Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Sept. 2 message from FDX ALPA >

Sept. 2 message from FDX ALPA

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Sept. 2 message from FDX ALPA

Old 09-02-2014, 02:21 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 160
Default Sept. 2 message from FDX ALPA

I have never met John Cardaci but he seems like a nice fellow that truly feels compelled to make the lives of FDX pilots better. I think this is likely true of many that work on our behalf at FDX ALPA. In my opinion, that isn't enough when going head to head with FDX management.

In the Sept. 2 message, John said: "Management elected to follow their tried and true method of old school negotiations; unrealistic proposals offered in a delay prone process." I'll fight back the quips that beg to be said. I will say that this is at the core of what I perceive as "the problem". The MEC leaders thought that this time things would be different if only they would play nice - that management would play nice back. To be blunt, that was naive. The leaders seem shocked at management's behavior. There was no history to imply management would act any different this time. None. Still, the leaders took their course of action and frankly, a lot of pilots liked the "feel good" this approach brought.

This same message referenced the new billboard signs in a statement: "PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT ALL". The message does NOT say it all. The message I get is that we hope to make mention of how time has passed in negotiations without also offending anyone in management or our neighbor in Germantown.

Those in service to the line pilots have good intentions but they are not up to the challenge we now face. Unless they CLEARLY change their tactics or these reps are replaced with those that will, the pilots need to brace for difficult times ahead.
Baja is offline  
Old 09-02-2014, 02:23 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Default

A valid definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
Packrat is offline  
Old 09-02-2014, 02:35 PM
  #3  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

The reason you stick to a tried and true strategy is because ...


... it's tried and true.




Duh.






.
TonyC is online now  
Old 09-02-2014, 09:43 PM
  #4  
Line Holder
 
Bill Kilgore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Huey Gunship
Posts: 64
Default

I'm as tired of these negotiations as anyone, but all these pronouncements that our MEC and Negotiating Committee need to quit "playing nice" confuses me I guess. What options do we honestly have to "play mean" (for lack of a better term)? We're bound by the RLA. We negotiate according to the rules laid out by it. If FDX chooses not to negotiate in good faith, how do me "play mean" to force their hand? MEC is not allowed legally to tell us to not fly overtime, draft, not cancel vacation, etc. . . We're informational picketing in Sep, good. Does anyone think if we'd done that 2 months ago it would have made a difference? The only thing FDX cares about is the bottom line $$$. Every day without a new CBA is a bonus for them. A few hundred dudes in hats holding signs is a fantastic show of unity, but I doubt it changes management's tune much. Does anyone think tossing it to the NMB is going to speed things up?

We as individuals obviously have the power here based on the personal decisions we make about the schedules we fly. When how much or how little we fly begins to effect the bottom $$$ line for FDX, I think they will get serious about negotiations. In the meantime, what can the MEC/Negotiating Committee do legally to "play mean" and force management to come to the table with real intent to close the deal? I'm not trying to defend or attack our guys, I'm asking an honest question because I don't know. It seems to me that our options are limited due to the nature of the RLA, but I'd love to hear any ideas you guys got . . .

In Unity . . .
Bill Kilgore is offline  
Old 09-03-2014, 04:48 AM
  #5  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post
I'm as tired of these negotiations as anyone, but all these pronouncements that our MEC and Negotiating Committee need to quit "playing nice" confuses me I guess. What options do we honestly have to "play mean" (for lack of a better term)? We're bound by the RLA. We negotiate according to the rules laid out by it. If FDX chooses not to negotiate in good faith, how do me "play mean" to force their hand? MEC is not allowed legally to tell us to not fly overtime, draft, not cancel vacation, etc. . . We're informational picketing in Sep, good. Does anyone think if we'd done that 2 months ago it would have made a difference? The only thing FDX cares about is the bottom line $$$. Every day without a new CBA is a bonus for them. A few hundred dudes in hats holding signs is a fantastic show of unity, but I doubt it changes management's tune much. Does anyone think tossing it to the NMB is going to speed things up?

We as individuals obviously have the power here based on the personal decisions we make about the schedules we fly. When how much or how little we fly begins to effect the bottom $$$ line for FDX, I think they will get serious about negotiations. In the meantime, what can the MEC/Negotiating Committee do legally to "play mean" and force management to come to the table with real intent to close the deal? I'm not trying to defend or attack our guys, I'm asking an honest question because I don't know. It seems to me that our options are limited due to the nature of the RLA, but I'd love to hear any ideas you guys got . . .

In Unity . . .
Claiming to be involved in "interim negotiations" and at the end of two years throw PiBS in our face is not what I would call negotiating in good faith. Instead of calling them out, we continued to play ball with a team that never came to the game. At the same time we were being told by our team that everything was moving along and "productive"! We were also told that our engagement in "interim talks" would be looked upon favorably if things didn't work out as planned.

