Brad Mahoney

I decided to write one more post before this contract vote is completed because of the dangerous precedent that could be set with its implementation. That precedent is “Negotiation without Ratification.” We should not vote to short-circuit our RLA rights.


I'm sad that the MEC sent us an incomplete negotiation and expects us to ratify it. They should've completed negotiations on the secondary line issues and included them for us to ratify. By leaving this process open to further “negotiation” without ratification we are harming ourselves.


I'm also completely disappointed that the MEC would abdicate their responsibilities for representation by giving this contractual negotiating authority to the chairman without institutional oversight. This section requires absolutely no MEC involvement, yet the MEC saw no fiduciary shortcoming in the language of this LOA. Lacking ratification, at the very least the MEC should have demanded that they be allowed to vote on the decision. Wow. At least 4 of them knew better.



I understand why the company wants us to ratify an incomplete negotiation. Because finishing it after ratification works in their favor. The company wants to delay these work rules until they are outside of the RLA process, with negotiating rules written in their favor. We would be stupid to accept it.


I know that others have talked about the Secondary Line Replacement LOA, but this is rewriting the basics of our representation. We are taking work rules, giving them to a working group that mixes FedEx and Association assets together, putting everyone in a “negotiating” atmosphere that is arbitrated by the Vice President of Flight Operations, and then implementing the results without any ratification by the pilots at large.


This is another example of the “new ideas” that are introduced into negotiations all the time. It's the daily intelligence test for negotiations, and the negotiating team failed this one. We as a pilot group can’t fail it during ratification.


All of these “new ideas” are concocted opportunities for management to work outside of the RLA. The last time that we had to deal with something “new” was the two-year deal. The two-year deal was a bust. Management got their extension, and we got screwed as we waited and waited for them to negotiate. They never really negotiated. Tony C and I voted against the two-year deal because we knew that stepping outside of the RLA process to negotiate was a sure loser.


This idea is a bigger loser.


The reason for this idea to be introduced now is so that the company can work outside of the RLA to institutionalize PBS in the secondary line system - without having to worry about the roadblock of ratification. All they need is a company-friendly union leadership.


I wouldn't care if we had Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump all negotiating together for us; I don't trust a significant negotiating process that lacks ratification. We need over 4000 pairs of eyes on a document in order to ferret out the shortcomings of the work. Lacking that, we give up our chance to correct something that could dramatically affect our working lives.


Ratification does not just allow us to correct issues, it produces better agreements. If ratification is not necessary, you only have to produce a document that will satisfy a few people. Those few opinions and lifestyles represented could not possibly encompass the variety found in our pilots at FedEx. But if you have to ratify a document, you have to produce a document that is going to satisfy the majority of the crew force. It has to take all of those lifestyles and opinions into account. Those two documents would look quite different. And I cannot imagine a situation where a document needing to be ratified would be the worst of the two.


The only thing required to make the “negotiated” changes permanent would be the signature of the leadership. If they negotiated this LOA, how much pushback do you think there will be in signing a document?


Don't forget; the only thing required to make further changes in the future is the same signature.


If we codify this process that allows management to work outside of the RLA when negotiating, then we can expect nothing more than having them demand to negotiate many other work issues outside the RLA. And it will be completely to their advantage. Anybody that believes that we would benefit from working outside of the RLA needs to be concerned about their next urine test.


If you fly secondary lines, or want to, and you have voted yes on the tentative agreement, you need to reread the LOA on secondary lines. You need to read it thinking as a manager. You need to see all of the opportunities that live in that document for managers. You need to recognize all of the PBS-centric jargon that populates the document. You need to see the preponderance of company-friendly language in the LOA. You need to recognize your lack of input. You need to see how it bypasses the MEC. You need to recognize the danger of this document in undermining real negotiations under the RLA.


Remember, it only requires one signature. And it can happen many times over the next six (or more) years.


Brad Mahoney
Md-11 Captain

GetRealDude

Another MAJOR example of the Devil is in the details.

Did the NC point this out in the videos, roadshows, or Q/A? You won't hear this from the infamous 10 Yes votes from the MEC. BTW, their original vote was to RELEASE the TA to the pilots for an up/down ratification. CD totally dropped the ball on the language in the press release. It was not an endorsement. He admits it privately, but not publicly as of today. Has our Chairman weighed in on his yes or no vote via official correspondence? Nope. Why not?

Repeat -- It was not an endorsement by the MEC. However, in emphatic fashion, the 10 recently changed their tune didn't they? Pathetic.

The NC in almost all cases should remain neutral. Here's our product ... Vote yes or no. Yet they SELL the TA at every turn. Even communicate directly to the crew force to influence the vote. For this to happen, leadership has given away the reins.

Most yes voters (not all) have not read and fully vetted the TA. Ignorance is bliss for these ladies and gents. Admittedly, generally intelligent men and women.

For those with a full understanding and still vote yes, you're on a whole new level.

BlackKnight

Well said Brad. Thank you.

(20 years left). With the gained efficiencies, PBS, and SLBribe we will see our seniority and QOL continue to suffer. After sitting in the pool 4 years (personally), 3 to 2 seat cockpits, and slow growth, it will continue to crawl along... (Insert wining and crying here).

I cringe at the next TA and how much more of the bidpack will be diverted to secondary lines/PBS. Then we can look forward to vacation starting to erode.

Hell no. Fingers crossed.

CloudSailor

Well said Brad Mahoney.

I see that now on Jetflyers we have many of our guys who have been around for a while arguing in FAVOR of the VTO/SLR/PBS expansion. This is insane!!!

Our line in the sand, our majority vote when polled, and now we have guys completely defending something we have zero idea of how it will affect our QOL. No software, no parameters, no language, yet PBS, and guys want this to pass. They are arguing VTO expansion as a gain . This is a testament of the phenomenal sales job the NC has done!