Not many Age 30 Guys are quitting the Union because one of our cornerstones is retiree health care, an issue that does not affect me personally at this time, probably will cost us A Fund and B Fund points, and a lower Hourly rate. But I know that it is important overall.

But these Age 55 that quit over the Age 60 issue, and that is the issue with this Lavender guy, seem to believe that everyone else is wrong on the issue, even though the Survey and Vote was pretty close and could possibly change if a well thought out, persuasive plan was put forth, instead of polemic invective. The last survey on the issue basically amounted to the Question : Do you want age 60 changed? If there had been an actual plan attached to the question that would have minimized its disruption to the Seniority system, more people (including myself) might have been inclined to vote yes.

Basically comes down to a "Screw you guys, I 'm going home" mentality that these one issue quitters have, rather than a genuine urge to change the system.

FoxHunter,

I was recently informed that my article was posted on this site. I do not normally frequent such sites but I think I owe you one for going to the trouble. Here are a few things I would like you to know:

1. The title of the article ("Is Two Years Really Long Enough?") is based on a statement made on numerous occasions by our MEC (the latest one via email on 11 May 2006) that "...it's time management clearly understood that two years is long enough."

2. When Larry Tubor and I visited with then-Senior VP of Air Operations, Don Barber, in Feb. of last year, we had only one question for him: Would FedEx management be willing to join with FedEx ALPA to conduct a financial analysis of changing the Age 60 rule to age 65? The purpose of this request was to provide solid analytical data to the pilots so that they could make a rational rather than purely emotional decision about the matter. I, personally, believe that a change to the Rule would be tremendously beneficial for all pilots. But, I want to prove it.

Don Barber's immediate response was, "Yes, we will do that. We will provide a financial analyst, the union can provide one of their own," and (paraphrasing) "we will see what the results give us." I informed union officials of Mr. Barber's response and it was ignored. Barber even asked me to have Wally Huggins contact him to get the ball rolling which I did, but, to my knowledge, Wally did not act on it.

There were several reasons that we went directly to Mr. Barber. Among them was that up to that point, the union had ignored all input that I had tried to make to them on the Age 60 matter. The MEC would like the pilots to believe that the LEC resolution process is the valid method for proposing change. It is not. The UAL pilots discovered this last year when five of six UAL LECs (representing more than 90% of the UAL pilots) passed resolutions calling for a change to the Age 60 rule. It was then summarily rejected by the MEC.

The problem is that LEC resolutions are not binding on the MEC. This coupled with the fact that very few people participate in LEC meetings ensures that only a few people receive information and make decisions about some very important issues. My attempt to publish on Age 60 and other matters at the national level had already been shot down, so I was aware of how ALPA controls the flow of information in order to stifle debate. I am a pretty good marketer so I knew that we had to do something different if we were to be heard. The MEC, of course, later obliged us by highlighting our names and our issue via emails to all ALPA pilots.

3. In all my articles, I have repeatedly stated that flying past age 60 should be optional, not mandatory. I, specifically, wrote to ALPA national requesting that the Age 60 "survey" provide a choice for those who would favor making flying past 60 optional. Almost every pilot I have asked has stated that they would favor this. Unfortunately, ALPA decided to not even touch on this in the survey, thereby leaving the impression that a change would force pilots to fly past 60.

Thus, ALPA has not only deprived pilots of objective financial data, it has intentionally misled pilots about a crucial choice: optional vs. mandatory. This is particularly egregious considering that pilots at Air Canada Jazz, an ALPA carrier, already have the option of flying to 65, per LOA #2 signed by Duane Woerth in 2002. This is, by any standard, outrageous. In addition, ALPA, without any justification, whatsoever, played the scare tactic by implying that there would be additional medical testing associated with flying past 60. FAA flight surgeon, Tilton, has stated publicly, that this is not the case.

4. The MEC has repeatedly characterized me as a "single-issue" person. Anyone who has read my articles knows that this is a complete intentional fabrication. I have always written about numerous strategic issues. However, when it is a career-stopper, such as is the Age 60 matter for some pilots, I would say that one issue is plenty.

5. Last, after years of experience in these matters, I am still amazed at the low level of response that one sees coming from pilots who call themselves "professionals." Profanity and name-calling is common and discussion of the issues is almost non-existent. This is among the reasons why Fred and the boys have no respect for the pilots. It is, frankly, an embarrassment to the crewforce. I am glad that I was born with the patience to sit down and write articles about the issues.

I am also glad that my mom and dad encouraged me to put myself "out there" and to be more interested in principles than personalities. Anyone who wishes to discuss the issues with me can simply send me an email or call. My address is on every article and my phone number is in VIPS.

As I mentioned in the article, union membership is at its lowest point ever in the United States. I consider myself to be the most ardent unionist on the FedEx property and I have the track record to support that belief. But I am the first to admit that the way we are handling things has now become destructive to the employee cause. We, pilots, had better start doing something different if we want to avoid the obvious results. Traditional unionism is not cutting it, no matter how much people would like to believe otherwise.

I think you see this.

Sincerely,

Bob

So says NON-MEMBER Bob Lavender.





:rolleyes:








- The truth only hurts if it should -

[QUOTE=rjlavender]FoxHunter,

I consider myself to be the most ardent unionist on the FedEx property and I have the track record to support that belief.


Let's just put the facts out there. You are a non dues paying, non member, who went straight to management on an issue that could have easily been brought up through your LEC. No matter how hard you protest, you are an independent contractor. While I don't agree with non-members on dues check off, they have at least earned the right to be heard. You have not. It all boils down to money for people like you. As Jack Nickelson put it. "While you sleep under the blanket of freedom I provide, don't question the method on which I provide it." In other words, pay your dues or shut up.

"In other words, pay your dues or shut up."

I have seen this approach many times over the last 28 years, and it is simply counterproductive. It's easy to hate the wistleblowers and kill the messengers, but if you will focus on the principles rather than on the personalities, you will have a good chance of coming to terms with the important issues.

I would suggest that you take up your arguments with FedEx pilot Bill Berman. Bill resigned from ALPA on the 35th anniversary of his membership. Or, captain Chuck Henry, former 27 year member. I am sure that they will accomodate and appreciate your desire to learn.

Or, call Jim Sullivan. He calculates that it cost each former CAL stiker approximately five hundred thousand dollars to stay out for two years, and start over on behalf of the profession. This is many, many times more than most pilots will ever pay in dues and assessments in an entire lifetime. Yet, you suggest that that they have not paid their "dues." Please consider how this comes across to people with serious experience in this business. Who do you think is going to fight the battles for you? These are the true, proven warriers of the profession.

Herein, lies the difference between the big and little leagues when it comes to union players. Pilots really need to grow up beyond the emotional level exemplified in your comment if they are to be respected.

Please talk to my experienced friends and let me know how it goes.

Bob

Yes .......NON members get no say........

My guess is that age 60 will change when management tells the FAA it is experiencing a pilot shortage. The Unions will have little or no input.
Can't really foresee a pilot shortage in the next decade or so thanks to careful management of pilot resources by the companies who don't really care about it until there aren't enough bodies to man the machines.
Barring a successful class action suite over age discrimination(which has already failed numerous times) and given the lack of support by the general pilot population what would be the motive to press forward on this issue?

Perhaps I'm not mature enough to understand, but what are the numbers that your study of the issue has generated? I think we can all see it may benefit some Captains and slow the advancement of some FOs. Perhaps many of the former Legacy carriers who are now LCCs could see more advantage.

To Lavender
 

ALPA put out the survey on what people's desires were concerning age 60. Like it or not the majority said NO, ....not a landslide mind you.but the majority. That sentiment might have changed since that survey was taken but at the time the majority spoke.

The real point Bob, is that you took it upon yourself to go on a one man show directly to MGT, just because the Majority of us didn't agree with you.

Gee I don't like one issue that ALPA is currently proposing. Maybe I should go straight to MGT's Labor relations and start negotiating on my own.........................Come to think of it, why don't all 4700 of us simply make an Appt with MGT's side of the table and we can all attempt to negotiate what each of us thinks is best..........................Now that would sure help our side of the table wouldn't it. That would sure speed negotiations along.

I know your type Bob. I have seen them before. Your the type that likes to preach on how things should be done. Your way is the right way and all others be dammed. You say your a unionsist..........Please.

You served on NO ALPA committees here at FedEx that I am aware of. You certainly have held no elected positions nor have you ever run for one of them. Come to think of it, I don't remember you serving on any FPA committees except maybe the one to oust ALPA the 1st time around.

Lets Cut to the Chase BOB. Things aren't going exactly the way you want so you took your bat and ball and went home. Your arguments might have some merit if you were still a member, but your not. Your a non member ........plain and simple.

The rationalizations of a non member
 

Bob,
What your saying is non members who quit the union are better union guys than (dues paying) union members?? :rolleyes:

Just to clarify, Your non member friends made non emotional decisions to quit the union because they have a better handle (due to experience) than, we the dues paying members, am I correct?? :confused:

Bob, Why don't you run for Union office if "almost every pilot I've talked to" agrees with you?