IMHO we should have pushed our chairs away from the table and walked out the second PiBS was dropped on the table. If everything we were being told was true, we should have had the upper hand at that point!
MaxKts is offline  
Old 09-03-2014, 06:20 AM
  #6  
Line Holder
 
Bill Kilgore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Huey Gunship
Posts: 64
Default

Originally Posted by MaxKts View Post
Claiming to be involved in "interim negotiations" and at the end of two years throw PiBS in our face is not what I would call negotiating in good faith. Instead of calling them out, we continued to play ball with a team that never came to the game. At the same time we were being told by our team that everything was moving along and "productive"! We were also told that our engagement in "interim talks" would be looked upon favorably if things didn't work out as planned.

IMHO we should have pushed our chairs away from the table and walked out the second PiBS was dropped on the table. If everything we were being told was true, we should have had the upper hand at that point!
I already said management is not negotiating in good faith, anyone who's paying attention can see that. So I guess I don't understand your first sentence. Also, I don't recall being told that things are moving along great and being productive. I remember being told that management was dragging their feet, introducing ridiculous proposals, and direct dealing on VIPS. As for the interim talks, I thought we were told that the NMB may look favorably on that if our case ended up on their docket (my memory may be off but I thought it was something like that). Well, we haven't petitioned the NMB yet so how is that a strike against our MEC/Negotiating Committee?

Say we did "push our chairs back and walk out." Maybe it would make us feel good to hear that, but what does that accomplish? I don't think management is gonna quake in their boots and say "Oooohhh, the pilots are mad we better give them whatever they want." To them they would have just bought more time under the old CBA until we came back to the table. We have to negotiate, until we're legally allowed to undertake self-help. That's what the RLA says as far as I know. Throwing tantrums and walking out would solve nothing IMO.

The leverage we have is in us individually. When it makes more financial sense for FDX to finalize a CBA then to maintain the status quo, we'll get somewhere. Anybody else have any ideas how the MEC is supposed to "play mean" besides walking out of negotiations? Again, I'm asking an honest question because I don't have an answer. . .
Bill Kilgore is offline  
Old 09-03-2014, 06:50 AM
  #7  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post
... Also, I don't recall being told that things are moving along great and being productive. I remember being told that management was dragging their feet, introducing ridiculous proposals, and direct dealing on VIPS....
When did we start hearing that? It wasn't when PiBS was thrown in our face. Go back and read some of the union emails about the pace of negotiations. It wasn't until recently that they started to admit the company has been dragging their feet since day one!!!!


Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post
As for the interim talks, I thought we were told that the NMB may look favorably on that if our case ended up on their docket (my memory may be off but I thought it was something like that). Well, we haven't petitioned the NMB yet so how is that a strike against our MEC/Negotiating Committee?
Maybe we should have already!

Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post
Say we did "push our chairs back and walk out." Maybe it would make us feel good to hear that, but what does that accomplish? I don't think management is gonna quake in their boots and say "Oooohhh, the pilots are mad we better give them whatever they want." To them they would have just bought more time under the old CBA until we came back to the table. We have to negotiate, until we're legally allowed to undertake self-help. That's what the RLA says as far as I know. Throwing tantrums and walking out would solve nothing IMO.
So you consider walking out a tantrum? I consider it a negotiating tactic just like the company has used before.

Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post
The leverage we have is in us individually. When it makes more financial sense for FDX to finalize a CBA then to maintain the status quo, we'll get somewhere. Anybody else have any ideas how the MEC is supposed to "play mean" besides walking out of negotiations? Again, I'm asking an honest question because I don't have an answer. . .
How do we accomplish enough financial incentive to bring the company to the table when their stated goal is to reduce what we have already? In their minds they are saving money by prolonging this. They DO NOT want to give us any more than we already have!
MaxKts is offline  
Old 09-03-2014, 07:18 AM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
Bill Kilgore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Huey Gunship
Posts: 64
Default

Originally Posted by MaxKts View Post
When did we start hearing that? It wasn't when PiBS was thrown in our face. Go back and read some of the union emails about the pace of negotiations. It wasn't until recently that they started to admit the company has been dragging their feet since day one!!!!

I will go back and read them, I just don't remember hearing that things were "productive" and "proceeding nicely" when PiBS was brought to the table. I may be wrong I'll go dig up some old emails


Maybe we should have already!

If you think this will speed things up then I don't know what to tell you


So you consider walking out a tantrum? I consider it a negotiating tactic just like the company has used before.

Tantrum - yes. Was it productive when they did it to us before? You've probably been here longer than me but I don't recall . . .

