PAX2Cargo

I have to agree with UPSFO4LIFE. If IPA shows the numbers everyday this past week on the web page then they hide it on the 2nd, and the EB is sitting down with UPS to go over the numbers...... make me ask what ever happen to BM pitch of "ALL or NOTHING!" It seems to me the two groups are looking for a happy medium.

MOU plus 100 or so furloughed.

viktorbravo

Cant happen, or should I say highly unlikely IMO. My prediction (man I said I wouldnt do that) UPS will take the money, no furloughs until 2011.

Buck92

Can't happen. [many] People who volunteered did so with the understanding that it would prevent a furlough. Both parties went so far as stating the deal was "all or nothing." To take any of the savings and still put folks on the street, even at a reduced number, would be a total breach of contract. It would definitely result in litigation. Obviously, anyone of the 300 (or whatever number) hypothetically furloughed wouldn't have a claim (besides getting their sick time back if they donated any) but anyone left on the property who gave up anything would be able to recoup it. What they could do is say "numbers are sufficient for 2009, so we'll take all the pleged savings for that and not furlough til Feb 2010" -- or whatever the 2010 date in the MOU. That I can actually see happening. But if they enact any furlough mitigation plan for a given year (2009, 2010, 2011) they're not going to be able to furlough for that year. The language re: worsening of the economy etc. is a bit squishy, but still can be litigated. They could NOT get away with a partial furlough based on less than a savings goal met (prorated number for example) and claim "worsening economy." So... it's not all or nothing. It's actually in UPS's court -- accept what we pledged to not furlough anyone for 2009, 2010, and/or 2011. Or take no savings (enact no JS/RDG/PLOA/early retirements and give back sick time) and furlough whatever number they want. The only exception (before Salty jumps in) is mil lv. They can't deny that.

I think the fact that they've been Lucy with the football (Charlie Brown reference) with the signup deadlines indicates something. What, exactly, is open for debate.

bifff15

The only flaw in your statement is it's logic based...

Pilot7576

Folks...

By definition you can't have a furlough with the mou...the two are mutually exclusive...I think the savings offered are too much for ups to pass up with the resultant chaos from the alternative...

Pilot7576

viktorbravo

You must have worked at UPS for quite a few years. I agree.

CactusCrew

When considering any decisions to be made by UPS, you must ask yourself ...

What would the great Cornholio do ?

Freightpuppy

I hope you are right.

viktorbravo

Easy. I am the great Cornholio! I am from lake Titicaca, and I demand TP for my bunghole! Where I come from, my people have no bungholes and are in need of them. Are you threatening me!? Bungholio!

viktorbravo

Sorry mate but the points you made are not entirely accurate.

The mid term failed when put to a vote and the IRO agreement was not made until the following contract which was voted on and passed. FWIW I voted against the mid term and it was a mistake in retrospect.

The contract cannot be amended without a membership vote, period.

Please check your facts before you post supposed facts. Just sayin'......

I dont think the IPA is working on a "sales pitch" at this time. Either this MOU will fly as it stands as an all or nothing deal, or its a dead squid, there will be no in between IMO.