steamgauge

I believe the representatives on our MEC should work for the betterment of the FedEx pilots above all other issues. I believe the MEC should listen to all points of view and give respectful voice to those with a different opinion than the majority. I believe the MEC should be made up of rank and file pilots who volunteer for one or two terms and then return to the line to join the represented. I believe the grievance department ought to be rabid in their efforts to defend our contractual rights. I believe our most junior pilot’s career should be protected with the same zeal as the most senior pilot’s. I believe retirement protections are as important as any other time period of our career. I believe our MEC should never forget they work for us, not ALPA.

I believe our MEC’s actions indicate they do not share any of these opinions.

The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).

The MEC block reps elect the MEC officers and back door deals to secure their votes are standard. Typically, this comes in the guise of trip pay loss and support for positions at ALPA national. I don’t believe I’m the only one who found it curious that the issues of TPL brought up by Captains Hauserman and Baker led to an attack on them. “If you can’t dispute the accusation then discredit the accuser” is a well-established tenet of the current MEC. I guess the MEC can’t have the membership look too deeply in this area.

Why can’t our MEC chairs be satisfied with that position rather than seek an ALPA national office? Both our current and past chairs have sought jobs in DC. The poison of these individual agendas and their willingness to curry favor with DC does far more harm to our pilot unity and support of the union than any concerns voiced by members about the direction of MEC actions.

Our MEC members need to listen to those who have concerns and answer them, not just silence them. The lack of transparency of our MEC and how our dues money is spent is scary. I overheard a past MEC member telling a pilot (about the scope money owed the pilots transferred to the VEBA account) say “We can do whatever the F&** we want with that money!”

Is it any wonder the silencing of MEC members who speak out is worrisome? Maybe we need term limits on union officers to prevent a sense of entitlement among those who represent us. At the very least, the rank and file should elect our MEC chair/vice/treasurer. If you want wide body pay, get out there and earn it on the line first. It’s just wrong to have junior pilots in union positions earning salaries their seniority and current bid award don’t support!

Finally, what good is support for section 6 negotiations, if the contract once signed is not enforced? Has anyone not heard a story about being brushed-off by the union contract enforcement group when reporting company violations of our CURRENT negotiated rights? My MEC rep excuses their lack of response or concern with, ”well, they work for ALPA not us."

My MEC needs to remember we are their number one priority--with ALPA, SS’s quest for ALPA president, the AFL/CIO’s choice for president and other issues on the distant second and “if time permits” list! BTW, those that suggest union members with different views hurt unity are wrong; our history clearly demonstrates this. In 1998, we were divided by seniority, merger, and belief in unionism but the membership voted to strike at 90%. That is where unity brings bargaining pressure.

IMO,
Steamgauge