TonyC Please Explain the Negotiating Update Letter
07-31-2007, 12:48 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777 Capt
Posts: 403
TonyC Please Explain the Negotiating Update Letter
TonyC, first of all, thank you for stepping up to the plate to represent us. I'm sure all of us really do appreciate your extra effort and dedication.
Tony, perhaps you could explain why we're getting the July 31st Negotiating Update, emotion-filled letter from BC rather than a thoughtful explanation of the LOA. Not all of us "vocal minority" members are rabble-rousers. We're just looking for a THOUGHTFUL explanation of the various points in the LOA. There have been numerous well thought out, and well written questions raised by members of this board. Is it asking too much for our union leadership to address some of those questions? I'll ask my LEC rep the following questions also, but perhaps you could address some of them here.
Here's just a few of the questions I have:
1) What is the union's justification for accepting a single LOA covering two FDA's with such dramatic tax and housing cost differences?
2) Where is the cost analysis numbers on the various issues contained in the LOA?
3) What are the projected numbers for a 15-year captain and a 8-year F/O for their income with and without the tax equalization?
4) Why trumpet the $2700 "gain" when everyone can readily see that that figure wont even begin to cover a pilot's costs at either one of these FDA's? Isn't anyone who bids one of these FDA's going to be subsidizing FedEx's expansion with this LOA?
5) Where is the comparison with other companies that have expat contracts in HKG and CDG? There were numerous cost and salary comparisons leading up to the last contract vote, why hasn't there been even one for this LOA?
6) BC wrote, "Scope. The approval of this LOA further memorializes this flying under our Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. I know you understand the importance of that."
No, I don't! And I'm not alone. Please explain in plain english how the LOA improves the scope clauses in the CBA.
7) BC also wrote, "The rejection of something as straightforward as an LOA that only adds to our current Agreement and gives up nothing can only empower the “hawks” on the management side."
How can he possibly say that this LOA gives up nothing? The STV alone is a gigantic concession. Has the union done a cost analysis of the STV? Also, what happened to all of our CBA chapter 6 language?
I have read several other lists of questions that should also be addressed. Perhaps you could collect several of the well written letters on this board, take them to the union leadership, and have them respond with published explanation for each of the questions.
I'm sorry, but the lack of written explanation and cost-analysis numbers on this LOA from the union is truly frightening. The leadership can hold all of the hub turn meetings it wants in MEM, but they're only reaching a very small percentage of our union's membership with these meetings. How about some real information for the majority of us who don't hub-turn Memphis?
Tony, again, thanks for stepping up. The hyperone.
Tony, perhaps you could explain why we're getting the July 31st Negotiating Update, emotion-filled letter from BC rather than a thoughtful explanation of the LOA. Not all of us "vocal minority" members are rabble-rousers. We're just looking for a THOUGHTFUL explanation of the various points in the LOA. There have been numerous well thought out, and well written questions raised by members of this board. Is it asking too much for our union leadership to address some of those questions? I'll ask my LEC rep the following questions also, but perhaps you could address some of them here.
Here's just a few of the questions I have:
1) What is the union's justification for accepting a single LOA covering two FDA's with such dramatic tax and housing cost differences?
2) Where is the cost analysis numbers on the various issues contained in the LOA?
3) What are the projected numbers for a 15-year captain and a 8-year F/O for their income with and without the tax equalization?
4) Why trumpet the $2700 "gain" when everyone can readily see that that figure wont even begin to cover a pilot's costs at either one of these FDA's? Isn't anyone who bids one of these FDA's going to be subsidizing FedEx's expansion with this LOA?
5) Where is the comparison with other companies that have expat contracts in HKG and CDG? There were numerous cost and salary comparisons leading up to the last contract vote, why hasn't there been even one for this LOA?
6) BC wrote, "Scope. The approval of this LOA further memorializes this flying under our Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. I know you understand the importance of that."
No, I don't! And I'm not alone. Please explain in plain english how the LOA improves the scope clauses in the CBA.
7) BC also wrote, "The rejection of something as straightforward as an LOA that only adds to our current Agreement and gives up nothing can only empower the “hawks” on the management side."
How can he possibly say that this LOA gives up nothing? The STV alone is a gigantic concession. Has the union done a cost analysis of the STV? Also, what happened to all of our CBA chapter 6 language?
I have read several other lists of questions that should also be addressed. Perhaps you could collect several of the well written letters on this board, take them to the union leadership, and have them respond with published explanation for each of the questions.
I'm sorry, but the lack of written explanation and cost-analysis numbers on this LOA from the union is truly frightening. The leadership can hold all of the hub turn meetings it wants in MEM, but they're only reaching a very small percentage of our union's membership with these meetings. How about some real information for the majority of us who don't hub-turn Memphis?
Tony, again, thanks for stepping up. The hyperone.
07-31-2007, 02:36 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 129
Memorializing?
