kronan

FDA was modified and improved, primarily as a result of comments by the Proponents here on APC, IMO.
Previous NC had best we can do and I pay for my childrens here in Memphis, and it'll go Senior-why do you care.

But company came back and addressed many of the concerns expressed here, quickly.

iarapilot

Here is a grievance that someone filed based on that "pot sweetening". It was denied by the union and a side letter was signed allowing the Company to proceed with the sweetening.



Nov. 10, 2007



Dear C... B....,

As Grievance Chairman, I am emailing you to have you file a grievance under my rights contained in Section 20A of the CBA. I believe that this matter is of utmost importance; therefore I would like you to use the Expedited Grievance procedures under Section 1E of our CBA, If that is not possible, file it in accordance with Section 20 B1.

I believe the Company has violated Section 1A of the CBA, which states that "the Company recognizes the Association as the duly authorized representative for the specific craft or class of flight deck crew members (hereinafter referred to as “pilots”) of the Company covered by the Railway Labor Act (“the RLA”)." I feel this means that anything the Company offers to the pilots that is contrary to what has already been contractually negotiated and agreed to is in violation of the CBA AND the Railway Labor Act.


The Company has by itself, added positive things to the LOA for our new FDAs. Since the LOA that covers the HKG and CDG FDA's was put out for vote, the company has changed the STV portion and added 500 more pounds to the shipment allotted. None of this was negotiated for with our Union, which is our sole bargaining agent. Now that the LOA has passed, the Company has unilaterally added, via FCIF 07-0160 on November 2,10,000 dollars of deposit assistance. This happens to be the company dealing directly with the pilots, instead of the Union. In the context of these dealings, I think the company is circumventing the RLA by bypassing our Union and offering these things directly to our pilots via FCIF or other means.

The Union is our sole negotiator between FedEx and the pilots. Generally speaking, if it is not in the contract, it can’t be done, whether it benefits the pilots or not. If it doesn’t benefit the pilots, we all, including the Union, would force to stop it via a grievance. If it does benefit the pilots, it still circumvents the RLA purpose of representation, by dealing directly with the members; leaving the Union out of the loop. This sets a very bad precedent. Divide and conquer. (think 200% during a job action, among other scenarios which could be perceived as beneficial by some.)

Now, specifically speaking,, the LOA is a contractual document. For the company to give us any more, or less, than what is spelled out in the LOA is legally unacceptable, even if it is a benefit to us. All benefits to us should come via the RLA/negotiations process. There should be no direct dealing between the Company and the pilots on this issue.

I believe that it is extremely important to have this filed immediately. Under Section 1E, I would like you to file this grievance with the Vice President of Labor Relations. I do understand the ramifications that this grievance might have on those bidding an FDA; but the ramifications of letting the company go unhindered in bypassing our Union. without negotiations, by changing a contractual item like the FDA LOA, is extremely dangerous.

Please let me know, via email, as soon as you receive this.

Respectfully,

kronan

But the LOA itself, allowed the MEC chairman to modify FDA issues w\out union member involvement...language that still exists in the current version

"Ongoing Implementation Measures
The parties recognize that the details involved in opening and operating
foreign pilot bases are varied and fluid. Other measures facilitating the
operation of the pilot bases in the EMEA and in HKG and supporting
the pilots based there may be implemented if agreed upon in writing
by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the Association’s MEC
Chairman."

MaxKts

Except, that language wasn't official until the LOA passed. They jumped the gun on that one!

FDXLAG

Yep I think is funny people think this MEC is "selling" this TA. For FDA 1 and 2 it was almost daily collusion between the company and the MEC. Heck the chief pilot would answer questions posted here weekly.

kronan

Comment was in reference to the grievance post

The stvs duration and other issues were 'fixed' prior to the voting cutoff

So far as I understand the process, there is nothing to prevent the company from improving a TA should they so desire

MaxKts

I guess if they didn't want people to have the impression of them "selling" this TA they should put up a chart showing, one-for-one, what we got vs all the "efficiencies" the company gained.

Too many times during the roadshow, when asked specific questions about the "efficiencies" they either glossed over it or answered with "the company wanted that!"

iarapilot

It seems the point was that the vote had not closed and the Company, by themselves, added some pluses to the TA. So technically and legally it really was not part of the TA that the Company and union signed.

If they want to improve it they cant do it solo.

PicklePausePull

It's not rocket science! A ten day period to poll, one week to analyze. New NC formed immediately puts potential negotiations mid November. If NMB doesn't play ball, company faces problems in peak due to manning levels and unified crew force. Company may very well advocate for immediate negotiations thru NMB. If not, we have lost nothing really. Status quo is in crew forces' favor. Company already leaving freight on tarmac, numerous system failures, under manned and competition driving good pilots to Delta, etc. Wall Street doesn't like uncertainty.

Stop being so scared of the bogey man!

Viper446

[QUOTE=PicklePausePull;1975634]It's not rocket science! A ten day period

For some, a delay in a final TA will be an issue. I can see that if someone is close to retirement, this TA would be worth voting for. I get that and understand why they would vote yes. But for the majority of us, this contract falls short. The retirement simply has to be fixed. Fixed either in an increase in the A plan, maybe a lump sum buyout option instead of the A plan and certainly and increase in the B fund. If the process takes another 2 yrs or more, so be it. We owe it to ourselves and also to those who are going to follow here at FX. Do I really want to vote yes for a TA that is going to screw the relatively new FO I just flew with? A guy who has probably another 25yrs to work here, NO!

People mention the time value of money. Well, we've lost about 3yrs of that already since the last LOA gave us a pay raise. Its not about money, at least not money in hourly pay. This TA is about the QOL that we and future FX pilots will have to live under. I can't understand how anyone can consider this TA a good deal. I've seen the Union videos and talked with friends here. Some buy the line that this is the best we are going to get. If that's the attitude, we might as well just give up on ever getting a decent contract. Perhaps we should just empower the MEC to just vote yes on any future contract. I mean, whats the point of having a NO choice if Yes is all we are going to get out of our leadership.

There should be no fear here about sending this TA back. If we make no progress on a future TA, at least we've asked the question of what if. If we live out our careers under this current TA, we would be better off than accepting the new TA, except for pay raises. There isn't a pilot on the property who isn't making great money. So this contract shouldn't be about money, it should be about a retirement that has a COLA, tighter language and no give backs. It doesn't matter if we have an agreement before peak. The company can come back, offer whats appropriate and guys would pick up the slack without a new TA but knowing whats new on the table is what we should have. And I've said it before, the company is prepared. They have 10 versions of the TA that they are ready to hand to us. And the right on is in their hands, its ours if we will stand up for it.