I think I summed it up in my first paragraph. To reiterate: right now the company has the numbers on their side. If that weren't the case any/all of the candidates would have told the company to stick it. Again, not to continually use the cliche but, there's smart tough and dumb tough. I see no weakness here whatsoever regarding this MOU. YMMV.
I see the canidate as dumb/weak due to his use of the hostage approach. I do not see the MOU as weak, it is what we are trying to do for our pilots. Separate the two.
I see the canidate as dumb/weak due to his use of the hostage approach. I do not see the MOU as weak, it is what we are trying to do for our pilots. Separate the two.
I see it as educational, not weak. The membership needs to know the consequence of not being successful during the next round of signups. I'm quite sure that UPS's doesn't need to be prompted to use this threat again if they think it will further their cause. Its up to the candidate to realize it to be empty without the facts supporting the claim. I'm certain Farley could sniff that out.
I see it as educational, not weak. The membership needs to know the consequence of not being successful during the next round of signups. I'm quite sure that UPS's doesn't need to be prompted to use this threat again if they think it will further their cause. Its up to the candidate to realize it to be empty without the facts supporting the claim. I'm certain Farley could sniff that out.
I don't believe you are getting my point. If we have people on the street when we go into the next negotiations viewing them as hostages will give the company ammunition and with Farley a weak point. If we have to many people on the property , via mou or anything else, viewing them as hostages will give the company ammunition and with Farley a weak point. In my opinion with Farley in the EB Presidents seat we will have hostages because the company will know that it is his weak point.
I get what you are trying to say. Perhaps your not getting what I'm trying to say.
If the people are on the property they are NOT looked at as hostages. Hence the big push for thr MOU to keep them on property. If we fail on the MOU and they furlough, thats when they become hostages. Hence the education I refered to.
I don't see how people believe the current EB (Farley) views the bottom 300 as "hostages" right now as they are not on the street. They are trying to prevent that from occuring. If they end up on the street, just because we said they would be hostages doesn't diminish our hand any more than it would have been already. UPS would have played that card anyway. This would be a "weakness" of any of the candidates and UPS knows this. Again, they don't need to be "prompted" by past statements. It just stands to reason, thats what the 300 would be. Hostages. Basically, they are just stating a fact.
Could he of been more smooth? Sure. Does being smooth equate to being a good leader? Not always.
Agreed w/ the above. However, I would assert that effective communication is a trait of a good leader.
If he started off a CRM briefing w/ me in the same manner/ tone as he spoke in that video my initial thought would be I am going to have to carry this week pilot. Or, if he was negotiating w/ me over the price of a car/ or home repair (the bulk of my negotiating experience) w/ that tone it would make me feel I have the upper hand. I think UPS is strong enough that I would not want some one representing me/ defending me w/ that approach.
It just stands to reason, thats what the 300 would be. Hostages. Basically, they are just stating a fact.
Furloughed pilots are NOT hostages. A "hostage" is a pilot erroneously fired, usually coincident to a contract negotiation period.
As has been stated by another poster, 757upspilot I believe, having furloughed pilots on the street at time of contract negotiations does NOT weaken the union's bargaining leverage IF competent (STRONG) negotiators are at the table.
Farley is WEAK. His weak personal power (complete lack of command presence) was clearly evident during the recorded forum. He was unconfident, spoke in short, clipped sentences with eyes down and presented a meek picture of a LABOR UNION boss. Definitely NOT what we need at UPS! Additionally, he's a morally bankrupt politician out for personal gain as evidenced by his use of a confidential memo and clumsy attempt at bribing a political opponent. Can ANYONE truly say you would be comfortable having him represent you at a disciplinary hearing?
Steve turned his back on us when b.m. lost the last election, and walked away from the negotiating commitee. I will not vote for someone who turned his back on the pilot group, when we needed him the most.
Exactly. Whyte was hired and trained by the IPA to represent the IPA. When he didn't like the new IPA president and his direction for the union/negotiations he took his marbles and went home. He quit representing us and displayed an inability to be a member of a team. Sometimes, being a member of a team, especially during critical contract negotiations, means you shut your mouth and fall in line. If not, the result is what we experienced... a FRACTURED union scrambling to recover at a critical time. It was pure childish behavior. The IPA does NOT need Whyte in a position of leadership! Individuals like Whyte are capable of contributing, and contributing effectively, but MUST be supervised, lest the IPA again runs the risk of his duties being ABANDONED at a critical juncture!
Exactly. Whyte was hired and trained by the IPA to represent the IPA. When he didn't like the new IPA president and his direction for the union/negotiations he took his marbles and went home. He quit representing us and displayed an inability to be a member of a team. ...It was pure childish behavior....
Even if you do it after the election, do yourself a favor and sit down with whyte and the two other guys that did the same thing. Ask them what happened and listen to what they have to say. I used to feel the same way as you. I don't anymore and it is a large piece of I have been able to remove from my work life.
Even if you do it after the election, do yourself a favor and sit down with whyte and the two other guys that did the same thing. Ask them what happened and listen to what they have to say. I used to feel the same way as you. I don't anymore and it is a large piece of I have been able to remove from my work life.
767pilot,
I appreciate the politeness of your response, HOWEVER, I maintain the IPA WASTED many tens of thousands, if not HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars, on these three individuals. These individuals were compensated by US, the IPA, via trip drops, per diem, negotiating training costs etc... When you spoke to these three individuals, did they mention how much their "service" cost the membership?
Last edited by Avg Joe : 11-09-2009 at 01:29 AM.
Reason: brevity
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