I believe this whole "memorializing" discussion that BC raises centers around the establishment of certain routes and types of flying being established under our wing of the FDX umbrella. Basically we are establishing the foundation for a "Past Practice" claim in the future. But, the MEC has not successfully fought for "Past Practice" in terms of accepted fares, so why should I believe that they will be successful when comes to a future scope dispute.
Do you remember when they begged MD-11 pilots to get French Visa's? I still have not been paid (6 months) for a Hong Kong taxi to pick it up because it is under review. MGT will promise anything to get this LOA (financial windfall for the Company) to pass and when it is over they "will not call us tomorrow," colloquially speaking. For anyone who bids these LOA if it passes, get used to hearing these words from MGT, "you bid it what did you expect?" I am still a NO vote.
Do you remember when they begged MD-11 pilots to get French Visa's? I still have not been paid (6 months) for a Hong Kong taxi to pick it up because it is under review. MGT will promise anything to get this LOA (financial windfall for the Company) to pass and when it is over they "will not call us tomorrow," colloquially speaking. For anyone who bids these LOA if it passes, get used to hearing these words from MGT, "you bid it what did you expect?" I am still a NO vote.
07-31-2007, 04:36 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I'll bite on this and throw my 2 cents at some of BC's points...with the disclaimer that apparently I am an unappreciative fanatic with no business sense...
. I really feel our focus has been diverted unnecessarily and to our collective detriment. Membership ratification was never intended to provide “line item veto” power to individual members. In a representative democracy such as our Association that type of authority belongs to the elected representatives.
I think that pretty well sums up how a lot of the current FDX membership thinks you feel about things. The problem is you aren't "representing" us, you are dictating terms. And...as demonstrated in past precedent...against the will of the majority of those who elected the block reps.
Nevertheless, if you honestly feel the LOA before you imposes a significant hardship on you and the welfare of your family, then you should vote against it.
I do, and I will.
If you are simply angered that you will not be made into a “privileged class” of pilot by having all your living expenses in CDG or HKG paid by the company then I think you have lost your way. If you never had any intention of bidding either of these bases, but are intending to vote “no” simply because it makes you feel good or “because you can” then know you are doing irreparable damage to this process and depriving the pilots who will bid these bases anyway of, at the least, tax equalization; and most likely, significant economic benefits. That would be horribly irresponsible.
No--it is to prevent those who DO NOT WANT TO GO the ability to have that option. All your saying "everyone will bid Hong Kong, everyone will bid Hong Kong" does not make it fact. Prove to me with one FDX MEC survey that we'll get the 80-100 crew members required and maybe I'd consider it.
If there is something else causing your anger (like the Association’s position on the mandatory retirement age), I urge you to compartmentalize those issues and deal with them individually and at the proper time. After carefully weighing the facts, I am hopeful the majority of you will exercise your votes on the FDA LOA responsibly.
Perhaps we are acting responsibly by protecting the junior membership from someone who is so convinced he is right he'll wipe out trip and duty rig gains from the last contract and allow them to rot for perdiem only in HKG.
I must admit though, to being more than a little concerned about the ability of a vocal minority to drive this group into the angry and emotional state in which we are currently entrapped. This FDA LOA is a clear improvement and economic gain over and above the provisions of our current Contract. Yet some of us seem unable to accept it for what it is—an economic improvement—and make an unemotional business decision.
I make more business decisions in a week than you do in a year--working on my own and not being paid hard earned dues money by my fellow pilots. I spoke directly to you at a hub meeting and remained calm and professional. You, on the other hand, said you wanted to "fight" all those guys who wrote you nasty emails. I'm actually surprised we did as well as we did on the last round with you at the helm. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you were likely jet-lagged when you rolled in. I still was able to have a calm business-like conversation with your Sec/Treasurer and the Block 5 rep at the same meeting. I think most in the room would agree YOU were the emotional party.
Now--if you want to "kick my butt", I'm easy prey. I've been limping around after 2 back surgeries in 2 years. I'm not looking for a fight. I was hoping my NC was--but instead you caved on a very substandard package and are now mad at the crew force for being understandably disappointed.
This does not bode well for 2010 negotiations.
On the contrary, I think it does. It shows that if the NC and company provide a good product (like our current contract) and we'll rally up and vote it in with a landslide. Try to sneak a sub-standard, quality of life reducing package and ALPA pin or not--we'll throw it back. Its JUST BUSINESS. Its not about being LOYAL to ALPA or making a statement to the company--its just business.
Our strength in our most recent negotiating effort came from the silent resolve of the center of the bell curve—not the fringes. The silent majority refused to become ensnared in the intoxicating rapture of discontent and we were able to achieve an outstanding Agreement. What’s more, we did so with our dignity intact.
Do you think its "fun" going 180 out from the guys who you elected to represent you? Is it fun getting calls from CPs explaining their side of the story? 85% of us just want to fly the line unmolested and enjoy our jobs. The "rapture of discontent" you allude to is a fear based reaction--a reaction to having control of our lives taken away and given to the company--handed to them by our own union leadership. Intoxicating? YGTBSM. However, some of us are willing to at least raise our voices and explain why we think this idea is NOT RIGHT for the majority.
