What now for FDX ALPA?
05-11-2007, 03:19 PM
#1
Trust but Verify!!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
What now for FDX ALPA?
From another thread..
"Have a recorded vote on the issue and let our MEC Chair take that info the the big meeting at the end of the month.
Why are they afraid of having a recorded vote?"
The latest message line is out. Every LEC rep and MEC member signed it. There is your vote. They all back this policy. What can we do now? If you want a recall you will need to recall every one of those on that list and have a replacement ready. They know how difficult this is which is why I think they seem so quick to ignore how a vast majority feel on this issue. If you think you have the support in your block then start a recall. If not, start looking for candidates to run against them in the next election. Hopefully they will not be candidates that ignore their constituents majority held views.
I had a lengthy conversation with a senior LEC rep. I appreciated the time he took to speak with me and in the end we agreed to disagree about the major issue of retroactivity. I was shocked by much that he had to say and how he justified what was going on. Rather than post anything here, I encourage every one of you to call your reps and make them answer your questions so who can see what is important to them or not. Holding them responsible beyond posting on message boards is important. Tell every one you know to call them as well so they can hear it for themselves. To say they think very little of the junior pilots position here is an understatement. I do not think they have heard from enough people personally here. If we roll over again, as we have too many times in the past, we will see a lot more of this behavior from them down the line.
Reality check time. There is very little time to change the course of this MEC's actions by means of a vote. Don't think the timing of this policy announcement was per chance. It was close enough to the meetings later this month that there was very little we could do as a membership to have our say and Dave Webb knew it. It is my understanding he formed his policy on the retro issue long ago and shared it with some of those that would be effected. I am afraid all we can do now is realize this MEC acts on what they think is right in their boardrooms, away from the line where the real effects of their policies are felt, and they do not care what the majority think. So it is time to get proactive with this MEC before they drop the next bomb on us with retroactivity.
First, and foremost, we need to get assurances that if they get their way with retroactivity for those over 60, that they will not try and force a displacement bid to give those effected by this rule the chance to displace those currently holding a seat or training slot. In other words, if the company posts a bid for the next 4 years (just an example) that closes before the age 60 change, the MEC will not fight to allow those over 60 at the time of the change to retroactively be allowed to be a part of that bid or ask for a displacement bid after the fact to push the junior pilots out of the seat the over 60 pilot wants. In fact, to cover all bases here, we should ask what they plan to do if the company put out a bid where those over 60 before the effective change date were allowed to bid before the change took place. That would be a violation of our CBA in my opinion.
Also, we should start asking what happens now with VEBA, and the money all those over age 54 were given in a special account to help them with their retiree health care costs in our last contract. If anyone choosing to fly past 60 is allowed to keep that it would seem to me to be an unfair bonus. Wasn't it was meant to help those with less time to retirement than those younger than 54?
I am sure their answer will be let's wait and see what happens. That won't be good enough for me since they refused to take that approach to the Age 60 change and especially the retroactivity issue. Another unacceptable answer would be, "that would never happen". I never thought I would see the MEC completely go against the membership on these and other issues. That answer won't float either. I will not be shocked when they do it again. If anyone has anymore potential issues where the majority will be ignored post them and let's all start a campaign to get them solved before they are decided for us. Fool me once...well you know the rest.
Keep calling your reps and holding them accountable. Keep making sure your peers do the same. Let's start being proactive so we, the majority, can try not to be retroactively ignored and left behind again by an arrogant acting MEC.
"Have a recorded vote on the issue and let our MEC Chair take that info the the big meeting at the end of the month.
Why are they afraid of having a recorded vote?"
The latest message line is out. Every LEC rep and MEC member signed it. There is your vote. They all back this policy. What can we do now? If you want a recall you will need to recall every one of those on that list and have a replacement ready. They know how difficult this is which is why I think they seem so quick to ignore how a vast majority feel on this issue. If you think you have the support in your block then start a recall. If not, start looking for candidates to run against them in the next election. Hopefully they will not be candidates that ignore their constituents majority held views.
