mdeshazo

Section 1. The idea that 1.11 is a good idea is, frankly, stupid. The Company didn't put that language in there because they want to do something nice for the pilots, they put it in there because they plan to use it. Currently they are restricted from wet leasing more aircraft than the number to be added to the fleet in that year. Also, the obvious answer is that we haven't furloughed because the company was being run by Fred, and not some activist investors who don't care about it. The company has told you they plan to reduce the size of the crew force and outsource the flying, they have put the mechanism for doing so in writing, and yet too many people still, inexplicably, want to trust that they don't mean it. In my 17+ years here there is nothing the company has done that makes me think they don't mean it when they say they are going to screw you.

IFartInYourSeat

For the uninformed:


Members of Council 22,
As you are certainly aware by now, your FDX MEC voted on June 11th to endorse the Tentative Agreement with FedEx and to forward it to you for your consideration and ratification. As many of you are aware, I voted in opposition to that endorsement, and I believe I am obligated to offer you an explanation for my vote.
Before I give you that explanation, I believe I would be remiss to not thank the Negotiating Committee, the other members of the MEC, our committee volunteers and especially our professional staff and subject matter experts for their hard work, professional dedication, and tireless efforts to serve the pilots of FedEx. You deserve their best efforts, and I know they gave their best efforts.
Shortly before I began my term as Seniority Block 2 Representative, I was given access to the sections of the TA which had already been agreed to by both parties, with the exception of §28. Retirement. The MEC received final copies of §3. Compensation and §31. Effect on Prior Agreements, Effective Date and Duration a few days before our Special MEC Meeting, and we received §28. Retirement for our review the afternoon before our weekend meetings began. Beginning on Saturday morning, we were briefed on the TA section by section, and we were allowed to ask questions as we went along. On Sunday, we continued the briefing, and then engaged in deliberation to decide further MEC actions. I have read every section many times over and have studied them all with an eye for how The Company can subvert or abuse the language to their advantage.
The TA contains a number of improvements or enhancements, and some are not small. I’m sure you will hear about them from other sources, but my intent here is to explain why I voted in opposition to endorsement, so I will focus on those reasons. As I explained to my fellow MEC Members, I would like for us all to be able to enjoy the improvements in the TA, but NOBODY will enjoy ANY of the improvements unless the TA is ratified. In making my decision, I tried to put myself in your shoes as you read the TA and represent the choice I believe you will make in the end.
SCOPE
The first section of the TA is §1. Recognition, Scope, and Successorship. Scope has drawn a great deal of attention lately, and given the communications we have recently received from the highest level of management, it is understandable that many of us are fearful for our future jobs. Our Negotiating Committee Chair addressed scope at length during our April Joint Council Briefing and we can view that address in a YouTube video. While you might have been prepared then for no improvements in our scope language, I doubt you were prepared for a degradation. With more flexibility to wet lease and lower monetary penalties, our scope protection has actually been significantly weakened.
In exchange for that concession, we have what I consider to be symbolic improvements for wet leasing during §4.A.2.c. and during furloughs. While The Company cannot enter into any new wet lease agreements or extend or renew wet lease agreements during §4.A.2.c., they can enter into any number of long-term wet lease agreements on one day and invoke §4.A.2.c. the next day, and continue those wet lease agreements.
Additionally, there is no limit on wet lease agreements while under §4.A.2.c. during the “true” peak weeks of the year. Of grave concern is the price we have established for wet leasing while any pilot is on furlough – as low as ½ of the cost of a Captain and two First Officers for the same block hours.
It is my belief that most FedEx pilots will find the combination of weaker scope protections offset only by symbolic improvements unacceptable, and many will not need to read any further to determine their vote. Pay rates, retirement benefits, and work rules are irrelevant if jobs are lost.
PAY
The first bullet point in our Section 6 Opener document is “Establish industry leading Hourly Rates of Pay (3.C. (p.28)).” Given that Delta’s top hourly rate of pay starts with a “4”, you might have expected our “industry leading” hourly rate of pay to start with a “4” also. Instead, our top hourly rate of pay is about $35 lower.
Several reasons will be given why that discrepancy exists. One reason will be that Delta has fewer airplanes than FedEx in that category, and that it takes Delta pilots longer to achieve that rate. Since we have no control over how many B-777s FedEx chooses to operate, I submit that we should not be required to operate them at a discount. Given that our B-777s generate far more revenue for our employer than does a Delta pilot’s B-787 for their employer, if there is a difference in hourly pay rates, ours should be more.
