|
Originally Posted by skypine27
(Post 1160108)
None of these 5 guys stole anything. The company is going to find that out the hard way when they get their jobs back ++
That said, I hope they either decide to work out a settlement and/or win their case. From the company email, it appears they are wanting to send out a blanket amnesty plan to all employees, not just the ones they have investigated. This has been a real mess for sure. |
Originally Posted by ROSSI
(Post 1160107)
A "Just Culture" is defined as a way of safety thinking that that promotes a questioning attitude, is resistant to complacency, Is committed to excellence, and fosters both Personal accountability, and corporate self-regulation in safety matters.
A "Just" safety culture is, then, both attitudinal as well as structural, relating to both individuals and organizations. Personal attitudes and corporate style can enable or facilitate the unsafe acts and CONDITIONS that are the precursors to accidents and incidents. To claim the FDX Express operates with the intent of using "Just Culture" is dubious at best. The blame for the debacle that these 3-5 fired pilots find themselves in is far and wide. The Company negotiators that proffered FDA LOA v 1.0 with a package so far below standard that once the business plan was attempted to be executed, the Company could not attract enough pilots to staff the operation and resorted to dh pilots to theatre in order to run the operation. Even under the 4a2b pay cuts and threats of furlough weren't bad enough to entice crew members to bid HKG. The former Negotiating Chairman BC and former MEC Chair DW are particularly culpable in taking the flight pay loss from ALPA, yet not performing the proper due diligence to adequately asses the merits (or de-merits) of v 1.0. (The infamouse words of BC & DW, "Don't bother asking questions about the HKG package, you're too junior to ever get awarded HKG.". The 67% of pilots that voted for FDA LOA v 1.0 and 2.0 with the mentality of, "I'm not going, so it doesn't affect me.". This FDA LOA affects all of us. (I have not bid nor have I been awarded an FDA position). We, ALPA members, have been expending negotiating capital, money, and resources to improve v 1.0 that could have been used elsewhere had an original worthy deal been agreed to. Now, we will be spending time, money, and resources on defending our terminated brethren because of the short sighted philosophy of "it doesn't affect me". In this example, both personal attitudes and Corporate style has facilitated the unsafe CONDITIONS that have led up to potential civil rights violations and employment terminations. Word to the wise, when voting on Contract provisions, think 10 years down the line and how this can come back to haunt us all. and still I have to say, THET STOLE FROM THE COMPANY!!! Get it? |
...........
|
Originally Posted by MEMA300
(Post 1159503)
I have not looked real closely at the FDA LOA recently. Let's say I am a single pilot that takes a full move non-commuter package to HKG. I sign a lease using all my allowance then a few months later get married to the women of my dreams in the united states off of one of those online dating sights. Does she now have to move to HKG? If she does not, then do I have to give money back or change my status and take an allowance hit even though my rent has not changed since I signed a contract for a predetermined period of time. That seems to not be fair.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS. Right or wrong, the MEC was fearful that we would lose HKG to foreign pilots. They may talk about other aspects of the situation at the time - regulated age change, DC10 retirement, economic slowdown - but that is essentially what they were thinking. So we took this byzantine offer from managers that have no trouble making this difficult for us because that is how THEY live and work at FedEx. In hindsight, it was a poor deal and has led to much of our FDX Alpa infighting today. I suspect most crewmembers haven't used their union legal department to full advantage. This needlessly complex arrangement from the brilliant BC, who filed grievances on his own 2006 contract because he doesn't understand legalese as much as he thinks he does, is what we now have to live with. Pride and corporate precedent will prevent this agreement from changing much. If they fired folks over it and soon change it, could they be sued to let them come back? Everyone who's been on the property awhile knows the company is fully lawyered up and, with regards to bidding HKG, we now have to assume the same posture. Putting newhires there is trouble if you ask me. A full legal brief from the company on what will get you in trouble as a pilot, in the FDA or MEM, should be a part of indoc and fully documented. They try to put the onus on the "sponsor" to impart years of experience dealing with audit and scheduling to a newhire but that does not relieve the company of their responsibility to make it less difficult to get into trouble. Companies have a responsibility to fully brief employees on complex legal aspects of their job, unionized or not. Cutting corners in this department is not o.k. I think this is why people often get their jobs back. But I don't expect change. I bet it's a cheaper way to keep the natives in line. Just fear of being temporarily fired is enough for most. |
Originally Posted by golfandfly
(Post 1160153)
FedEx is a multi-billion dollar corporation that has a very robust legal department. I doubt they are particularly concerned with this issue.
