FedEx MEC on wrong Track
02-27-2012, 03:37 PM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 8
FedEx MEC on wrong Track
I believe the representatives on our MEC should work for the betterment of the FedEx pilots above all other issues. I believe the MEC should listen to all points of view and give respectful voice to those with a different opinion than the majority. I believe the MEC should be made up of rank and file pilots who volunteer for one or two terms and then return to the line to join the represented. I believe the grievance department ought to be rabid in their efforts to defend our contractual rights. I believe our most junior pilot’s career should be protected with the same zeal as the most senior pilot’s. I believe retirement protections are as important as any other time period of our career. I believe our MEC should never forget they work for us, not ALPA.
I believe our MEC’s actions indicate they do not share any of these opinions.
The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).
The MEC block reps elect the MEC officers and back door deals to secure their votes are standard. Typically, this comes in the guise of trip pay loss and support for positions at ALPA national. I don’t believe I’m the only one who found it curious that the issues of TPL brought up by Captains Hauserman and Baker led to an attack on them. “If you can’t dispute the accusation then discredit the accuser” is a well-established tenet of the current MEC. I guess the MEC can’t have the membership look too deeply in this area.
Why can’t our MEC chairs be satisfied with that position rather than seek an ALPA national office? Both our current and past chairs have sought jobs in DC. The poison of these individual agendas and their willingness to curry favor with DC does far more harm to our pilot unity and support of the union than any concerns voiced by members about the direction of MEC actions.
Our MEC members need to listen to those who have concerns and answer them, not just silence them. The lack of transparency of our MEC and how our dues money is spent is scary. I overheard a past MEC member telling a pilot (about the scope money owed the pilots transferred to the VEBA account) say “We can do whatever the F&** we want with that money!”
Is it any wonder the silencing of MEC members who speak out is worrisome? Maybe we need term limits on union officers to prevent a sense of entitlement among those who represent us. At the very least, the rank and file should elect our MEC chair/vice/treasurer. If you want wide body pay, get out there and earn it on the line first. It’s just wrong to have junior pilots in union positions earning salaries their seniority and current bid award don’t support!
Finally, what good is support for section 6 negotiations, if the contract once signed is not enforced? Has anyone not heard a story about being brushed-off by the union contract enforcement group when reporting company violations of our CURRENT negotiated rights? My MEC rep excuses their lack of response or concern with, ”well, they work for ALPA not us."
My MEC needs to remember we are their number one priority--with ALPA, SS’s quest for ALPA president, the AFL/CIO’s choice for president and other issues on the distant second and “if time permits” list! BTW, those that suggest union members with different views hurt unity are wrong; our history clearly demonstrates this. In 1998, we were divided by seniority, merger, and belief in unionism but the membership voted to strike at 90%. That is where unity brings bargaining pressure.
IMO,
Steamgauge
I believe our MEC’s actions indicate they do not share any of these opinions.
The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).
The MEC block reps elect the MEC officers and back door deals to secure their votes are standard. Typically, this comes in the guise of trip pay loss and support for positions at ALPA national. I don’t believe I’m the only one who found it curious that the issues of TPL brought up by Captains Hauserman and Baker led to an attack on them. “If you can’t dispute the accusation then discredit the accuser” is a well-established tenet of the current MEC. I guess the MEC can’t have the membership look too deeply in this area.
Why can’t our MEC chairs be satisfied with that position rather than seek an ALPA national office? Both our current and past chairs have sought jobs in DC. The poison of these individual agendas and their willingness to curry favor with DC does far more harm to our pilot unity and support of the union than any concerns voiced by members about the direction of MEC actions.
Our MEC members need to listen to those who have concerns and answer them, not just silence them. The lack of transparency of our MEC and how our dues money is spent is scary. I overheard a past MEC member telling a pilot (about the scope money owed the pilots transferred to the VEBA account) say “We can do whatever the F&** we want with that money!”
Is it any wonder the silencing of MEC members who speak out is worrisome? Maybe we need term limits on union officers to prevent a sense of entitlement among those who represent us. At the very least, the rank and file should elect our MEC chair/vice/treasurer. If you want wide body pay, get out there and earn it on the line first. It’s just wrong to have junior pilots in union positions earning salaries their seniority and current bid award don’t support!
Finally, what good is support for section 6 negotiations, if the contract once signed is not enforced? Has anyone not heard a story about being brushed-off by the union contract enforcement group when reporting company violations of our CURRENT negotiated rights? My MEC rep excuses their lack of response or concern with, ”well, they work for ALPA not us."
My MEC needs to remember we are their number one priority--with ALPA, SS’s quest for ALPA president, the AFL/CIO’s choice for president and other issues on the distant second and “if time permits” list! BTW, those that suggest union members with different views hurt unity are wrong; our history clearly demonstrates this. In 1998, we were divided by seniority, merger, and belief in unionism but the membership voted to strike at 90%. That is where unity brings bargaining pressure.
IMO,
Steamgauge
02-27-2012, 04:14 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by steamgauge
The MEC’s efforts to circumvent the clear direction indicated by the majority of the pilots on the age 60 rule and the abominable lack of reaction to the Cargo cutout are indications of a misplaced sense of priorities. (NWA pilots MEC held true to their pilot’s wishes and opposed the change to the age 60 rule and it’s an open secret ALPA caved on the cargo cutout to gain the work/rest protections for the pax pilots).
IMO,
Steamgauge
02-27-2012, 04:48 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777
Posts: 866
Sorry.... I don't think you have the order of events and who caused them correct. I think this MEC is doing it's best with what WE give them (support or lack thereof). Dissent is important and should be encouraged, but actively working to undermine your/our union hurts us all.
My 2 cents...
My 2 cents...
02-27-2012, 05:09 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Another post blasting ALPA from someone with 1 or zero previous posts. I'm shocked...
Do your homework. Get a history lesson. The current admin came in AFTER many of the issues you complain about in hopes to make some changes after the 2006 contract, the Age 60 changes, and FDA LOA 1. I was elected in 2008 trying to do exactly what you mentioned in your opening paragraph.
Got a complaint about contract enforcement? Take a number. Most of those guys were hired around FPA time or during the ALPA transition about 2002. Damning them is damning the guys in charge at the time...you know...the guys who now have tons of complaints about the current administration. I know the customer service could be better, but there are also a ton of legal pain-in-the-a$$ issues (Q&A book!) that often work against us. This won't be fixed by any one person overnight, but will take a systematic improvement in contract language to be effective.
The current group is IMHO much more transparent than previous administrations. The guys who scream the loudest about the lack of open comm are the same guys who supported a "city purity" letter they failed to reveal to the crew force and accepted (without counter) the first FDA LOA. The guys who cry about "leverage we gave up" by not holding out the FDAs in the latest interim contract were some of the same guys who were willing to send you non-vol to Guangzhou for 90 freakin' days. The guys who say SS and the group are "elites" were the ones who yelled at you for daring to complain about age 60 changes (it was the right thing to do) and assure you that retroactivity would never hurt you (they can't move unless there is a VACANCY bid!) and said that HKG "would go senior...".
The group that is in now was installed--in part with my help--was asked to try to regain the trust of the crew force by being more open and more responsive to the pilot group. There are several schools of thought on the role of the rep. Once group says that the rep should follow the will of the pilots. The other says the rep should "lead" and "massage" the pilots, as they know as leaders what it best and often have more info. I believe the real challenge is doing a bit of both, and having the judgment to know when to lean either way. What we asked the current crew to do is start leaning back towards the first method and away from the second.
I think a lot of the angst and resentment against the current leaders is actually frustration that the pilot force dared to approve the last bridge contract. Regardless of whether or not you were for or against it, that fact is the MEC and the MEC officers decided in 2011 that YOU would get to vote on it. The decision we had to make was "is it worth offering up to the pilots for a vote". Most of us saw both the weaknesses and the goods in it, and we let YOU--the crewforce--make the call. The guys on the losing end of that decision--the anti-contract crowd--decided that the decision reflected a failure of leadership. In other words, a "real trade unionist" or "real MEC leader" would have steered the pilots away from approving the deal. Therefore, the passage of the deal--even though approved by most pilots--was a failure of leadership and the only "right" way to fix this is remove that person so a more "appropriate" union leader (in the mold of Hauserman, Baker, Webb, or whomever) could lead the pilots in the right direction.
The problem with this is they overlook the fact that probably 70-80% of the crew force is largely happy with their jobs, and while they want some positive changes they don't drool and salivate for a fight with the company. Many of our pilots tend to lean towards the right politically, as do quite a few now on our MEC. This contrasts largely with the largely left leaning very adamant pro-AFL-CIO types. While it is too simple to say its a pure Republican/Democrat type fight, many of the guys currently screaming the loudest were on "Pilots for Obama" committees or were active Democrat supporters. That doesn't mean the divide on the MEC falls exactly down party lines, but the differences in the role of union largely falls on idealogical differences in what role our union should play.
