Unhappy with FDX ALPA/ALPA NAtional.....what to do?
12-17-2007, 11:21 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
Talking with individuals involved in the FDA process, while the MEC negotiated with the company they tried to let them (management) know that they were lowballing the offer.
The MEC sold it to the crewforce because of the new seats and the scope--we really would be hosed here if we didn't have the new seats with this age 65 mess (read seriously overmanned, instead of just overmanned).
The Company failed to offer enough to attract anything but very junior folks, with the exception of a few at the top.
It was not the Union that blew it. It was our company that like you said talks a lot about safety, but when it comes right down to it runs things based purely on cost.
The MEC sold it to the crewforce because of the new seats and the scope--we really would be hosed here if we didn't have the new seats with this age 65 mess (read seriously overmanned, instead of just overmanned).
The Company failed to offer enough to attract anything but very junior folks, with the exception of a few at the top.
It was not the Union that blew it. It was our company that like you said talks a lot about safety, but when it comes right down to it runs things based purely on cost.
12-17-2007, 12:41 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by A300_Driver
I can't believe I'm doing this (Quoting Lavender), but for all of you who continue to bash ALPA--you are siding with the likes of this...
There is a place for disagreement and civilized debate, but...
Try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I understand that no one is going to get over this age 60 debacle quickly, but everyone needs to realize that this came from the top down from Prater. This is the guy that nearly every MEC was so happy to get to get rid of Woerth as he was seen as soft on management. So we get our rebel, and what's his first move, hose us "younger guys" all over with age 65.
Our MEC has been put on notice, but at some point you need to sit back and give them time to react (the ability to make amends if you will).
There is a place for disagreement and civilized debate, but...
Try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I understand that no one is going to get over this age 60 debacle quickly, but everyone needs to realize that this came from the top down from Prater. This is the guy that nearly every MEC was so happy to get to get rid of Woerth as he was seen as soft on management. So we get our rebel, and what's his first move, hose us "younger guys" all over with age 65.
Our MEC has been put on notice, but at some point you need to sit back and give them time to react (the ability to make amends if you will).
12-17-2007, 01:45 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by A300_Driver
Talking with individuals involved in the FDA process, while the MEC negotiated with the company they tried to let them (management) know that they were lowballing the offer.
The MEC sold it to the crewforce because of the new seats and the scope--we really would be hosed here if we didn't have the new seats with this age 65 mess (read seriously overmanned, instead of just overmanned).
The Company failed to offer enough to attract anything but very junior folks, with the exception of a few at the top.
It was not the Union that blew it. It was our company that like you said talks a lot about safety, but when it comes right down to it runs things based purely on cost.
The MEC sold it to the crewforce because of the new seats and the scope--we really would be hosed here if we didn't have the new seats with this age 65 mess (read seriously overmanned, instead of just overmanned).
The Company failed to offer enough to attract anything but very junior folks, with the exception of a few at the top.
It was not the Union that blew it. It was our company that like you said talks a lot about safety, but when it comes right down to it runs things based purely on cost.
06-12-2008, 10:10 PM
#47
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
I dont think all of this "mess" and dysfunction has anything to do with the label on our union organization. ALPA, FPA, whatever you want to call "us" as a union. I feel it has to do with two things mainly.
First, it has to do with the mentality, wants, education, and needs of the membership. I dont think as a group that "we" have a clue as to what a Union is all about and what it takes as a group to get what we want. For example, look at the flying of disputed pairings, or open time flying when our negotiations are not moving along very well. Some rationalize that it is "their contractual right" to fly this stuff. I would argue that it is "their contractual right" to also not fly it. What is the difference in the two mentalities? The first is narrow minded and selfish; IMO of course. The second is the realization that we do have leverage that will work if all would use it or, you just dont like flying crappy trips or extra. Most of us are sheep, IMO. Look at the LOA. 68%! And the fact that it was sold to us by our leaders the way it was. Hindsight is 20/20. But it shouldnt have taken hindsight to see what was wrong with the LOA!
Secondly, the Union leadership comes from the membership. So, you could have some leaders who could have some negative aspects from the paragraph from above. And if you have an incoherent and "independent contractor" membership, that gives no guidance to our leaders on where we will stand when push comes to shove with the Company. It also allows them to sell us something because we will not educate ourselves on what is being sold to us. They said the LOA was the best we can get, proponents of hysteria name calling, and the vast majority follow like sheep. All you had to do was compare what we had, and what we were being offered. Not all that complicated.
A worn out quote is that we are the Union. It happens to be the truth. There are quite a few of us who do get it. The problem is that there are to many who dont.