You may hear that it would be unfair for our hourly pay rates to match Delta’s highest pay rate because that would make our B-767 and A300 pilots the highest paid in the industry. When FedEx brought the B-777 on the property, we used our CBA procedure to lobby for a higher pay rate than our Widebody rate. The Company argued that it should be paid at the Widebody rate. We lost that arbitration, but now we seem to want to use The Company’s argument against ourselves to justify B-777 payrates that compare to Delta’s B-767-300 rates. I would argue that when The Company chose to lump the B-777 in with our other widebody aircraft in a single pay rate, they chose to pay the A300 and B-767 at B-777 rates, not the other way around.
Industry comparisons aside, the 14% initial pay rate increase does not even make up for inflation since our last pay raise in November of 2020. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, our hourly pay rate then has the same buying power as an amount 16.9% higher today. (BLS CPI Calculator) Our 14% hourly pay rate increase, then, amounts to a 2.9% PAY CUT. This comes nowhere close to satisfying your expectations as expressed in surveys.
The annual increases in subsequent years also fall quite short.
RETROACTIVITY OF PAY RATES
The third bullet point in our Section 6 Openers begins with “Retroactivity of pay rates … from the amendable date.” This is important because we cannot allow The Company to enjoy a financial incentive and advantage for delaying the consummation of negotiations. When there is no cost, or little cost, of delaying, there is no incentive for The Company to negotiate with the intent to reach a deal. The amounts of our Amendable Period Recovery Payments – $1,450 per bid period for a maximum of $30,450 for Captains, $950 per bid period for a maximum of $19,950 for First Officers – is frankly insulting. It is far less than the income we have lost due to delayed pay rate increases, and therefore constitutes an incentive for The Company to delay negotiations next time yet again.
RETROACTIVITY OF BENEFITS
The third bullet point in our Section 6 Openers continues with “Retroactivity of … benefits from the amendable date.” In the past 21 months, 299 pilots have retired with a pension that has not been improved in 24 years. The savings The Company has enjoyed rewards their delays. That’s 299 pilots who will not receive the same $2,708.33 in their monthly retirement checks as a pilot who would retire under this TA. “Nobody left behind” rings hollow.
ENHANCE COMPANY FUNDED RETIREMENT BENEFITS
The MEC tasked the Negotiating Committee to “[i]mprove the total retirement income replacement ratio”, to “[o]btain an industry leading retirement package using both Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution plans”, and to “[c]reate a sustainable balance between Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution plans.” The Company told us in 1999 that we should have a Defined Benefit pension to replace 50% of our active pilot income, and a Defined Contribution account to replace another 20% for a total of 70% of our active pilot income. That has been lauded for years as an ideal balance of risks and potential benefits of both types of retirement arrangements. Many of you expected to keep that same balance and are likely surprised at a new type of account that is called a Defined Benefit plan but has most of the same characteristics of a Defined Contribution plan as our “B” fund. The contributions to the new plan are defined as a percentage of income up to the IRS limit, but the amount of the benefit will depend on how much the pilot works, how long the pilot works, and how well the market performs.
Compare what a first-year pilot will earn toward their retirement under what I will refer to as the legacy “A” plan and what they will earn under the MBCBP scheme. The pilot under the legacy “A” plan will earn 2% of their final average earnings, regardless of how much money they earn that year. In fact, they’ll earn 2% EVERY year, regardless of how much money they earn that year. After 25 years, they will have earned a pension of 50% of their high five average, limited by the FAE cap.
The same pilot in their first year would earn a “Compensation credit” to their MBCBP of 11% of their income up to the IRS Defined Contribution limit. If they spend just 2 months on new hire pay (which has been substantially improved) and 10 months on first year pay at MBPG, their contribution to the Market Based Cash Balance Plan (MBCBP) would be 11% of roughly $80,600. To increase the value of their pension, they could work more than MBPG in pursuit of the $330,000 IRS Defined Contribution limit. This incentive to work more would result in a productivity gain for The Company, which ultimately results in fewer jobs for us. Every year thereafter, the pilot could continue to increase the size of their “compensation credits” by working more, and they could further increase the total of their “compensation credits” by working longer. Working harder and working longer is a win for The Company, but not for a pilot.
The problem we have endured for the last 17 years is that The Company has refused to raise the FAE cap. In 1999, when the fund was created, the FAE cap was twice the IRS Defined Benefit Limit, and therefore resulted in the maximum Defined Benefit allowed by the IRS. Today, the IRS Defined Benefit Limit is $265,000, and a corresponding FAE cap would be $530,000. When Negotiating Committee communications began conveying that all we were working on was the FAE Cap, many of us had expectations that it was our legacy “A” plan that was being improved, not replaced.
