FDX Pilots - Disciplined, Fined, or Expelled
02-01-2015, 01:26 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 500
Hey Tony, I'm going to quit with the quotes, it's just a pain to do that. I also really love you on the boards. Your knowledge and ability to quote the contract and past events is a great addition to these boards. You are Wikipedia for FDX pilots. You know like Tonypedia...I like that. Your Delta Tau Chi Fraternity name is now Tonypedia!!
We met long before you were a purple bubba so you can't count that. I guess you are correct, I do get lots of emails via my reps, most are just the same that every other member in every LEC gets. Reminding all of us of events, meeting minutes, upcoming elections and canned updates. I was referring to getting an update that was written by my rep for his group. Anything canned is basically, making my point. It is the same stuff I would get regardless of who my rep is. I’m pretty sure that every other member is getting exactly the same information via their rep. So back to my main point previously, why should I care who the other reps are, they pass out the same canned information. Anyone's name can be on the bottom of a canned email. It does not matter who the bubba is, just be the man/woman and focus on our top issue right now. Focus on the big picture, instead of spending time on who likes who or who didn’t like who.
No more than it matters whether or not FDX has someone on the national board. Is ALPA national going to all of a sudden make a rule that cargo pilots must be paid 75% of passenger pilots if we don't have someone on the board? Are we no longer going to be part of the insurance plan because they forgot we were here? NOT. Of course we get lots of great benefits of being a large union. But do we at FDX feel we have been getting short changed for the last 20 years when we did not have a board member? Was the age 65 not going to pass if we had a board member? Were we going to get a cargo exemption? I'm not saying it not a nice thing to be part of the process and have a member on the board. That’s a really good thing for us; it shows we are being included like “real” pilots. But to get so caught up in getting elected that we have secret phone votes, or "knitting circle" cliques that spend time talking about what other members think about them, it is just a complete loss of focus.
If they have to get together, then spend time dissecting the company’s proposals. Decide if that “should” needs to be a “will”. Review proposals from a schedulers point of view; how can I get around what this says. Get in the dirt and dig around. Don’t get in the dirt to smear it around. (see where I went there)
No meeting schedule in Oct? Then our team should have stood in uniform outside the gates at Hacks Cross and waited. Call the commercial Appeal and tell them the pilots are trying to avoid any contract difficulties from causing disruptions during peak. Tell the press, we want to meet, but the company does not want to solve the issues. Have the paper take pictures of the negotiating team standing outside the gates and win a PR battle. Instead, we ramped up in Sept and then wasted all that effort from all the fellows and took the month off. What did the company do? Exactly what you would do on the other side. Called a time out that delayed the process through peak. And we rolled over and let it happen. Our MEC has spent time on stuff that does not matter. Who cares who the hall monitor is?
The time is now to get mean and nasty. Or at least be prepared to be mean and nasty. I don't even think our leadership has acknowledged that the kinder gentler kumbayah negotiating did not work. Of all the pilots, the MEC are the ones that should be ****ed and maddest. They are feeling the brunt of our frustration. They should be walking around AOC with handfuls of lanyards and looking hard at who is not on our team. Stir the pot. Be vocal and loud. The MEC should be more in your face. Of course it would help if the Captains were all aboard the boat also instead of sitting in lots of little rafts and hoping they are floating in the same direction. We should hear loudly from across the room, three or four Captains calling out to guys without lanyards, “where is your lanyard, do you need mine?” Or “hey Mr Blutarski, have you decided to join the union yet?” They are not your friends if they cannot support you with your desire for a better contract. The crew bus should not be old home week with your non-union buddy. Lead from the front and make not being a team member uncomfortable. Print out the schedules with pay status for the console. Lots of ways to start the ball rolling, just get it moving. I’m just not sure, worrying about who is hall monitor is helping us at all.
We met long before you were a purple bubba so you can't count that. I guess you are correct, I do get lots of emails via my reps, most are just the same that every other member in every LEC gets. Reminding all of us of events, meeting minutes, upcoming elections and canned updates. I was referring to getting an update that was written by my rep for his group. Anything canned is basically, making my point. It is the same stuff I would get regardless of who my rep is. I’m pretty sure that every other member is getting exactly the same information via their rep. So back to my main point previously, why should I care who the other reps are, they pass out the same canned information. Anyone's name can be on the bottom of a canned email. It does not matter who the bubba is, just be the man/woman and focus on our top issue right now. Focus on the big picture, instead of spending time on who likes who or who didn’t like who.
No more than it matters whether or not FDX has someone on the national board. Is ALPA national going to all of a sudden make a rule that cargo pilots must be paid 75% of passenger pilots if we don't have someone on the board? Are we no longer going to be part of the insurance plan because they forgot we were here? NOT. Of course we get lots of great benefits of being a large union. But do we at FDX feel we have been getting short changed for the last 20 years when we did not have a board member? Was the age 65 not going to pass if we had a board member? Were we going to get a cargo exemption? I'm not saying it not a nice thing to be part of the process and have a member on the board. That’s a really good thing for us; it shows we are being included like “real” pilots. But to get so caught up in getting elected that we have secret phone votes, or "knitting circle" cliques that spend time talking about what other members think about them, it is just a complete loss of focus.
If they have to get together, then spend time dissecting the company’s proposals. Decide if that “should” needs to be a “will”. Review proposals from a schedulers point of view; how can I get around what this says. Get in the dirt and dig around. Don’t get in the dirt to smear it around. (see where I went there)
No meeting schedule in Oct? Then our team should have stood in uniform outside the gates at Hacks Cross and waited. Call the commercial Appeal and tell them the pilots are trying to avoid any contract difficulties from causing disruptions during peak. Tell the press, we want to meet, but the company does not want to solve the issues. Have the paper take pictures of the negotiating team standing outside the gates and win a PR battle. Instead, we ramped up in Sept and then wasted all that effort from all the fellows and took the month off. What did the company do? Exactly what you would do on the other side. Called a time out that delayed the process through peak. And we rolled over and let it happen. Our MEC has spent time on stuff that does not matter. Who cares who the hall monitor is?
The time is now to get mean and nasty. Or at least be prepared to be mean and nasty. I don't even think our leadership has acknowledged that the kinder gentler kumbayah negotiating did not work. Of all the pilots, the MEC are the ones that should be ****ed and maddest. They are feeling the brunt of our frustration. They should be walking around AOC with handfuls of lanyards and looking hard at who is not on our team. Stir the pot. Be vocal and loud. The MEC should be more in your face. Of course it would help if the Captains were all aboard the boat also instead of sitting in lots of little rafts and hoping they are floating in the same direction. We should hear loudly from across the room, three or four Captains calling out to guys without lanyards, “where is your lanyard, do you need mine?” Or “hey Mr Blutarski, have you decided to join the union yet?” They are not your friends if they cannot support you with your desire for a better contract. The crew bus should not be old home week with your non-union buddy. Lead from the front and make not being a team member uncomfortable. Print out the schedules with pay status for the console. Lots of ways to start the ball rolling, just get it moving. I’m just not sure, worrying about who is hall monitor is helping us at all.
02-02-2015, 09:42 AM
#42
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 90
This is nothing more than a tool with a vendetta using a weak minded individual as a conduit. The info is out there. Tony has it right. Sorry Trashhauler but there is nothing more to it. The ones that should be ashamed & facing expulsion or whatever are the guy that filed & the one whose bidding he was doing. The folks doing thankless work on/for the MEC should not be having to worry about this baseless kind of garbage. They have other stuff to deal with.
02-02-2015, 01:29 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Normally I don't contribute much to these type of posts as I don't think I have much new insight. But, I feel the need to provide my opinion after reading many of the posts because I see a lot of name calling. I am thankful to read facts such as Tony C's link to the MEC minutes of the meeting in question. If anyone posting to this thread hasn't read the minutes yet, please do so!
While I don't know the former Chairman of Legislative Affairs (FE), the MEC Secretary Treasurer (SM), or the MEC Chairman (SS) personally, I have met all of them several times. I have also had some personal one-on-one conversations with both FE and SM. In these conversations, I have found both FE and SM to be very energetic, motivated, and seemingly conscientious about their jobs and the good of the pilots. I have found throughout my life that most people, not all mind you, who aspire to positions of responsibility many times feel they can make a positive difference. I have to hope this is the case of all our MEC, MEC officers, and committee chairmen. While flight loss pay can be a big incentive, I just hope it's not the major reason to serve! I have also found that many of the people who are motivated to make positive change and who think they can make a difference are oftentimes overcome by the slow pace of bureaucracy and can sometimes unwisely take matters into their own hands on some issues (as they think the know more than the rest or are frustrated by the pace of things?).
