Leverage and the Next MEC Decision
01-02-2012, 03:54 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
ANCFRTDG,
I hope you don't think I am whining about Age 65. I'm just pointing out some of the decisions made on 777 issues and 4a2b came in Jan-Feb 09, less than a year after the age change and six months after several displacement bids. There were a lot of raw feelings with many of the crew force at that time, and I think asking a junior captain to pass on 40-60k or more so the guy who bumped him out of his seat could get a better pay raise would have been a very tough sell. My recollection of the decisions of that period simply highlighted that I had my own personal angst about the issue at the time, but also suspected that many in my block (as well as others) did also.
Not directed at you, but at the board readers in general: Its is easy to make pronouncements on how things should be on a message board, or to monday morning quarterback MEC members, flight management, or whomever. Its tough as a rep when you realize every choice you make can have financial, quality of life, or even job security ramifications for the guys you serve. My own litmus test was always "will this help the majority of the guys I serve and the crew force as a whole". You also have to be able to work with 11 (now 12) other similarly driven people, many who have a very different idea on the role of the union, to get anything done. Not to sound too cliche but its harder than it looks. When I was elected I wanted a new chairman, and that created some tension. We got one, and things sailed along for 18 months relatively nicely minus the occasional tiff here or there between reps (it happens). Now TC, TH, CB, and likely a few others would like a new chairman. They'd like things more like they were back in 2005-6. That makes dong the day to day stuff all the more tense and cumbersome. Its nice to be an APC blowhard again and not have to endure the meetings wearing a suit for 4 days...
Sorry to be so pragmatic, but he key to unity is not crapping on guys for what they aren't willing to strike about to help your pet project. The key to unity is providing a set of expectations that everyone wins when we work together. A union that says "this is the right thing to do" and "we know what is best for you" in a condescending tone won't ever win the hearts and minds of some of our FedEx pilots. On the other hand, I think a more transparent and open process allows pilots to see and understand the mechanization of the negations and the day to day operations. I respect the intelligence and heart of our line pilots, and I think when given the facts 98% of them will do the right thing. I'm not going to let the actions of 2-3% of our pilots make me lose faith in the rest of them. I support our current chairman and his team because I think he has worked hard to make the union, and the negotiating process, more open and accessible to this pilot group. You won't see a "city purity" letter show up a year after the contract is signed, or have any hidden agendas. Is there a risk to begin so open at times? I'm sure there is, but after the painful rifts created by the age change, the first LOA, and 4a2b, I think it was really the only course to pull us back together, and I think its a continued work in progress.
I hope you don't think I am whining about Age 65. I'm just pointing out some of the decisions made on 777 issues and 4a2b came in Jan-Feb 09, less than a year after the age change and six months after several displacement bids. There were a lot of raw feelings with many of the crew force at that time, and I think asking a junior captain to pass on 40-60k or more so the guy who bumped him out of his seat could get a better pay raise would have been a very tough sell. My recollection of the decisions of that period simply highlighted that I had my own personal angst about the issue at the time, but also suspected that many in my block (as well as others) did also.
Not directed at you, but at the board readers in general: Its is easy to make pronouncements on how things should be on a message board, or to monday morning quarterback MEC members, flight management, or whomever. Its tough as a rep when you realize every choice you make can have financial, quality of life, or even job security ramifications for the guys you serve. My own litmus test was always "will this help the majority of the guys I serve and the crew force as a whole". You also have to be able to work with 11 (now 12) other similarly driven people, many who have a very different idea on the role of the union, to get anything done. Not to sound too cliche but its harder than it looks. When I was elected I wanted a new chairman, and that created some tension. We got one, and things sailed along for 18 months relatively nicely minus the occasional tiff here or there between reps (it happens). Now TC, TH, CB, and likely a few others would like a new chairman. They'd like things more like they were back in 2005-6. That makes dong the day to day stuff all the more tense and cumbersome. Its nice to be an APC blowhard again and not have to endure the meetings wearing a suit for 4 days...
Sorry to be so pragmatic, but he key to unity is not crapping on guys for what they aren't willing to strike about to help your pet project. The key to unity is providing a set of expectations that everyone wins when we work together. A union that says "this is the right thing to do" and "we know what is best for you" in a condescending tone won't ever win the hearts and minds of some of our FedEx pilots. On the other hand, I think a more transparent and open process allows pilots to see and understand the mechanization of the negations and the day to day operations. I respect the intelligence and heart of our line pilots, and I think when given the facts 98% of them will do the right thing. I'm not going to let the actions of 2-3% of our pilots make me lose faith in the rest of them. I support our current chairman and his team because I think he has worked hard to make the union, and the negotiating process, more open and accessible to this pilot group. You won't see a "city purity" letter show up a year after the contract is signed, or have any hidden agendas. Is there a risk to begin so open at times? I'm sure there is, but after the painful rifts created by the age change, the first LOA, and 4a2b, I think it was really the only course to pull us back together, and I think its a continued work in progress.
01-02-2012, 05:35 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Albief15
Now TC, TH, CB, and likely a few others would like a new chairman. They'd like things more like they were back in 2005-6.
I support our current chairman and his team because I think he has worked hard to make the union, and the negotiating process, more open and accessible to this pilot group. You won't see a "city purity" letter show up a year after the contract is signed, or have any hidden agendas. Is there a risk to begin so open at times? I'm sure there is...
I support our current chairman and his team because I think he has worked hard to make the union, and the negotiating process, more open and accessible to this pilot group. You won't see a "city purity" letter show up a year after the contract is signed, or have any hidden agendas. Is there a risk to begin so open at times? I'm sure there is...
CB and TH are already attempting to keep information away from the membership, despite TH's campaign words to the contrary.
I hope we're not about to enter another period of darkness.
Last edited by Gunter; 01-02-2012 at 05:55 AM.
01-02-2012, 06:46 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Great post Albie. Not sure if I agree with the basic decision possibilities.
To me, unity comes to this group when people are generally angry enough about similar things to influence their decisions. Similar fashion to how the country, political divided as it was, was unified after 9/11. I'd like to think the crew force here was unified to a point after 4a2b (no, I'm not comparing it to 9/11). You've got to get angry to get unified - it's not going to come from endless pleas from the MEC or people wearing their lanyard - it's not going to come that way because it never has come that way. Anger has to be harnessed at the appropriate time by the leadership. I'd say right now most guys here are pretty happy. It seems to take about 2 years of fruitless negotiations for guys to get angry enough to get unified and make a difference.
Does anyone here really think we're going to get relief from the NMB....ever? We work for one of the most politically connected companies in the country in a extremely politically charged environment. When was the last time the NMB gave anyone relief? It's going to be anger...leading to unity...leading to guys not flying DPs/draft/extra during peak. We just went through a peak - no chance to really use that anger for another year.
We can keep taking 3% pay raises with no changes in contract and I suspect the company will be happy. What if the Company offered a 3% pay raise every year (which about matches historical inflation but will more than likely be less than future inflation), keep our same inflation-adjusted pay - would everyone take it and not worry about the rest of the contract? I for one think we did get some improvements in 2006 that exceed a 3% annual pay raise. I still want some more improvements outside of increases in book rates.
I don't think the world wide economy is going to show a significant improvement for quite some time - we'll probably be in a similar situation a year from now, maybe even two years from now.
This idea that entering negotiations now is the same as entering it next year because the economy's not doing well, Fedex has to wait for 2012 elections, etc. etc is just inaccurate. Unity is built in negotiations - not the kind that the NC is currently doing. And by the way, anything they are doing now will not decrease future negotiations at all - they are nibbling around the edges, have been for well over a year, with nothing to show. Maybe that's typical but don't tell me how much "progress" is being made.
We have to decide when we're ready to demand some changes to the contract - it's going to take a while regardless of the economy, politics, retirements, etc. Start now or start next year, or the year after or whatever.
Just answer me this - if the Company offered you a perpetual 3% annual pay raise each March to stay out of Section 6 and continue with these ad-hoc negotiations would you take it?
To me, unity comes to this group when people are generally angry enough about similar things to influence their decisions. Similar fashion to how the country, political divided as it was, was unified after 9/11. I'd like to think the crew force here was unified to a point after 4a2b (no, I'm not comparing it to 9/11). You've got to get angry to get unified - it's not going to come from endless pleas from the MEC or people wearing their lanyard - it's not going to come that way because it never has come that way. Anger has to be harnessed at the appropriate time by the leadership. I'd say right now most guys here are pretty happy. It seems to take about 2 years of fruitless negotiations for guys to get angry enough to get unified and make a difference.