How do we accomplish enough financial incentive to bring the company to the table when their stated goal is to reduce what we have already? In their minds they are saving money by prolonging this. They DO NOT want to give us any more than we already have!

On this last point you and I agree 100%. That's why negotiations are not proceeding IMO. The company has no desire to give us another penny, I just don't think walking out or giving them dirty looks across the table will change their tune.
...........................
Bill Kilgore is offline  
Old 09-03-2014, 11:16 AM
  #9  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Bill Kilgore View Post

Originally Posted by MaxKts View Post

When did we start hearing that? It wasn't when PiBS was thrown in our face. Go back and read some of the union emails about the pace of negotiations. It wasn't until recently that they started to admit the company has been dragging their feet since day one!!!!


I will go back and read them, I just don't remember hearing that things were "productive" and "proceeding nicely" when PiBS was brought to the table. I may be wrong I'll go dig up some old emails



The Company sent us their openers in January 22, 2013, and they met with our Negotiating Committee 7 days later. The Company Openers consisted of traditional openers, vague bullet points to indicate sections they wanted to bargain without revealing the specifics of what they wanted to achieve. They also contained what amounted to a full-language (almost full-language) proposal for Pilot Interactive Bidding System -- PIBS.

POINT 1: The introduction of PIBS in the environment of Interim Discussions or Mid-Term Talks was a slap in the face to pilots interested in earnest, productive conversations.

POINT 2: The use of full-language in a proposal given to all pilots amounted to Direct Dealing. Knowing that the Negotiating Committee would not forward their proposal to the pilots, The Company sent it to pilots directly in the hopes that some would find it amenable, and perhaps a fracture in the crew force could be exposed and exploited.

----------------------------------

The Negotiating Committee briefed those in attendance and answered questions at the Memphis Joint Council Meeting on February 6, 2013. I was in the Sim (CMV2), so I could not attend. I do not recall hearing or reading about any public statement made by the Negotiating Committee that they were displeased with the inclusion of PBS in The Company's openers.

The February 12, 2013, Negotiating Committee Update mentioned nothing about Section 25 SCHEDULING, and, in the context of Section 4 MINIMUM GUARANTEES AND OTHER PAY PROVISIONS, barely mentioned PIBS.

On Saturday, February 23, 2013, we held a "Contract Kickoff" event at the Germantown Centre -- I was in attendance. After he spent a good deal of time praising the Company for the pace and tone of negotiations, I asked our Negotiating Committee Chairman if he was talking about the same Company that slapped us in the face with PIBS, and went straight to direct dealing with their openers. He denied that it was direct dealing, and he was confident that we could still negotiate even with a preferential bidding system on the table.


If ever there was a moment to rally the troops, that was it. The moment we got slapped in the face with PBS was when we should have stood up a Strike Center (a real Strike Center, not a single office in the crowded Kirby property) and started scheduling informational picketing. We should have begun educating and preparing the pilots for the battle ahead, because The Company made it crystal clear from that moment that they had no real intentions of negotiating. By now, we should all be conversant, no fluent, in the steps of the RLA process. By now we should all be prepared financially, to withdraw our services without causing financial doom. Right now we should all be standing shoulder-to-shoulder behind a Negotiating Committee who can then stand up to The Company and demand they take PBS off the table completely. We squandered a unifying moment, and we've watched a spring pass, and a summer pass, and a shareholders meeting pass, and a peak pass, and another spring pass, and another summer pass, and we're going to take a pass on another shareholders meeting, and before you know it, we'll be scratching our heads wondering how another peak has passed.

Instead of making a stand then, we now have a complacent, uninterested group of pilots who are just now beginning to get a little impatient. The Company knows what's behind the Negotiating Committee Chairman's demands, and they know they can be ignored.




But wait, it's even worse than that. We've been led to believe that PIBS was part of The Company's Openers -- it was something they just dropped on us at the conclusion of the Interim "Big Boy" talks, a surprise even to the Negotiating Committee. However, the Negotiating Committee Chairman let it slip once, and a careful look at The Company's Openers documents confirms, the PIBS proposal was given to the Negotiating Committee THREE MONTHS EARLIER.

The letter at the back of The Openers from FedEx Vice President, Labor Relations John Maxwell was HAND DELIVERED to our Negotiating Committee Chairman on October 23, 2012. (CLICK HERE TO VIEW (pilot.fedex.com access required) Section 25 Discussion Document) In that letter, Mr. Maxwell explains that "Company negotiators, subject matter experts and Flight Operations executives have spent hundreds of man-hours developing a comprehensive, full language discussion document for Section 25 of the CBA."


Did you hear anything about PIBS back then, in October, 2012? NO! We were continually told that things were going great, The Company was being really open, and we were getting things done that would have never been possible during traditional RLA Section 6 Negotiations. Our amendable date passed with zero fanfare, and life was just peachy.

Well, perhaps we should NOT have learned about it then. Perhaps the Negotiating Committee Chairman should have informed The Company right then and there that such a proposal could never be ratified by this pilot group, and warned them that including such a proposal in their openers would result in dire consequences. That would have given The Company an opportunity to reassess, produce a reasonable Section 25 proposal instead, and save a little face with their revised Openers.

But that sounds too much like walking out of the car dealership if they won't meet your price demands, sounds a little too much like conflict, sounds a little too much like drawing a line and standing up for the pilots you represent. That doesn't fit the pattern of they'll be nice to us if we'll just be nice to them. It sounds a little too much like tried and true negotiations tactics that have actually resulted in successes.

-----------------------------------

I'll leave it to you to find the very first hint from the Negotiating Committee or the MEC Chairman that expressed dissatisfaction concerning either the pace or the content of our negotiations. I think you'll find the FIRST such expressions from a small handful of Block Reps.


In February, 2013, the MEC and Negotiating Committee were more interested in bargaining a 767F LOA than they were in standing up against PBS, and we were more upset about losing KCM.






.
TonyC is online now  
Old 09-03-2014, 02:12 PM
  #10  
Line Holder
 
Bill Kilgore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: Huey Gunship
Posts: 64
Default

Tony:
Point 1 – Agree 100%


Point 2 – Agree that it was direct dealing. That's why I didn't bother reading it. I figured they can't direct deal with me if I ignore them. Same reason I didn't read any of the missives about PiBS that were posted on PFC, or any of Paul Cassell's ramblings. My Negotiating Committee speaks for me so I let them deal with all the company's garbage.


I agree also that the February 12, 2013, Negotiating Committee Update mentioned nothing about Section 25 SCHEDULING, and, in the context of Section 4 MINIMUM GUARANTEES AND OTHER PAY PROVISIONS, barely mentioned PIBS. However the December 26th, 2012 (the one two months earlier than the Feb 12, 2013 one) did mention the company's Section 25 proposal:
Section 25 (Scheduling)
Opened by the Company in October 2012. The Company’s proposal focused on bringing preferential bidding to FedEx. We are currently working on our first counterproposal in Section 25. “
The first Neg Comm Update that I could find after Oct 2012 was the one I mentioned above from December. It mentioned PiBS and said we working on a counterprosal. No mention of things going great, the company being really open, or us working miracles that would be unimaginable in Section 6. If someone said that in a meeting or in another email I haven't found it yet but I'm still looking. Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe the Neg Comm was misleading about when the Company proposed PiBS. “But wait, it's even worse than that. We've been led to believe that PIBS was part of The Company's Openers -- “. The update from Dec 2012 clearly states the company opened Section 25 in Oct 2012 (3 months before openers). Sorry if I misunderstood your point.


Now I wasn't in the room when the this Chap 25 proposal was given to our Negotiating team. As far as I know neither were you or any of the rest of us on this forum. I don't know what SL said to the company at the time. Maybe he did tell them it would never be ratified. Maybe he said nothing. I don't know how negotiations work. What I do know is that every comm I've read from our union since negotiations began is that PiBS is a non-starter and will not be considered for inclusion in any TA. If that's what my Negotiating Committee is saying to me, I can only assume that's what they're telling the company. At least I hope so.


I agree that setting up a Strike Center would make me feel better than bouncy houses and face painting. I agree informational picketing should have begun earlier. Do I think the company would be rushing to close this deal if we had a “real Strike Center”? I don't, unless it affected their bottom line $$. They know as well as anyone that the Feds will never let us strike as long as we're carrying US Postal freight. Again, I think informational picketing is a great way to build and show unity. Do I think the company would be rushing to close the deal if we'd began picketing a year ago? I don't, maybe you do. Doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. But I guess it would make us all feel better because our MEC would be doing something. “Perhaps the Negotiating Committee Chairman should have informed The Company right then and there that such a proposal could never be ratified by this pilot group, and warned them that including such a proposal in their openers would result in dire consequences.” What consequences are those? A Strike Center? Informational Picketing? Consequences yes, dire not so much IMO.


“I'll leave it to you to find the very first hint from the Negotiating Committee or the MEC Chairman that expressed dissatisfaction concerning either the pace or the content of our negotiations”
12/17/2013 Chairman's Update is the first one I could find . . .
Bill Kilgore is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
superduck
Union Talk
420
06-20-2011 10:00 PM
Russ
Regional
50
12-19-2008 11:28 AM
flyharm
Mergers and Acquisitions
0
02-18-2008 06:49 PM
KingAirPIC
Regional
181
01-22-2008 09:54 AM
noguardbaby
Cargo
35
11-12-2007 05:34 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices