FDX- An Honest Block Rep With Stones
01-19-2012, 11:47 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
FDX- An Honest Block Rep With Stones
To the Pilots of Council 7,
I am writing to you again after having not signed off on the last two communications sent to the council. Although our Local Council Chairman, Captain Chris Baker was of a mind that this letter should not go to the entire local council, the ALPA Administration Manual clearly affords me, as a duly elected representative of Local Council 7, the opportunity to communicate unfettered to the entire council and not just Block 8.
Several people have asked if I have been included in the process of sending out the recent council updates. The Local Council Chairman has certainly afforded me the opportunity to review the communication pieces and decide whether I wished to have my name attached. The simple reason I did not put my name on these messages is that I did not agree with the content of the messages or the tone in which they were delivered. I thought the message in the 6Jan2012 Council 7 update seemed to minimize the role of the pilot force in MEC decision-making. I had particular problems with the following statements:
“Some were happy to just go with the polling numbers. Others felt that our job is tougher than that and requires us to do what is best given the facts at the time.”
“Do we just want our elected body to reflect the current sentiments or do we expect them to give due consideration to all the facts in a case before we decide? Are our pilots ready and willing to trust their elected officials to perhaps take a different direction than the one indicated by the electorate who may not have all the data or the latest data?”
In my opinion, the clear message here is that anyone who was initially in support of continuing the interim discussions was simply just going with the polling numbers and the expressed desire of the pilots. They were not interested in gathering all the facts or listening to other considerations/dissenting opinions and were just taking the “easy” way out. I could not disagree more. To suggest that I did not weigh all the facts or do what was best given the facts at the time is insulting. Here are the facts. The MEC received an economics briefing from ALPA experts covering world and national economies as well as FedEx’s financial position. Overall, this information weighed in favor of retaining the 3% and continuing interim discussions. Bruce York, ALPA’s Director of Representation, covered a variety of topics to including ongoing negotiations at other airlines, the National Mediation Board (composition and their view on labor negotiations), considerations on public support/sentiment, pilot support for different path options and potential timelines resulting from choosing either path. Once again, the information provided by Mr. York weighed in favor of retaining the 3% raise and continuing with interim discussions.
The last brief we received on Wednesday (January 4) was from Rick Irgens, Chairman of the Negotiating Committee. He characterized the interim discussions as having greater depth and engagement than those experienced in Section 6 negotiations. This assertion was confirmed by ALPA Representation staff who has participated in our bargaining dating back to the 2006 CBA. Rick expressed optimism in our ability to continue to work through complex, contentious material which much be solved before we have the full range of improvements identified as necessary and valuable by the pilot group. He renewed his pledge to let the MEC know if the pace or substance of the discussions takes a turn for the worse. He stated that he still believes the best road for success would be continuation of the interim discussions.
So, the MEC received three detailed briefings and the information separately and collectively suggested that we continue with interim discussions and retain the 3% raise. The polling information, e-mails and everything we were hearing from the crew force indicated that their desire was to continue. I believe that the right decision was made and the right process was followed in arriving at that decision. I know there are arguments that could be made for entering Section 6 negotiations now, but I didn’t hear any that compelled me to change my mind after weighing all the facts. More importantly, I wasn’t presented any current or updated data that would have caused me to consider voting against your wishes.
Here is the fundamental difference between myself and some others on the MEC - I view myself as a representative of my block and by extension, a representative of our council and the entire crew force. I was elected to represent the voice of the pilots of Block 8. It is my responsibility to make sure your interests are heard at the table. In that light, I view your input (whether it be through polls, surveys, e-mails or personal interactions) as not only valuable, but largely directive. If I am in possession of information that indicates another course of action is prudent, then it is my job to make sure you get that information. It is my responsibility to ensure you know what is going on in a dynamic situation. I don’t think it is right to tell you to just sit back and trust me to know what is best for you because I know more than you do.
I apologize for the length of this message. I wanted to keep it shorter, but I felt that you should know what is going on. The message sent out by the entire MEC on 6Jan2012 was a coordinated effort by all 13 members of the MEC and the officers. This message pledged mutual support by all of us and I think the Council 7 message sent out that same day detracted from that goal.
I do agree with the final sentiment expressed in the council message. We will continue to monitor the progress of the interim discussions and will definitely let you know if the company decides to change their level of engagement or commitment to the process. Thank you for your time and consideration of this message.
I am writing to you again after having not signed off on the last two communications sent to the council. Although our Local Council Chairman, Captain Chris Baker was of a mind that this letter should not go to the entire local council, the ALPA Administration Manual clearly affords me, as a duly elected representative of Local Council 7, the opportunity to communicate unfettered to the entire council and not just Block 8.
Several people have asked if I have been included in the process of sending out the recent council updates. The Local Council Chairman has certainly afforded me the opportunity to review the communication pieces and decide whether I wished to have my name attached. The simple reason I did not put my name on these messages is that I did not agree with the content of the messages or the tone in which they were delivered. I thought the message in the 6Jan2012 Council 7 update seemed to minimize the role of the pilot force in MEC decision-making. I had particular problems with the following statements:
“Some were happy to just go with the polling numbers. Others felt that our job is tougher than that and requires us to do what is best given the facts at the time.”
“Do we just want our elected body to reflect the current sentiments or do we expect them to give due consideration to all the facts in a case before we decide? Are our pilots ready and willing to trust their elected officials to perhaps take a different direction than the one indicated by the electorate who may not have all the data or the latest data?”
In my opinion, the clear message here is that anyone who was initially in support of continuing the interim discussions was simply just going with the polling numbers and the expressed desire of the pilots. They were not interested in gathering all the facts or listening to other considerations/dissenting opinions and were just taking the “easy” way out. I could not disagree more. To suggest that I did not weigh all the facts or do what was best given the facts at the time is insulting. Here are the facts. The MEC received an economics briefing from ALPA experts covering world and national economies as well as FedEx’s financial position. Overall, this information weighed in favor of retaining the 3% and continuing interim discussions. Bruce York, ALPA’s Director of Representation, covered a variety of topics to including ongoing negotiations at other airlines, the National Mediation Board (composition and their view on labor negotiations), considerations on public support/sentiment, pilot support for different path options and potential timelines resulting from choosing either path. Once again, the information provided by Mr. York weighed in favor of retaining the 3% raise and continuing with interim discussions.
The last brief we received on Wednesday (January 4) was from Rick Irgens, Chairman of the Negotiating Committee. He characterized the interim discussions as having greater depth and engagement than those experienced in Section 6 negotiations. This assertion was confirmed by ALPA Representation staff who has participated in our bargaining dating back to the 2006 CBA. Rick expressed optimism in our ability to continue to work through complex, contentious material which much be solved before we have the full range of improvements identified as necessary and valuable by the pilot group. He renewed his pledge to let the MEC know if the pace or substance of the discussions takes a turn for the worse. He stated that he still believes the best road for success would be continuation of the interim discussions.
So, the MEC received three detailed briefings and the information separately and collectively suggested that we continue with interim discussions and retain the 3% raise. The polling information, e-mails and everything we were hearing from the crew force indicated that their desire was to continue. I believe that the right decision was made and the right process was followed in arriving at that decision. I know there are arguments that could be made for entering Section 6 negotiations now, but I didn’t hear any that compelled me to change my mind after weighing all the facts. More importantly, I wasn’t presented any current or updated data that would have caused me to consider voting against your wishes.
Here is the fundamental difference between myself and some others on the MEC - I view myself as a representative of my block and by extension, a representative of our council and the entire crew force. I was elected to represent the voice of the pilots of Block 8. It is my responsibility to make sure your interests are heard at the table. In that light, I view your input (whether it be through polls, surveys, e-mails or personal interactions) as not only valuable, but largely directive. If I am in possession of information that indicates another course of action is prudent, then it is my job to make sure you get that information. It is my responsibility to ensure you know what is going on in a dynamic situation. I don’t think it is right to tell you to just sit back and trust me to know what is best for you because I know more than you do.
I apologize for the length of this message. I wanted to keep it shorter, but I felt that you should know what is going on. The message sent out by the entire MEC on 6Jan2012 was a coordinated effort by all 13 members of the MEC and the officers. This message pledged mutual support by all of us and I think the Council 7 message sent out that same day detracted from that goal.
I do agree with the final sentiment expressed in the council message. We will continue to monitor the progress of the interim discussions and will definitely let you know if the company decides to change their level of engagement or commitment to the process. Thank you for your time and consideration of this message.
01-19-2012, 12:42 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Lloyd is tougher than you might realize for a lot of reasons. He's made a lot of personal sacrifices to stand up and serve in what has to be a miserable environment at times. Hope the bubbas in Block 8 appreciate the man...I know I do.
01-19-2012, 01:40 PM
#3
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
Useful information from a previous poster if you agree with the sentiments above and are a member of Council 7
"Some how the MEC/LEC meetings which will be germane for the recall efforts on CB, TH and TC were scheduled over the Valentines Day time frame........Go figure. I thought it might be helpful to outline some of the relevant block member options. The process demands that during the appropriate meeting that a motion be proposed, seconded, discussed and then voted on (simple majority) on the recall of said MEC members. If a block member cannot be present for the meeting and vote, then he/she may designate (in writing) a member who may cast their vote via proxy. The proxy must be hand written (not printed out on computer and signed). It must specify the member who is casting the vote, who the member is designating as their proxy and specifically what the vote is; i.e. "I vote to recall Capt. So and So" A member present for the meetings can carry, present and cast up to 3 proxy votes for other members in addition to their own vote. So, in short an organized block could send 25 members to a meeting and effectively cast 100 votes. At LEAST that will be required to accomplish an effective recall. If, at the meeting the members present (including proxies) result in a majority recall then the MEC Chair must notify ALPA National of the results. National will then send notification and Recall ballots to ALL relevant block members for recall determination. The process is long and decidedly difficult. But if a block is organized, determined and resolved the dominoes will fall like clockwork. So there you have it.........
__________________
Mr. President, The only thing I want you to redistribute is my work ethic.......
Last edited by FLMD11CAPT; 01-10-2012 at 09:08 PM. Reason: syntax
"Some how the MEC/LEC meetings which will be germane for the recall efforts on CB, TH and TC were scheduled over the Valentines Day time frame........Go figure. I thought it might be helpful to outline some of the relevant block member options. The process demands that during the appropriate meeting that a motion be proposed, seconded, discussed and then voted on (simple majority) on the recall of said MEC members. If a block member cannot be present for the meeting and vote, then he/she may designate (in writing) a member who may cast their vote via proxy. The proxy must be hand written (not printed out on computer and signed). It must specify the member who is casting the vote, who the member is designating as their proxy and specifically what the vote is; i.e. "I vote to recall Capt. So and So" A member present for the meetings can carry, present and cast up to 3 proxy votes for other members in addition to their own vote. So, in short an organized block could send 25 members to a meeting and effectively cast 100 votes. At LEAST that will be required to accomplish an effective recall. If, at the meeting the members present (including proxies) result in a majority recall then the MEC Chair must notify ALPA National of the results. National will then send notification and Recall ballots to ALL relevant block members for recall determination. The process is long and decidedly difficult. But if a block is organized, determined and resolved the dominoes will fall like clockwork. So there you have it.........
__________________
Mr. President, The only thing I want you to redistribute is my work ethic.......
Last edited by FLMD11CAPT; 01-10-2012 at 09:08 PM. Reason: syntax
01-20-2012, 10:24 AM
#4
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by ConnerP
To the Pilots of Council 7,
I am writing to you again after having not signed off on the last two communications sent to the council. Although our Local Council Chairman, Captain Chris Baker was of a mind that this letter should not go to the entire local council, the ALPA Administration Manual clearly affords me, as a duly elected representative of Local Council 7, the opportunity to communicate unfettered to the entire council and not just Block 8.
I am writing to you again after having not signed off on the last two communications sent to the council. Although our Local Council Chairman, Captain Chris Baker was of a mind that this letter should not go to the entire local council, the ALPA Administration Manual clearly affords me, as a duly elected representative of Local Council 7, the opportunity to communicate unfettered to the entire council and not just Block 8.
I found this first paragraph most telling. Sounds like an attempt was made to keep this message from going to the entire LEC.
I guess he just figured we didn't need to know. What an absolute friggin joke!
01-20-2012, 02:43 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
Not posted on the ALPA site yet.
01-20-2012, 03:07 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: B-777
Posts: 455
What's amazing to me is the fact that we have made it pretty clear how the majority of us in this LEC feel, and they continue with their we know what's best for you because we have inside info we don't want to give to you because you might actually make an informed decision. Unfriggin believable. Those two guys need to stop pretending to represent us!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
