This just in from Council 26:
09-28-2015, 10:28 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 613
This just in from Council 26:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This document is about what happens next if we vote no. It is not about the plusses and minuses of the TA. Communication on that front continues on both sides. Since our amendable date in 2010, we have not fully utilized the type of leverage we need to achieve our goals in negotiations. We have hoped and hinted that a quieter, gentler approach to negotiations would be sufficient to gain us the contract we deserve. It should be clear to all of us now that approach simply does not work here at FedEx. The TA before you today is proof.
Now, for the tough part. Why should we think that if we vote "No" our leadership can bring us a better deal? The first thing to consider is the fact that many of the leaders who brought us to this point have already left. We have new Block Reps in place now and have upcoming elections when you have the ability to review the voting record of your Block Rep and either reelect them or elect new representation. I would advocate we elect level-headed thinkers who can be decisive and unemotionally analyze strategies and tactics. We need pilots who are not easily intimidated. Additionally, our officer core changed in July and we have a new Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer.
Make no mistake, this will be a challenge. To vote “No” is to say you are willing to do whatever it takes including, if it comes to it and after the end of the RLA process, standing alongside your fellow union members in a picket line without a paycheck to achieve our goals. It means you are willing to fight for what you believe in just like others who have gone before us have fought to build this profession. This will not be easy, but I believe in you and I believe we can fix the TA. This will not be quick nor painless and the outcome may not be better than what we now have before us. However, if we vote yes, we know it won’t get any better.
The only thing more important in improving this TA than your leadership is you, the membership. The outcome from negotiations is entirely in your hands. You have come through every time you have been asked. Remember 4.A.2.b? Management took advantage of the language by restricting some lines to 54 credit hours while other lines were built to far higher values. When you were polled as to whether we should get rid of 4.A.2.b, you overwhelmingly voted to keep it or modify it because you still cared enough about our junior pilots to protect them from furlough.
In 1998, when we were "At Will" employees, we voted to double our dues to build a strike center. We voted to go on strike. We did all those things with a very weak Board of Directors (MEC equivalent body) and with Officers who had literally just come from management to run our Union. We did this in the environment where we started the year with 50% membership, had no contract, were threatened with a lock-out, were abused in the media, threatened by red letters to our houses and we still stood strong together. We built our membership to 98% by the end of the year and we achieved our first contract.
After we earned that first contract, we found that management refused to honor it in several areas. We stood up to them again. We won because we stood firm. Lastly, we challenged management's erroneous interpretation of FAR 121.547 “Admission to the Flight Deck.” Again, we were not only threatened with termination but 3 pilots actually were terminated in an attempt to intimidate us. We stood firm, achieved our goals and those pilots regained their jobs.
One may ask what we could do to influence the outcome at the table if we turn down the TA. In the past, we engaged in the following leverage enhancing activities:
Nationwide simultaneous informational picketing in major cities
Large uniformed pilot presence at the stockholder’s meeting
Media campaign to include newspaper ads and talk radio
Conducted a strike vote
These type of activities worked and will work again. In some of these cases, we had the leadership to lead us. In some cases, we had the membership drive the leadership; but in all of these cases, we had a membership that was rock solid and ready to stand strong. We are still the brave, smart, loyal and fair group of honorable men and women that we were when we had our past successes. It is time to believe in ourselves and to stand strong again like we have done so successfully before. Our leadership is changing. You can change it more or faster if you see the need. We might just find that with the power of our fellow members, we already have what we need to get the job done.
You should be proud of our heritage as FedEx union members. Vote "No" on this contract, get ready for some hard work and difficult choices, and let’s start fixing this mess together.
Sincerely,
Michal Arcamuzi
Block 11 Representative
LEC 26 Chairman
This document is about what happens next if we vote no. It is not about the plusses and minuses of the TA. Communication on that front continues on both sides. Since our amendable date in 2010, we have not fully utilized the type of leverage we need to achieve our goals in negotiations. We have hoped and hinted that a quieter, gentler approach to negotiations would be sufficient to gain us the contract we deserve. It should be clear to all of us now that approach simply does not work here at FedEx. The TA before you today is proof.
Now, for the tough part. Why should we think that if we vote "No" our leadership can bring us a better deal? The first thing to consider is the fact that many of the leaders who brought us to this point have already left. We have new Block Reps in place now and have upcoming elections when you have the ability to review the voting record of your Block Rep and either reelect them or elect new representation. I would advocate we elect level-headed thinkers who can be decisive and unemotionally analyze strategies and tactics. We need pilots who are not easily intimidated. Additionally, our officer core changed in July and we have a new Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer.
Make no mistake, this will be a challenge. To vote “No” is to say you are willing to do whatever it takes including, if it comes to it and after the end of the RLA process, standing alongside your fellow union members in a picket line without a paycheck to achieve our goals. It means you are willing to fight for what you believe in just like others who have gone before us have fought to build this profession. This will not be easy, but I believe in you and I believe we can fix the TA. This will not be quick nor painless and the outcome may not be better than what we now have before us. However, if we vote yes, we know it won’t get any better.
