MEC Vote 10-4 to approve-Similar to DAL MEC
08-30-2015, 08:32 PM
#171
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by busdriver12
Straw man argument.
I don't think anyone has said that. This is the TA that was negotiated by our union, and we don't even have full details yet. Had we only a TA that the company offered us, I guarantee you, it would look a whole lot worse.
My point was, what do you mean that we should be willing to risk everything?
I don't think anyone has said that. This is the TA that was negotiated by our union, and we don't even have full details yet. Had we only a TA that the company offered us, I guarantee you, it would look a whole lot worse.
My point was, what do you mean that we should be willing to risk everything?
We had better work rules under the Flight Crew Handbook (FCH).
Our quality of life has been eroded throughout the years. Being "optimzed", (thank you, Mr. Mook) and the Company's way of"interpreting" of the "wording" that has been negotiated regardless of "the intent" when written, (fly it now, grieve it later), are just two examples. Our retirement has stagnated.
The fact is that they don't take us seriously and we, as a group, have never given them any reason to do so.
I'm just saying that this has to end, that's all.
08-30-2015, 08:32 PM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by Rock
If I'm wrapped up in thinking objections to the TA are about cash or not getting what we deserve, it is because those seem to be the primary reasons given by people saying they will vote no.
As far as the time to pick a battle on this...how about after we've all read the full TA and listened to the presentations by our "My NC Speaks For Me" negotiating team. We've spent four years insisting the company listen to them and them alone, and now a lot of guys on this website have decided neither the negotiating committee or the MEC speak for them or are even worth hearing from...less than a week after they voted to approve a TA. Would you consider that a patient and situational awareness gathering approach to joining the four year old engagement between the NC and FedEx?
I agree with your second paragraph. Especially your concluding sentence.
As far as the time to pick a battle on this...how about after we've all read the full TA and listened to the presentations by our "My NC Speaks For Me" negotiating team. We've spent four years insisting the company listen to them and them alone, and now a lot of guys on this website have decided neither the negotiating committee or the MEC speak for them or are even worth hearing from...less than a week after they voted to approve a TA. Would you consider that a patient and situational awareness gathering approach to joining the four year old engagement between the NC and FedEx?
I agree with your second paragraph. Especially your concluding sentence.
+1
Exactly
08-30-2015, 08:37 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by frozenboxhauler
Bus,
We had better work rules under the Flight Crew Handbook (FCH).
Our quality of life has been eroded throughout the years. Being "optimzed", (thank you, Mr. Mook) and the Company's way of"interpreting" of the "wording" that has been negotiated regardless of "the intent" when written, (fly it now, grieve it later), are just two examples. Our retirement has stagnated.
The fact is that they don't take us seriously and we, as a group, have never given them any reason to do so.
I'm just saying that this has to end, that's all.
We had better work rules under the Flight Crew Handbook (FCH).
Our quality of life has been eroded throughout the years. Being "optimzed", (thank you, Mr. Mook) and the Company's way of"interpreting" of the "wording" that has been negotiated regardless of "the intent" when written, (fly it now, grieve it later), are just two examples. Our retirement has stagnated.
The fact is that they don't take us seriously and we, as a group, have never given them any reason to do so.
I'm just saying that this has to end, that's all.
And I'm hoping that what has been negotiated in the TA has much tighter language, that cannot be interpreted any way that CRS likes, as they do now. I'm willing to wait to see the actual TA before making a stand, one way or another.
08-30-2015, 08:39 PM
#174
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by busdriver12
fbh, I think that what you're saying, is that this is about collective ego.
And I'm hoping that what has been negotiated in the TA has much tighter language, that cannot be interpreted any way that CRS likes, as they do now. I'm willing to wait to see the actual TA before making a stand, one way or another.
And I'm hoping that what has been negotiated in the TA has much tighter language, that cannot be interpreted any way that CRS likes, as they do now. I'm willing to wait to see the actual TA before making a stand, one way or another.
Cheers,
fbh
Last edited by frozenboxhauler; 08-30-2015 at 08:52 PM.
08-30-2015, 09:00 PM
#175
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
I think that so far all any of the ones not happy with this TA are saying is
-We should get some kind of decent increase in the retirement
-The pay raise is not a raise, more of a COLA increase
-The POP is a big giveback in many areas.
-The insurance seems complex, and notwithstanding an explanation from our NC, new language has a way of biting us in the future. Think 4A2B, the HKG LOA, accepted fares, hotel stby used as a "new" reserve tool, just to name a few.
-By rejecting the TA, we are not going to lose our jobs because we want it to go back to the table. And even if our NC speaks for us, some of us do not feel that way at the moment, including 4 of our reps.
-The 6 week bid month. I could see the Company using it to their advantage, to our major disadvantage
-And a few more that I havent listed.
Although the TA has some improvements in certain areas, there are other areas that are more important IMO.
I dont want to tap out when the first round isnt even over. It just seems to me that a few of the comments on here are to fatalistic for me to comprehend. The sky hasnt fallen yet.
-We should get some kind of decent increase in the retirement
-The pay raise is not a raise, more of a COLA increase
-The POP is a big giveback in many areas.
-The insurance seems complex, and notwithstanding an explanation from our NC, new language has a way of biting us in the future. Think 4A2B, the HKG LOA, accepted fares, hotel stby used as a "new" reserve tool, just to name a few.
-By rejecting the TA, we are not going to lose our jobs because we want it to go back to the table. And even if our NC speaks for us, some of us do not feel that way at the moment, including 4 of our reps.
-The 6 week bid month. I could see the Company using it to their advantage, to our major disadvantage
-And a few more that I havent listed.
Although the TA has some improvements in certain areas, there are other areas that are more important IMO.
I dont want to tap out when the first round isnt even over. It just seems to me that a few of the comments on here are to fatalistic for me to comprehend. The sky hasnt fallen yet.
08-31-2015, 06:27 AM
#176
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: A300 F/O
Posts: 1
Being asked to work to the end of December brings forth another fact to consider:
According to the retirement seminars, for anyone retiring in the month of December after the 10th, due to processing time of up to 21 days, Vacation Buyback of unused/accrued hours will be paid in January, and consequently the amount will not be part of pensionable earnings in the current year. In other words, if you retire on Dec 31st, it will not be used to figure into the final year's High 5 or for the SLAB computation. I'm sure the company is well aware of the effect this will have on final earnings.
So why is vacation buyback being used as an additive in the retirement SLAB Explanation?
According to the retirement seminars, for anyone retiring in the month of December after the 10th, due to processing time of up to 21 days, Vacation Buyback of unused/accrued hours will be paid in January, and consequently the amount will not be part of pensionable earnings in the current year. In other words, if you retire on Dec 31st, it will not be used to figure into the final year's High 5 or for the SLAB computation. I'm sure the company is well aware of the effect this will have on final earnings.
So why is vacation buyback being used as an additive in the retirement SLAB Explanation?
08-31-2015, 06:43 AM
#177
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by JSwift
So why is vacation buyback being used as an additive in the retirement SLAB Explanation?
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
