2006-like DB bump for those approaching retirement paired with a DC increase for everybody.
In the end, even the DB bump for those approaching retirement was a line in the sand for the Company. While the increase in DC will improve pilot retirement benefits over the lifetime of the TA and the subsequent negotiations, it is not a permanent fix as the resulting DB/DC plan design is inadequate to keep up with inflation over a longer time horizon.
Back to the business decision. If we “TOGA” how likely are we to succeed in improving the deal?
The deal will again come down to the two primary factors; Market Conditions and Pressure.
I believe the value of pilot labor will continue to rise as a result of “pattern bargaining” in the industry. Although this is not a given as it is directly tied to the economy. As is the companies ability to pay.
Pressure. Unity = Pressure. Pressure will be the problem.
I agree with those who believe that we failed to use many of the tools in the shed (picketing, strike vote, newspaper ads, etc.). This was clearly a failure on the part of the MEC and its leadership. Unfortunately you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The rejection of this TA will result in a very fractured group. A fractured group is not a unified group. Lack of unity = lack of pressure. There will be NO help from the NMB. There will be no love from the media, the public or the other employees.
Further, when has a deal that we turned down actually worked in our favor? Not since I’ve been here. Nobody can say for sure how long it will take to get another deal or what will be in that deal.
Retirement can and should be fixed outside of Section 6; Research, education and polling in the not to distant future. The company still has the same incentive to limit their DB liability and we can negotiate with the TA increases in our pockets.
There are improvements in almost every section of the contract. Industry leading pay rates with very few efficiencies (concessions) given to the company.
My Business Decision: The bird in hand is better than who knows what’s in the bush….
I’m voting YES!
BR
My “Business Decision “ I’m voting YES
AH wrote a very well thought out letter. I believe he nailed it. I suggest everyone read it.
I’ve been pretty silent since I left office in March.
Is this TA perfect? Nope…
Is it great? Other than section 28, I think it’s pretty good! I think the Negotiating Committee did heck of job! Considering the environment they negotiated in.
In almost any negotiation, there are two primary factors that determine the outcome.
Market Conditions: The economy, the ability for the company to pay and the market value of pilot labor.
Pressure: The need for one or both sides to get a deal done.
This is very important, and I’ll elaborate further after a little history.
In my opinion, but more importantly in the opinion of our National and FDX MEC R&I Chairman and all the big brains with the pocket protectors at ALPA National, the company was NEVER, EVER going to permanently enhance the Defined Benefit (A-plan). Period!
Why: Because regulations enacted in 2006 (Pension Protection Act of 2006) have resulted in burdensome liability and funding issues for corporations.
The resulting changes in accounting can make the liability on the books approach many times the value of the benefit. The volatility of the markets when applied to a pension the size of ours, currently $23.5B, further magnifies the funding issue. A 10% market decline in the assets of the pension creates $2.35B of unfunded liability or in other words almost an entire year of adjusted net income for the entirety of FedEx Corporation (not just Express).
So what happened? Our openers called for an increase to the DB cap. Gotta start somewhere. This is what the senior guys wanted. I can’t blame them for wanting it; it’s an increased benefit out the door and it’s equitable to everyone as long as it’s attainable, able to increase over time and it’s still around to collect by the time you retire.
The company pushed back; it was their "line in the sand."
The R&I committee, the NC, and a majority of MEC Reps wanted to look for alternative ways to equitably enhance the retirement benefit for everyone.
Furthermore, many of us did not want to spend multiple dollars of the pie for a $1 promise of future benefit that may go poof at the stroke of a bankruptcy judge’s pen. The same $1 that is subject to a survivor benefit reduction and/or completely disappears at death.
Politics and the Bull$hit: I always thought we (The MEC) would listen to the arguments, hash it out, agree to disagree, vote and move forward.
“Machiavellian” is the term that best describes what happen next. Information and or partial information from executive session was leaked to assassinate those who wanted to explore other options. All this was more than I could stomach, I had enough and chose not run for another term. My bad, I should’ve chose to stay and fight, but life is too short.
"The compromise", was to push the problem down the road and employ a 2006-like DB bump for those approaching retirement paired with a DC increase for everybody.
In the end, even the DB bump for those approaching retirement was a line in the sand for the Company. While the increase in DC will improve pilot retirement benefits over the lifetime of the TA and the subsequent negotiations, it is not a permanent fix as the resulting DB/DC plan design is inadequate to keep up with inflation over a longer time horizon.
