FDX HKG pilots fired
03-28-2012, 10:20 AM
#11
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by flextodaline
OK, I opened a can of worms, but here's my take. 99.9999% of our guys have the integrity to do the right thing. There is a very small percentage of people that think they can get away with something, whether it be to benefit themselves, or in their eyes, screw the company. When these individuals think they can get away with something and that they are smarter then everyone else, they eventually get caught.....it's the law of averages. Even though the company watchdog (LK) is nowhere in sight, there are still folks that monitor this kind of thing......it's the way big business operates. These individuals, by (possibly, maybe, supposedly)performing these less than honest dealings, eventually make it harder for the 99.999% of the pilots doing it right. This is what hacks me off.
True, we are only hearing one side of the story, and I'm by no means a purple kool-aid drinker, but when part of our group (possibly, maybe, supposedly) tries to be slick, and the company has to spend time and effort on this crap instead of working towards making the company better, then we all suffer.
True, we are only hearing one side of the story, and I'm by no means a purple kool-aid drinker, but when part of our group (possibly, maybe, supposedly) tries to be slick, and the company has to spend time and effort on this crap instead of working towards making the company better, then we all suffer.
Sorry, thought I would insert some corrections I thought were needed, possibly.
The email from BM mentions just culture being the reason that he wrote to the crew force. I am sure that all this goes way above his head though. I am aware of one of the guys that is terminated, and from what I understand, he was offered to confess his guilt, pay back the $, and sign a non disclosure.
In the interest of just culture, I would hope that the Company would make public the rational and contract sections that were specifically not followed by the accused. A non disclosure has a bad taste written all over it, IMO. If the interpretation of the contract that was used to can these guys is vague, not specific, or has a 1% chance that it can be interpreted in the pilots favor, maybe just culture would say that "It is a little vague, we are going to clarify everything, you are not fired, you do not have to pay back anything, and you will no longer be getting the housing allowance until you meet the conditions set forth in our clarification." That would be true PSP.
03-28-2012, 10:41 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by iarapilot
Sorry, thought I would insert some corrections I thought were needed, possibly.
The email from BM mentions just culture being the reason that he wrote to the crew force. I am sure that all this goes way above his head though. I am aware of one of the guys that is terminated, and from what I understand, he was offered to confess his guilt, pay back the $, and sign a non disclosure.
In the interest of just culture, I would hope that the Company would make public the rational and contract sections that were specifically not followed by the accused. A non disclosure has a bad taste written all over it, IMO. If the interpretation of the contract that was used to can these guys is vague, not specific, or has a 1% chance that it can be interpreted in the pilots favor, maybe just culture would say that "It is a little vague, we are going to clarify everything, you are not fired, you do not have to pay back anything, and you will no longer be getting the housing allowance until you meet the conditions set forth in our clarification." That would be true PSP.
The email from BM mentions just culture being the reason that he wrote to the crew force. I am sure that all this goes way above his head though. I am aware of one of the guys that is terminated, and from what I understand, he was offered to confess his guilt, pay back the $, and sign a non disclosure.
In the interest of just culture, I would hope that the Company would make public the rational and contract sections that were specifically not followed by the accused. A non disclosure has a bad taste written all over it, IMO. If the interpretation of the contract that was used to can these guys is vague, not specific, or has a 1% chance that it can be interpreted in the pilots favor, maybe just culture would say that "It is a little vague, we are going to clarify everything, you are not fired, you do not have to pay back anything, and you will no longer be getting the housing allowance until you meet the conditions set forth in our clarification." That would be true PSP.
I really hope that in the end the guys that are terminated are reinstated and the company finds out they cant make arbitrary demands on Americans citizens that have no basis in logic. As a hypothetical lets take 2 domestic partner female fdx pilots. One is based in HKG and one is based in ANC. If the pilot in ANC has a crashpad and commutes from HKG would that make the HKG pilot ineligible for the housing package? Would it survive a court challenge?
Last edited by FDXLAG; 03-28-2012 at 11:14 AM.
03-28-2012, 12:38 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 55
Critical info for current/new FDA pilots:
If you are a FDX pilot based in HKG or CGN, and have given up your spouse’s freedom to live, travel or work wherever he or she wants due to fear and intimidation, you should be aware that the company is likely violating its Code of Business Ethics by attempting to constrain your spouse’s personal choices. Depending on your permanent state of residence back in the USA, FDX may also be violating state or local discrimination laws. In fact, if you wanted to bid HKG or CGN but decided not to because your spouse did not want to have to move there, you may also have suffered actionable discrimination.
FedEx’s Code of Business Ethics includes this language: “Unacceptable behaviors include harassment, violence, intimidation and discrimination of any kind involving . . . marital status (where applicable), or any other characteristic protected under applicable law.”
States that prohibit marital status discrimination by employers regarding terms or conditions of employment: AK, CA. CT, DE, FL, HI, IN, MD, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OR, MD, ND, VA, WA, WI. Many municipalities also prohibit marital discrimination. In these states and cities, it’s OK to give married employees higher value benefits (e.g. family health insurance coverage) but not to pay employees more or less based on their marital status, base other terms or conditions of employment on that status (e.g. set different Housing Allowance eligibility requirements for married v. single pilots), or take adverse action against employees based on their marital status. In HI, MN and MT, protections are even stronger: employers cannot discriminate based on the identity or situation of the employee’s spouse.
Enforcement is usually by a state or local board or commission, e.g. “State X Human Rights Commission.” The onus is on the employer to overcome the presumption that the employee’s marital status is not a bona fide occupational requirement. Federal courts have ruled that employers like FDX MUST comply with such state and local anti-discrimination laws, and that the RLA, ERISA, Airline Deregulation Act, Commerce Clause, and collective bargaining agreements do not supersede this requirement.
Here’s what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told FDX back in 2001: “The RLA . . . does not preempt state or local efforts to prevent discrimination or set minimal substantive requirements on contract terms. . . . Congress did not intend the RLA to prevent states and municipalities from prohibiting discrimination. . . . That the Airlines may have to negotiate with the various unions representing their employees to change the benefits policy is not in conflict with the RLA. A consequence of the states' ability to set minimum standards and prevent discrimination is that employers and unions may face different requirements in different jurisdictions. In some instances, a new state or local law will cause employers and unions to go back to the bargaining table when a current CBA does not comply with the law. This is not at odds with the purpose of the RLA.”
And here’s what the Supreme Court said about the RLA way back in 1943: “We would hardly be expected to hold that the price of the federal effort to protect the peace and continuity of commerce [i.e., the RLA] has been to strike down state sanitary codes, health regulations, factory inspections, and safety provisions for industry and transportation. . . . it cannot be that the minimum requirements laid down by state authority are all set aside. We hold that the enactment by Congress of the Railway Labor Act was not a pre-emption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves.”
Stay tuned and take what you hear about the terminated pilots’ “shameful conduct” with a big grain of salt. Consider the source and motives, and note that the pilots’ side of this story has not yet been heard or examined by an impartial forum. Meanwhile FDA pilots and the union would do well to educate themselves about whether the company’s efforts to reach inside their personal family arrangements, and to dictate what pilots do on their days off, is legal under US law or ethical based on the company’s own code.
FedEx’s Code of Business Ethics includes this language: “Unacceptable behaviors include harassment, violence, intimidation and discrimination of any kind involving . . . marital status (where applicable), or any other characteristic protected under applicable law.”
States that prohibit marital status discrimination by employers regarding terms or conditions of employment: AK, CA. CT, DE, FL, HI, IN, MD, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OR, MD, ND, VA, WA, WI. Many municipalities also prohibit marital discrimination. In these states and cities, it’s OK to give married employees higher value benefits (e.g. family health insurance coverage) but not to pay employees more or less based on their marital status, base other terms or conditions of employment on that status (e.g. set different Housing Allowance eligibility requirements for married v. single pilots), or take adverse action against employees based on their marital status. In HI, MN and MT, protections are even stronger: employers cannot discriminate based on the identity or situation of the employee’s spouse.
Enforcement is usually by a state or local board or commission, e.g. “State X Human Rights Commission.” The onus is on the employer to overcome the presumption that the employee’s marital status is not a bona fide occupational requirement. Federal courts have ruled that employers like FDX MUST comply with such state and local anti-discrimination laws, and that the RLA, ERISA, Airline Deregulation Act, Commerce Clause, and collective bargaining agreements do not supersede this requirement.
