I think we are having the wrong conversation
12-15-2021, 06:06 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 446
Merica's statement could have been about the MEC member who blocks their calendar.
It could also have been about the lack of substance in the comms.
I will say the last two comms about Covid were far better and way less ambiguous. I will even give them credit for being informative, direct, and to the point. Well done.
Now if we could have conversations like this about retirement, I would know which team has my back. But for now, the jury is still out. I want an IRS limited Defined benefit (our A plan), just like we had in 1999 and improvements to the Defined Contribution sides as well.
None of that is rocket surgery.
It could also have been about the lack of substance in the comms.
I will say the last two comms about Covid were far better and way less ambiguous. I will even give them credit for being informative, direct, and to the point. Well done.
Now if we could have conversations like this about retirement, I would know which team has my back. But for now, the jury is still out. I want an IRS limited Defined benefit (our A plan), just like we had in 1999 and improvements to the Defined Contribution sides as well.
None of that is rocket surgery.
12-15-2021, 09:30 AM
#12
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,601
Originally Posted by BrianH
Now if we could have conversations like this about retirement, I would know which team has my back. But for now, the jury is still out. I want an IRS limited Defined benefit (our A plan), just like we had in 1999 and improvements to the Defined Contribution sides as well.
None of that is rocket surgery.
None of that is rocket surgery.
1. A contract (reluctantly agreed) years ago based on a document created by Fedex management in a non union environment using incentives to the individual at the expense of the whole (I'll clarify later).
2. Political influence at the highest levels to undermine labor's rights in negotiating and defending a legal binding contract.
3. Astute use of company communication at multiple levels to inform, confuse, and threaten depending of the situation at the time (think red letter).
4. Possible use of anonymous backchannel communication through social media to spread misinformation or test the waters on various proposals outside of the legal framework of our legal bargaining unit (FDX ALPA)
5. Further in that vain, posters on this and other outlets undermining the union, the members work for and on behalf of the pilots and sowing direct discord with the crew force.
I'm sure I could come up with more but this a good start to understanding the forces we are up against. Speaking to the first point I made, we work under a work agreement that was ground breaking at it inception for a large, well respected and desired (unionized) airline. Incentives to work on days off, to sell back vacation, to buy back used sick leave, banking credit to pick up trips, all these and a couple more that escape me, all help to undermine our college ability to earn more for an hour flying or day away from home or even being compensated for flying at night, international or over holidays.
To the point of the previous poster, retirement. I have no dog in this fight, I'm soon outta here. The argument over increasing the defined benefit plan screams for a logical and achievable means of getting there. The company has made it very clear they want out of the defined plan as it currently stands. In 05 the union made it adamantly clear we would not accept pilots on the the seniority list with two different retirement plans. Great, new and old both have a fixed annuity that has been fixed since, what 1995? (someone correct me if the date is wrong). A 30 yo pilot hired today will retire with $130,000 per year (less adjustments for spouse) in 2057 or so. The company would LOVE that, maybe throw a couple % towards the PSP like we got last time, rather than talk about a compromise that we may not like (vs a flat out increase in the high 5 calculations) but was agreed upon.
Will only hold out for an increase in the A plan annuity, tell us how we get there? See point two above. Labor only real tool in the dance with management has always been strike or disruption. Both these tools we have been all but legally forced out of using (thank your local congressmen, judges put on the federal bench and others put in place by various hostile {to labor} administrations over the last 35 years). So due to our very permissive labor agreement, we are at the (collective) mercy of ourselves, and guess what? we have a bad track record of not helping ourselves at the expense of the group. Ninety percent of you where not here when some (many?) of our pilots happily flew trips at 200% in a not so subtle attempt to undermine a weakness the company had in manning back in the early 90's. So as to make the point clear, they even handed out and some pilot wore, lapel buttons with 200% on it. Sound familiar? I don't think Fedex could do 200% as easily now (I believe we were not unionized at that time), but they have many other ways to entice people to pass on being home for the holidays.
Think about what is achievable considering what we as a group can do and what you individually can and are willing to do for the greater good. If you believe in unity but individually reconcile that you have to take what you can when offered then don't bit*ch about what you get in the future. Best of luck, you are going to need it.