Perhaps this is what happened in FE's case? I had also heard that SM was involved in this and doing much of the same thing, but they didn't have the evidence they had for FE--which is why he's still there? While I am disappointed in what I have heard, I don't have all the information available to me as my MEC reps do and I have to trust that they have done the right thing. It's a very rare case to remove a chairman. Whether this was done for cause or because of politics, it doesn't really matter to me. If you're in this arena, you have to be a big boy and know how to play the game.
I had hoped FE would be kept on as I think he was chastised by the process. But, when FE lost a majority vote, it was time to move on gracefully. I have to respect the majority of the MECs decision. Personally, I feel this is a great loss to our union as FE was very motivated and I think did a lot of good for us. I hope he comes out of the ashes of this experience stronger and we see him back in the future.
I am puzzled, though, to see this about filing charges against those who voted against him. Perhaps FE's right, but when the MEC who is charged by us to run the show shows him the door, what good can it do? Let's say FE is wrong, then he's just hurting himself more. Let's say FE is right, and he wins, what good did that do? I say fight the battle another day as I'm sure we'll see him again.
Maybe we'll also see SM move on by his own terms if he was involved? If this is true, then SS probably knew/approved? Maybe we'll see a complete change in leadership soon? Maybe we won't. Maybe the speculation I've heard is just that? All I know is that I have to do a better job of being involved and reading the minutes and such. Maybe I should communicate with my rep more? I have never attended a LEC meeting, maybe it's time to do so to learn more about the process and the politics? It's easy to throw stones from the outside, and probably hard to take them when you're on the inside!
To another point, I've been wondering for some time about JPs going away rant on p.f.c. It was really weird and ****ed me off. You know it was approved by the company negotiating team and legal, so it had a purpose. All I know was that it has made me mad and just about every other pilot I've spoken to angry too. What purpose could it serve to make the pilot group as a whole angry? And, it didn't serve JP well--he'll be forever tainted by it. I think one of two things. 1) Either the company is so far out of touch with the thoughts of the pilots that they thought it would have some impact--which is sad because when two opposing groups have no idea about the mind set of the other, that's when wars/strikes happen, or 2) the pilots weren't it's intended audience?
If the pilots weren't the audience, then it could only be the union/MEC. Are they trying to capitalize on the dissension within the MEC and the leadership and foment more? There are issues such as the politicking at national that FE (and maybe SM and SS) were part of, and other issues that have caused problems within the MEC ranks. So my message to the MEC and the rest of the leadership is to move on and be patient--don't fall for this or get fatigued. Time perhaps for a little Zen. This is all part of the union busting and negotiating "strategery" that comes with every contract negotiation. It's time more than ever to stand firm--even if/when the company drags things on and on. No concessions. Don't accept even a good contract. I'm now mad and want a great contract. Don't send anything less to me for a vote!
I'll see you March 1st.
While I don't know the former Chairman of Legislative Affairs (FE), the MEC Secretary Treasurer (SM), or the MEC Chairman (SS) personally, I have met all of them several times. I have also had some personal one-on-one conversations with both FE and SM. In these conversations, I have found both FE and SM to be very energetic, motivated, and seemingly conscientious about their jobs and the good of the pilots. I have found throughout my life that most people, not all mind you, who aspire to positions of responsibility many times feel they can make a positive difference. I have to hope this is the case of all our MEC, MEC officers, and committee chairmen. While flight loss pay can be a big incentive, I just hope it's not the major reason to serve! I have also found that many of the people who are motivated to make positive change and who think they can make a difference are oftentimes overcome by the slow pace of bureaucracy and can sometimes unwisely take matters into their own hands on some issues (as they think the know more than the rest or are frustrated by the pace of things?).
Perhaps this is what happened in FE's case? I had also heard that SM was involved in this and doing much of the same thing, but they didn't have the evidence they had for FE--which is why he's still there? While I am disappointed in what I have heard, I don't have all the information available to me as my MEC reps do and I have to trust that they have done the right thing. It's a very rare case to remove a chairman. Whether this was done for cause or because of politics, it doesn't really matter to me. If you're in this arena, you have to be a big boy and know how to play the game.
I had hoped FE would be kept on as I think he was chastised by the process. But, when FE lost a majority vote, it was time to move on gracefully. I have to respect the majority of the MECs decision. Personally, I feel this is a great loss to our union as FE was very motivated and I think did a lot of good for us. I hope he comes out of the ashes of this experience stronger and we see him back in the future.
I am puzzled, though, to see this about filing charges against those who voted against him. Perhaps FE's right, but when the MEC who is charged by us to run the show shows him the door, what good can it do? Let's say FE is wrong, then he's just hurting himself more. Let's say FE is right, and he wins, what good did that do? I say fight the battle another day as I'm sure we'll see him again.
Maybe we'll also see SM move on by his own terms if he was involved? If this is true, then SS probably knew/approved? Maybe we'll see a complete change in leadership soon? Maybe we won't. Maybe the speculation I've heard is just that? All I know is that I have to do a better job of being involved and reading the minutes and such. Maybe I should communicate with my rep more? I have never attended a LEC meeting, maybe it's time to do so to learn more about the process and the politics? It's easy to throw stones from the outside, and probably hard to take them when you're on the inside!
To another point, I've been wondering for some time about JPs going away rant on p.f.c. It was really weird and ****ed me off. You know it was approved by the company negotiating team and legal, so it had a purpose. All I know was that it has made me mad and just about every other pilot I've spoken to angry too. What purpose could it serve to make the pilot group as a whole angry? And, it didn't serve JP well--he'll be forever tainted by it. I think one of two things. 1) Either the company is so far out of touch with the thoughts of the pilots that they thought it would have some impact--which is sad because when two opposing groups have no idea about the mind set of the other, that's when wars/strikes happen, or 2) the pilots weren't it's intended audience?
If the pilots weren't the audience, then it could only be the union/MEC. Are they trying to capitalize on the dissension within the MEC and the leadership and foment more? There are issues such as the politicking at national that FE (and maybe SM and SS) were part of, and other issues that have caused problems within the MEC ranks. So my message to the MEC and the rest of the leadership is to move on and be patient--don't fall for this or get fatigued. Time perhaps for a little Zen. This is all part of the union busting and negotiating "strategery" that comes with every contract negotiation. It's time more than ever to stand firm--even if/when the company drags things on and on. No concessions. Don't accept even a good contract. I'm now mad and want a great contract. Don't send anything less to me for a vote!
I'll see you March 1st.
02-02-2015, 03:25 PM
#44
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 19
Lawsuit: Iowa Teamster leader's firing violated free speech rights
Here's an example happening elsewhere. Federal law apparently prohibits retribution against union members in compensated union positions for supporting a particular person in a union election. It makes sense if you think about it... I'm in favor of free and open elections rather than the winning side immediately assassinating all members of the other party.
If one party of the of our MEC wanted to get rid of a guy for supporting the other party of the MEC (yes, we now clearly have a 2-party system), then they should have been bright enough to not actually say that they were doing it based on electioneering. My guess is that internal union by-laws charges are required in an attempt to rectify the misstep before resorting to a Federal suit. And you think they the MEC is distracted now!
Here's an example happening elsewhere. Federal law apparently prohibits retribution against union members in compensated union positions for supporting a particular person in a union election. It makes sense if you think about it... I'm in favor of free and open elections rather than the winning side immediately assassinating all members of the other party.
If one party of the of our MEC wanted to get rid of a guy for supporting the other party of the MEC (yes, we now clearly have a 2-party system), then they should have been bright enough to not actually say that they were doing it based on electioneering. My guess is that internal union by-laws charges are required in an attempt to rectify the misstep before resorting to a Federal suit. And you think they the MEC is distracted now!
02-02-2015, 04:21 PM
#45
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by AnyMouse
Lawsuit: Iowa Teamster leader's firing violated free speech rights
Here's an example happening elsewhere. Federal law apparently prohibits retribution against union members in compensated union positions for supporting a particular person in a union election. It makes sense if you think about it... I'm in favor of free and open elections rather than the winning side immediately assassinating all members of the other party.
If one party of the of our MEC wanted to get rid of a guy for supporting the other party of the MEC (yes, we now clearly have a 2-party system), then they should have been bright enough to not actually say that they were doing it based on electioneering. My guess is that internal union by-laws charges are required in an attempt to rectify the misstep before resorting to a Federal suit. And you think they the MEC is distracted now!
Baker was an employee, fired from his paying job, who applied for unemployment benefits and was denied. He also was denied lifetime health and welfare benefits.
An MEC Committee Chairman is a volunteer appointee, and he gets no pay, and no benefits from ALPA. A person removed by the MEC from such an appointment will receive the same pay and benefits as before, he just has to fly airplanes to do it. That's not punishment, discipline, or retribution.
The FDX ALPA MEC Policy Manual is clear and simple (on this point), and it was followed.
.