Interestingly enough, one of the biggest changes in the last 2 years has been on the Hill where our guys are now working hard to cultivate aviation friendly relationship on both sides of the aisles. For a long time, it was harder under the Prater group to spend PAC money supporting Republicans. It is easier now. The current group is a more pragmatic "what can we do to help us" crowd and less "how do we tow the AFL-CIO line" crowd. Its still politics...messy at times with blurry lines...but if you were mad at the PAC and ALPA National in 2006-08 you need to understand quite a bit has changed since then.
National office an irritant to you? Dude--get mad at ME. I was one of the reps who supported the move as the chance to have a cargo guy at the helm was a once in a blue moon kind of opportunity as UAL/CAL and DAL/NW were still creating tense feelings at National. We saw a potential 4 year seam where we could put a more "neutral" but strong ALPA carrier into a leadership position. No MEC is perfect, but FDX is respected for some solid people by most on the hill. This wasn't about a personal ambition--it was about trying to extend the FDX influence up a little farther. As it stands, Lee Moak is doing a tough job about as well as anyone can, and is trying to limit foreign carrier forays into our markets. Our MEC has quite a few guys now in various committees...which help YOU, ME, and a lot of other ALPA pilots. Would you rather Kalitta or Delta manage flight time/duty time or cargo security issues, or would you rather have some FDX bros representing you? If Ronald Reagan had only decided to serve California, we would have missed out on a great President. When we have the chance to send a FDX pilot to make a difference for all of us, I think we ought to do so. We won't win every time, but just getting our name up and around opens doors for the rest of our team in other places.
The MEC officers are elected by the reps YOU elect. If you have 20% turnout for LEC elections, you aren't going to have a lot of control over who gets elected. Only recently as guys have gotten irritated have we seen turnout start to improve. If you don't like where your reps are going--recall them. There is an effort under way right now to do that with 3 reps who many feel are not complying with the wishes of their constituents. Its ugly, and messy, but it is also somewhat health as at least it is forcing formerly complacent pilots to get involved, get informed, and make some decisions.
Looks like there will be more openings in both the MEC and some committees along the way... If you think guys should only serve a while then return to the line (which I echoed and agreed with, BTW....I'm a line pilot now...) then that means somebody else has to step up to get smart and fill the void. Maybe your time is now. Dive in....talent and drive are always needed.
Do your homework. Get a history lesson. The current admin came in AFTER many of the issues you complain about in hopes to make some changes after the 2006 contract, the Age 60 changes, and FDA LOA 1. I was elected in 2008 trying to do exactly what you mentioned in your opening paragraph.
Got a complaint about contract enforcement? Take a number. Most of those guys were hired around FPA time or during the ALPA transition about 2002. Damning them is damning the guys in charge at the time...you know...the guys who now have tons of complaints about the current administration. I know the customer service could be better, but there are also a ton of legal pain-in-the-a$$ issues (Q&A book!) that often work against us. This won't be fixed by any one person overnight, but will take a systematic improvement in contract language to be effective.
The current group is IMHO much more transparent than previous administrations. The guys who scream the loudest about the lack of open comm are the same guys who supported a "city purity" letter they failed to reveal to the crew force and accepted (without counter) the first FDA LOA. The guys who cry about "leverage we gave up" by not holding out the FDAs in the latest interim contract were some of the same guys who were willing to send you non-vol to Guangzhou for 90 freakin' days. The guys who say SS and the group are "elites" were the ones who yelled at you for daring to complain about age 60 changes (it was the right thing to do) and assure you that retroactivity would never hurt you (they can't move unless there is a VACANCY bid!) and said that HKG "would go senior...".
The group that is in now was installed--in part with my help--was asked to try to regain the trust of the crew force by being more open and more responsive to the pilot group. There are several schools of thought on the role of the rep. Once group says that the rep should follow the will of the pilots. The other says the rep should "lead" and "massage" the pilots, as they know as leaders what it best and often have more info. I believe the real challenge is doing a bit of both, and having the judgment to know when to lean either way. What we asked the current crew to do is start leaning back towards the first method and away from the second.
I think a lot of the angst and resentment against the current leaders is actually frustration that the pilot force dared to approve the last bridge contract. Regardless of whether or not you were for or against it, that fact is the MEC and the MEC officers decided in 2011 that YOU would get to vote on it. The decision we had to make was "is it worth offering up to the pilots for a vote". Most of us saw both the weaknesses and the goods in it, and we let YOU--the crewforce--make the call. The guys on the losing end of that decision--the anti-contract crowd--decided that the decision reflected a failure of leadership. In other words, a "real trade unionist" or "real MEC leader" would have steered the pilots away from approving the deal. Therefore, the passage of the deal--even though approved by most pilots--was a failure of leadership and the only "right" way to fix this is remove that person so a more "appropriate" union leader (in the mold of Hauserman, Baker, Webb, or whomever) could lead the pilots in the right direction.