12-15-2021, 07:31 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by dckozak
It might not be rocket science but collectively, Fedex pilot's are being out played at every level. Fedex pilot's (and by extension, its union) are in a complex game with it's employer with regards to how much we are worth and how we all go about determining it. Using the analogy of Chess and checkers, Fedex is playing three demential chess and we can't even agree on which color piece we want to play checkers at! Consider all the tools Fedex has at its disposal that it has used over a 40+ year timeline and continues to use to this day.
1. A contract (reluctantly agreed) years ago based on a document created by Fedex management in a non union environment using incentives to the individual at the expense of the whole (I'll clarify later).
2. Political influence at the highest levels to undermine labor's rights in negotiating and defending a legal binding contract.
3. Astute use of company communication at multiple levels to inform, confuse, and threaten depending of the situation at the time (think red letter).
4. Possible use of anonymous backchannel communication through social media to spread misinformation or test the waters on various proposals outside of the legal framework of our legal bargaining unit (FDX ALPA)
5. Further in that vain, posters on this and other outlets undermining the union, the members work for and on behalf of the pilots and sowing direct discord with the crew force.
I'm sure I could come up with more but this a good start to understanding the forces we are up against. Speaking to the first point I made, we work under a work agreement that was ground breaking at it inception for a large, well respected and desired (unionized) airline. Incentives to work on days off, to sell back vacation, to buy back used sick leave, banking credit to pick up trips, all these and a couple more that escape me, all help to undermine our college ability to earn more for an hour flying or day away from home or even being compensated for flying at night, international or over holidays.
To the point of the previous poster, retirement. I have no dog in this fight, I'm soon outta here. The argument over increasing the defined benefit plan screams for a logical and achievable means of getting there. The company has made it very clear they want out of the defined plan as it currently stands. In 05 the union made it adamantly clear we would not accept pilots on the the seniority list with two different retirement plans. Great, new and old both have a fixed annuity that has been fixed since, what 1995? (someone correct me if the date is wrong). A 30 yo pilot hired today will retire with $130,000 per year (less adjustments for spouse) in 2057 or so. The company would LOVE that, maybe throw a couple % towards the PSP like we got last time, rather than talk about a compromise that we may not like (vs a flat out increase in the high 5 calculations) but was agreed upon.
Will only hold out for an increase in the A plan annuity, tell us how we get there? See point two above. Labor only real tool in the dance with management has always been strike or disruption. Both these tools we have been all but legally forced out of using (thank your local congressmen, judges put on the federal bench and others put in place by various hostile {to labor} administrations over the last 35 years). So due to our very permissive labor agreement, we are at the (collective) mercy of ourselves, and guess what? we have a bad track record of not helping ourselves at the expense of the group. Ninety percent of you where not here when some (many?) of our pilots happily flew trips at 200% in a not so subtle attempt to undermine a weakness the company had in manning back in the early 90's. So as to make the point clear, they even handed out and some pilot wore, lapel buttons with 200% on it. Sound familiar? I don't think Fedex could do 200% as easily now (I believe we were not unionized at that time), but they have many other ways to entice people to pass on being home for the holidays.
Think about what is achievable considering what we as a group can do and what you individually can and are willing to do for the greater good. If you believe in unity but individually reconcile that you have to take what you can when offered then don't bit*ch about what you get in the future. Best of luck, you are going to need it.
1. A contract (reluctantly agreed) years ago based on a document created by Fedex management in a non union environment using incentives to the individual at the expense of the whole (I'll clarify later).
2. Political influence at the highest levels to undermine labor's rights in negotiating and defending a legal binding contract.
3. Astute use of company communication at multiple levels to inform, confuse, and threaten depending of the situation at the time (think red letter).
4. Possible use of anonymous backchannel communication through social media to spread misinformation or test the waters on various proposals outside of the legal framework of our legal bargaining unit (FDX ALPA)
5. Further in that vain, posters on this and other outlets undermining the union, the members work for and on behalf of the pilots and sowing direct discord with the crew force.
I'm sure I could come up with more but this a good start to understanding the forces we are up against. Speaking to the first point I made, we work under a work agreement that was ground breaking at it inception for a large, well respected and desired (unionized) airline. Incentives to work on days off, to sell back vacation, to buy back used sick leave, banking credit to pick up trips, all these and a couple more that escape me, all help to undermine our college ability to earn more for an hour flying or day away from home or even being compensated for flying at night, international or over holidays.
