Originally Posted by
CactusCrew
Just to tag along, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, haven't been at UPS for 20 years, and I am not an expert on the RLA and/or Dorsey vs UPS ...
But isn't the IPA bringing the managers onto the seniority list really about bringing the jobs within the union ? Hasn't it been determined that these "supervisors" already are in the same class and craft (that Dorsey case) ?
In other words, its not really the 200 bodies we bring into the IPA, but rather the 200 jobs that are brought into union representation.
And your suggestion that 200 additional "elevated" class/craft managers would be hired (to replace the transfers) would be contrary to any lawsuit that brought the jobs over to the IPA in the first place. It would have to be 200 different jobs.
I'm probably missing something, just trying to understand your argument.
CC... good summary, but my gut tells me if it were as "cut and dry" as you presented this strategy would have been pursued long ago. Because SOME managers were determined to be in the same "class and craft" in the Dorsey case (thus really supervisors vs. managers) I don't believe it necessarily follows that the JOBS will be transferred to unionized labor. I think the two are not necessarily connected.
Where would a court draw the line between what job a union pilot would perform and what jobs are legitimately "management"? Does every job that is now performed by a flight qualified manager (same class and craft argument) become an IPA opportunity? (off the top of my head... new aircraft acceptance flts, mx ferry flts, all training functions - new course development, manual re-writes, bulletins, all procedure changes, all pilot hiring, de-ice programs, etc... the list would be extensive despite the ribbing we give the managers about being useless.
Joe
PS... Congo... I have no disagreement w/ anything in your latest post.