Last edited by TonyC; 02-02-2015 at 04:40 PM.
02-02-2015, 04:41 PM
#46
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Me think-um lots lots smoke ,dust in air as Mar MEC elections approach.........try best to keep-um eye on ball.........off snakes in grass stirring up smoke and dust. They bad Medicine.......... Good luck. Negotiating Committee speak for me......Read, Think.......stay informed.........fly schedule......:-)
02-02-2015, 04:51 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Well I guess my current block 11 rep has gone the way of BM. Current block 11 rep files against a great guy like Joe D and anybody with a brain knows who the real douche bag is! Cant wait until he follows the likes of LK, BM and PC into flight management. :-(
02-03-2015, 05:52 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by DarinFred
Is LK Kellyboy? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wouldn't stop and help that guy if he was dying in a ditch. Biggest douche I have ever known from my AF days. Literally the biggest.
03-04-2015, 02:02 PM
#49
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Ambassadors of Division
ALPA FDX MEC Secretary-Treasurer
ALPA FDX Security Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Scheduling Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Retirement & Insurance Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Military Affairs Committee Chairman
Former (Immediate) ALPA FDX Seniority Block 11 (Instructors) Representative
ALPA FDX Seniority Block 4 Representative
What do all of these gentlemen have in common?
ALPA FDX Unity ambassadors? You may recall the rousing opening speech given at Sunday's Rally -- The Company looks at YOU and your UNITY! UNITY! UNITY! UNITY!
No. Not ambassadors of unity. Far from it. More like ambassadors of division.
Yesterday, these eight returned to the scene of the Sunday rally, this time as "prosecution witnesses" in an ALPA Constitution & By-Laws Article VIII hearing. This hearing is the result of a disgruntled former committee chairman's effort to expel from ALPA five sitting Members of the MEC (our elected Block Reps), the First Vice President of ALPA, and another member at large. Before you ask, no, they were not required to appear, the Hearing Board has no power to subpoena. They all appeared voluntarily, of their own free will.
Unity? Not hardly. It makes me sick to my stomach to see them preach unity, all while they're trying to rip our MEC apart and reverse our efforts to gain the recognition and representation of an ALPA National Officer seat. A real leader would stop this nonsense in a heartbeat. Instead, as we negotiate under the supervision of the NMB, these clowns are making a circus out of it.
And The Company is laughing their heads off.
Am I the only one who is disgusted?
(One might wonder if the Ambassadors of Division were on Flight Pay Loss (your dues dollars at work) while they were in Memphis to testify on Fred's behalf, and one might be inclined to ask the Secretary-Treasurer. However, since the Secretary-Treasurer was among them, instead of holding down his office on Kirby, it's not likely we'll ever know the truth.)
.
ALPA FDX Security Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Scheduling Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Retirement & Insurance Committee Chairman
ALPA FDX Military Affairs Committee Chairman
Former (Immediate) ALPA FDX Seniority Block 11 (Instructors) Representative
ALPA FDX Seniority Block 4 Representative
What do all of these gentlemen have in common?
ALPA FDX Unity ambassadors? You may recall the rousing opening speech given at Sunday's Rally -- The Company looks at YOU and your UNITY! UNITY! UNITY! UNITY!
No. Not ambassadors of unity. Far from it. More like ambassadors of division.
Yesterday, these eight returned to the scene of the Sunday rally, this time as "prosecution witnesses" in an ALPA Constitution & By-Laws Article VIII hearing. This hearing is the result of a disgruntled former committee chairman's effort to expel from ALPA five sitting Members of the MEC (our elected Block Reps), the First Vice President of ALPA, and another member at large. Before you ask, no, they were not required to appear, the Hearing Board has no power to subpoena. They all appeared voluntarily, of their own free will.
Unity? Not hardly. It makes me sick to my stomach to see them preach unity, all while they're trying to rip our MEC apart and reverse our efforts to gain the recognition and representation of an ALPA National Officer seat. A real leader would stop this nonsense in a heartbeat. Instead, as we negotiate under the supervision of the NMB, these clowns are making a circus out of it.
And The Company is laughing their heads off.
Am I the only one who is disgusted?
(One might wonder if the Ambassadors of Division were on Flight Pay Loss (your dues dollars at work) while they were in Memphis to testify on Fred's behalf, and one might be inclined to ask the Secretary-Treasurer. However, since the Secretary-Treasurer was among them, instead of holding down his office on Kirby, it's not likely we'll ever know the truth.)
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
