PicklePausePull

Unless we have direct knowledge of each case in its entirety, and the details of each proceeding including all offers on the table, it is a bit rash to pronounce that any of our four brethren should have acted one way or the other. Our time may be better spent encouraging our union officials to work a deal to return each our brethren to his flying status.

Gunter

You mean instead of making their job more difficult?


I agree with you but I don't expect a majority of the regular posters to get it.

seefive

Question Tony. Is it possible that one or more of these pilots did something wrong? That they intentionally tried to have their cake and eat it too?
And if that were the case, would you support them in their efforts to get a pass on that?

Chainsaw

Pine, the "Go ALPA" quote is priceless. But not as humorous as your avatar!!

Your avatar says, "I'm the law bi**hes"!!

TonyC

Presumption of guilt.

That's a management strategy (see antonym of just culture).

No, I don't subscribe to it.






.

seefive

That's a very naive position. In addition, you didn't answer the question. If you "knew" they did something wrong, would you still support the position?

You appear to see everything as management versus union. Reality isn't that way. Take the chip off your shoulder and open your mind.

FDXLAG

I certainly dont want union officials to make decisions on supporting pilots in trouble with the company based on personal opinions and or knowledge. I want strict rules that govern how much support is given to pilots in trouble. And the same protocol should be followed for a pilot fired for J walking or murder. Whether they are a wide body captain or just off probation.

That said if the union and the company negotiate purposely vague rules I would feel the union owes a little something extra to guys screwed by a previous administration incompetence.

seefive

Don't misunderstand. I believe the union needs to support its members under all circumstances. I have my personal opinion about the HKG issues but I also don't have all the information.
Regardless, support can come in various ways. I bet the pilot who lost in the most recent arbitration wishes he had taken the union advice and settled. That's my opinion. I do not know him.

dckozak

Everyone should be familiar with one FedEx pilot that ALPA choose not to represent after he was fired, Auburn Calaway. Maybe an extreme example but he was a member, and if memory serves me right, he sued ALPA over his "non" representation with regard to being fired. Not all pilots infractions are equal, but all are entitled to a due process, fair hearing, even as clear cut as the one above.
Regarding the termination of the Hong Kong 4, the only facts we have, as line pilots are that they were HKG based pilots and they were fired. A lot of stuff has been summarize here on this blog and by the company. Both the CP and one of the HKG 4 has laid out, "facts", but as in any dispute, the devil is in the details.
We believe that ALPA (legal?) suggested they take some sort of offer from the company, details of which we can speculate but do not know, nor may ever know for sure. As regard to whether they are "guilty", we have already seen a split decision (fact and not a favorible split )in one case.
I believe that no right person would put their job, their career on the line if they didn't not believe they were right, or at least could convince others that they were right. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the sediment expressed in some posts that this is too good a job to, in essence, bet the house on; knowing the track record FedEx has in winning arbitrations.
I hope everyone can "win" but my guess is that emotion is playing as big a part as rational thought in driving events/outcomes. No one should fall on their sword to get a LOA for overseas pilots thats fair and understood. That said, ALPA needs to provide not just legal representation but also guidance when the prevailing view is that the case may not be winnable. In this situation, it appears, that at least for one pilot, they were correct.

TonyC

You've chosen an interesting example that has an interesting connection with the "Hong Kong 4." They chose to forgo the easy route of submission to The Company's proffer of a settlement, and instead have risked their livelihoods on standing for principle.

When Auburn Calloway attempted the hijacking on April 7, 1994, ALPA was in its infancy at Federal Express. After several failed attempts, ALPA won a vote in 1992 to be the Federal Express Pilots' first Collective Bargaining Agent. However, challenges by Federal Express and an anti-union pilot group delayed certification until 1993. Contract negotiations then began, and led to the NMB releasing both parties to self-help in 1995.

Prior to the purchase of The Flying Tiger Line by Federal Express, one pilot was, shall we say, outspoken about organizing the pilots. Without a union, the Federal Express pilots would have no advocate in the case of a seniority list integration. (Of course, we all know how smoothly that went, with lawsuits continuing for decades.) Based on Compuserve postings made by that pilot which were illegally obtained by another pilot's wife and forwarded to Fred Smith, Barney Barnhart's manager ordered him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Barney refused.

Barney was advised by ALPA to undergo the psychiatric evaluation in order to keep his job. The Company even offered to let Barney choose the doctor. Barney refused. Barney was terminated for insubordination. Barney sued Federal Express for wrongful termination. Here's the connection to Calloway: the judge who heard his case was the same judge who heard U.S. vs Auburn Calloway.

(I don't know if ALPA represented Calloway in his termination. Since we didn't have a CBA, there wasn't really a process to defend. Even by today's rules, it should have been a simple matter to insure he was afforded due process. It should be pretty obvious, though, that it's difficult to show up for work when you're serving 2 consecutive life sentences in Atwater, CA.)


Now, here's the connection he has to the Hong Kong 4. He could have bowed to pressure, swallowed his pride, violated his conscience, and submitted to a psychiatric evaluation, and kept his job. But he didn't. He stood on principle, knowing he was in the right, knowing that it could cost him his career with Federal Express. The Hong Kong 4 could also have confessed to doing wrong, subjected themselves to the monetary penalties and punitive actions, and kept their jobs. But they didn't. They stood on principle, knowing they were in the right, and knowing that it could cost them their career with FedEx Express.

So, many people will look back in hindsight and say, "Well, looks like Barney shoulda taken the deal." While you're looking back, look at our first Collective Bargaining Agreement and thank him for this paragraph: The story of the Hong Kong 4 is not over yet.






.