Here’s what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told FDX back in 2001: “The RLA . . . does not preempt state or local efforts to prevent discrimination or set minimal substantive requirements on contract terms. . . . Congress did not intend the RLA to prevent states and municipalities from prohibiting discrimination. . . . That the Airlines may have to negotiate with the various unions representing their employees to change the benefits policy is not in conflict with the RLA. A consequence of the states' ability to set minimum standards and prevent discrimination is that employers and unions may face different requirements in different jurisdictions. In some instances, a new state or local law will cause employers and unions to go back to the bargaining table when a current CBA does not comply with the law. This is not at odds with the purpose of the RLA.”
And here’s what the Supreme Court said about the RLA way back in 1943: “We would hardly be expected to hold that the price of the federal effort to protect the peace and continuity of commerce [i.e., the RLA] has been to strike down state sanitary codes, health regulations, factory inspections, and safety provisions for industry and transportation. . . . it cannot be that the minimum requirements laid down by state authority are all set aside. We hold that the enactment by Congress of the Railway Labor Act was not a pre-emption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves.”
Stay tuned and take what you hear about the terminated pilots’ “shameful conduct” with a big grain of salt. Consider the source and motives, and note that the pilots’ side of this story has not yet been heard or examined by an impartial forum. Meanwhile FDA pilots and the union would do well to educate themselves about whether the company’s efforts to reach inside their personal family arrangements, and to dictate what pilots do on their days off, is legal under US law or ethical based on the company’s own code.
03-28-2012, 12:50 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: moving target
Posts: 385
Originally Posted by Alaskan
If you are a FDX pilot based in HKG or CGN, and have given up your spouse’s freedom to live, travel or work wherever he or she wants due to fear and intimidation, you should be aware that the company is likely violating its Code of Business Ethics by attempting to constrain your spouse’s personal choices. Depending on your permanent state of residence back in the USA, FDX may also be violating state or local discrimination laws. In fact, if you wanted to bid HKG or CGN but decided not to because your spouse did not want to have to move there, you may also have suffered actionable discrimination.
FedEx’s Code of Business Ethics includes this language: “Unacceptable behaviors include harassment, violence, intimidation and discrimination of any kind involving . . . marital status (where applicable), or any other characteristic protected under applicable law.”
States that prohibit marital status discrimination by employers regarding terms or conditions of employment: AK, CA. CT, DE, FL, HI, IN, MD, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OR, MD, ND, VA, WA, WI. Many municipalities also prohibit marital discrimination. In these states and cities, it’s OK to give married employees higher value benefits (e.g. family health insurance coverage) but not to pay employees more or less based on their marital status, base other terms or conditions of employment on that status (e.g. set different Housing Allowance eligibility requirements for married v. single pilots), or take adverse action against employees based on their marital status. In HI, MN and MT, protections are even stronger: employers cannot discriminate based on the identity or situation of the employee’s spouse.
Enforcement is usually by a state or local board or commission, e.g. “State X Human Rights Commission.” The onus is on the employer to overcome the presumption that the employee’s marital status is not a bona fide occupational requirement. Federal courts have ruled that employers like FDX MUST comply with such state and local anti-discrimination laws, and that the RLA, ERISA, Airline Deregulation Act, Commerce Clause, and collective bargaining agreements do not supersede this requirement.
Here’s what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told FDX back in 2001: “The RLA . . . does not preempt state or local efforts to prevent discrimination or set minimal substantive requirements on contract terms. . . . Congress did not intend the RLA to prevent states and municipalities from prohibiting discrimination. . . . That the Airlines may have to negotiate with the various unions representing their employees to change the benefits policy is not in conflict with the RLA. A consequence of the states' ability to set minimum standards and prevent discrimination is that employers and unions may face different requirements in different jurisdictions. In some instances, a new state or local law will cause employers and unions to go back to the bargaining table when a current CBA does not comply with the law. This is not at odds with the purpose of the RLA.”
And here’s what the Supreme Court said about the RLA way back in 1943: “We would hardly be expected to hold that the price of the federal effort to protect the peace and continuity of commerce [i.e., the RLA] has been to strike down state sanitary codes, health regulations, factory inspections, and safety provisions for industry and transportation. . . . it cannot be that the minimum requirements laid down by state authority are all set aside. We hold that the enactment by Congress of the Railway Labor Act was not a pre-emption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves.”
