Jaz Executive Spending

[cdnavater]

The collective agreement provides for 200 Credits per bid period of F/R for the MEC Exec.
How does 4 x 85 add up? I understand if we are in a time of Negots or whatever, but aside from the internal issues, things seem to be somewhat non-urgent at the moment. I think they've been on full F/R since around MOS 4.

How does this compare to the other MEC's?

Seems like a lot to me. At SWG we had 0 members on full flight release for a membership of about 500. As far as I know we never had anyone on full release. But I could be wrong.

There has been on going negotiations and the ULP obviously has some time required, I don’t know what other shops the have 1200 or so pilots does but again I have some trust, he has earned it in my eyes!

[cdnavater]

I have a YYZ sit tomorrow...can any pilot borrow the Lincoln SUV? I could use it...

DM me if you're more comfortable or maybe I should just email Claude if someone can forward his email/phone

Also, can Jazz pilots host parties with that kitchen? Be great for events/parties

Simple answer to the Lincoln, no! If you were entitled to rent a car and expense it to the union, then yes!
If you start a committee that is approved by the union and benefits Jazz pilots in some way, yes, you could probably borrow the kitchen!
Idiot!

The way you keep defending these expenditures is a bit ludicrous. Just because they were “approved” doesn’t mean they were legitimate.

First of all, the explanation about the vehicle made sense, if it doesn’t save money they will sell it, it takes time to determine if there is savings to be had!
I’m not sure how I feel about the rumoured cost of the office renovation, so far though it is only rumour and I can’t stress this enough, every single voting member approved these expenses, so they are all tainted and if CB goes, the rest should follow him out the door, every fn one of them! Start over, they are all guilty or non are guilty, there is no half way for me!

[braaap Braap]

So just to keep things straight here, CR and CB are the same person? What's with the different initials?

[Fowler]

Ever heard of things going over budget?
My understanding was it indeed was approved by all but now the cost is way over and this is what the discussion is about.

[cdnavater]

So just to keep things straight here, CR and CB are the same person? What's with the different initials?

No, CB exec chair, and GR YUL Captain rep, sometimes I mix up the initials.

[rudder]

The collective agreement provides for 200 Credits per bid period of F/R for the MEC Exec.
How does 4 x 85 add up? I understand if we are in a time of Negots or whatever, but aside from the internal issues, things seem to be somewhat non-urgent at the moment. I think they've been on full F/R since around MOS 4.

How does this compare to the other MEC's?

Seems like a lot to me. At SWG we had 0 members on full flight release for a membership of about 500. As far as I know we never had anyone on full release. But I could be wrong.

Flight release is a function of the CBA. Most (all?) ALPA CBA’s have negotiated language where representatives will be released from flights with pay to perform union related duties. Who pays is a function of the CBA (for example - a negotiations committee will be on company paid release during CBA negotiations). In other cases, ad hoc releases will be billed back to ALPA by the employer. For many MEC’s, flight release cost is their highest budgetary expense.

In a few cases, pilot groups have been successful in negotiating specific amounts of company paid flight release credits that are pre-programmed to avoid a high volume of trip drops which would be an operational challenge for smaller carriers. JAZ is the lead example of such a provision. These provisions of the CBA have existed for decades and well pre-dated the current JAZ MEC EXEC. How they are administered is a function of the current MEC.

The good news is that the JAZ MEC saves hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in company paid flight release. The other side of the coin is how those saved dollars are being spent. Claiming that you operate ‘under budget’ globally is not necessarily a justification for how the members dues are specifically being utilized. Per ALPA Administrative Policy, an MEC can operate with an ongoing budgetary surplus and consider a partial rebate of member dues.

[Canoehead]

The collective agreement provides for 200 Credits per bid period of F/R for the MEC Exec.
How does 4 x 85 add up? I understand if we are in a time of Negots or whatever, but aside from the internal issues, things seem to be somewhat non-urgent at the moment. I think they've been on full F/R since around MOS 4.

How does this compare to the other MEC's?

Seems like a lot to me. At SWG we had 0 members on full flight release for a membership of about 500. As far as I know we never had anyone on full release. But I could be wrong.

