Originally Posted by
FDXAV8R
I appreciate the fact that he bothered to read it and I agree with almost everything he says. I also think the fact we open up dead heading on trains as an accepted practice and get nothing for it sucks. I know it is only limited to certain routes. I'm sure the company won't try to expand this. The company will use this practice to decrease our dead head banks and schedule less time between deadhead and operating trips. You know what less time between the deadhead and revenue operations means? It means we get to work another day for free.
The other think Capt Big Stones didn't mention is that we are allowing the company set a new precedent. Everytime there is some complex issue they don't have to negotiate. This time it is NPRM, next time it is the turmoil in Japan, or the price of oil, or some complex trade bill. We need to try and keep some consistency in what we do so that there is less turmoil and more predictability for our crewmembers. This TA has just put more divisions through a crew force who voted 98% for our last contract and has since been fractured by our union doing the HKG LOA, handling the age 65 thing poorly, and this surprise, "out of the blue" TA.
I think this is a very valid concern, however in this case, I have heard SS speak to it. He said that alpa does not and did not agree that the nprm should stop bargaining, but when faced with reality that it takes 2 to tango, they felt 2 things could occur. First, FDX will baragin, on the surface which gets us now where fast and secondly after talking to many experts and actually posing the question to the NMB as to "what is the view of the nprm being a legitimate roadblock" the answer was that FDX would very likely receive a favorable look from the NMB. What he further said was that the NMB also said that this short term cba, which gives both sides time to digest and react to known rules, is a great idea. In fact i have heard that the new block rep (7 i think) was actually approached by a sitting member of the NMB while in DC, so that he could tell him that the idea in play at FDX was great and that we would be "stupid" to pass on this deal.
The NPRM is different than other "external" factors, since the FAR's intertwine so much in a CBA. Other factors always contribute to the other sides lack of desire to actually pony up money or other protections. In this case i think we are better off, dealing with the problem up front. The NMB will give us a better look downline if we do. Also, if we think the NMB will bring us a better CBA, better think again. Much of the time in CBA's, going to the NMB is a penalty to both sides!
If you do not think this way, I think that this is a legitimate strategy based reason to vote no. I personally believe that we will end up holding above our destination either way and the extension cba is a tanker so we don't run out of gas, the EFC will be the same either way. That is what I have gleaned from the presentations.