hamfisted

Is it just me, or does anybody else see this whole Q&A format with the Company as being a little outside the norm of what they want to do for us? Maybe it's the cynic in me but, isn't this what our Union is supposed to be doing for us? Our submission of Q&A's is exactly the type of info the company can use to either sweeten the deal, stonewall or simply shove the LOA up our arses. If they see little or no response from many guys(like those who don't really care who are least likely to have an SVT enema), they'll figure we as a group have little resolve to demand a better package. After all, they are getting the seniority numbers of every guy submitting a question.
I thought the role of our Union was to consolidate our concerns and present them to the Company in a cohesive format that leaves little chance for the Company to pick off what they estimate as big or little ticket items based on what they now will KNOW to be go-no-go issues in relation to the overall membership.
We pay a lot of money for ALPA representation, I think it's about time they did their job and presented what their openers were and then represented us....all of us.....especially the junior guys who will more than likely face an SVT.
The Union's lack of hard info on this LOA and eery silence, except for last-minute AOC group hugs, leads me to believe they could really care less whether this thing negatively impacts the more junior guys on the seniority list. A Town Hall meeting later in the month on the Age 60 stuff...but nothing planned so far to present more info about this LOA?? Why is the Union allowing the Company to have unfettered access to our questions while they stand to the side and say"trust us, they'll take care of that later"? They should be demanding it in writing while they continue to push for a better....or how about just plain old FAIR LOA!

Laughing_Jakal

Hamfist,

You hit the nail right on the head here. Why don't we just open up the ALPA POLLS the next time we are in negotiations so that the company and the Union can "cherry pick" demographic issues to make 51% happy?

I think this says there will be a round #2....and it won't be much better. If no round #2, then C'est La Vie....or whatever the French say about it.

I heard the scope argument, I don't get it either. It says in our CBA that FDA's are included in a clear one-line sentence.

The only scope benefit I see in the LOA is that we have a precedent where the Company is demanding adherence to the CBA in an FDA....this probably make the language more enforcible. The idea being "you can't have it both ways"...(a technical legal principal which has seen little usefulness in politics the last 15 years or so).

Also as far as the CBA not being enforced because US Courts have no jurisdiction outside the U.S.,ostensibly, all FDA pilots are Memphis based at an FDA under the LOA so therefore would be under the jurisdiction of US Law......

So maybe the scope is stronger, but how much stronger does it have to be?

I am concerned about the financial implications of dying young, but I don't purchase every life insurance product offered me......Just 'cause I think I might die young. (This mindset might explain why I still get solicited all the time for more and more insurance from our Union)

BC told me that we didn't have the leverage. I was wondering what 97% ratification of the CBA gave him? I asked him why he didn't say "look FedEx, remember when the crew force said the 'Negotiating Committee Speaks for me?', they had stickers and everything. I told you what it was going to take to get a contract, when you gave me that, I recommended approval, and we had a 97% approval on the CBA....see, I'm linked in, I know what they'll do and what they won't and I'm telling you this LOA is no good and they won't accept it...." And simply walk away......

Or better, say "if you don't believe me, we'll put it out to a vote....it'll get voted down just like I say it will....but you better not expect that there will be a round #2 that will meet your timelines, because the ratification/education process can take a while"..... and walk away.

I don't think there is anything nefarious going on, but I do think a few of things are at work here. I think Albie's assessment of BC's pride of authorship is right on the mark. I also think that 97% ratification was not used as a benchmark of collective will, but as a benchmark of "The MEC guys work hard and are really smarter than us"...therefore have a free-er reign.
(Why were we not polled on FDA issues if they were working on it for 6 Mos").

I also think that it is Springtime in the School year. The hard work/tests are supposed to be behind us for a while (CBA)....at least until next school year begins (Openers a few years from now)....Summer, girls, and booze are on the horizon (Big bid, new AC, 777, 7% B Fund, one year raises). Time to sit back and revel in all our glory......gonna be seniors next year....but wait...get in trouble with the teacher you thought liked you (Age 60), then get a surprise project worth a good portion of your grade (man...we weren't supposed to be getting any pop quizes or anything at this point)... but you're already getting an "A", so even if you shank it, you'll still get a "C" and be a senior next year. How hard you gonna work on this?"

I like DW, BC, and the MEC. They have done a Herculean job. I don't think they are purposely trying to throw anyone under the bus, but I think they reached their goals a long time ago, and the things since have less importance. Their success in the CBA and unity has created a situation, where they are using their power in a way that deconstructs the power we've given them.

A guy I worked for once was so smart he was rarely wrong. I am serious....this guy was frikin brilliant. The problem was, when he was wrong, he simply couldn't admit or recognize it because he was so much smarter than the average bear that there was no way that you could be right and he could be wrong. Also, if he was any where near a good solution, he would come around to a brilliant solution fairly quickly.

But when this guy sliced one, he would go so far off the fairway that he couldn't even see it anymore. Despite all evidence to the contrary, he would insist he was on the fairway, and you couldn't see it because you weren't smart enough to cut the grass......

Deuce knows who I'm talking about.

In a word...."Hubris".

You guys have never liked my analogies before.... here's another one you can tear apart.

magic rat

We have a union? They're supposed to speak/fight for us? I thought they just hand out lanyards...

RockyTopFlyer

Well said!

magic rat

I agree...the pride/tenacity/fight I witnessed during the previous contract negotions that made me proud and impressed the hell out of me is G-O-N-E...gone. It fizzled with the age 60 thing and is non-existant with this LOA. The senior guys do have a "this doesn't affect me so it's not worth the fight" attitude. So much for unity...

I think this LOA is something that should make our MEC pretty upset. It's a lowball from the co. and it should be a better offer...should mimic Cathay's et al. We're on the verge of BILLIONS in hauling...this should be a no brainer speed bump. Get over it and get going! (Non-related: Kinda like France, which is the speedbump to European conquest )

Fartknocker

Do you remember when BC said he wished the MEC had just passed this LOA without bringing it to us for a vote? Do you think that had anything to do with it? It makes me wonder.

Daniel Larusso

Sorry BC you'll have to think of a more creative way to keep your baby away from memrat.


From the MEC Policy Manual:

<<8. Ratification of Agreements
Collective Bargaining Agreements resulting from negotiations undertaken pursuant to the Duration Clause of the CBA in accordance with Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, or Letters of Agreement (LOA) amending the CBA which have been approved by the FDX MEC, shall be subject to membership ratification.>>

Fartknocker

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, he will! I about fell out of my chair when he said that!

SleepyF18

That is not what BC said. He said he had wished the company had just come out with it. BC knows the MEC has to have the membership approve an LOA.

Fartknocker

I apologize if I misunderstood what was said. Regardless if BC said the MEC or the company, the point is that the pilots should get a vote on something that will affect a great deal of us.