The FAE cap, or rather caps, negotiated in the TA are without a doubt improvements over what we have today. The Company has established that they are willing to raise the FAE cap, just not for everyone, and not enough. By setting one FAE cap for those who choose to participate in the MBCBP and 3 others for those who choose to remain in the legacy “A” plan, they have created 4 groups of pilots whose “A” plan benefits are different. Sadly, none of them will provide the pilot with a 50% pension, even at the low hourly pay rates proposed.
Furthermore, by creating a new plan and freezing another, The Company has created 3 groups of pilots who have different retirement benefits. There will be one group that will have only the legacy “A” plan with a slightly improved FAE cap, another group with a frozen legacy “A” plan with a less improved FAE cap and an MBCBP, and then a third group without a choice – they’ll only have an MBCBP. Who believes this will not create any friction when the next round of RLA Section 6 negotiations begins for the next CBA? Have we not learned from history that dividing pilots into haves and have-nots benefits nobody but the employer?
Even at the distant end of the legacy “A” plan and no MBCBP, the FAE cap provides a Defined Benefit pension far below the expectations of the membership. I’m sure that many will find the MBCBP an attractive option. Certainly, you’ll be told it adds incredible value to this TA. I doubt you’ll hear how much The Company will be saving in pension obligations by driving a spike through the heart of the legacy “A” plan. You’ll probably also hear how much it would cost to raise the FAE cap for everyone to get a 50% pension benefit, but you probably won’t hear how much The Company has saved by waiting 24 years to improve it. Again, The Company has demonstrated that they are willing to raise the FAE cap, even though many people insist that they never would. Our only dispute is how much and for whom.
Compared to the TA numbers for FAE cap, a pilot would earn more money on The Company’s Long Term Disability plan than in retirement from their “A” Plan. Let that sink in.
QUALITY OF LIFE CONCESSIONS – VACATION
Under the TA, pilots who elect to and are selected to sell back their vacation will only receive their 24CH bonus for doing so if they work their entire MBPG. You’ll hear that this affects a tiny number of pilots who have sold back their vacation and then arranged their schedules to work zero hours. If that was the whole story, it would still be wrong to concede a benefit that is only enjoyed by a few pilots. But it won’t be the same few forever, and it may be something we all want to do when we can. Most importantly, when we decide it’s ethical to sacrifice the benefits of anyone, we show that we’re willing to sacrifice the benefits of everyone.
But it’s not just the few who sell back vacation and still work zero hours. It’s about everyone who sells back vacation and works anything less than MBPG. Even a minute less. Sell back your vacation and drop a PM Out & Back and you lose 24CH.
Many pilots over the past several months have been asked about rumored concessions in this TA, including this work rule change. You’ve been told this is not a concessionary TA, and that arguably is true. (If you consider sub-inflation pay rate increases as pay cuts, it is arguably false.) But that does not mean there are no concessions. This is one. And in a time when we have just saved the world through our COVID-19 pandemic efforts, we are in no mood to consider concessions. ANY concessions.
The Company calls these productivity gains. We call them quality of life degradations. These degradations will be what The Company will be talking about in their next annual report to shareholders when they say, “Pay increases for pilots were offset by productivity gains.” They result in pilots working harder and longer, and that means fewer pilots are required to do the same amount of work. The end result: fewer jobs. If fewer pilots are required, guess whose jobs go away first
STUDENT LINES
40% of LCA lines will be designated as Student Lines, and those First Officers assigned to those lines will be removed without pay. Those pilots will then receive Student Make-Up (SMU) credit and can try to find trips in the View/Add window to get a paycheck. While they get a 25% pay premium to work, their seniority will have been effectively butchered by having to choose from whatever happens to be in Open Time at that time. But while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others. 60% of LCA lines will NOT be designated as Student Lines, and First Officers bumped from those lines will be able to sit at home and collect 100% of their pay like they always have. We’ll create two classes of bumped for training.
This will not only affect the First Officers who are bumped for training. Some who would have bid those lines previously will instead drop down to their next choice of lines, maybe that sweet line that the pilot junior to them would have had. So the junior pilot gets bumped down a line, and so on, and so on. Every pilot junior to the FO bumped for training will effectively lose a seniority number in line bidding due to the trickle down effect. Think it won’t affect you because you’re not senior enough to bid those LCA lines anyway? Think again.
Another secondary effect of adding First Officers with SMU to the View/Add mix will be more pilots competing for the same trips in the View/Add window. Another attack on quality of life. Another benefit lost. Another productivity gain. Another quality-of-life degradation. Another loss of jobs.
ADVANCE VOLUNTEER
Another division of pilots into 3 classes. Some may receive 100% for an AVA trip. Some will receive 150%. Some will receive 175%. Requiring a pilot to work MBPG before being able to earn a premium is another attack on our quality-of-life work rules. When you require the pilot to work more, that’s an obvious productivity gain, and therefore a loss of pilot jobs.
Additionally, a new eligibility requirement for AVA has been created. A pilot may not be assigned an AVA trip on a day covered by a trip for which that pilot was scheduled and subsequently removed via bid line adjustment, regardless of how much they may work in the remainder of the month. Drop a week-long trip because you need that Friday off for an important family event, but you’re willing to help out on Monday and Tuesday with an AVA trip? Sorry, no can do. Benefit lost. Concession.
R-24 to R-16
Some will claim this is not a concession but rather a trade-off for Base Hotel Standbys. While it may be more difficult to assign a Base Hotel Standby to an R-16 pilot, it is still possible, and if it’s possible, you can count on The Company to do it. They’ll only have to take one more step of building the Base Hotel Standby earlier in the process.
Once again, the pilot who could have held R-24 and sat reserve at home will either have to sit R-16 in base, and pay for their own hotel or crash pad, or they could choose another line, maybe the line that the pilot junior to them would have chosen. Once again, everyone junior to the pilot who would have selected an R-24 line effectively loses a seniority number in the line bidding process.
MY JOB
My job is to represent the pilots of Block 2, the pilots of Local Council 22, and the pilots of FedEx Express. There are several good things in this TA that I would like to have, for myself and for everyone else. I am well aware that many pilots in my block would be happy to take the retirement improvements and won’t care about anything else. But nobody will get any of the improvements if the TA fails membership ratification.
THE MEC’S JOB
The MEC is tasked with bringing you the TA that you have earned and that you deserve. I believe that we should bring you a TA that will be widely supported and enthusiastically ratified by an overwhelming majority of the membership. In fact, that was one of the MEC’s Strategic Negotiations Goals. On the heels of a historic Strike Authorization vote and record numbers of picketers, it is clear to me that the membership is ready and willing to go the distance to get the contract that we deserve. But the MEC has not used all the tools available under the RLA process.
The final task of the MEC during our weekend Special Meeting was to consider and adopt Resolution 23-20, “MEC approval of TA to pilots.” (FDX MEC Resolutions) One proposed sentence originally contained the word “cornerstone,” but there was disagreement as to whether that was the appropriate word to describe the Negotiating Committee’s accomplishment. I held up the FedEx MEC Section 6 Opener document and suggested that it would be appropriate to say, “WHEREAS, the Negotiating Committee has achieved the MEC Negotiating Goal of an industry leading contract that meets our members’ focused priorities of enhanced retirement benefits and pay rates with targeted quality of life improvements” IF the MEC believed that. My suggestion was rejected, and the sentence instead reads, “WHEREAS, the tentative agreement makes substantial improvements to our collective bargaining agreement.” It is my view that “substantial improvements” falls well short of achieving the goal you are willing to strike for, and that you stood proudly on the picket lines for.
YOUR JOB
I am not writing this to try to convince or persuade anyone how to vote – I am only explaining the thought process of my opposition to endorsement. This by no means constitutes a comprehensive list of concessions and other shortcomings of the TA that pilots will find objectionable. I’ve only listed a few of the things I believe most pilots will find that do not serve our needs.
I know you will educate yourself without a sales pitch or threats of terrible consequences. I hope you will have an opportunity to attend a roadshow and ask questions. I trust you will cast an informed vote.
MY COMMITMENT
I opposed the endorsement of this TA because I believe the membership will not ratify it. As messy as it would have been for the MEC to send the TA back to the Negotiating Committee, membership rejection will be more messy. And if you reject this TA, I believe we will have let you down.
Had I endorsed this TA, and the membership decided not to ratify it by an overwhelming majority, I would have to acknowledge that I am out of touch with the membership, and I would feel obligated to step aside and allow a better representative to take my place.
On the other hand, since I opposed endorsement, if the membership ratifies this TA by an overwhelming majority, I will acknowledge that I am out of touch with the membership and will do the honorable thing: I will step aside and allow you to choose someone who better represents you.
It is an honor to represent you. I appreciate your support.
In Solidarity,

