FDX May Classes Cancelled
05-08-2012, 12:23 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
Alaskan, I think many of us on this board would appreciate it if you kept us up to date on any significant findings or actions regarding this situation.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Meanwhile, an observation: it's well past time for ALPA and its members to commit to screening all future agreements for compliance with all anti-discrimination laws. Quite frankly, the FDX LOA should not have been submitted for approval with its existing language re married pilots and the HA, nor should 68% of membership have voted "yes" to approve it.
Presumably ALPA would not have asked membership to approve an agreement that set different requirements for xxx pilots than for xxx ones (insert any of the following: white, black, female, male, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hispanic, Asian, etc.). That sort of disparate treatment would violate federal law. But there are also state and local laws adding protection for gay v. straight employees, married v. single employees, and employees with and without minor children. Employers like FDX have to abide by such laws so why would the union or membership want to negotiate them away?
There's no point arguing over who's to blame for this, but it should never happen again. No contract that violates federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws should ever get beyond preliminary negotiations. Maybe there needs to be a committee to ensure future CBAs and LOAs get this kind of screening?
05-08-2012, 02:08 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: B-777
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by Alaskan
Will do, Nightflyer.
Meanwhile, an observation: it's well past time for ALPA and its members to commit to screening all future agreements for compliance with all anti-discrimination laws. Quite frankly, the FDX LOA should not have been submitted for approval with its existing language re married pilots and the HA, nor should 68% of membership have voted "yes" to approve it.
Presumably ALPA would not have asked membership to approve an agreement that set different requirements for xxx pilots than for xxx ones (insert any of the following: white, black, female, male, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hispanic, Asian, etc.). That sort of disparate treatment would violate federal law. But there are also state and local laws adding protection for gay v. straight employees, married v. single employees, and employees with and without minor children. Employers like FDX have to abide by such laws so why would the union or membership want to negotiate them away?
There's no point arguing over who's to blame for this, but it should never happen again. No contract that violates federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws should ever get beyond preliminary negotiations. Maybe there needs to be a committee to ensure future CBAs and LOAs get this kind of screening?
Meanwhile, an observation: it's well past time for ALPA and its members to commit to screening all future agreements for compliance with all anti-discrimination laws. Quite frankly, the FDX LOA should not have been submitted for approval with its existing language re married pilots and the HA, nor should 68% of membership have voted "yes" to approve it.
Presumably ALPA would not have asked membership to approve an agreement that set different requirements for xxx pilots than for xxx ones (insert any of the following: white, black, female, male, Jewish, Christian, LDS, Hispanic, Asian, etc.). That sort of disparate treatment would violate federal law. But there are also state and local laws adding protection for gay v. straight employees, married v. single employees, and employees with and without minor children. Employers like FDX have to abide by such laws so why would the union or membership want to negotiate them away?
There's no point arguing over who's to blame for this, but it should never happen again. No contract that violates federal, state, or local anti-discrimination laws should ever get beyond preliminary negotiations. Maybe there needs to be a committee to ensure future CBAs and LOAs get this kind of screening?
05-08-2012, 02:32 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Originally Posted by Alaskan
Maybe there needs to be a committee to ensure future CBAs and LOAs get this kind of screening?
<<Out west, near Hawtch-Hawtch,
there’s a Hawtch-Hawtcher Bee-Watcher.
His job is to watch…
is to keep both his eyes on the lazy town bee.
A bee that is watched will work harder, you see. Well…he watched and he watched.
But, in spite of his watch,
that bee didn’t work any harder. Not Mawtch.
So somebody said,
“Our old-bee-watching man
just isn’t bee-watching as hard as he can.
He ought to be watched by another Hawtch-Hawtcher!
The thing that we need
is a Bee-Watcher-Watcher!”
WELL…
The Bee-Watcher-Watcher watched the Bee-Watcher.
He didn’t watch well. So another Hawtch-Hawtcher
had to come in as a Watch-Watcher-Watcher!
And today all the Hawtchers who live in Hawtch-Hawtch
are watching on Watch-Watcher-Watchering-Watch,
Watch-Watching the Watcher who’s watching the bee.
You’re not a Hawtch-Watcher. You’re lucky, you see!
05-08-2012, 02:53 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by trashhauler
I thought that's why we have lawyers reviewing the contract/LOA? You would hope they would be familiar with federal/state laws. Maybe that's to much to ask
05-08-2012, 05:54 PM
#47
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Reading the LOA, it doesnt seem that any laws are violated. But when you throw in the Companies interpretation, you run into problems.
On another note; I talked to one of the fired yesterday. He says that our Grievance Chair is the one that signed off, for ALPA, on the Companies termination language of our guys out there. If true, pathetic. Now the Union is acting like they are doing all they can for our guys. Maybe. But, they should have been all over this stuff from the beginning of the investigations. To me, the politics and reactive position is unacceptable. There has been no pro activity since day 1 of the FDA LOA.
On another note; I talked to one of the fired yesterday. He says that our Grievance Chair is the one that signed off, for ALPA, on the Companies termination language of our guys out there. If true, pathetic. Now the Union is acting like they are doing all they can for our guys. Maybe. But, they should have been all over this stuff from the beginning of the investigations. To me, the politics and reactive position is unacceptable. There has been no pro activity since day 1 of the FDA LOA.
05-08-2012, 09:51 PM
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 55
I highly doubt the company asked anyone at ALPA to "sign off" on the ridiculous termination letters (I've seen two out of four). AFAIK, CB's only role towards the end was to try to negotiate settlements. The company's offers weren't even in the same zip code as the ballpark.
Again, I can forgive myself and ALPA for not having noticed that the LOA could be twisted to empower a greedy company to treat married and single pilots differently. Fool me once and all that. Pointing fingers won't fix anything and uses energy better devoted to undoing the damage and ensuring the company never gets to do this again.
Again, I can forgive myself and ALPA for not having noticed that the LOA could be twisted to empower a greedy company to treat married and single pilots differently. Fool me once and all that. Pointing fingers won't fix anything and uses energy better devoted to undoing the damage and ensuring the company never gets to do this again.
05-09-2012, 08:44 AM
#50
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by Alaskan
I highly doubt the company asked anyone at ALPA to "sign off" on the ridiculous termination letters (I've seen two out of four). AFAIK, CB's only role towards the end was to try to negotiate settlements. The company's offers weren't even in the same zip code as the ballpark.
Again, I can forgive myself and ALPA for not having noticed that the LOA could be twisted to empower a greedy company to treat married and single pilots differently. Fool me once and all that. Pointing fingers won't fix anything and uses energy better devoted to undoing the damage and ensuring the company never gets to do this again.
Again, I can forgive myself and ALPA for not having noticed that the LOA could be twisted to empower a greedy company to treat married and single pilots differently. Fool me once and all that. Pointing fingers won't fix anything and uses energy better devoted to undoing the damage and ensuring the company never gets to do this again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
