Originally Posted by
Albief15
But somehow we have forgotten that a union is OUR union.... You know, when the flex guys took a hit on the last contract, I was one of the guys who said "quit your *****in', you still got it good..." That was wrong. Because the same angle I am seeing now is "its just the Subic guys..." or "just the junior guys..." affected. If we want to to move forward, it takes everyone benefiting...not just the very senior. We all hope to be senior one day and reap the rewards of a solid career, but I think some of our own have forgotten what its like along the way.
He's right. I've always said that too many people seem to forget that this Union is a crazy-quilt pieced out of many minority interests. Senior guys facing retirement; new-hires on probation; people in between; people with kids at home; people with grown kids; people with no kids; singles; marrieds; foreign-based; domestic-based; MEM; non-MEM; commuters; domicile live-ins; LCAs; line dogs; etc. Not one of those single-demographic groups is in the majority, and if we consistently disregard the interests of any group just because they're "only" a minority, then before too long, enough people will be disaffected and alienated from the Union that they DO constitute a majority. How effective do you think our union will be then? Not very. The perception (reality?) is already there that the only people this Union thinks about are the senior guys, based in MEM, who don't commute.
How many times have the Subic folks been told "There are only 75 of you out there, and we can't expend Union resources on issues that only pertain to you"? Plenty -- on three occasions that I can think of. There was a married childless pilot out here some years ago who was actually glad the company didn't pay the cost of Subic schooling for pilots' kids because he "didn't want it to affect [his] profit-sharing" (I kid you not, I had this conversation with him myself). We have to put ourselves in the other guys' shoes, and not just think of ourselves on things like an LOA vote. We also have to take care of the folks who are only on their way to being senior. Don't have kids, so you don't care if schooling is paid for? You should still vote NO for the young family who DOES have kids, even though it doesn't affect you (except for the 47-cent hit your profit-sharing would take, of course). You pay full taxes in the U.S. and aren't willing to live overseas because of the inconvenience, distance from family, medical-care issues, housing issues, schooling issues, disease, corruption, pollution, etc.? You should still vote NO on any LOA that forces crewmembers to give their granted-by-Uncle Sam tax savings back to FedEx, because those folks ARE struggling with those issues, and Uncle Sam's tax code says they get that tax benefit for doing exactly that in furtherance of the business interests of a U.S. company.
I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice which is nearly a non-quantifiable amount in my profit sharing so that overseas pilots get their kids' schooling covered in the city with the highest rents on Earth. I'm willing to wait on a mega-bid/upgrade to make sure first that people going to a place I'm not willing to go to will be treated fairly when they get there. I'm willing to delay some of my issues to promptly address some pressing health-care items for retirees. We HAVE to look out for each other. Who was it who said "We must hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately"? The same holds true here.