Notwithstanding the fact you contradict yourself about which situations are (were) pay protected, you state here that The Company will actually pay protect you, then you count 50% as a gain. Care to explain that math?

Regardless of when the language was written, or how procedures or mobility options have evolved, the fundamental point is the pilot is available for jury assignment. When he is available for jury assignment, he is not available for trip assignment, and he should be fully pay protected.



It's good that you did your consulting with The Company. Remember, THEY are the party to the CBA who are paid to cut costs. The OTHER party to the CBA, the party we pay to defend the CBA and our rights therein, is FedEx ALPA.

I don't pay them to entertain, much less accept, new ways to reduce compensation.






.

I agree with you here, I am less than happy with the waste of our dues dollars. For example, the whole DC gang on continuous flight pay.

In this particular case I see the party charged with representing us making a good judgement call. There was a change to the SOP with Jury Pay, hence the grievance because they no longer thought paying for call in was required. Is that because of the "government compensated...." language or other legal positions ? I do not know. However the people in decision making roles must believe that this is equal to or better than the best possible result from a system board ruling?

This is really more of a snapshot of the larger picture, eventually we will have to vote on a CBA that has takes and GIVES. If you view this item as a give then I am sure it will factor into your ultimate CBA vote since this settlement is not valid should a future CBA be voted down.

And if you want 100% pay for jury duty.....

It's a GIVE
 

Yep, definitely a GIVE back....and WHY? IMO the CBA language is clear and I shouldn't be punished (or anyone else) for doing my "civic duty." I will be voting NO on the next TA if this language is included. I'm not so sure "my MEC speaks for me any longer," this settlement is absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary. I have NO faith in the current MEC leadership. Wake up folks! When we negotiate from a position of weakness, as the MEC just demonstrated here, we're about to get screwed. The letter has already been sent to my rep. I guess that's all I can do, besides voting NO! Get ready boys........this is going to get UGLY!

Does this mean we shouldn't wear our lanyards?

I completely agree with your assessment Dakota. I would like to believe there is some "missing" information out there that will vindicate the MEC's poor decision making...but I doubt it exists.

Anyway Dakota...welcome to the 32%...if you weren't already a member.

Nope, not saying that STW. I believe that ALL of us standing together is all that we have, otherwise the alternative is REALLY UGLY. But I just don't believe that the current regime has our best interests at heart and I'm certainly glad that Tony C said something because the silence by the membership on this is deafening. To me, losing a 90+ hour trip to jury duty and then getting paid 45 is a BIG deal!

Curious what you would call an arbitration of this where we lost all pay protection for call in? A hard fought give?

As for a no vote, if an item of this nature drives you to a no vote without seeing the rest of a TA I am pretty sure you are a no vote no matter what because the new CBA will have some significant gives that affect daily life not just jury duty that may or may not ever happen on top of a scheduled trip or r day.

As for this issue, the only information we have is the agreement itself and connecting the dots would lead anyone to the deduction that we must not have a sound case on this. I am sure your letter will be answered by the MEC and maybe contain additional info. Weakness or logical reasoning? I hope the later.

Long before there was a 32%, there was a 13%.






.

Okay, so let me understand this. Every time I've been called for jury duty, I've asked them to release me from it. I assumed I wouldn't get paid anything but the $8/day the state offers, have to get off work, and they would realize that I'm pretty conservative and not put me on the jury anyways. If I thought I'd be allowed on the jury, I would be really interested in doing it, but if they ask me any questions, the defense will probably not allow it anyways.

So before this giveback, you could get paid full pay for a 90 hour trip not for doing jury duty, but just for calling in once a day. Is that correct? And this is doing your civic duty? If I got that right, that was a great contractual deal....even 50% pay is a great deal, but come on. Gonna blast the union, not vote on any contract that includes this wording? Though it sounds like you still get paid fully for your trip if you actually pull the jury duty?

Look, I'm all for getting the great deals when they're available, but this isn't doing your civic duty. This is a scam that a select few are working. Correct me if I have misunderstood this issue, please.