I had a lengthy conversation with a senior LEC rep. I appreciated the time he took to speak with me and in the end we agreed to disagree about the major issue of retroactivity. I was shocked by much that he had to say and how he justified what was going on. Rather than post anything here, I encourage every one of you to call your reps and make them answer your questions so who can see what is important to them or not. Holding them responsible beyond posting on message boards is important. Tell every one you know to call them as well so they can hear it for themselves. To say they think very little of the junior pilots position here is an understatement. I do not think they have heard from enough people personally here. If we roll over again, as we have too many times in the past, we will see a lot more of this behavior from them down the line.
Reality check time. There is very little time to change the course of this MEC's actions by means of a vote. Don't think the timing of this policy announcement was per chance. It was close enough to the meetings later this month that there was very little we could do as a membership to have our say and Dave Webb knew it. It is my understanding he formed his policy on the retro issue long ago and shared it with some of those that would be effected. I am afraid all we can do now is realize this MEC acts on what they think is right in their boardrooms, away from the line where the real effects of their policies are felt, and they do not care what the majority think. So it is time to get proactive with this MEC before they drop the next bomb on us with retroactivity.
First, and foremost, we need to get assurances that if they get their way with retroactivity for those over 60, that they will not try and force a displacement bid to give those effected by this rule the chance to displace those currently holding a seat or training slot. In other words, if the company posts a bid for the next 4 years (just an example) that closes before the age 60 change, the MEC will not fight to allow those over 60 at the time of the change to retroactively be allowed to be a part of that bid or ask for a displacement bid after the fact to push the junior pilots out of the seat the over 60 pilot wants. In fact, to cover all bases here, we should ask what they plan to do if the company put out a bid where those over 60 before the effective change date were allowed to bid before the change took place. That would be a violation of our CBA in my opinion.
Also, we should start asking what happens now with VEBA, and the money all those over age 54 were given in a special account to help them with their retiree health care costs in our last contract. If anyone choosing to fly past 60 is allowed to keep that it would seem to me to be an unfair bonus. Wasn't it was meant to help those with less time to retirement than those younger than 54?
I am sure their answer will be let's wait and see what happens. That won't be good enough for me since they refused to take that approach to the Age 60 change and especially the retroactivity issue. Another unacceptable answer would be, "that would never happen". I never thought I would see the MEC completely go against the membership on these and other issues. That answer won't float either. I will not be shocked when they do it again. If anyone has anymore potential issues where the majority will be ignored post them and let's all start a campaign to get them solved before they are decided for us. Fool me once...well you know the rest.
Keep calling your reps and holding them accountable. Keep making sure your peers do the same. Let's start being proactive so we, the majority, can try not to be retroactively ignored and left behind again by an arrogant acting MEC.
05-11-2007, 04:07 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I would be in favor of recalling all of them. If the majority voted against my wishes, I wouldn't like it but would accept the decision. However, when they go against 70% of us, that is a different story.
How do we go about recalling these guys....
How do we go about recalling these guys....
05-11-2007, 04:27 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 397
Since I have nothing better to do than read the ALPA by-laws, I have discovered that we do not need a MEC or LEC vote to recall any officer.
ARTICLE XVI - RECALL OF OFFICERS
B. Recall of any officer of the Association may also be accomplished in the following manner:
(1) If twenty-five percent (25%) of the Active members in good standing petition the Vice President-Administration/Secretary requesting a recall of any of said officers, it shall be the duty of the Vice -President-Administration/Secretary to circulate such a recall ballot to all Active members. If the Vice President-Administration/Secretary is the officer whose recall is being requested, it shall be the duty of the President to circulate such a recall ballot. Such ballots shall be returnable to the Election and Ballot Certification Board, and a reasonable deadline date shall be specified thereon. Recall shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all Active members in good standing voting in such recall election. The Election and Ballot Certification Board shall certify the results of such recall election to the officers, the Board of Directors, and the membership. When such recall is accomplished, such recalled officer shall immediately be divested of all authority, prestige, and rights commensurate with his office.
ARTICLE XVI - RECALL OF OFFICERS
B. Recall of any officer of the Association may also be accomplished in the following manner:
(1) If twenty-five percent (25%) of the Active members in good standing petition the Vice President-Administration/Secretary requesting a recall of any of said officers, it shall be the duty of the Vice -President-Administration/Secretary to circulate such a recall ballot to all Active members. If the Vice President-Administration/Secretary is the officer whose recall is being requested, it shall be the duty of the President to circulate such a recall ballot. Such ballots shall be returnable to the Election and Ballot Certification Board, and a reasonable deadline date shall be specified thereon. Recall shall require a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all Active members in good standing voting in such recall election. The Election and Ballot Certification Board shall certify the results of such recall election to the officers, the Board of Directors, and the membership. When such recall is accomplished, such recalled officer shall immediately be divested of all authority, prestige, and rights commensurate with his office.
05-11-2007, 05:36 PM
#5
Trust but Verify!!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"-Let's start it. We need some people who are going to listen to us. I have emailed back and forth with Dave and he doesn't seem interested in changing his tune."
Talked to some UAL guys on the NRT bus the other day and they could not believe we hadn't started it already. They recalled their MEC Chairmman for a lot less. Seems like a last resort but you are correct in saying he will not bend on allowing a vote or poll on this.
Talked to some UAL guys on the NRT bus the other day and they could not believe we hadn't started it already. They recalled their MEC Chairmman for a lot less. Seems like a last resort but you are correct in saying he will not bend on allowing a vote or poll on this.
05-11-2007, 06:52 PM
#7
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
As everyone here is well aware of, trust is hard to earn and easy to screw away. Our elected reps, by ceding absolute control to a person who stridently opposes the will of the majority, have driven a huge wedge between the leadership and the membership. And.....apparently, they don't really care, at all, even a little. As for as I'm concerned, there is not a single person on the MEC that deserves re-election. In fact, if they don't have the cajones' to vote against DW, once, ever, anytime, on any issue, about anything, maybe just once, say the choice of Vegas hotels for the big champagne hoohah, they should resign and do 12 hour layovers in Flint in the Days Inn as punishment. Of course, living our life would be their punishment, and that ladies and gentlemen is why they serve. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nuff said.
05-11-2007, 07:07 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by AerisArmis
As everyone here is well aware of, trust is hard to earn and easy to screw away. Our elected reps, by ceding absolute control to a person who stridently opposes the will of the majority, have driven a huge wedge between the leadership and the membership. And.....apparently, they don't really care, at all, even a little. As for as I'm concerned, there is not a single person on the MEC that deserves re-election. In fact, if they don't have the cajones' to vote against DW, once, ever, anytime, on any issue, about anything, maybe just once, say the choice of Vegas hotels for the big champagne hoohah, they should resign and do 12 hour layovers in Flint in the Days Inn as punishment. Of course, living our life would be their punishment, and that ladies and gentlemen is why they serve. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nuff said.
05-11-2007, 07:16 PM
#9
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Hey Wieland is that U?
05-11-2007, 07:21 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by AerisArmis
Nah, but the guy had style. Hey, what's a few party's on the union credit card (which he 100% denies)? I'd rather the union prez spend my dues on a good time than bending me over the juke box and telling me he's doing it for the right reason. As for Fato, what's the difference between the parking lot deal (opposed by the majority) and DWs "I know what' right deal' (opposed by the majority)?
I just received an email with all the MEC signatures on it saying they supported DW.
So, if you really don't trust them , ALL OF THEM, ask them all for the resignations. But be ready for the consequences.......the Company will exploit that to the max. I hope you and all the other Hangman on this board are ready to step up and take charge.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
