DLax85

Perhaps we could offer to open a new FDA in Cologne.

...or extend probation for 3 months for all new hires.

Wait, we already gave them those things.

Shouldn't only 32% of us be complaining?

Busboy

Technically, NO! It should be less. It should be only 32% of those that voted. But, I agree with your premise.

Speaking of that...Why is it that if you don't vote in an airline union organizing election, it counts as a no vote? But, if you don't vote in any other airline union vote...It just doesn't count?

Maybe, all the non-voters at FDX have been confused? Because, there sure seem to be more complainers than 32% of the total voters.

Huck

Nobody's confused.

For about the tenth time, and you won't get it this time either, many of us didn't vote "No" because we didn't ever hear a plan for getting a better deal. The opposition's plan was We'll Start By Recalling The MEC. Then We'll Start Negotiations Again. There's your unicorn.

Ask the folks in HKG and Cologne if they'd rather be there without their rent checks. That's what the deal would have been if we had sent Bob C. and Dave back in there after voting down the first one.

But I doubt you'll understand even now. So please, continue with your Glenn Beck sarcasm. Absolutely the highest form of humor......

Gunter

Sure, as long as you realize you'd still be waiting for that outstanding TA you thought would be on it's way in no time. NPRM in Nov '11 would come first. That pay raise you passed up would not be coming back. It would have been spent continuing 757 SIBA.

Not to mention, under your rules, the other 68% would be telling you to stop complaining.

Busboy

I understand why you voted for it. I don't agree with your thinking, but I understand.

However, only 6%+/- voted against the 2006 contract---But, to hear folks complaining about it, you'd think it was imposed on us.

Only 32% voted against the 1st HKG/CDG LOA...Yet, from the whining I've heard, you'd think it was imposed on the other 68%. No one was ever forced to bid HKG.

Until this group, as a whole, grows a pair and starts standing up for itself...We will continue to be nothing more than collective beggars at the bargaining table. And, impotent whiners the rest of the time.

Gunter

I agree. One HKG CA was a big whiner a year ago. Why did you bid it? Don't they realize they make it harder to improve the agreement when it got filled? That was totally in their control and they blew it.

We've got newhires in both FDAs. Not forced to go? Matter of opinion I guess.

FDXLAG

When did anyone besides the yes proponents ever say anything about recalling the MEC? I see nothing in the ALPA bylaws, the current CBA, or the Faber Codicils about a no vote requiring the MEC to resign or recalled. The real question is if they did resign would anyone but the Ruth Chris staff notice?

I did notice that after a "successfull" yes vote the NC had to replaced. Would you call that ironic or just surprising?

Hope you are putting that 3% you would have gotten anyways to good use.

Gunter

We voted for the first FDA LOA too.

They question I have is why did a majority vote Yes. For FDA LOA one it was a desire to not take money away from an 777 payrate or future MEM domicile gains.

I guess we'll be debating why a majority voted for the last CBA TA. I don't think some of the vocal NO voters are being completely honest about their reasons.

FDXLAG

My reason, I wanted to use our leverage to fix (any) one thing. Didnt matter, anything, just so we could claim we actually negotiated instead of rolled (bent) over.

Dadof6

I don't propose adding schedulers; I propose taking the schedulers out of the approval process. If the computer program can be modified to tell the schedulers "Earlier time stamp," or "Cannot drop a trip on a holiday" or "Denied - Insufficient Reserves," then I contend it can give us--the users--the same information. Any time I have gotten a response I didn't agree with or understand, I would call the scheduler, who would almost always reply "It's an automated system, we can't change anything." In one notable exception, J.C. helped me swap a trip with someone who had already deviated on an international trip. Kudos to him. But that's ONE TIME in the last 6 years.

However, since this concept fails to get any traction from the union/NC (despite being hugely popular among the tug drivers I've spoken with), maybe a manager at some level (DO, ACP, SCP?) could submit a suggested improvement and show how it would SAVE FEDEX MONEY!!! Reduce scheduler workload, improve their efficiency, etc. etc. because then indeed "The mission would come first." Then he/she could get a BZ, their picture in the AOD magazine, and a fat bonus. And we could get real-time trip trading. If it's legal, it's approved. End of hassle. But hey, I did see a Unicorn on Winchester last week.