Some guy

Like many, I too was infuriated to read TC's account of what happened, and I immediately fired off a few emails to the Union expressing my anger. They answered back, and of course, their side of the story was very different. I wasn't going to take their word for it, so I contacted others that know all the parties involved, and they pretty much verified the Union's story which, for me, definitely puts TC's motivations in to question.

What I found out is that ALL official Union correspondence must be cleared by the lawyers first. Seems reasonable to me. Obviously, TC wasn't happy with this process. As an alternative, a block rep has the ability to go VFR direct with a personal email, which is what Tony did. Contrary to what TC claims, nobody attempted to stop him from doing that. And nobody within the Union disagreed with TC's right to share his views, it's just they way he is portraying them as attempting to censor his opinion that they have a problem with.

And why would TC want to portray the Union leadership as deceiving obstructionists? Obviously, I initially believed that was the case, mostly because of getting burned by placing my trust in the previous administration. And because many of us share this inherent skepticism, it's easier to divide the crew force over something like this, and create controversy and doubt about our current leadership. I don't know for sure, but I do know that elections are coming up and the old guard is chomping at the bit to get back in the game, and apparently TC has strong ties to that group.

I've met TC in the past and actually share some of his views regarding the TA, and am currently leaning "No." But I don't think he's being completely honest about his motivations.

As with many here, I made a mistake and initially took TC's word for it, but as usual, there's always more to the story. Check it out yourselves.

SG

Busboy

Did you read the same letter, that I read?

I don't see a different story. From his letter:

"The FDX MEC Policy Manual describes an MEC communications protocol to which each member of the MEC voluntarily submits. Representatives are urged to submit written or website communications to the MEC Communications Department, after which the appropriate MEC staff, committees, and officers review the communications for factual content. The goal of this process is to ensure consistent and accurate communications to the membership. However, this protocol is not intended to unduly limit the elected representatives’ constitutional rights to communicate.

I submitted the following Block 5 Update according to the protocol, and I have incorporated many of the recommended changes. I am appreciative of the time and effort which was dedicated to improving the final draft. However, the MEC Vice Chairman has refused to publish this via our normal venues of communication, i.e., through e-mail and on the FDX ALPA website. While I do not expect him to share my opinions, I do not believe there is anything in this update which is factually incorrect. Having reached an impasse, and being entitled to communicate freely with you, I must regretfully resort to communicating to you without his blessing. I have tried to work within the protocol, but I will not be silenced, nor will I compromise my message to you."

Sounds to me like he said he submitted it, it was vetted and the MEC Vice Chair decided it shouldn't be published via the "normal venues of communication." I read that to mean, he thought it should reach all members, not just those he can email in his block. I agree.

Would the letter be less informative of his reasoning for voting no, if it had been sent out via the "normal venues of communication?"

Just curious...Did they mention "WHY" they didn't publish it for everyone to read?

Sleepyflyer

I have also written letters to the Union;s Block Representative regarding TC's letter. Between 9 correspondences there are points of both agreement and disagreement. The main point we differ on is why the Union's Minority report on the TA was so small compared to the points TC pointed out in his letter (over 13 paragraphs long). Every city, county, state election that I've ever been involved with has the Minority Report written by a member who gives pros and cons regarding why you should vote against the proposal. Why is my Union trying to slant the opinion of the majority of the TA so heavily in favor of the proposed contract rather than giving an unbiased report that allows the members to vote on the actual merits of the proposed contract TA.? What are they afraid of??? Our Union needs to get past the "old ways" of doing business and publish information that actually helps the members understand the contract TA and helps them to vote without bias for or against.

golfandfly

I agree 100%. I have read the majority and minority reports. Of course, the minority report was very short and the majority much more detailed. I'm OK with that, however TC's email was very detailed and I'm glad he took the time to write it.

The union obviously wants the TA to pass. It was a 10-2 vote, and at least one block rep said he just thought it was something that we deserved to vote on. Maybe others felt the same way. The union is selling the TA via road shows, dvds, etc.

I'm not going the route of a conspiracy theory, TC's email is out there and hopefully get's seen by many of us. I would have preferred it being sent out as the minority report, but it wasn't.

So now some of us want to question TC's motivation. I read his essay and it sounded pretty clear to me.

For the life of me, I just can't see the real benefit of this TA and how it will help us get a real contract signed any sooner than the regular section 6 process. The groups it should appeal to are people that will retire very soon (immediate raise) and those that bid the FDAs. For the rest of us, I don't see the benefit.

Also, I've heard about the union's opinion that the company is negotiating in good faith. That's good, let's wrap up the contract except for work rules. My guess is that once we sign this agreement that we won't see a contract in several years. That motivation will be gone...

Sleepyflyer

That's a +1 from me. Right on the money!

Moondog

I do not work for FedEx, not that I would not like to, but I am a little confused here. What I remember from contracts class; just because the union thinks you should get a vote on the TA does not mean that they "approve" of it. It usually means that it might be a reasonable offer and the masses deserve a look at it. It does not necessarily mean that they (the union) think it is the best you could get, just an offer that is worthy of consideration. That is, if they did not wholeheartedly endorse it in the process. Again, this is just an outsiders opinion, take it FWIW (which ain't much.)

Anyway, Fly Safely!!

Moondog

FDXLAG

In theory you are correct, what did your contract class tell you it meant when the the union spends a lot of money promoting the TA?

iarapilot

You are correct.

But, you have to understand the pilot mentality here at FedEx. IMO, we have a pretty apathetic group. I think if the Union puts a TA up for vote, that the majority thinks hey, it must be OK. That is sorta what happened on our last LOA.....sorta.

Jetjok

I never took a contract class, But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express, so I feel qualified to answer your question. What it means to me is that they (the MEC) are making as much information as they have, available to as many FedEx pilots, in as many ways as they can. That costs money, and it's money well spent, if for no other reason than it provides the most exposure, so that guys can make an informed decision (vote), and also so that they can't come back later and complain that they never saw or heard anything about the TA.

We really do need to remember that the MEC members were not voting on the TA, but voting on whether to have a full membership vote on said TA. That's a big difference, in my opinion.

And that might be why they have spent so much manpower and money on getting the word out this time.

JJ

Moondog

I certainly did not mean to hit a nerve, if I upset you I am sorry. That is a horse of a different color. If they are touting it as deserving a yes vote I sit corrected. Like I said I am not even an employee, yet, maybe in the next round I can be!

Moondog