Flight release is a function of the CBA. Most (all?) ALPA CBA’s have negotiated language where representatives will be released from flights with pay to perform union related duties. Who pays is a function of the CBA (for example - a negotiations committee will be on company paid release during CBA negotiations). In other cases, ad hoc releases will be billed back to ALPA by the employer. For many MEC’s, flight release cost is their highest budgetary expense.

In a few cases, pilot groups have been successful in negotiating specific amounts of company paid flight release credits that are pre-programmed to avoid a high volume of trip drops which would be an operational challenge for smaller carriers. JAZ is the lead example of such a provision. These provisions of the CBA have existed for decades and well pre-dated the current JAZ MEC EXEC. How they are administered is a function of the current MEC.

The good news is that the JAZ MEC saves hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in company paid flight release. The other side of the coin is how those saved dollars are being spent. Claiming that you operate ‘under budget’ globally is not necessarily a justification for how the members dues are specifically being utilized. Per ALPA Administrative Policy, an MEC can operate with an ongoing budgetary surplus and consider a partial rebate of member dues.

Thanks for explaining that rudder.

[Cypresshill]

The office reno and accoutrements and the vehicle would would be over $1650 per pilot, based on 1200 pilots (there’s probably less), not factoring the FO/CA split.

Where’s our cheques? Oh nevermind, we’re the revenue, not the dues payers.

[PostmasterGeneral]

The office reno and accoutrements and the vehicle would would be over $1650 per pilot, based on 1200 pilots (there’s probably less), not factoring the FO/CA split.

Where’s our cheques? Oh nevermind, we’re the revenue, not the dues payers.

This guy gets it. You have every right to be pissed off.

[VomitComet]

The office reno and accoutrements and the vehicle would would be over $1650 per pilot, based on 1200 pilots (there’s probably less), not factoring the FO/CA split.

Where’s our cheques? Oh nevermind, we’re the revenue, not the dues payers.

Most of our paid dues go to ALPA national and they have a refund last year. Most MEC’s carry a balance of dues to fund committee work and training, legal battles, etc.

I’m curious though, the YUL chair said he hasn’t received the numbers … how is it that you do?

[rudder]

The office reno and accoutrements and the vehicle would would be over $1650 per pilot, based on 1200 pilots (there’s probably less), not factoring the FO/CA split.

Where’s our cheques? Oh nevermind, we’re the revenue, not the dues payers.

$1650 x 1200 =$1,980,000

There is no way that $1.9M could have been spent on an office renovation exclusively for use of the MEC of one of the smallest Tier 2 pilot groups in ALPA. Even 1/10th of that amount should raise questions. In point of fact, why would any MEC be paying directly for renovations? This office space is leased. Any improvements should be capitalized over the term of the lease through higher rent and recognizing that the landlord would potentially derive a benefit from the modifications (removable fixtures not included - furniture, etc).

ALPA Administrative Policy allows MEC’s to use MEC budget $$ to lease office space. In the past, the JAZ MEC shared office space with ALPA national and paid a pro rata portion of the rent based on dedicated use space (MEC/LEC office) and a nominal amount (perhaps zero?) for shared space (i.e. board room). This was clearly a beneficial arrangement for the MEC and prudent use of member funds. What changed?

Kitchens? TV’s? Bars? If any of this is true and is not a ‘shared expense’ then most definitely there are questions to be answered by ALL of the elected reps that approved the expenditure. So long as an MEC is not in deficit, ALPA National will approve any expenditure consistent with the Administrative Policy. So accountability for MEC budget expenditures is entirely local.

[rudder]

I’m curious though, the YUL chair said he hasn’t received the numbers … how is it that you do?

How could an MEC member (status rep) not be able to access these numbers?

ALPA Administrative Policy Manual - Section 60 Accounting and Finance - sub section D ALPA Account Budgets - 1 MEC Accounts - (a) Budget - sub (3):

“The Vice-President Finance/ Treasurer shall ensure that a system of reporting is installed and maintained that permits each MEC to receive complete and timely information concerning the status of its spending in relation to the approved budget for that MEC”

And further, regarding member access to MEC budgets, sub (5):

“MEC budgets shall be presented to the membership separately or by minutes of the MEC meeting at which the budget was approved”

And further, excerpt JAZ MEC Policy Manual - Section 5 MEC Meetings - sub section K Meeting Records - sub (c):

“Completed and approved records of the MEC meeting will be available (read only) to any JAZZ ALPA member in good standing upon written or e-mail request to their respective LEC Representatives. It should be noted that the MEC Chairman can be directed by the MEC to restrict distribution of approved MEC Meeting Minutes for reasons deemed appropriate by the MEC (Article IV, section 8 ALPA Constitution and By-Laws)”

So the relevant question is whether requests for information - either from members or elected reps - have been made and is the JAZ MEC being compliant with these provisions.