To the point of the previous poster, retirement. I have no dog in this fight, I'm soon outta here. The argument over increasing the defined benefit plan screams for a logical and achievable means of getting there. The company has made it very clear they want out of the defined plan as it currently stands. In 05 the union made it adamantly clear we would not accept pilots on the the seniority list with two different retirement plans. Great, new and old both have a fixed annuity that has been fixed since, what 1995? (someone correct me if the date is wrong). A 30 yo pilot hired today will retire with $130,000 per year (less adjustments for spouse) in 2057 or so. The company would LOVE that, maybe throw a couple % towards the PSP like we got last time, rather than talk about a compromise that we may not like (vs a flat out increase in the high 5 calculations) but was agreed upon.
Will only hold out for an increase in the A plan annuity, tell us how we get there? See point two above. Labor only real tool in the dance with management has always been strike or disruption. Both these tools we have been all but legally forced out of using (thank your local congressmen, judges put on the federal bench and others put in place by various hostile {to labor} administrations over the last 35 years). So due to our very permissive labor agreement, we are at the (collective) mercy of ourselves, and guess what? we have a bad track record of not helping ourselves at the expense of the group. Ninety percent of you where not here when some (many?) of our pilots happily flew trips at 200% in a not so subtle attempt to undermine a weakness the company had in manning back in the early 90's. So as to make the point clear, they even handed out and some pilot wore, lapel buttons with 200% on it. Sound familiar? I don't think Fedex could do 200% as easily now (I believe we were not unionized at that time), but they have many other ways to entice people to pass on being home for the holidays.
Think about what is achievable considering what we as a group can do and what you individually can and are willing to do for the greater good. If you believe in unity but individually reconcile that you have to take what you can when offered then don't bit*ch about what you get in the future. Best of luck, you are going to need it.
12-16-2021, 07:59 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Tuck
Now we have a lot of reasons where we might fail - chiefly a system that has 15 reps and 3 officer and a NC Chairman that are all trying to sort of agree and that's tough...for anyone. We never seem to let an error go by so I'm not hopeful but it's not because the Company is playing chess. Please.
There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.
The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.
Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.
So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.
12-16-2021, 08:30 AM
#15
Contract 2021
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by pinseeker
And that is the problem!!!
There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.
The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.
Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.
So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.
There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.
The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.
Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.
So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.
You portend to have some level of information that isn’t common knowledge. Certainly seems to be filled with assumptions or you actually work as a rep or committee chair. So which is it, making assumptions or betraying confidential information?
12-16-2021, 09:13 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by FDX1
You portend to have some level of information that isn’t common knowledge. Certainly seems to be filled with assumptions or you actually work as a rep or committee chair. So which is it, making assumptions or betraying confidential information?
I haven't stated anything that isn't/wasn't publicly available either via communication or PUB meeting.
12-16-2021, 09:42 AM
#17
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by pinseeker
I haven't stated anything that isn't/wasn't publicly available either via communication or PUB meeting.
Or you can go do exactly what management and labor relations wants and that is to devalue the side advocating for you.
12-16-2021, 10:42 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by pinseeker
And that is the problem!!!
There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.
The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.
Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.
So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.
There is no "sort of agreeing." The MEC reps are the only individuals who are elected by the membership. The MEC reps are suppose to represent their blocks. If there is overwhelming support for a position, that rep should support that position regardless of how they feel. This idea that the rep knows what is best and can do whatever they want is one of the problems. This is only further perpetuated by the difficulty in getting a recall on the ballot. Once elected, whether it be by 100 votes or 600 votes, it is almost impossible to recall a rep who isn't doing their job.
The second problem is this idea that the MEC officers, MEC reps, and NC chairman must agree. The MEC sets our goals and positions. It is the job of the MEC chairman to guide the different committees to accomplish those goals and to lead the pilot group in supporting those goals. The NC chairman is charged with negotiating those goals. Whether the MEC votes 15-0 for a position or 8-7 for a position, it is the duty of the MEC chair to follow that position and the job of the NC chairman to negotiate that position to the best of their ability, PERIOD!!! It is not the job of the NC chairman to set goals or tell the MEC what they will support when it comes to negotiations. Either the NC chairman attempts to accomplish the stated goals of the MEC or they don't. If that individual doesn't agree with the MEC, then they can either get on board, or they can resign or be fired.
