I've had fair experiences calling contract enforcement (CE) . I believe that the some of the disgruntled are so because they didn't get the answer they wanted to hear.

I've had several occasions where I believed I had a clear interpretation of the contract, but knew if I was wrong it could have negative repercussions. So I always call if there is any doubt.

CE has a database of decisions, interpretations, and grievances that are not published on our FDX ALPA site or clearly delineated in the contract. CE can inform you of how a specific situation was handled & decide previously, and if it is in the company's favor, they will use these decisions as precedent.

In a few instances what I thought was my clear interpretation, was NOT how the company interpreted the contract with decisional case history. NOT what I wanted to hear, but the answer saved me from making a bad decision.

I asked/suggested that a searchable database/compendium be made available to all dues paying members so that when a situation arises when CE is not working (M-F 09-1600) members can find the information. CE stated that there was an ALPA volunteer that started on the project but did not finish (didnt say why) but that it was a pretty big project, and there were issues of making html hyperlinks in an online contract to case history etc.

My experience with CE is that they will research your situation & call email back, if they can't tell you real time on the phone.

Many of these issues are the result of weak contract language, that allows the company liberal interpretation, and they take those liberties knowing that some of the crew force will just roll-over, (thus setting a decisional precedent), or they accept the risk of losing a grievance (historically low for them) all the while meeting their immediate term need. (fly now -grieve later).

IMHO part of the new contract impetus should be to tighten up the contractual language so that the only interpretation is the one that was negotiated.

 

If you look at some of the other threads on this, you'll see that there has been a recent effort by our management to discourage us from using our sick bank. They have sent out threatening letters to people and have been demanding doctors letters inconsistently for certain non-contractually allowed events. Some people get requests for letters, some people don't. We don't know all the parameters of why/who are requested, as apparently this is a big secret.

There are a couple of trains of thought on why this is happening, maybe it's a combination of things. Is it to distract us from our negotiations? Probably. Is it because someone will get a big bonus if they can lower the sick bank usage? Maybe. Is it to make sure they have more pilots available over peak? Definitely.

 

perfectly stated

 

It's actually embarrassing to tell my friends at other airlines how childish they're treating us over here now.

 

So don't tell them. Instead tell them about the vacation policy and how great it is to not have to deal with paying passengers and flight attendants....You know the usual drivel.

 

Tell them about having a real retirement plan. That usually ends the conversation.

 

Their response is usually, "so did we."

For now though, you are correct.

 

I take it from this that you are volunteering? Maybe offering to head up the group?

 

Why is it every time someone criticizes a Union function we get the standard answer "Get involved/Volunteer?" I pay thousands of dollars to be represented by a national union and these folks at Contract Admin are being paid to do a job. On numerous occasions I have had the same thought when calling these folks--"Did I just dial 901-224-xxxx?"

 

Because he said he wanted 10 contract savy, educated PILOTS to man his new vision. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, but which of your 10 buddies to you expect to do this for you? I think it's a fine idea. Maybe you didn't read his post or you'd realize he wasn't talking about professionals in Contract Admin.

Why is it when anyone suggest getting involved the standard response is I pay for that so I shouldn't have to do anything else. If everyone took that tact, you wouldn't have to worry about calling the union. Maybe the meaning of the word union is tripping you up.

He even addressed the issues of manning and paying for it which I responded to. I take it from your response, that you either didn't read his post or you didn't comprehend what he proposed. In either case, it's probably best that you stay on the sidelines and just pay your dues.