UPS will furlough
12-29-2009, 07:27 AM
#131
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by 2muchfr8time
I don't wanna see any Pilots laid off, anywhere, it's just that much more competition If I get laid off.
Blaming the over 60 crowd for layoffs seems like an entitlement attitude to me, and flame bait at best.
good luck
Blaming the over 60 crowd for layoffs seems like an entitlement attitude to me, and flame bait at best.
good luck
Explain please. If a over 60 knew he had to retire at 60 when he started the job, and so did a guy who is currently under 60, then how is an under 60 guy who is upset that an over 60 guy is still flying a sense of entitlement attitude? Did the pilot who is flying past 60 not benefit from those in front of him being forced to retire at 60? Why should those junior to him not be afforded the same benefit?
Calling it a sense of entitlement attitude seems a little hypocritical.
12-29-2009, 11:35 AM
#133
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Working
Posts: 44
In the past almost everyone employed at UPS understood the need to at least appear united when dealing with UPS. Most initially hired had not enjoyed a smooth career. I’m sure many can remember how the cargo airlines were viewed back then. The benefits/pay/work conditions, etc. we work under today were not given to this group, but were fought for over a period of quite a few years.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
12-29-2009, 12:52 PM
#135
Old P-3 IFE
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: B744 FO
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by congowings
In the past almost everyone employed at UPS understood the need to at least appear united when dealing with UPS. Most initially hired had not enjoyed a smooth career. I’m sure many can remember how the cargo airlines were viewed back then. The benefits/pay/work conditions, etc. we work under today were not given to this group, but were fought for over a period of quite a few years.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
12-29-2009, 01:56 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by congowings
In the past almost everyone employed at UPS understood the need to at least appear united when dealing with UPS. Most initially hired had not enjoyed a smooth career. I’m sure many can remember how the cargo airlines were viewed back then. The benefits/pay/work conditions, etc. we work under today were not given to this group, but were fought for over a period of quite a few years.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
Many went to work for this company thinking that the starting pay would be temporary. After all, other UPS employees enjoyed top salaries in their respective jobs - why wouldn’t the airline division be the same? It didn’t take long to release that not only was this not the case, but the company would of preferred not to hire pilots.
The same can be said for the Age 60 rule. When I began my career, I always felt it was unfair age discrimination and thought it would change in a few years. I’m surprised it took so long. I suppose the pilots who began their careers before 1958 were just as upset when Age 60 was implemented as many of the pilots are now. But rules change and will continue to change. Is it fair to all when some of these rules change – no. Sometimes they affect one positively and sometimes negatively – depending on ones circumstances.
Many exceptional pilots retired at age 60 who should have been able to continue their career if they so desired. Thinking back I’m glad I had the privilege of flying with them and gained knowledge from the ones who were willing to share. And I am especially glad that I never experienced the feeling that someone did not have the right of employment due to their age only.
There should be no division in the IPA. We all have a common goal. The rule changed and until it changes again, it really serves no purpose to place blame. The MOU was voluntary – thank the ones who participated if you so choose. It is not for us to determine who should or shouldn’t participate.
Open time – I can’t remember a time where that argument wasn’t ongoing. I don’t know of many occupations where someone is criticized for supplementing their income by working overtime – or for being hired earlier – or working past a certain age. Why should someone feel like they need to apologize for working legally within the confines of the contract and law? This is where the ‘sense of entitlement’ comes in – the continuing arguments concerning the ‘geezers’ and the non participants of the MOU are going to continue to fracture the union and make the job of the NC an uphill battle. Unless the economy has exploded, the next negotiations could be a struggle – we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?
The union is here to protect the jobs/work conditions/legal aspects of each and every pilot (which is why they remained neutral concerning Age 65). It is not the union’s job to tell UPS its business model. UPS will operate the business as they see fit. Yes, they could save quite a bit of money doing things different (upper management bonuses included) – and the union has tried numerous times to point some of these savings out to them. But the bottom line, it is totally up to UPS.
I respectfully submit – place blame where it has always been – UPS. It will be their decision. I doubt there is one pilot who wishes for a furlough of any number. The amount that has been given to date bears that out. In a group this big you will always have the ‘few’ who express themselves insensitively (both arguments) – remember they do not express the sentiment of the group on a whole. On a whole, this group should be commended.
B2P
12-29-2009, 02:41 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by congowings
....– we have told the company we are willing to work for less. If you were the company, what would you be pushing for?....
12-29-2009, 06:26 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,696
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
The IPA took a neutral position on the age sixty rule change. The above statement on money being spent by the IPA is incorrect and essentially flamebait.
12-30-2009, 07:09 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by SaltyDog
Congowings, Great post, but not sure how we have agreed to be willing to work for less? We have the ability to work less with same pay rate. If I take a leave, which I did, I was not paid since I took an unpaid vacation(except I was paid nearly 12 hours vacation and sick bank per pay period). Actually, My rate actually went up <g>. Like others mentioned, great post. Just stymied on this one point.
B2P
12-30-2009, 09:30 PM
#140
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Working
Posts: 44
" . . . not sure how we have agreed to be willing to work for less? We have the ability to work less with same pay rate." - SaltyDog
SaltyDog, no argument with the fact that the MOU allows one to work less days at the same pay rate. And for those who are in a financial position (i.e. financially flush, military retirement, side business, dual incomes) where working less days is not a hardship to the family – then taking advantage of this opportunity to spend time home benefits (especially as the benefits are still in place). I venture to say those parameters don’t apply to most, however.
One can present the MOU as an opportunity to spend time with the family, but however you want to wrap it up, it still amounts to less pay - couple that with the donation of ‘sick banks’ - the company has laid the burden of their business model on the shoulders of the union - where it should not of been placed. Past dealings with this company should be a clue that how we think this MOU should be perceived is not necessarily what the company’s ‘meaning and intent’ will be.
Even though there are a few who have expressed their disappointment with regard to participation, one can argue that the company might look at the large percentage of participants who are willing to bring home a smaller salary - and conveniently forget the real reason for membership participation. I harbor no illusion that the company will come to the negotiation table with reasonable openers - even if the economy has turned around.
The overall success of the MOU will not only be measured if the union is able to avert a furlough - but by the membership showing a unified front and taking pride in what will be achieved.
SaltyDog, no argument with the fact that the MOU allows one to work less days at the same pay rate. And for those who are in a financial position (i.e. financially flush, military retirement, side business, dual incomes) where working less days is not a hardship to the family – then taking advantage of this opportunity to spend time home benefits (especially as the benefits are still in place). I venture to say those parameters don’t apply to most, however.
One can present the MOU as an opportunity to spend time with the family, but however you want to wrap it up, it still amounts to less pay - couple that with the donation of ‘sick banks’ - the company has laid the burden of their business model on the shoulders of the union - where it should not of been placed. Past dealings with this company should be a clue that how we think this MOU should be perceived is not necessarily what the company’s ‘meaning and intent’ will be.
Even though there are a few who have expressed their disappointment with regard to participation, one can argue that the company might look at the large percentage of participants who are willing to bring home a smaller salary - and conveniently forget the real reason for membership participation. I harbor no illusion that the company will come to the negotiation table with reasonable openers - even if the economy has turned around.
The overall success of the MOU will not only be measured if the union is able to avert a furlough - but by the membership showing a unified front and taking pride in what will be achieved.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