Does anyone here really think we're going to get relief from the NMB....ever? We work for one of the most politically connected companies in the country in a extremely politically charged environment. When was the last time the NMB gave anyone relief? It's going to be anger...leading to unity...leading to guys not flying DPs/draft/extra during peak. We just went through a peak - no chance to really use that anger for another year.
We can keep taking 3% pay raises with no changes in contract and I suspect the company will be happy. What if the Company offered a 3% pay raise every year (which about matches historical inflation but will more than likely be less than future inflation), keep our same inflation-adjusted pay - would everyone take it and not worry about the rest of the contract? I for one think we did get some improvements in 2006 that exceed a 3% annual pay raise. I still want some more improvements outside of increases in book rates.
I don't think the world wide economy is going to show a significant improvement for quite some time - we'll probably be in a similar situation a year from now, maybe even two years from now.
This idea that entering negotiations now is the same as entering it next year because the economy's not doing well, Fedex has to wait for 2012 elections, etc. etc is just inaccurate. Unity is built in negotiations - not the kind that the NC is currently doing. And by the way, anything they are doing now will not decrease future negotiations at all - they are nibbling around the edges, have been for well over a year, with nothing to show. Maybe that's typical but don't tell me how much "progress" is being made.
We have to decide when we're ready to demand some changes to the contract - it's going to take a while regardless of the economy, politics, retirements, etc. Start now or start next year, or the year after or whatever.
Just answer me this - if the Company offered you a perpetual 3% annual pay raise each March to stay out of Section 6 and continue with these ad-hoc negotiations would you take it?
01-02-2012, 07:01 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: 777 Capt
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by Tuck
.
Does anyone here really think we're going to get relief from the NMB....ever?
Does anyone here really think we're going to get relief from the NMB....ever?
01-02-2012, 07:13 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Tuck,
Your basic premise is the company will settle with us sooner if we enter negotiations sooner?
I dont see it. I think we will get our next contract 3 or 4 years from now whether we take this 3% or dont. If I am wrong and the company is itching to settle, I think they will be itching to settle whether we take the 3% or dont. Either way we get a contract when the company either wants something or needs the PR. Nothing this crewforce is likely to do will change that.
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
Your basic premise is the company will settle with us sooner if we enter negotiations sooner?
I dont see it. I think we will get our next contract 3 or 4 years from now whether we take this 3% or dont. If I am wrong and the company is itching to settle, I think they will be itching to settle whether we take the 3% or dont. Either way we get a contract when the company either wants something or needs the PR. Nothing this crewforce is likely to do will change that.
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
01-02-2012, 07:29 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: 777 Capt
Posts: 129
Link for just the 20 airline cases ahead of us at the NMB
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/2011ann...1a_records.pdf
http://www.nmb.gov/documents/2011ann...1a_records.pdf
01-02-2012, 07:34 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Tuck,
Your basic premise is the company will settle with us sooner if we enter negotiations sooner?
I dont see it. I think we will get our next contract 3 or 4 years from now whether we take this 3% or dont. If I am wrong and the company is itching to settle, I think they will be itching to settle whether we take the 3% or dont. Either way we get a contract when the company either wants something or needs the PR. Nothing this crewforce is likely to do will change that.
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
Your basic premise is the company will settle with us sooner if we enter negotiations sooner?
I dont see it. I think we will get our next contract 3 or 4 years from now whether we take this 3% or dont. If I am wrong and the company is itching to settle, I think they will be itching to settle whether we take the 3% or dont. Either way we get a contract when the company either wants something or needs the PR. Nothing this crewforce is likely to do will change that.
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
Why 3-4 years? Company will only settle when it becomes painful - if it's painful after 6 months I suspect they'll settle, if it's not painful 3 years into it then they won't. I just think it'll take about 2 years of negative emails from the NC about how negotiations haven't progressed on cornerstones, etc. to really gain the unity necessary to make people act...which in turn will make it painful for the company.
01-02-2012, 07:36 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Tuck,
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
And as to your question I think perpetual 3% raises (like the IPA gets) should be the basis of any agreement we sign. This would take compensation essentially off the table and make negotiations about work rules.