Back to the business decision. If we “TOGA” how likely are we to succeed in improving the deal?
The deal will again come down to the two primary factors; Market Conditions and Pressure.
I believe the value of pilot labor will continue to rise as a result of “pattern bargaining” in the industry. Although this is not a given as it is directly tied to the economy. As is the companies ability to pay.
Pressure. Unity = Pressure. Pressure will be the problem.
I agree with those who believe that we failed to use many of the tools in the shed (picketing, strike vote, newspaper ads, etc.). This was clearly a failure on the part of the MEC and its leadership. Unfortunately you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.
The rejection of this TA will result in a very fractured group. A fractured group is not a unified group. Lack of unity = lack of pressure. There will be NO help from the NMB. There will be no love from the media, the public or the other employees.
Further, when has a deal that we turned down actually worked in our favor? Not since I’ve been here. Nobody can say for sure how long it will take to get another deal or what will be in that deal.
Retirement can and should be fixed outside of Section 6; Research, education and polling in the not to distant future. The company still has the same incentive to limit their DB liability and we can negotiate with the TA increases in our pockets.
There are improvements in almost every section of the contract. Industry leading pay rates with very few efficiencies (concessions) given to the company.
My Business Decision: The bird in hand is better than who knows what’s in the bush….
I’m voting YES!
BR
09-30-2015, 04:17 AM
#154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 296
If the A plan can't be fixed, then it can't be fixed, at least in the way of raising the cap. If so, there are other monetary options to compensate a pilot to enhance his retirement. It may have to be strictly a cash payout of a sum when he retires that would offset the lack of an A plan increase. Perhaps issuance of stock to the pilot as he retires based on yrs of service with a minimum sell price would be an option.
But, I have yet to see a Yes voter come up with any reason other than fear, fear of the unknown, to vote for this contract. I've been here 20yrs and if I vote yes, I gain a lot in pay, I lose a lot, to me by voting yes, in the screwin over my bud departments. I've set myself up to go at 60. So this contract could be a easy yes vote for me. I could reap the benefits of the higher pay rates. The work rules won't affect me much and I'll pocket more cash. Sadly, cash I'll need for retirement and not cash that I will get to spend. And the extra cash is just a COLA for what we haven't got since the last contract.
If guys can live with this contract and think its great, so be it. But were are we going to be the next round of negotiations? When the pilots see that mediocrity is the norm, then why should any pilot care about whether he works to help the company or works less to help the Union?
No one wants to burn down the house. No one wants to reorganize the Union leadership. If guys in leadership spots need to steep down, so be it. Maybe, with a firm NO vote, our leadership will approach the Union with a more clarified idea of what we want.
But, I have yet to see a Yes voter come up with any reason other than fear, fear of the unknown, to vote for this contract. I've been here 20yrs and if I vote yes, I gain a lot in pay, I lose a lot, to me by voting yes, in the screwin over my bud departments. I've set myself up to go at 60. So this contract could be a easy yes vote for me. I could reap the benefits of the higher pay rates. The work rules won't affect me much and I'll pocket more cash. Sadly, cash I'll need for retirement and not cash that I will get to spend. And the extra cash is just a COLA for what we haven't got since the last contract.
If guys can live with this contract and think its great, so be it. But were are we going to be the next round of negotiations? When the pilots see that mediocrity is the norm, then why should any pilot care about whether he works to help the company or works less to help the Union?
No one wants to burn down the house. No one wants to reorganize the Union leadership. If guys in leadership spots need to steep down, so be it. Maybe, with a firm NO vote, our leadership will approach the Union with a more clarified idea of what we want.
09-30-2015, 04:39 AM
#155
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
To AH and BR ...
Apparently, when the company draws a line in the sand as you mentioned on 2 separate occasions ... Our MEC/NC response is:
Well if that's the line, then we won't cross it. Sorry to offend.
One word: BS
I actually feel sorry for the apologists and fearful among us/you. It's a freakin' TA, it's not the end of the world or your paycheck.
Sometimes in life, you have to stand on principle ahead of personal (independent contractor, the FYIGM crew) gain. Sound familiar? We teach our CHILDREN this concept. Our MILITARY defends our nation based on this premise. LEADERS are defined on this idea. The most respected BUSINESSES share success with the employees who do the real work. FDX is not in that category any longer.
Vote yes - section 6 is over and you can forget any further adjustments or improvements. Of course, if it benefits the company then an LOA will be introduced and will pass 68/32.
Vote NO - section 6 continues. Adjustments and improvements are negotiated. Why? The company cannot afford damage to their brand name with labor discontent. Shareholders, customers, and Wall Street are like nervous chihuahuas ... regardless of company spin this affects accounts and revenues. It's just part of the process.
The company plays the game according to the playbook. The game is in their favor. The problem is they screwed up. Mismanagement on many levels have them quite vulnerable. Nothing outside of RLA guidelines (legal) has to happen.
FLY THE CONTRACT.
SIMPLE.
The ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP in our union is borderline pathetic and irresponsible (except for those showing the fortitude to say NO - not good enough).
If the union handled this differently and took the tack of the recent SWA leadership message, we wouldn't have this divide. Our union would say it just simply doesn't meet the pillars of our cornerstone objectives (true for all big ticket items). We'll present it to the membership but we doubt it will pass. That's a message. That message tells us what we need to know. That message UNIFIES.
That is leading based on objectives defined by US - the crew force membership that pays the damn bills! The 95 CH per month for the top 3 and trip removal for others.
Our MEC chairman (our defacto leader?) decided to remain neutral. Pacifists have a recognized history through the ages. They generally get steamrolled or slaughtered.
The industry leading argument is a joke btw. Better than AA - you're kidding right?
Apparently, when the company draws a line in the sand as you mentioned on 2 separate occasions ... Our MEC/NC response is:
Well if that's the line, then we won't cross it. Sorry to offend.
One word: BS
I actually feel sorry for the apologists and fearful among us/you. It's a freakin' TA, it's not the end of the world or your paycheck.
Sometimes in life, you have to stand on principle ahead of personal (independent contractor, the FYIGM crew) gain. Sound familiar? We teach our CHILDREN this concept. Our MILITARY defends our nation based on this premise. LEADERS are defined on this idea. The most respected BUSINESSES share success with the employees who do the real work. FDX is not in that category any longer.
Vote yes - section 6 is over and you can forget any further adjustments or improvements. Of course, if it benefits the company then an LOA will be introduced and will pass 68/32.
Vote NO - section 6 continues. Adjustments and improvements are negotiated. Why? The company cannot afford damage to their brand name with labor discontent. Shareholders, customers, and Wall Street are like nervous chihuahuas ... regardless of company spin this affects accounts and revenues. It's just part of the process.
The company plays the game according to the playbook. The game is in their favor. The problem is they screwed up. Mismanagement on many levels have them quite vulnerable. Nothing outside of RLA guidelines (legal) has to happen.
FLY THE CONTRACT.
SIMPLE.
The ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP in our union is borderline pathetic and irresponsible (except for those showing the fortitude to say NO - not good enough).
If the union handled this differently and took the tack of the recent SWA leadership message, we wouldn't have this divide. Our union would say it just simply doesn't meet the pillars of our cornerstone objectives (true for all big ticket items). We'll present it to the membership but we doubt it will pass. That's a message. That message tells us what we need to know. That message UNIFIES.
That is leading based on objectives defined by US - the crew force membership that pays the damn bills! The 95 CH per month for the top 3 and trip removal for others.
Our MEC chairman (our defacto leader?) decided to remain neutral. Pacifists have a recognized history through the ages. They generally get steamrolled or slaughtered.
The industry leading argument is a joke btw. Better than AA - you're kidding right?
09-30-2015, 05:23 AM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
[QUOTE=GetRealDude;1982411]To AH and BR ...
Apparently, when the company draws a line in the sand as you mentioned on 2 separate occasions ... Our MEC/NC response is:
Well if that's the line, then we won't cross it. Sorry to offend.
One word: BS
I actually feel sorry for the apologists and fearful among us/you. It's a freakin' TA, it's not the end of the world or your paycheck.
Sometimes in life, you have to stand on principle ahead of personal (independent contractor, the FYIGM crew) gain. Sound familiar? We teach our CHILDREN this concept. Our MILITARY defends our nation based on this premise. LEADERS are defined on this idea. The most respected BUSINESSES share success with the employees who do the real work. FDX is not in that category any longer.
Vote yes - section 6 is over and you can forget any further adjustments or improvements. Of course, if it benefits the company then an LOA will be introduced and will pass 68/32.
Vote NO - section 6 continues. Adjustments and improvements are negotiated. Why? The company cannot afford damage to their brand name with labor discontent. Shareholders, customers, and Wall Street are like nervous chihuahuas ... regardless of company spin this affects accounts and revenues. It's just part of the process.
The company plays the game according to the playbook. The game is in their favor. The problem is they screwed up. Mismanagement on many levels have them quite vulnerable. Nothing outside of RLA guidelines (legal) has to happen.
FLY THE CONTRACT.
SIMPLE.
The ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP in our union is borderline pathetic and irresponsible (except for those showing the fortitude to say NO - not good enough).
If the union handled this differently and took the tack of the recent SWA leadership message, we wouldn't have this divide. Our union would say it just simply doesn't meet the pillars of our cornerstone objectives (true for all big ticket items). We'll present it to the membership but we doubt it will pass. That's a message. That message tells us what we need to know. That message UNIFIES.
That is leading based on objectives defined by US - the crew force membership that pays the damn bills! The 95 CH per month for the top 3 and trip removal for others.
Our MEC chairman (our defacto leader?) decided to remain neutral. Pacifists have a recognized history through the ages. They generally get steamrolled or slaughtered.
The industry leading argument is a joke btw. Better than AA - you're kidding right? If that needs an explanation, then you are truly LOST.
Apparently, when the company draws a line in the sand as you mentioned on 2 separate occasions ... Our MEC/NC response is:
Well if that's the line, then we won't cross it. Sorry to offend.
One word: BS
I actually feel sorry for the apologists and fearful among us/you. It's a freakin' TA, it's not the end of the world or your paycheck.
Sometimes in life, you have to stand on principle ahead of personal (independent contractor, the FYIGM crew) gain. Sound familiar? We teach our CHILDREN this concept. Our MILITARY defends our nation based on this premise. LEADERS are defined on this idea. The most respected BUSINESSES share success with the employees who do the real work. FDX is not in that category any longer.
Vote yes - section 6 is over and you can forget any further adjustments or improvements. Of course, if it benefits the company then an LOA will be introduced and will pass 68/32.
Vote NO - section 6 continues. Adjustments and improvements are negotiated. Why? The company cannot afford damage to their brand name with labor discontent. Shareholders, customers, and Wall Street are like nervous chihuahuas ... regardless of company spin this affects accounts and revenues. It's just part of the process.
The company plays the game according to the playbook. The game is in their favor. The problem is they screwed up. Mismanagement on many levels have them quite vulnerable. Nothing outside of RLA guidelines (legal) has to happen.
FLY THE CONTRACT.
SIMPLE.
The ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP in our union is borderline pathetic and irresponsible (except for those showing the fortitude to say NO - not good enough).
If the union handled this differently and took the tack of the recent SWA leadership message, we wouldn't have this divide. Our union would say it just simply doesn't meet the pillars of our cornerstone objectives (true for all big ticket items). We'll present it to the membership but we doubt it will pass. That's a message. That message tells us what we need to know. That message UNIFIES.
That is leading based on objectives defined by US - the crew force membership that pays the damn bills! The 95 CH per month for the top 3 and trip removal for others.
Our MEC chairman (our defacto leader?) decided to remain neutral. Pacifists have a recognized history through the ages. They generally get steamrolled or slaughtered.
The industry leading argument is a joke btw. Better than AA - you're kidding right? If that needs an explanation, then you are truly LOST.
10-01-2015, 09:34 AM
#157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,091
GRD, you keep nailin' it!
The one thing I disagree with is your take on our MEC Chairman. Maybe because I consider him a friend, and I know he's an honest, moral guy, I have a hard time separating him from his position.
The one thing I disagree with is your take on our MEC Chairman. Maybe because I consider him a friend, and I know he's an honest, moral guy, I have a hard time separating him from his position.
10-01-2015, 11:51 AM
#160
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Some MEC Chairmen (and other MEC Officers) seem to think they are above the MEC, and the MEC is a hindrance to the furtherance of their own agendas, a body to be manipulated for their own purposes. Sadly, many MEC members have allowed themselves to be enablers of this mentality. Chuck and I agree on many things, and disagree on a few, but I give him credit for recognizing and honoring the limits of his elected position. He is charged to be the spokesman for the MEC, and they have chosen to forward this TA for membership ratification (not endorse, mind you, just punt to us for a vote). I admire Chuck for his integrity, for walking within the bounds that are laid before him. I respect him for fulfilling his elected role, even if it's not the position he might personally take.
I may have misinterpreted what I read between the lines and given him too much credit, and I may never know the truth on this point. What I DO know is that I would be wrong to condemn him for supporting the majority position of the MEC. At the very core, that is his job.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
