![]() |
TA 1.5
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
|
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
|
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
We have seen that we have lots of qualified folks ready to step up. I think it is time for MEC/NC to give the process some new blood and energy. I would like to see a calm transfer of power in the form of resignations vs recalls. We will see how it shakes out. They (MEC/NC) tried their best, but it was not good enough. Lastly, the mediator cannot meet before Labor day. We did the first hard step of NO and we should not rush the process. NO one left behind since amenable date for A plan and no splitting the group with Union busting pension scheme: |
Originally Posted by Yuko
(Post 3672915)
I don’t think it was close. We have about 500 on probation who could not vote. This block seemed to be predominantly No. When you factor that in the vote could have potentially be 60s against to 30s for.
We have seen that we have lots of qualified folks ready to step up. I think it is time for MEC/NC to give the process some new blood and energy. I would like to see a calm transfer of power in the form of resignations vs recalls. We will see how it shakes out. They (MEC/NC) tried their best, but it was not good enough. Lastly, the mediator cannot meet before Labor day. We did the first hard step of NO and we should not rush the process. : |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672923)
I don"t think we would need the mediator to approve an improved term sheet. Why risk reopening and renegotiating everything we have done over the last several years.
|
First off, we are in mediation. The NMB owns the process from here. So they are mandatory at this point.
Second, The MEC did not do its job. Most wrote unflattering comms talking down to us. They did not represent us. Those who did will be judged by their councils. Third, with the numbers put out my the MEC Chair, no two items are going to fix this to a 50% +1. Retirement, pay, and SCOPE must be addressed. And SMU, and 100% sell back are gone as well (my guess). The good news is we can do all this by peak IF the company truly wants good labor relations as the global economy starts to grow again. |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
In Transparency, Integrity & Unity (for Everyone), DLax |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
We need new blood, new energy, and leaders who are starting from a belief, a knowledge, that we can do much better. Our current Reps gave it their very best effort and we know the outcome. The 13 who sent it to us to ratify with the associated sales pitch believed we cannot have possibly earned better than TA1. Why would they stay? I personally don't understand how any one of them would choose to stay and go through the recall process, after having failed so miserably with TA1. Whatever they choose, it seems a bad idea to repeat the process with the same Reps and hope for a different outcome. The new blood coming in knows from day 1 we are not using Retirement, a jewel in our CBA, as a divisive wedge in our pilot group. Also, we are not signing in new vague Scope language concessions with this "new company" we now fly for, nor are we giving up senior QOL in exchange for SMU, or giving up junior R24 for industry-worst R16. And we are not giving gained efficiencies to fly our entire BLG for our VAC buyback or VLT/AVA/DRF. New energy in those leadership seats please. There are a lot of very sharp guys and girls with the requisite experience ready to step up. Time for PM and the entire group who sold us TA1 with all their very best and worst efforts, to return to the line. If they are sincerely interested in expediting the path towards TA2, they will step down and avoid the hassles the Recall process creates for all of us (not holding my breath though). |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
I know there is alot of "recall them all" talk. But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns. We might not even need the mediator involved if these are just term sheet dollar items and a scope side letter clarification. The alternative of recalling everyone, training new members, re-opening sections etc. seems like it would play into the company's divide and delay tactics.
Nothing personal, just business. It's time for a culture shift at FDX ALPA. |
Originally Posted by NoHaz
(Post 3672902)
But given how close this was, wouldn't it be more effective and timelier to seek a targeted improvement and resubmit? 1. Fix the pay rates to true industry leading. 2. fix the backpay to 100% or close to it. 3. Address the scope concerns and restrict any massive wet lease and furlough concerns.
But I am just an outsider looking in. Good luck guys. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands