New SFS Rep email
08-09-2007, 08:04 PM
#1
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
New SFS Rep email
August 9, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
I would like to share a few thoughts with you prior to the closing of the balloting for the FDA LOA. First and foremost VOTE! If you have not, please take the time to do it.
After reading several union updates about this LOA, I find it troubling that the “what if we turned this LOA down” scenarios have taken a bigger part of the debate. This LOA is about providing an adequate package for FedEx pilots to move overseas and do the FedEx flying. The fact is that the contract already has language that says FDA’s are covered by the RLA. Another important fact is that the company is on the record saying that they want FedEx pilots to do the flying and they are also on the record saying they will open up the bids for the new FDA’s regardless of the outcome of the vote. To me that means, that FedEx pilots will be doing the flying. If we vote this LOA down we have not taken the company’s ability to open the new FDA’s. They will have to do it using the language that is currently in the contract. They agreed to that language during the last negotiations. If the company feels that the language we have now in the contract is not adequate for them to do business overseas then they should address the shortcomings of this LOA. I am sure our pilots would be willing to entertain a deal that addresses the company’s concerns. I don’t think the expectation is for the company to pay for every expense we would incur while based in CDG or HKG but certainly what they have offered in this LOA is not enough to allow ALL the pilots on the seniority list an opportunity to bid one of these FDA’s.
I would like to address the argument of voting for this LOA now and then work on it in the next round of negotiations. That is not a credible option. SFS has been open for 12 years and we are working under our second contract and I can find very little in the last contract or the current one that was an enhancement to our lives while based overseas. Why is it acceptable to ignore the “boots on the ground” reports from SFS during the last contract negotiations and for this LOA but it is acceptable to wait for the “boots on the ground” reports from CDG or HKG and take care of those? There will always be big ticket items to take care of, attacks on our pension and work rules to name a few. It is a fact that the “incremental gains” theory has not worked for SFS. Why would it work for CDG and HKG?
Please don’t be distracted by pay rates on the 777 or the company’s attempt to throttle back the optimizer to secure this deal. We are dealing with an FDA LOA and nothing else. Your vote should be on the merits of this proposal. If you think that this LOA is an improvement to what we currently have in the contract then I think you should vote yes. The facts are clear. The company wants to open FDA’s in two of the most expensive cities in the world. In this LOA the company is offering a below average housing allowance, the transportation options are very limited and there is no tuition assistance. In the same LOA they are also saying that if you choose the enhanced option, which contains the housing allowance, you will have to give up most of the other relocation benefits in Section 6 of the contract. How can that be considered a ‘quantifiable gain?’ In my opinion it is not and that is why I voted against it. I have said it before but I think it’s worth repeating. If this is not a gain for 4,800 pilots we need to turn it down.
This Friday the voting will close and we will move on. Calling us names like “vocal minority," “people outside the bell curve” and “whiners” serves no purpose. I think we, the SFS pilots, have earned the right to respectfully disagree with negotiating committee and the rest of the MEC.
Thank you very much for your support.
Fraternally,
Edgar Irizarry
Chairman, LEC 99
LEC 99 Update
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
I would like to share a few thoughts with you prior to the closing of the balloting for the FDA LOA. First and foremost VOTE! If you have not, please take the time to do it.
After reading several union updates about this LOA, I find it troubling that the “what if we turned this LOA down” scenarios have taken a bigger part of the debate. This LOA is about providing an adequate package for FedEx pilots to move overseas and do the FedEx flying. The fact is that the contract already has language that says FDA’s are covered by the RLA. Another important fact is that the company is on the record saying that they want FedEx pilots to do the flying and they are also on the record saying they will open up the bids for the new FDA’s regardless of the outcome of the vote. To me that means, that FedEx pilots will be doing the flying. If we vote this LOA down we have not taken the company’s ability to open the new FDA’s. They will have to do it using the language that is currently in the contract. They agreed to that language during the last negotiations. If the company feels that the language we have now in the contract is not adequate for them to do business overseas then they should address the shortcomings of this LOA. I am sure our pilots would be willing to entertain a deal that addresses the company’s concerns. I don’t think the expectation is for the company to pay for every expense we would incur while based in CDG or HKG but certainly what they have offered in this LOA is not enough to allow ALL the pilots on the seniority list an opportunity to bid one of these FDA’s.
I would like to address the argument of voting for this LOA now and then work on it in the next round of negotiations. That is not a credible option. SFS has been open for 12 years and we are working under our second contract and I can find very little in the last contract or the current one that was an enhancement to our lives while based overseas. Why is it acceptable to ignore the “boots on the ground” reports from SFS during the last contract negotiations and for this LOA but it is acceptable to wait for the “boots on the ground” reports from CDG or HKG and take care of those? There will always be big ticket items to take care of, attacks on our pension and work rules to name a few. It is a fact that the “incremental gains” theory has not worked for SFS. Why would it work for CDG and HKG?
Please don’t be distracted by pay rates on the 777 or the company’s attempt to throttle back the optimizer to secure this deal. We are dealing with an FDA LOA and nothing else. Your vote should be on the merits of this proposal. If you think that this LOA is an improvement to what we currently have in the contract then I think you should vote yes. The facts are clear. The company wants to open FDA’s in two of the most expensive cities in the world. In this LOA the company is offering a below average housing allowance, the transportation options are very limited and there is no tuition assistance. In the same LOA they are also saying that if you choose the enhanced option, which contains the housing allowance, you will have to give up most of the other relocation benefits in Section 6 of the contract. How can that be considered a ‘quantifiable gain?’ In my opinion it is not and that is why I voted against it. I have said it before but I think it’s worth repeating. If this is not a gain for 4,800 pilots we need to turn it down.
This Friday the voting will close and we will move on. Calling us names like “vocal minority," “people outside the bell curve” and “whiners” serves no purpose. I think we, the SFS pilots, have earned the right to respectfully disagree with negotiating committee and the rest of the MEC.
Thank you very much for your support.
Fraternally,
Edgar Irizarry
Chairman, LEC 99
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