Laughing_Jakal

Except you have people who haven't read the language encouraging people to vote "NO" with arguments that may not apply. Shouldn't they (NC) and (MEC) be allowed to explain their perspective and rationale to counter some incorrect assumptions?

How does the timeline work? What mechanism allows us to get a new TA by the presidential election....what part of the RLA do we use?

Emmerson Bigs

I really appreciated Laughing Jakal's long post in the vice chair scope thread. Well said.

I've already said that I can wait if necessary. I've still got a few years left and at this point, I'll probably never spend the money I already have or will receive for certain. So what's a few hundred grand lost in the big scheme of things? After over a week of on-line experts on scope, retirement and overall Monday morning QBing, I've had enough. The doomsday scenarios are comical. The JF voting poll before a single road show had even occurred is a joke. I hope this TA gets voted down so all you geniuses can show us how it's done. It's easy for TC, the hero of JF and APC to vote no. There's a corollary to that no vote..... What's are you going to do to get different results, Tony?
More pickets? More PUB events? More billboards and WSJ ads? When we finally get a new NC and MEC and our side is sitting across the table from the company while the NMB lords over the process, are we gonna ask for more money again more sternly? More retirement $$ in the traditional A-plan with a harsher tone in our voice? What exactly is going to make the company bring millions more to the table?
I can't wait to hear the plan. Strike? I won't hold my breath. Some of our pilots wouldn't be able to go more than two week without a paycheck. Is our pilot group going to finally band together and do what we should have done 2 years ago to actually show the company that we actually stand behind our NC? I hope so, but I have my doubts. Make no mistake - We got the TA we deserved. I remember the thread over a year ago when many of the vocal "No" voters here were telling us how it didn't matter if they emptied their schedule and re-filled it with AVA as long as it complied with min days off. How did that work out for you? Again, it's easy to talk tough and tell the NC and MEC what they should have done and what we deserved when almost all of those saying that have NO IDEA what the negotiation process involves. The "I deserve it after all I gave being locked up" whiners are pathetic. Deserve has nothing to do with it. It's business. You empty your schedule and fly a month at 150% during negotiations and then expect sympathy and kudos in the form of "you deserve it" pay in the TA from the company? It's hard to believe someone can say that with a straight face. Too bad the freight volumes are in the toilet now. Sure would have been nice to utilize the opportunity when a unified group could have made some personal sacrifices and gave the company pause to consider the consequences of trying to go cheap on the TA. Like it or not, that's what moves the needle. They look right past the NC at US to make their decisions. Otherwise, it's truly just a negotiation. Each side has a position and they eventually meet in the middle with each one giving something. Especially when the NMB is involved.

