Shaman

These were the openers that the Fedex MEC pledged to the pilot group:

• Establish industry leading Hourly Rates of Pay (3.C. (p. 28))
• Increase in New Hire Compensation (3.A.2. (p. 27))
• Retroactivity of pay rates and benefits from the amendable date
• Obtain an industry leading retirement package using both Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution plans
• And Several Targeted QOL items (sections 5,8,12, 21, 25, 31)

To reach these goals they stated "the parties have agreed to focus discussions on a limited number of sections, with the mutual goal of reaching a Tentative Agreement by the end of May 2022."

May 2022 is in the rearview by more than a year and several additional MAJOR sections were opened and amended. In the time since the company has issued a regressive system bid, made a significant push toward 4a2x, and announced a total reworking of operations to include numerous public statements about shrinking the airline. ALL of that was meant to send a message to US ALL and that message is SETTLE.

I ask you how could our opening ask on compensation be industry leading when it was made more than two years ago? That's the very first point of the pledge. Do you think the recent closing of that section indicates that we increased our ask and they met it?! We have never had a willing partner across the table. Adopting that notion has kept us perpetually on our back foot.

Our Negotiating chair is on record stating we don't have scope problem we have a volume problem. It strains all credulity to believe the company's Drive initiative was a reactionary response to a recent decline in volumes. Over the course of the last two years they've closed one FDA and announced the closure of the remaining one as well as closing two domestic bases. The planning and implementation of these changes and numerous others takes time and coordination, years not months.

So for the "wait and see" and "I will assess the whole agreement" crowd, the question is surely begged if point 1 does not meet the stated goal what's left to assess? In the totality of events has the Union's suppositions about the usefulness of "focused discussions" proven valid?

It is for these reasons reading the agreement to be presented isn't an assessment it should be a post mortem. This process cannot possibly produce the outcomes stated.

I believe that leverage is not found in dubious quasi legal job actions, but in using our voices to make sure that when the people who represent us go into those rooms they understand WE WILL NOT SETTLE. They need to know that you cannot develop some contrivance to achieve what we desire. Your mission should be to make our positions known and enumerate why. Not horse trade away one thing for another. If the company cannot see it our way we are willing to walk.

So I'm gonna keep saying it. DO NOT SETTLE. DO NOT WAIT. Social media is a powerful amplifier. Make sure your representatives hear you. Now is the time.

UnusualAttitude

Another excellent post.

gatorhater

Do you people really need to quote the whole damn post? It’s really annoying to scroll through the same long post twice. Try it this way (like me):

Well said Shaman, I agree.

UnusualAttitude

Fixed it. Sorry you can never get that .5 second back.

gatorhater

The real PITA is when several guys do it in a row and it’s hard to find the break on the small screen. It’s not just you, several offenders.

Jumbo Pilot

I try to keep up with information from reliable sources.

To the point of Industry Leading Pay Rates.. I've heard the NC Chair say more than once that they warned the company.. the longer they took to settle the deal the more expensive it was going to be.

I have no inside knowledge, but has anyone considered that our proposal on pay rates was Industry Leading Hourly Rates plus X%? That way, what was relevant 2 years ago no longer applies today and allows us to negotiate using pattern bargaining.

I know it's annoying to have to wait to see the details of any agreement. I'm very anxious to see the details too! (If the MEC decides to forward to membership)

Hopefully it won't be much longer or the NC goes back to the table to continue the process.

In Unity

JP

JunkyardDog

If MEC rejects it, Go forward with a new negotiating committee. And new officers, and the block reps who approve a bad deal will need to be replaced.

threeighteen

100%.

Much better to have the MEC reject it and replace the NC than to have the MEC accept it and then we have to replace MEC too, which sets us much further back than an NC swap.

magic rat

It only took 2 posts for someone to b!tch about something. Well done.
And Go Gators….

Meat Fighter

Preach. I sent the following to my rep.

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



"I wanted to offer my short analysis and also assesment of where we are as a post 2015 new-hire demographic.

1. The MEC set three limited objectives for this negotiation. One of those was "industry leading hourly payrates." If the payrates are less than Delta then they did not achieve our goals. Send it back.

2. Other carriers (Delta/American) were bailed out by the government and took major revenue hits over the past three years. They managed to achieve TA's without any concessions. If this TA contains concessions then send it back.

The MEC needs to understand that this is not the pilot group of 2015. We will not hesitate to vote down a TA if it fails to obtain our limited objectives for this TA, especially considering the financial success of the company over the last few years. Having the MEC aporove a TA that does not meet the limited objectives with the expectation this crew force will approve it would be a serious miscalculation of the current crew force.

If it doesn't meet the bullet points above, the best route is for the MEC to send it back. This maintains pilot unity and also allows us to expeditiously continue towards RLA legal self help options.

However, if it doesn't meet the two objectives above and is ultimately approved by the MEC then expect the crew force to send it back.