That said, I hope they either decide to work out a settlement and/or win their case. From the company email, it appears they are wanting to send out a blanket amnesty plan to all employees, not just the ones they have investigated. This has been a real mess for sure. This is also part of the problem. FedEx's legal department is also too arrogant to see when it's wrong. There are a lot of moving parts in HKG and some of them are discriminatory. They are very used to operating in Memphis where they get there way. They also get there way on Capitol Hill but my sense is that this will get interesting. With that said, if anyone was knowingly ripping off the company, that's a problem. But the company telling your spouse where to live....I'm not so sure they can do that. Just because it says it in the contract doesn't make it legal. Food for thought. Regardless, we need to support our folks that are undergoing a very stressful time. I'd sure like to know why the company is so fired up about this as I've heard through the grapevine the number of investigations is rather large. Yet another thing to thank DW and his cronies for. They're arrogance and ineptitude will linger for a long time. |
Originally Posted by gderek
(Post 1160517)
With that said, if anyone was knowingly ripping off the company, that's a problem. But the company telling your spouse where to live....I'm not so sure they can do that.
But they can make you sign an overly complex legal contract that says in order to take the housing allowance you have to meet lengthy and detailed requirements. I NEVER want to let ANY employer reach that far into my life. I don't care how much I might enjoy a HKG or CGN, I ain't signing that thing. I think one problem is it's a contract that is too vague and gave the company too much leeway for interpretation....again. Maybe there has been some crewmember misconduct. Not judging. I don't think any two cases will be alike and it doesn't justify the witch hunt atmosphere. Another pain in the butt that is keeping our eye off the ball. I'm sure the company likes that part. Plus it keeps the fangs of the legal department sharpened for more important cases in the future. |
Originally Posted by skypine27
(Post 1160108)
None of these 5 guys stole anything. The company is going to find that out the hard way when they get their jobs back ++
One has to ask the question, "What litigation has our union WON on the behalf of pilots since... I'll even make it easy.... since we became ALPA?" I could be missing one or two but as I recall the answer is zero, nada, none. As a union we've had our arses handed to us time and again thru mediation, grievance, and all manner of legal issues that I am familiar with. (There could be others that were settled out of court but I don't know of any. If there are, plz educate me). Furthermore, how many guys were in that little 9 year legal dispute over their seniority during the FT merger? How did that go? (HINT: not too good). Bottom line is we've had our clocks cleaned in the legal department each and every time we've gone to court, either through mediation, grievance, or litigation. If there is a "BIG" case that we've won, I haven't heard about it. And as a side note..... if this LOA was full of holes of varying obscurity regarding residency issues, why didn't our crack team of shyster's pick up on those nuances? Just sayin'.......... |
Originally Posted by Magenta Line
(Post 1160557)
Well...... I certainly hope so but just my 2 cents..... I wouldn't bet on it.
One has to ask the question, "What litigation has our union WON on the behalf of pilots since... I'll even make it easy.... since we became ALPA?" I could be missing one or two but as I recall the answer is zero, nada, none. As a union we've had our arses handed to us time and again thru mediation, grievance, and all manner of legal issues that I am familiar with. (There could be others that were settled out of court but I don't know of any. If there are, plz educate me). Furthermore, how many guys were in that little 9 year legal dispute over their seniority during the FT merger? How did that go? (HINT: not too good). Bottom line is we've had our clocks cleaned in the legal department each and every time we've gone to court, either through mediation, grievance, or litigation. If there is a "BIG" case that we've won, I haven't heard about it. And as a side note..... if this LOA was full of holes of varying obscurity regarding residency issues, why didn't our crack team of shyster's pick up on those nuances? Just sayin'.......... This whole thing just sucks anyway you look at it. Management may be trying to take our eyes of the ball, but they need to be careful how far they push. This could have unintended consequences for them. Like some unity building for the union. |
Originally Posted by flextodaline
(Post 1160156)
+1....
and still I have to say, THET STOLE FROM THE COMPANY!!! Get it? If I understand you correctly, you ARE saying that they stole from the Company!? Really? And what factual info do you have to justify that statement? To me this is a serious subject. All the comments about the LOA deal being bad and so forth might be correct, but we are talking about some peoples lives here. Innocent until proven guilty I would think. And for all those that imply that these folks were weaseling or ripping off the Company; unless you have some concrete facts, you might want to hold those thoughts. The Company probably loves hearing our pilots dissing their ALPA brothers/sisters. We already have enough dysfunction around here without adding to it! I suspect that the final outcome will be decided in court. In the meantime, hope for the best for them, and a succinct clarification from the Company and/or the Union concerning the FDA requirements for the housing allowance. |
Originally Posted by trashhauler
(Post 1160652)
Actually most arbitrations of pilot jobs go our way, unless there is alcohol or drugs involved. I was told that most arbitrators have a hard time taking away a man's lively hood, unless gross misconduct...
I don't KNOW the details of any of these cases, but like most here, have heard the rumors. The company is certainly alleging lying/cheating. I don't think the company is attempting to fire anyone because they didn't move their wife to HK, the company is alleging at least some of the pilots involved falsified a document saying they had. It's one thing to say: "You can't make my wife move to HK - NO WAY am I signing that!" and it's a completely different thing to sign a document saying you'll (plural if appropriate) move, not move, and then sign a second document saying you've completed the move. I believe the outcome of the firings will hinge on whether an arbitrator believes those involved lied on those documents, not on the merits of the TA, nor the ability or lack thereof of the company to "require" a spouse to move. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:47 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands