captexpress

Ok, so we don’t get all wrapped around the axle on semantics, I feel I should re-state the title of my last post to something like….

FDX Negotiating Chairman (not technically fired) but is asked to resign by MEC Chairman

There, that’s better.

What isn’t better though, is the main focus of the post and that is that the MEC Chairman should have brought his case forward to the MEC prior to taking any action, so as to allow the MEC, (the elected decision making body), the opportunity to discuss and deliberate the veracity of the MEC Chairman’s concerns. By acting first, the MEC Chairman dramatically altered the dynamics of the debate and caused unnecessary turmoil and suspicion. Ask your rep what the meeting was like when that bomb was dropped. Plainly put, they were placed between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

More importantly, there are still MEC members today who are not certain as to why the MEC Chairman felt it necessary to ask for FE’s resignation in the first place. They really still haven’t been given the facts…..even concerning something of such importance as the status of a Negotiating Chairman. IMHO, that is bad. I voted for my Rep to have unfettered, unfiltered, timely information from which to make prudent decisions. Some MEC members have expressed disappointment that FE would not present himself and mount a defense, but really, does this really make sense? I mean, what do you say? Fred, come and defend yourself against things we haven’t been told and still don’t know? Come and tell us your crimes, because we aren’t sure of what you did, just keep talking and we will tell you when we think you did something wrong? Honestly, I can’t say I blame him from avoiding that mushroom cloud. More like a Kangaroo Court in my view no matter how unintentional.

Bottom line is this: If the Chairman would have done this the right way, in closed session, the MEC could have done its job effectively, the MEC Chairman could have done his job effectively and Fred’s privacy could have been maintained. What is so hard about that? Doing it any other way, causes unnecessary disruption and speculation about motives.

One can speculate as to the reasoning why Dave chose to go the route he did? I would like to think it was to spare FE as little embarrassment as possible (but that would be assuming he was guilty of something before providing proof, so how can anyone know? Trust?), one could also speculate that since he publicly pushed FE for the position so aggressively, perhaps he was also saving himself some embarrassment. We may never know, because this egg cannot be unscrambled…..and all because we didn’t do it the right way.

I closing, I want to make something very clear, I respect and support my MEC and particularly my Rep, who I know sought desperately to deal with this mess in as best a way possible. While he and I may disagree on the methodology employed by the MEC, I certainly do not envy the difficult position with which he was forced to make that decision. I support my MEC in their expectation of being provided “all” the information from which to make a decision, but I also expect that they will do whatever is necessary to see that our process is respected and that this type of thing never happens again, even if means reminding the Chairman as to how they expect business to be conducted.