Right now, we have the NC chairman with his hand on the rudder, telling the MEC where they want to go. The MEC is complicit, willing to allow this to happen and unwilling to ask a plain and simple question, how do the members want us to improve retirement? Yes, there are a lot of opinions on that topic, but shouldn't the majority rule? If there is no majority, then it is the duty of the MEC and MEC chairman to lead us down the path they think is best, telling us what they are doing and why they think that is best, not giving the NC chairman carte blanche to do as they please on a subject. Presently, we have an MEC that is hiding behind executive session and NDA's. They won't answer questions about retirement, yet can laud the new ability to sell back all of your vacation. This, at a time when it seems the company can't hire pilots fast enough. So, what is more expensive to the company, buying back vacation, or hiring another pilot to fill the gap? That new pilot gets vacation, retirement, health care, and sick time and is another cost for the company while that pilot that they bought all of the vacation from doesn't incur any additional benefit costs, those are already set. This isn't a cost neutral benefit for the company, this is a cost savings for the company that is being sold as an improvement for us, you can work more at straight time and collect your money at the end of the year.
So, to wrap this up, Tuck, I don't think it is the system that is the problem, I think that it's that the system isn't being run as intended. The tail is wagging the dog.
It's far from a perfect system and that system alone is probably our biggest impediment. I don't know of a fix that would be amiable to the crew force in general. Maybe take a look at the UPS system that only has a few full time reps - they are on full time flight pay loss, they represent a greater amount of people but by being available and always engaged they can get action done quickly and don't face the kind of turnover or high numbers in the room issue that we have. Of course they aren't ALPA and appear to be able to get a lot done (best pay rates and retirement in industry - not best work rules) under that situation. Maybe worth a look. Our system hamstrings us - I promise you we will get LESS than we should purely because of the system - even if everybody does everything else they possibly can and the wind remains at our back, we will get LESS than we deserve just because of our MEC system.
12-16-2021, 11:48 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by FDX1
You portend to have some level of information that isn’t common knowledge. Certainly seems to be filled with assumptions or you actually work as a rep or committee chair. So which is it, making assumptions or betraying confidential information?
12-16-2021, 12:02 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by Tuck
I disagree. You're describing the idea how it would work in a purely academic setting - like in a book - fantasy land. It's never worked that way here - NEVER. The system is the problem. You think you can get 15 guys to agree to a proposal? You think it's easy when a block rep hears from 20 constituents (most never call or write or email EVER and most don't even know who their rep is) and out of those 20, 8 say they want it one way, 4 a complete different way and another 8 say something different. Does he do a straw poll of those 20? What about the other 280 that never signaled an opinion but do have an opinion? So he's carrying your thoughts and combining them with his myriad additional experience and knowledge (by nature - who else has time to listen to 30 hours of lectures and discussions?) and making the best decision that he BELIEVES his block would want him to make. That's the way a rep system works - everywhere. Else we could just do straight up crew voting for every position and learn to love the decade it would take to negotiate anything. You think the MEC Chair just massages the way forward? He gets no say in it or doesn't influence people's opinion? Seriously? Ever attended a meeting? They are open - there's one in January - you should try to attend just for a few hours.
It's far from a perfect system and that system alone is probably our biggest impediment. I don't know of a fix that would be amiable to the crew force in general. Maybe take a look at the UPS system that only has a few full time reps - they are on full time flight pay loss, they represent a greater amount of people but by being available and always engaged they can get action done quickly and don't face the kind of turnover or high numbers in the room issue that we have. Of course they aren't ALPA and appear to be able to get a lot done (best pay rates and retirement in industry - not best work rules) under that situation. Maybe worth a look. Our system hamstrings us - I promise you we will get LESS than we should purely because of the system - even if everybody does everything else they possibly can and the wind remains at our back, we will get LESS than we deserve just because of our MEC system.
It's far from a perfect system and that system alone is probably our biggest impediment. I don't know of a fix that would be amiable to the crew force in general. Maybe take a look at the UPS system that only has a few full time reps - they are on full time flight pay loss, they represent a greater amount of people but by being available and always engaged they can get action done quickly and don't face the kind of turnover or high numbers in the room issue that we have. Of course they aren't ALPA and appear to be able to get a lot done (best pay rates and retirement in industry - not best work rules) under that situation. Maybe worth a look. Our system hamstrings us - I promise you we will get LESS than we should purely because of the system - even if everybody does everything else they possibly can and the wind remains at our back, we will get LESS than we deserve just because of our MEC system.
I also agree the tail is wagging the dog more times than not.
In sort, most here are partially right, with the obvious exceptions.
So how do we take back our union? That is the underlying question being asked by this thread. Any thoughtful answer is welcome.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