Stay tuned and take what you hear about the terminated pilots’ “shameful conduct” with a big grain of salt. Consider the source and motives, and note that the pilots’ side of this story has not yet been heard or examined by an impartial forum. Meanwhile FDA pilots and the union would do well to educate themselves about whether the company’s efforts to reach inside their personal family arrangements, and to dictate what pilots do on their days off, is legal under US law or ethical based on the company’s own code.
FedEx’s Code of Business Ethics includes this language: “Unacceptable behaviors include harassment, violence, intimidation and discrimination of any kind involving . . . marital status (where applicable), or any other characteristic protected under applicable law.”
States that prohibit marital status discrimination by employers regarding terms or conditions of employment: AK, CA. CT, DE, FL, HI, IN, MD, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OR, MD, ND, VA, WA, WI. Many municipalities also prohibit marital discrimination. In these states and cities, it’s OK to give married employees higher value benefits (e.g. family health insurance coverage) but not to pay employees more or less based on their marital status, base other terms or conditions of employment on that status (e.g. set different Housing Allowance eligibility requirements for married v. single pilots), or take adverse action against employees based on their marital status. In HI, MN and MT, protections are even stronger: employers cannot discriminate based on the identity or situation of the employee’s spouse.
Enforcement is usually by a state or local board or commission, e.g. “State X Human Rights Commission.” The onus is on the employer to overcome the presumption that the employee’s marital status is not a bona fide occupational requirement. Federal courts have ruled that employers like FDX MUST comply with such state and local anti-discrimination laws, and that the RLA, ERISA, Airline Deregulation Act, Commerce Clause, and collective bargaining agreements do not supersede this requirement.
Here’s what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told FDX back in 2001: “The RLA . . . does not preempt state or local efforts to prevent discrimination or set minimal substantive requirements on contract terms. . . . Congress did not intend the RLA to prevent states and municipalities from prohibiting discrimination. . . . That the Airlines may have to negotiate with the various unions representing their employees to change the benefits policy is not in conflict with the RLA. A consequence of the states' ability to set minimum standards and prevent discrimination is that employers and unions may face different requirements in different jurisdictions. In some instances, a new state or local law will cause employers and unions to go back to the bargaining table when a current CBA does not comply with the law. This is not at odds with the purpose of the RLA.”
And here’s what the Supreme Court said about the RLA way back in 1943: “We would hardly be expected to hold that the price of the federal effort to protect the peace and continuity of commerce [i.e., the RLA] has been to strike down state sanitary codes, health regulations, factory inspections, and safety provisions for industry and transportation. . . . it cannot be that the minimum requirements laid down by state authority are all set aside. We hold that the enactment by Congress of the Railway Labor Act was not a pre-emption of the field of regulating working conditions themselves.”
Stay tuned and take what you hear about the terminated pilots’ “shameful conduct” with a big grain of salt. Consider the source and motives, and note that the pilots’ side of this story has not yet been heard or examined by an impartial forum. Meanwhile FDA pilots and the union would do well to educate themselves about whether the company’s efforts to reach inside their personal family arrangements, and to dictate what pilots do on their days off, is legal under US law or ethical based on the company’s own code.
03-28-2012, 12:54 PM
#15
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: ??WhoKnows??
Posts: 49
Nice post Alaskan!!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
03-28-2012, 01:40 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: ANC-Based MD-11 FO
Posts: 328
"...If the interpretation of the contract that was used to can these guys is vague, not specific, or has a 1% chance that it can be interpreted in the pilots favor..."
We have 121 or so pilots based in HKG; the company investigated five I think; and two were fired, right? (The numbers may be off by a few but the order of magnitude is correct.) I can't see how you could say the contract is difficult to follow since 96% of the pilots in HKG apparently were able to comply with the contract and not be in trouble.
We have 121 or so pilots based in HKG; the company investigated five I think; and two were fired, right? (The numbers may be off by a few but the order of magnitude is correct.) I can't see how you could say the contract is difficult to follow since 96% of the pilots in HKG apparently were able to comply with the contract and not be in trouble.
03-28-2012, 01:49 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Trunk Monkey
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by FoamFlier
Nice post Alaskan!!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
03-28-2012, 02:09 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
It is interesting that he chose to use the term "just culture" in this context. This has NOTHING to do with "just culture", which has a clearly defined definition. REAL "just culture" is being described in our recurrent classes. The term is completely out of place used in the context it was.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