First, it has to do with the mentality, wants, education, and needs of the membership. I dont think as a group that "we" have a clue as to what a Union is all about and what it takes as a group to get what we want. For example, look at the flying of disputed pairings, or open time flying when our negotiations are not moving along very well. Some rationalize that it is "their contractual right" to fly this stuff. I would argue that it is "their contractual right" to also not fly it. What is the difference in the two mentalities? The first is narrow minded and selfish; IMO of course. The second is the realization that we do have leverage that will work if all would use it or, you just dont like flying crappy trips or extra. Most of us are sheep, IMO. Look at the LOA. 68%! And the fact that it was sold to us by our leaders the way it was. Hindsight is 20/20. But it shouldnt have taken hindsight to see what was wrong with the LOA!
Secondly, the Union leadership comes from the membership. So, you could have some leaders who could have some negative aspects from the paragraph from above. And if you have an incoherent and "independent contractor" membership, that gives no guidance to our leaders on where we will stand when push comes to shove with the Company. It also allows them to sell us something because we will not educate ourselves on what is being sold to us. They said the LOA was the best we can get, proponents of hysteria name calling, and the vast majority follow like sheep. All you had to do was compare what we had, and what we were being offered. Not all that complicated.
A worn out quote is that we are the Union. It happens to be the truth. There are quite a few of us who do get it. The problem is that there are to many who dont.
Last edited by iarapilot; 06-12-2008 at 10:17 PM.
06-12-2008, 10:30 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: headbanging
Posts: 954
Originally Posted by iarapilot
I dont think all of this "mess" and dysfunction has anything to do with the label on our union organization. ALPA, FPA, whatever you want to call "us" as a union. I feel it has to do with two things mainly.
First, it has to do with the mentality, wants, education, and needs of the membership. I dont think as a group that "we" have a clue as to what a Union is all about and what it takes as a group to get what we want. For example, look at the flying of disputed pairings, or open time flying when our negotiations are not moving along very well. Some rationalize that it is "their contractual right" to fly this stuff. I would argue that it is "their contractual right" to also not fly it. What is the difference in the two mentalities? The first is narrow minded and selfish; IMO of course. The second is the realization that we do have leverage that will work if all would use it or, you just dont like flying crappy trips or extra. Most of us are sheep, IMO. Look at the LOA. 68%! And the fact that it was sold to us by our leaders the way it was. Hindsight is 20/20. But it shouldnt have taken hindsight to see what was wrong with the LOA!
Secondly, the Union leadership comes from the membership. So, you could have some leaders who could have some negative aspects from the paragraph from above. And if you have an incoherent and "independent contractor" membership, that gives no guidance to our leaders on where we will stand when push comes to shove with the Company. It also allows them to sell us something because we will not educate ourselves on what is being sold to us. They said the LOA was the best we can get, proponents of hysteria name calling, and the vast majority follow like sheep. All you had to do was compare what we had, and what we were being offered. Not all that complicated.
A worn out quote is that we are the Union. It happens to be the truth. There are quite a few of us who do get it. The problem is that there are to many who dont.
First, it has to do with the mentality, wants, education, and needs of the membership. I dont think as a group that "we" have a clue as to what a Union is all about and what it takes as a group to get what we want. For example, look at the flying of disputed pairings, or open time flying when our negotiations are not moving along very well. Some rationalize that it is "their contractual right" to fly this stuff. I would argue that it is "their contractual right" to also not fly it. What is the difference in the two mentalities? The first is narrow minded and selfish; IMO of course. The second is the realization that we do have leverage that will work if all would use it or, you just dont like flying crappy trips or extra. Most of us are sheep, IMO. Look at the LOA. 68%! And the fact that it was sold to us by our leaders the way it was. Hindsight is 20/20. But it shouldnt have taken hindsight to see what was wrong with the LOA!
Secondly, the Union leadership comes from the membership. So, you could have some leaders who could have some negative aspects from the paragraph from above. And if you have an incoherent and "independent contractor" membership, that gives no guidance to our leaders on where we will stand when push comes to shove with the Company. It also allows them to sell us something because we will not educate ourselves on what is being sold to us. They said the LOA was the best we can get, proponents of hysteria name calling, and the vast majority follow like sheep. All you had to do was compare what we had, and what we were being offered. Not all that complicated.
A worn out quote is that we are the Union. It happens to be the truth. There are quite a few of us who do get it. The problem is that there are to many who dont.
06-13-2008, 12:52 PM
#50
Slainge Var'
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Zeppelin Tail Gunner
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by fdxmd11fo
That is the problem. Even when we had FPA we had the same leadership at the MEC. At least with FPA our MEC couldn't have their sights set on national office.
With the way our contract is being sodimized, the LOA, and age 65, I think we would have been better off with FPA, at least our MEC would have been working for us, not national
With the way our contract is being sodimized, the LOA, and age 65, I think we would have been better off with FPA, at least our MEC would have been working for us, not national
And.....you could recall a Union President, that forgot who he worked for, with a vote by the membership.........not his sycophants.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
