With the lastest message line from ALPA, I think there's going to be a lot more discussion on version 7.2a of this LOA:

Special Meeting Requested by Management


The Chairman's Message of November 15 reiterated the MEC's commitment to fostering a stable business relationship with FedEx management, specifically as it relates to the LOA covering FDA's in Hong Kong and Paris. Attendant to that commitment was the communication to management regarding the need to formalize changes to the terms of the FDA LOA by way of a negotiated side letter. Management has requested a meeting on Thursday, December 6 to address this issue and further pertinent information will be distributed to the membership as it becomes available.

 

Just remember that DW and BC negotiated the best deal they could "AT THAT TIME" haha

 

Also, they have "our best interests" in mind when they are accepting this new side letter...

 

Does "our best interests" mean the negotiating committee or union leadership?

 

It would be interesting to see just how much "negotiating" will be conducted. Any bets as to the side letter reading exactly what the company offered in their direct communications with us?

Here's an opportunity to fix at least a few of the low/no-cost items. How about some parameters assigned to the CAN/HKG GT? Such as:

-Pickup/dropoff at crewmembers dwelling-small cost to the company-HUGE difference in crew fatigue and housing location choice for "affordable" places;

-Limits to how many >2.0 hours GT in a given day/week/month/whatever, but something other than just a blanket waiver.

-Specified type of vehicle for CAN-HKG G/T.

-A bank amount established for G/T >2.0 hours?

-How about a leg-limit following the CAN-HKG GT? Block hour limit? Duty limit? (A 3-4 hour GT with a Chinese driver is decidedly more fatiguing than the same amount of block time, especially with no restrictions set on type of vehicle...think about that ICN van ride and triple it!).

-Provide G/T for those who live in the CAN area (one would think the company could see the win/win both sides could realize in giving a little incentive for some to live close to the airport).

-Up the housing allowance (yeah right), Okay maybe not, but how about eliminating the words "up to" and just come clean with the cash and let those spend it as they wish?

-How about a little fight for Tax Protection vs Tax Equalization. This would be a big incentive for getting junior guys to fill those empty seats. This would have a negligible effect on the company bottom line, but a HUGE effect on many individuals.

-How about getting the company to provide some relocation assistance to those who choose to live in CAN? Cartus currently refuses such assistance. Certainly there is a mechanism set up for the mgt folks who will be going there.

-How about a minimum number of sleep rooms established based on number of hubturns/long-GT-then-fly scheduled? We're told there will be 16 rooms=8 crews.....anyone think this will be enough?

-How about making any side letter contingent on a defininitive G/T plan being established. How about making that GT plan contractual?

-How about some hundred-pound shipments like the ones currently in place in Subic? No cost to the company...in fact, I believe it's a write-off. Duty costs too high? Have the crewmember split it, perhaps. I've been to Hong Kong grocery stores...even their best have limited western supplies, if not old/stale/expensive. Family back home wants to ship XMAS presents to their loved ones in HKG under current provisions? Better make them able to fit in an envelope. The G.I. Joe for the HKG-based crewmembers' "personal choice" from the Grandparents is pretty much cost-prohibitive without a little help from the global shipping company employer.

These are just a few low-cost/no-cost things that should have been covered last spring that were blown off. Let's challenge our new negotiating chair to at least try and get some decent language written into the LOA for items that don't choke the golden chicken (okay, goose) but can make a huge difference on an individual basis in QOL. It's also in the company's best interest to have people not want to just bug out of there at the first opportunity. Make it a little more liveable and maybe some folks will actually stick around out there.

Okay, hand me the bottle, I'm ready to pee in it.... I must be out of my mind to even suggest anything such as the above.



BGY-Disingenuous Proponent of Hysteria

 

I too hope that the union and the company will sit down this time, armed with both new information as well as the obvious data of the demographics of the recently closed bid, and work to both incorporate (formalize) the changes to the LOA as well as to address and resolve the parts of the LOA that are woefully shortsighted. However, I believe that they will not do that as (believe it or not) it will show a massive loss of face, both for the company as well as for the union. And G_d knows, we can't have that. Hope I'm wrong.

 

Exactly, what now they can do better? What a crock of $hit. Pay us what we deserve to be paid and give us the management move package, including selling my house and full relocation along with paying for my kids school. Then I will do it. Until then find some new hires who are willing to go bankrupt to get a job.

 

They are already admitting a massive loss of face if the do another side letter. Remember, the last one was positively it. But I don't think anything major is in the works.

 

File this away.

1. Sometimes when the union says you have leverage, you really don't.

2. Sometimes when your told you don't have any leverage, even by your union, you do. For instance, look at the FDA situation, or the lack of 757 Flex/LCAs.

3. Actions taken (or not taken) by individuals can have a huge impact on the organization with results than can benefit (or hurt) all of us.

4. Think for yourselves. Make smart decisions--using your own SA and judgement. I have lost faith in the union's collective judgement on some issues, and of course I expect FedEx to work for the shareholder's best interests, which sometimes aren't necessarily mine. However, I have been VERY impressed with the decision making of most of the line guys lately and the metal and fortitude of the 757 cadre. We do have some leaders amongst us...some of them not even elected.

 

I agree. The union for whatever reason is completely out of touch with the portion of the crew force who might have been interested in bidding something like this. They sent out all kinds of propaganda about what a great deal this was and how you were a disloyal idiot if you would not vote for it. Everybody other than the people who would have considred bidding it, voted for it because the union told them to. Well now here we are...