So I'm going to get my popcorn, wind the clock and sit back and watch the circus. You youngsters that think we're going to get rock solid scope language out of this company are in for a rude awakening. Extra-territorial and belly freight limits are a pipe dream. You think we're going to strike and then force them to buy WB aircraft they don't want or use a business model/system form to move freight in a way we approve of? Give me some of what you're smoking. The pie is the pie. You want higher pay rates? The retirement piece gets smaller. Oh, and if you think the delay due to a failed TA is just going to make the retro/signing bonus/APRP or whatever you want to call it just roll on and grow while we get back to the table - think again. Any further delay due to a no vote is on OUR SIDE of the ledger. We don't get to demand further penalties for the amendable period when we choose to make it longer. Just keeping it real - Ask the NMB.

So, let's go and see what all the guys we bring off the bench can do for us. I hope some of them are the ones who have done absolutely nothing but complain and line their pockets and now denigrate those who actually stepped up to do their best. With the way our MEC, Officers, NC and others are treated, it's amazing we can get anyone to take the jobs in the first place. Let's revisit this post in about 18 months and see where we stand. Maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised and I can admit I was wrong. In the meantime, it's time for some of your to step up and put your money where your mouth is and show us what you've got. If you want different results, then the WHOLE process needs to be different. So far, I haven't seen anything that resembles different from this group in over 20 years.

Idaho

A colleague suggested the union should employ top notch contract attorneys and negotiators on the front lines. The reps sound like a lot of them are fed up and finished. I say it’s worth a try since in the words of those who have been here much longer “we always fail,” and don’t amend work rules because “we always lose.” I’m guessing the reason the company won’t give us market pay rates is because we so sweetly asked for it and when they said no, we continue to get it all done for them. If Congress can force a contract on you then you are a slave. We are among the minority who actually pay taxes so it’s time to push back. I understand the beaten down apathy because I too have been beaten down by the industry, but now my back is in the corner and I have nothing to lose.

Shaman

Well here's another prime example of why this pilot group has never ever achieved meaningful gains and will watch quality of life erode further contract after contract. I truly appreciate the long winded speeches from the I'm voting yes crowd who failed to improve retirement in 2015 and previous contracts. They said the same exact 💩 in 2015. I'm talking almost word for word and what did we get

• pay rates that did not keep up with inflation
• a 3rd of the workforce bidding a worse version of PBS
• loss of passover pay
• Bump and flush system bidding that saw junior pilots holding seats while senior pilots were displaced
• increased showtime requirements for international trips
• no A fund improvement
• a small increase to the DC.

Dayuum V for victory fellas!! "But we could have had them if only" the what was it then?? Oh yeah "the MD11 FOs had just stuck it to the man and didn't fly draft". That's not how this works no matter how much you keep saying it.

And here we are again. Same less than adequate TA, same if only we didn't fly extra, same now we gotta vote this in because it could take longer.

Mark Twain was right when he said History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.

You want to know how your negotiating chairman and the other long-winded blowhards think? look no further than this
You want more or better you have to give something else away.That's the theme here longer, harder, and for less. It's a war of attrition and we keep losing but calling it winning.

These guys are like beat dogs yapping at anyone who dares challenge their weak take whatever you can get attitude. You cannot issue some kind of limp wristed call to arms for those who descent to lead the way when you then and now have been willing to lay down and take what you can get. If retirement didn't get improved in 2015 it's YOUR fault MR 53%.

