You give up certain freedoms when you volunteer for a job and accept pay in the form of members' dues money to perform that job. You never give up the freedom to forgo the compensation and quit the job.

We all elect our Local Council Representatives. All of those Local Council Reps in the Memphis Councils, and the Council Chairman in the other bases form the Master Executive Council, the body charged with making policy and setting the direction of the Association at FedEx. They decide who the MEC Officers are going to be. They decide who will be on the Negotiating Committee. They decide whether and when we'll have informational picketing, and they will decide whether a Tentative Agreement is worthy of your time to consider it and vote.

The MEC Officers work for the MEC, not the other way around. Committee Chairmen work for the MEC, indirectly, not the other way around. If you want to be the Hotel Committee Chairman, you agree to work for the MEC. You are expected to perform your job in an apolitical fashion. It really doesn't matter whether you like the guy who's the MEC Vice Chairman or the Block 1 Rep, you do your job as the Hotel Committee Chairman. If the MEC decides that our goal is to put pilots in hotels as close to the airport as possible, and to use Hotel 6 or equivalent to the maximum extent possible, then the job of the Hotel Committee Chairman is to put pilots in hotels as close to the airport as possible, and to use Hotel 6 or equivalent to the maximum extent possible. He doesn't have to like the goal, or agree with it, he only has to work to support it, because it was established by the body that was elected by the members, the MEC. If he is so distressed by the conflict between his opinion and the direction of the MEC, he can always quit. When he quits, he can voice his opinion as loudly and as clearly as he chooses, but as long as he is "employed" in the service of the MEC, he has an ethical and moral obligation to keep his opinions between himself and the MEC.

Our elected representatives, the FedEx MEC, chose to endorse Joe DePete for the position of ALPA First Vice-President. FedEx has never had a pilot hold one of the top four positions in ALPA, and to get one in that position is a huge benefit to all FedEx pilots. This was our best chance yet of getting one of those seats, and the FedEx MEC endorsed Joe unanimously, as in 13-0.

Fred E., a prominent committee chairman, didn't like the MEC's choice. He was more interested in getting our MEC Chairman elected to the ALPA top spot, ALPA President. Rather than choose between his job -- Committee Chairman, working for the MEC -- and his opinion -- opposite to the MEC -- he tried to keep both. He deliberately worked to undermine the campaign efforts to support Joe by trying to smear Joe to the ALPA Board of Directors members who would be casting the votes.

Fred had the freedom to give up his FedEx ALPA Committee Chairman job and speak out as much as he desired. He did NOT have the freedom to accept payment in the form of dues money for trips from which he was removed, dues money to pay for his travel to Florida, and dues money to pay for his lodging and meals, and to then wear his FedEx ALPA Committee Chairman job and actively work in direct opposition to the direction of the MEC.



I seem to recall a common criticism of MECs of the past that they were ALWAYS in unanimous agreement about EVERYTHING! It seemed so unhealthy that 12 people could always agree.

(Of course, that wasn't the case, but it seems funny to me that whether it's perceived that they're always or unanimous, they're wrong, but if they're never unanimous, they're also wrong.)

Witch hunt? I think of it more as ethics housecleaning, but I agree with you that the MEC has more important things that they should be dealing with.

Well, if you can call 9-0-4 unanimous. While some Block Reps spoke in Fred's defense, they lacked the courage to vote either way, so they abstained.

Now there's a sad commentary.






.

 

Ok I give....who's Fredo?

 

Fred E., former Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman.

Legislative Affairs


On my drive home this morning, Germantown Rd, just 100 yards south of U.S. Hwy 64, a 10- to12-point buck decided to cross the road in front of me. I'm lucky I was slowing for the red light. I thought about you.






.

 

So the company wants a 16.5% B fund instead of an A plan. That's one half of one percent more than United and American got in bankruptcy. But that's not concessionary according to the company attorney. His lips are moving.

 

To me it sounds like our negotiators did a great job standing firm on pbs. Because we wouldn't budge on pbs the company actually engaged in talks about scheduling.

 

Here's our mediator's full bio:


Anthony Tosi | The National Mediation Board

 

Just curious what a 16.5%B fund or even a 20% achieve when the maximum limit imposed by uncle sam is 31,200? The only segment of the work force it would benefit would be the most junior. I am sure all your captains are already leaving money on the table when they max out the limit. Increasing the percentage is a joke.

 

So I'm curious, was it the entire previous MEC who directed the Dear Leader to counter the will of the crewforce and support Age 65? Also, I know of at least one previous Committee Chair who was "fired" by the Dear Leader absent any consultation with the MEC. Unless you're simply speaking hypothetically, then it's fine.

 

Shaggy, help me out here. This is from the IRS website:

"The limitation for defined contribution plans under Section 415(c)(1)(A) is increased in 2014 from $51,000 to $52,000."

Are we not covered under this?

http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Announces-2014-Pension-Plan-Limitations;-Taxpayers-May-Contribute-up-to-$17,500-to-their-401(k)-plans-in-2014

 

Actually the amount over the IRS limit would be paid in cash. At least according to the PFC column.