Micro

Vic asked (I have his permission) if I would post his letter explaining his views and what he'd like to do if elected to LEC 22 Block 3 rep. Vic is a straight shooter who needs our support. WE ALL need Voc as a member of the MEC. Search Vic out and talk to him if you don't know him. I'm sure you'll agree.

Here's his letter:

Fellow Local Council 22 Members,


I am running for Block 2, Local Council 22 Representative, and am seeking
your support and nomination. As this year comes to an end, our Union is in a state of change. We have a new Interim Negotiation Committee Chairman and a number of seats on the MEC up for election.

We also have a crew force divided on many of the issuers that have recently come up. Over a third of the crew force is unsatisfied with the LOA on Foreign Domiciles. The majority of FedEx pilots oppose the new Age 60 rule. Iım hearing more and more junior pilots saying they feel they are being sold out to further the interests of more senior crewmembers. Every one is upset about the deteriorating quality of the bid packs. We must together examine how this divide came about, what mistakes were made, and how we as a group can correct them.

I submit the majority of these problems arose due to poor communication
between the MEC and the crew force. The LOA and Age 60 change were sprung on the crew force with only weeks to make a decision, with that short time span many of our crewmembers were unable to read, digest and evaluate how these changes would affect them.

I believe the LOA was ³sold² to the crew force via a massive email campaign by both management and the MEC to get it voted in. We were told that it was the only choice that we had and that the company would not have time to renegotiate another LOA if this failed ratification due to the urgent need to open the massive bid which included foreign domiciles. Here we are two months later and still no bid..

I also feel the Wilson survey on the age 60 change was flawed. While a
majority of our pilots said they oppose the change, the follow up question
as to if the change was inevitable would you support changing positions to
affect the wording of the new regulation was invalid. What reasonable man
would not vote to affect the wording of a change in their favor if it was
inevitable? The question is, when is inevitable? I believe we moved too
soon based on a flawed survey and a false perception of urgency.

The optimizer is here to stay, for a number of reasons. First the company
wants an increase in productivity to offset the change in trip rig that is
about to be phased in. Also the company has aggressively cranked up the
optimizer in part due to a letter signed between the Negotiating Committee and the company in August of 2006 acknowledging the companyıs right to do reduce city purity and deadhead commonality. (Incidentally, I donıt recall ever being told of this letter until after the contract was voted on).

All of these things come back to communications. We are a crew force of
commuters. Most of us rarely or never attend Union meetings; hub turn
meetings are hit and miss depending on your schedule. I am looking into the feasibility and legality of opening a chat room where twice a month if
elected I can be there to answer your questions from where ever you are in person. I think timely and accurate information is the solution to many of our problems.

I applaud the current MEC for the unity they brought to the crew force
through affiliation with ALPA and the way they concluded negotiations with
the company in an office and not a parking lot in the middle of the night.
But we have a long way to go. We are a group new to the union concept. It
took us 20 years to get a union on the property and we were dysfunctional
for 10 years after that. Now we have the elements in place to build upon. I
want to build unity through a revamped communication effort and constant
interaction with the crew force.

Fraternally,

Victor Liberti

Captain MD-11