[rudder]

Lastly - for elected reps that claim they have been ‘directed by motion’ from their constituents:

ALPA Administrative Policy Manual - Section 74 Local Councils and Local Executive Councils - sub section H Mandating Pilot Representatives:

“There is no provision in the Constitution and By-Laws for elected Local Councils and MEC Representatives being mandated by their constituents”

What does this mean in practice? Any motion from the membership at a local council meeting mandating action should be deemed out of order.

The only way that members can direct their reps is via a ‘sense of the house’ motion. A sense of the house motion, also known as a non-binding resolution, expresses the opinion of a legislative body without creating any legal obligation or requiring any specific action. It's a way for the body to express its sentiment on a matter without setting a precedent or mandating change.

The only enforcement mechanism in the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws for member sentiment on action is recall. In other words - do it or else.

If people are seeking either information or change, then they need to make themselves aware of the guidelines, policies, and rules. Do your homework first. Know your rights. Determine what is and is not possible. Then make decisions about action.

Every one of the referenced documents is available to any ALPA JAZ pilot. ALPA main website and ALPA JAZ MEC website. Information is power.

[Cypresshill]

Rent: between 15 and 16K/month

Furniture and appliances: in the hundreds of thousands. Not paid by landlord.

Reno: not paid by landlord. Few hundred thousand or more.

Sub-lessors: nearly non-existent.

Car: price mentioned not including taxes, $11000 extended warranty, depreciation (rapid for that vehicle) Onroute expenses while driving it back and forth from domicile.

1.9 million is the “number”.

Stop facking around. You been had.

[Cypresshill]

Cmon, have your reps prove me wrong. Cmon! I dare you to

[Nick678]

Cmon, have your reps prove me wrong. Cmon! I dare you to

Maybe rent but none of the other stuff is essential to conduct business. Any one of these alone should be enough to trigger a recall. Power corrupts….

Disgusting behaviour if accurate.

[Fowler]

Contact your Rep everyone.
In Yyc, the Captain Rep wants transparency and accountability, the FO Rep does not. .

[Cypresshill]

CB expenses

· Hawaii Dec 4 to 10, 2024: $6,000+

· Mileage $0.70/km, March 2024: 470 km of errands

· Saskatoon Jan 24–26, 2024; Whitehorse, Hamilton?

· Vehicle seen at residence – usage?

· Hawaii Dec 7 to 20, 2023: $8,000+

· Meals only (excluding group entertainment): 2024: $27,000+ / 2023: $22,000+ / 2022: $18,000+

· Office cost proposed: ~$1 million (Net Book Value: $1.8 million)

· Previous YVR reps in Hawaii, March 2023 – no bargaining

· Lodging expenses: 2024: $58,000+ / 2023: $56,000+ / 2022: $40,000+

· Entertainment account (2024, separate from meals): $10,000+

· Hawaii Feb 23 to Mar 6, 2023: $10,000+

· Vehicle total cost: over $90,000 (breakdown: $68K vehicle + $11.5K warranty + $5.5K tires + $3,700 insurance + $4,000 fuel)

· Personal expenses of Chairman: 2024: $118,000+ / 2023: $136,000+ / 2022: $103,000+

· Hawaii Dec 4 to 12, 2022: $8,000+

· Other meeting costs Jan 2024 (YYZ): “No small food and beverage”; 2 claims = $17,000 (Catered events held in MEC)

· Mileage and parking claims: 2024: $15,000+ / 2023: $18,000+ / 2022: $7,000+

· Claims dispersed through account and sub-account numbers – diluting impact

· Sum of Chairman’s Hawaii trips: $33,000+

· Sum of other parties (previous YVR Ca and Fo rep, previous Exec treasurer)’ Hawaii trip (Feb–Mar 2023): $10,000