I’ll leave you with this business axiom from a good friend of mine, a country gentleman from Arkansas:
“Don’t get your mad in front of your money.”
Money ain't everything. There is disappointment in the money. The MAD is about control. How can you bad-mouth the optimizer in one sentence but then say the ability to be sent overseas for month won't be utilitized?
You got 10 more days. Spin it like you like. I'll live--LOA pass or fail. But I cannot believe you can look the crew force that appointed you in the face and tell them this is the best you could do.
. I really feel our focus has been diverted unnecessarily and to our collective detriment. Membership ratification was never intended to provide “line item veto” power to individual members. In a representative democracy such as our Association that type of authority belongs to the elected representatives.
I think that pretty well sums up how a lot of the current FDX membership thinks you feel about things. The problem is you aren't "representing" us, you are dictating terms. And...as demonstrated in past precedent...against the will of the majority of those who elected the block reps.
Nevertheless, if you honestly feel the LOA before you imposes a significant hardship on you and the welfare of your family, then you should vote against it.
I do, and I will.
If you are simply angered that you will not be made into a “privileged class” of pilot by having all your living expenses in CDG or HKG paid by the company then I think you have lost your way. If you never had any intention of bidding either of these bases, but are intending to vote “no” simply because it makes you feel good or “because you can” then know you are doing irreparable damage to this process and depriving the pilots who will bid these bases anyway of, at the least, tax equalization; and most likely, significant economic benefits. That would be horribly irresponsible.
No--it is to prevent those who DO NOT WANT TO GO the ability to have that option. All your saying "everyone will bid Hong Kong, everyone will bid Hong Kong" does not make it fact. Prove to me with one FDX MEC survey that we'll get the 80-100 crew members required and maybe I'd consider it.
If there is something else causing your anger (like the Association’s position on the mandatory retirement age), I urge you to compartmentalize those issues and deal with them individually and at the proper time. After carefully weighing the facts, I am hopeful the majority of you will exercise your votes on the FDA LOA responsibly.
Perhaps we are acting responsibly by protecting the junior membership from someone who is so convinced he is right he'll wipe out trip and duty rig gains from the last contract and allow them to rot for perdiem only in HKG.
I must admit though, to being more than a little concerned about the ability of a vocal minority to drive this group into the angry and emotional state in which we are currently entrapped. This FDA LOA is a clear improvement and economic gain over and above the provisions of our current Contract. Yet some of us seem unable to accept it for what it is—an economic improvement—and make an unemotional business decision.
I make more business decisions in a week than you do in a year--working on my own and not being paid hard earned dues money by my fellow pilots. I spoke directly to you at a hub meeting and remained calm and professional. You, on the other hand, said you wanted to "fight" all those guys who wrote you nasty emails. I'm actually surprised we did as well as we did on the last round with you at the helm. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you were likely jet-lagged when you rolled in. I still was able to have a calm business-like conversation with your Sec/Treasurer and the Block 5 rep at the same meeting. I think most in the room would agree YOU were the emotional party.
Now--if you want to "kick my butt", I'm easy prey. I've been limping around after 2 back surgeries in 2 years. I'm not looking for a fight. I was hoping my NC was--but instead you caved on a very substandard package and are now mad at the crew force for being understandably disappointed.
This does not bode well for 2010 negotiations.
On the contrary, I think it does. It shows that if the NC and company provide a good product (like our current contract) and we'll rally up and vote it in with a landslide. Try to sneak a sub-standard, quality of life reducing package and ALPA pin or not--we'll throw it back. Its JUST BUSINESS. Its not about being LOYAL to ALPA or making a statement to the company--its just business.
Our strength in our most recent negotiating effort came from the silent resolve of the center of the bell curve—not the fringes. The silent majority refused to become ensnared in the intoxicating rapture of discontent and we were able to achieve an outstanding Agreement. What’s more, we did so with our dignity intact.
Do you think its "fun" going 180 out from the guys who you elected to represent you? Is it fun getting calls from CPs explaining their side of the story? 85% of us just want to fly the line unmolested and enjoy our jobs. The "rapture of discontent" you allude to is a fear based reaction--a reaction to having control of our lives taken away and given to the company--handed to them by our own union leadership. Intoxicating? YGTBSM. However, some of us are willing to at least raise our voices and explain why we think this idea is NOT RIGHT for the majority.
I’ll leave you with this business axiom from a good friend of mine, a country gentleman from Arkansas:
“Don’t get your mad in front of your money.”
Money ain't everything. There is disappointment in the money. The MAD is about control. How can you bad-mouth the optimizer in one sentence but then say the ability to be sent overseas for month won't be utilitized?
You got 10 more days. Spin it like you like. I'll live--LOA pass or fail. But I cannot believe you can look the crew force that appointed you in the face and tell them this is the best you could do.
Last edited by Albief15; 07-31-2007 at 09:20 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
