Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to throw BT under the bus. After all, once the first IPA member was furloughed while FQS' were flying the line, it created a situation where something had to be done. It should be noted that not one FQS was furloughed. I do remember the airline VP telling the IPA EB that he hoped they would "come talk to us" before we attempted to organize the FQS. To me, this signaled the opportunity to negotiate a settlement on the issue. Personally I believe we should have pursued that option. There was an opportunity for the IPA to protect our flying while letting UPS save face and preserve their business model. I understand that this may be a convenient point of view since the organizing attempts have failed but those that know me will verify that I have been saying this for years. My concern was that we would be asking the government to rule against 22 years of past practice in addition to the fact that the contract is (and has been) full of reference to FQS's flying the line. That fact coupled with our own history of arguing that FQS were management and not union members created an uphill battle that was destined to fail at the beginning. There is a reason the two previous IPA presidents chose against taking this path. In any case, it's water under the bridge now as our leverage to negotiate anything on this issue is gone. We made our bed and now we have to live with it.

On another note, the membership has indicated on more than one occasion that they do not want a "one man show". Why then was there only one person in charge of the cards? Is there that much distrust among the EB members? We have a multiple member EB for a reason. I hope that those members talents, expertise and point of view are utilized in the future. After all, that is why they were elected.

I give BT credit, he admitted his mistake, apologized for it and I truly believe he has learned from it. The question is can the membership and the company get past it and move on?