The RLA process is what it is and mediation is non binding. Sometimes the parties are just too far a part. Of course only one of those parties is allowed to make wholesale changes to the working environment while the other gets to feel bad about the parts of the agreement that are more favorable to them and work to give them away as a show of good faith 👍🏽. The RLA process offers getting released to self help as a tool to address these differences. The lay down caucus wants you to believe that will never ever happen simply because they say so. I don't know that and neither do they. There is only one certainty if we aren't willing to travel there we WILL NEVER know.

Ready to vote no. No further re-education required.

Laughing_Jakal

Idaho,

That suggestion was made years ago. Fred Buesser (deceased in a motorcycle accident) was a DC-10 Captain who tried to get that to happen years ago after the A380 rates were negotiated and the company cancelled the program and brought the 777 replacement on at wide body rates instead of the A380 rates. He initiated a recall of our block reps which I seconded. He eventually got elected on the MEC and worked hard on our behalf. He really put his money where his mouth was. During that time we had a hub turn meeting in AOC. Fred once again pressed the Chairman to pursue "professional negotiators" and he was rebuffed saying "we do have ALPA lawyers on our team and the Pilots know what Pilots need"....Later, the MEC Chair was explaining the reality of illegal work actions that some were advocating. He explained the monumental fine APA incurred when some AA guys went a little rogue. I raised my hand, he recognized me and I stated "So.......that APA situation was one where the pilots would have benefited from professional negotiators!"....The crowd laughed and I had the opportunity to experience his rebuttal at close range and I'll summarize his reaction as being slightly unfriendly.....we were able to laugh about it later.

My point is, there is a tremendous history of collective negotiating at FedEx, and there is not a whole lot that's new under the sun. The whole experience of getting a first contract here at FedEx was laborious and not uncomplicated. The assertions by some that "you had plenty of time to fix and improve (insert your issue here) but didn't do it, so why should we sacrifice anything now?" implies that there wasn't a lot of work done and tremendous gains made over that time that made our job one desirable enough for others to leave their carriers and come here. It suggests that "nothing was done" during that time which is dismissive of the effort and sacrifices that a lot of hardworking, dedicated people made.

Our Contract now, and this TA are light years ahead of the "Parking lot deal" that was in effect when I was hired....Most everything from the parking lot deal was improved with the exception of retirement. The fact that retirement was not improved was not an issue of negligence, but an indication of how many issues had to be dealt with and how hard it was to effect.

The truth is, that retirement took a back seat in the past to obtain improvements in other areas, continued pay increases though small being one of them. If negotiating these things were easily obtainable, believe me, most of us would have preferred it would have happened long ago.

Whether you think it is enough or not, the truth is, that the retirement system was improved and you will benefit from it.

threeighteen

Well this just confirmed your bias. You can stop with the long winded rambling posts and just say “I’m a yes vote because I’m retiring and I’ll do anything to convince the rest of you to vote yes because I don’t care what happens when I’m gone”

Stan446

[QUOTE=Emmerson Bigs;3654398]I really appreciated Laughing Jakal's long post in the vice chair scope thread. Well said.

I've already said that I can wait if necessary.

Great post. Yep, lots of angry voices but how many got fat paychecks when there was extra flying during negotiations.

Laughing_Jakal

First, you are not the arbiter of what I can and can't post...If you don't like what I write, then block me or don't read it. Personally I find your comments sanctimonious, and snarky, adding little substance to the conversation, but I won't discourage you from posting.

Secondly, hopefully we are all retiring someday unless we expire first.

Thirdly, I am fortunate that I was hired fairly young. I can retire in two years at full retirement, or I can stay until the contract after this is negotiated. Heck, since you don't think people should retire because they won't have a dog in the fight, then I will stay until 67 (if that passes) just so you can't accuse me of trying to steal your stuff as I go out the door now. (Though I concede the thought of living out of a suitcase for half the month for nine more years is not appealing to me.) So to alleviate your fears, I will continue to exercise my seniority and impact your quality of life, stifling your upward mobility all the while working with you to improve the next contract so I can take more out the door. Like it or not, this is your reality and you have little control over it....which is probably why you are so agitated.

You could just say "I'm a No vote because I don't care about what happens to the people who retire after working a whole career here because I want more".....