The problem with this is they overlook the fact that probably 70-80% of the crew force is largely happy with their jobs, and while they want some positive changes they don't drool and salivate for a fight with the company. Many of our pilots tend to lean towards the right politically, as do quite a few now on our MEC. This contrasts largely with the largely left leaning very adamant pro-AFL-CIO types. While it is too simple to say its a pure Republican/Democrat type fight, many of the guys currently screaming the loudest were on "Pilots for Obama" committees or were active Democrat supporters. That doesn't mean the divide on the MEC falls exactly down party lines, but the differences in the role of union largely falls on idealogical differences in what role our union should play.
Interestingly enough, one of the biggest changes in the last 2 years has been on the Hill where our guys are now working hard to cultivate aviation friendly relationship on both sides of the aisles. For a long time, it was harder under the Prater group to spend PAC money supporting Republicans. It is easier now. The current group is a more pragmatic "what can we do to help us" crowd and less "how do we tow the AFL-CIO line" crowd. Its still politics...messy at times with blurry lines...but if you were mad at the PAC and ALPA National in 2006-08 you need to understand quite a bit has changed since then.
National office an irritant to you? Dude--get mad at ME. I was one of the reps who supported the move as the chance to have a cargo guy at the helm was a once in a blue moon kind of opportunity as UAL/CAL and DAL/NW were still creating tense feelings at National. We saw a potential 4 year seam where we could put a more "neutral" but strong ALPA carrier into a leadership position. No MEC is perfect, but FDX is respected for some solid people by most on the hill. This wasn't about a personal ambition--it was about trying to extend the FDX influence up a little farther. As it stands, Lee Moak is doing a tough job about as well as anyone can, and is trying to limit foreign carrier forays into our markets. Our MEC has quite a few guys now in various committees...which help YOU, ME, and a lot of other ALPA pilots. Would you rather Kalitta or Delta manage flight time/duty time or cargo security issues, or would you rather have some FDX bros representing you? If Ronald Reagan had only decided to serve California, we would have missed out on a great President. When we have the chance to send a FDX pilot to make a difference for all of us, I think we ought to do so. We won't win every time, but just getting our name up and around opens doors for the rest of our team in other places.
The MEC officers are elected by the reps YOU elect. If you have 20% turnout for LEC elections, you aren't going to have a lot of control over who gets elected. Only recently as guys have gotten irritated have we seen turnout start to improve. If you don't like where your reps are going--recall them. There is an effort under way right now to do that with 3 reps who many feel are not complying with the wishes of their constituents. Its ugly, and messy, but it is also somewhat health as at least it is forcing formerly complacent pilots to get involved, get informed, and make some decisions.
Looks like there will be more openings in both the MEC and some committees along the way... If you think guys should only serve a while then return to the line (which I echoed and agreed with, BTW....I'm a line pilot now...) then that means somebody else has to step up to get smart and fill the void. Maybe your time is now. Dive in....talent and drive are always needed.
02-27-2012, 05:43 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 142
Ridiculous that our union is where it is right now. It's unfortunate.
Hopefully wise and cooler heads can prevail and we can build some semblance of unity behind SS and the rest of the MEC minus a few who are hopefully on their way out in the near future.
Sorry to see our union lose two volunteers on the negotiating team.
Hopefully wise and cooler heads can prevail and we can build some semblance of unity behind SS and the rest of the MEC minus a few who are hopefully on their way out in the near future.
Sorry to see our union lose two volunteers on the negotiating team.
02-27-2012, 06:03 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Albie pretty good post and as one of the most adamant what are you idiots doing giving away the shop for 2 X 3% raises; I agree the past is past. We just have to sit and wait till the company is ready to talk money (in 3 or 4 years) while we work the small stuff.
But again the Alpapac 2010 numbers were 85% D 14% R. 2010 is not 2006/2008. Hate to tell the PAC but they bet on the wrong horse in 2010. Let see how we do in 2012 then we can talk.
But again the Alpapac 2010 numbers were 85% D 14% R. 2010 is not 2006/2008. Hate to tell the PAC but they bet on the wrong horse in 2010. Let see how we do in 2012 then we can talk.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