The only thing more important in improving this TA than your leadership is you, the membership. The outcome from negotiations is entirely in your hands. You have come through every time you have been asked. Remember 4.A.2.b? Management took advantage of the language by restricting some lines to 54 credit hours while other lines were built to far higher values. When you were polled as to whether we should get rid of 4.A.2.b, you overwhelmingly voted to keep it or modify it because you still cared enough about our junior pilots to protect them from furlough.
In 1998, when we were "At Will" employees, we voted to double our dues to build a strike center. We voted to go on strike. We did all those things with a very weak Board of Directors (MEC equivalent body) and with Officers who had literally just come from management to run our Union. We did this in the environment where we started the year with 50% membership, had no contract, were threatened with a lock-out, were abused in the media, threatened by red letters to our houses and we still stood strong together. We built our membership to 98% by the end of the year and we achieved our first contract.
After we earned that first contract, we found that management refused to honor it in several areas. We stood up to them again. We won because we stood firm. Lastly, we challenged management's erroneous interpretation of FAR 121.547 “Admission to the Flight Deck.” Again, we were not only threatened with termination but 3 pilots actually were terminated in an attempt to intimidate us. We stood firm, achieved our goals and those pilots regained their jobs.
One may ask what we could do to influence the outcome at the table if we turn down the TA. In the past, we engaged in the following leverage enhancing activities:
Nationwide simultaneous informational picketing in major cities
Large uniformed pilot presence at the stockholder’s meeting
Media campaign to include newspaper ads and talk radio
Conducted a strike vote
These type of activities worked and will work again. In some of these cases, we had the leadership to lead us. In some cases, we had the membership drive the leadership; but in all of these cases, we had a membership that was rock solid and ready to stand strong. We are still the brave, smart, loyal and fair group of honorable men and women that we were when we had our past successes. It is time to believe in ourselves and to stand strong again like we have done so successfully before. Our leadership is changing. You can change it more or faster if you see the need. We might just find that with the power of our fellow members, we already have what we need to get the job done.
You should be proud of our heritage as FedEx union members. Vote "No" on this contract, get ready for some hard work and difficult choices, and let’s start fixing this mess together.
Sincerely,
Michal Arcamuzi
Block 11 Representative
LEC 26 Chairman
09-28-2015, 11:52 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
I voted NO. And I'm damned proud of it. I studied every part of the TA and debated the pros/cons myself and with scores of others. I'm prepared to go as long as needed to secure a better deal.
FDX cares about ONLY two things:
1. Reputation/Brand Name
2. Revenue/Profits
That's it. PSP is dead on this property and has been for many years. Employees and the crew force in particular are just a means to an end and a cost issue. That's why management is so heavy-handed. They have to keep the masses in check. Intimidation is their calling card. Just ask the MEC about the stack of APC and Jetflyer names/profiles they subpoenaed - for hostage taking. Fact.
Once you know the score, the decision becomes easy to vote NO. The path ahead will come with challenges and unyielding resolve. Every pilot on this property has earned this company and its shareholders massive profits. It's time for our cost center status to get more expensive.
Why? Because we've earned it.
This TA does not reflect it - not even close. You and your families' sacrifice on a daily basis for this company's success has not been sufficiently rewarded. I'm talking about the whole deal on balance.
We have many effective options available that are perfectly legal under the RLA. I suggest each and every one of them is implemented with our NO vote.
A YES vote is an endorsement of mediocrity and the table is set for future manipulation and deterioration of our career value.
FDX did their job of negotiating a marginally improved contract seeking only enough incentives for 50%+1 passage. It's already divided the crew force dramatically. They're smiling all the way to Wall Street. Hell, a single year 4.9% customer cost increase pays for the entire 6 year deal. Just ask the CFO.
We vote YES - the company will say "see you in 6 years" laughing as they walk out the door.
We vote NO and rally like I know we can - we're still in section 6 and they will engage. Don't forget the ONLY 2 things FDX cares about. It's the key to the purse.
FDX cares about ONLY two things:
1. Reputation/Brand Name
2. Revenue/Profits
That's it. PSP is dead on this property and has been for many years. Employees and the crew force in particular are just a means to an end and a cost issue. That's why management is so heavy-handed. They have to keep the masses in check. Intimidation is their calling card. Just ask the MEC about the stack of APC and Jetflyer names/profiles they subpoenaed - for hostage taking. Fact.
Once you know the score, the decision becomes easy to vote NO. The path ahead will come with challenges and unyielding resolve. Every pilot on this property has earned this company and its shareholders massive profits. It's time for our cost center status to get more expensive.
Why? Because we've earned it.
This TA does not reflect it - not even close. You and your families' sacrifice on a daily basis for this company's success has not been sufficiently rewarded. I'm talking about the whole deal on balance.
We have many effective options available that are perfectly legal under the RLA. I suggest each and every one of them is implemented with our NO vote.
A YES vote is an endorsement of mediocrity and the table is set for future manipulation and deterioration of our career value.
FDX did their job of negotiating a marginally improved contract seeking only enough incentives for 50%+1 passage. It's already divided the crew force dramatically. They're smiling all the way to Wall Street. Hell, a single year 4.9% customer cost increase pays for the entire 6 year deal. Just ask the CFO.
We vote YES - the company will say "see you in 6 years" laughing as they walk out the door.
We vote NO and rally like I know we can - we're still in section 6 and they will engage. Don't forget the ONLY 2 things FDX cares about. It's the key to the purse.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
