say that again

A very true statement.

SaltyDog

Roberto,
Not alone would it have satisfied the Labor requirements to extract more concessions (like PBS, pension relief, etc). In January, UPS Labor lists of demands were quite specific to the real 'needs'. IPA could have offered 4a2b and Labor would have refused, essentially IPA did give them 4a2b savings via the MOU voluntarily. We see how they accepted that offer. In the crapper it went.

Gunter,
Our contract states we need a minimum 90 day notice of furlough. Thats the contract. UPS did indeed delivered the contractual notice via certified mail (per contract). UPS did indeed state the first 54 furlough would happen 90 days laters via other media. IPA leadership pointed out that it was almost in middle of a bid period and would really prove them a business problem. UPS agreed and delayed till end of the schedule bid. (so much for coordination on the management side of the fence, and it does frighten me that our management team can be this shortsighted)
UPS then informed union leadership it had tentative furlough dates for the remaining 116 IPA crewmembers for the rest of 2010. Leadership wanted them to inform crews. UPS originally refused. Union started to pass info, and then got UPS management to agree to print a schedule of furlough dates. UPS management stated in original furlough letter that further mail would be forthcoming. Instead, they delivered via other media.

No stumbling and no eating their threats. You assume "someone" really cares. Corporately, they do not. Our CEO believes UPS is exactly on track. He bleeds green and not brown as one hundred years of CEO's before him. (Many management actually do care and by virtue of corporate design are powerless to effect significant change). Our company operates in pillars in very near a perfect vacuum! No one pillar is completely in charge, so virtually every management pillar can and does pass the buck. Just like the 'pin the tail on the donkey' meetings that caused a delay in the sort. Intent is good, but management divisions get tied in knots to blame another pillar, not their own for delays. Our furloughs are similiar. Everyone can blame another pillar of management, thus everyone watches a wreck develop. Around the circle we go.
UPS will execute the furlough because Labor threatened a furlough years ago, UPS called it off at the last minute. They will not look foolish again, Furloughs will happen to satisfy 'saving face' in that group and punish the IPA for not caving on contractual concessions that would have provided hundreds of millions more in financial savings than a straight furlough. Our marketing pillar is used to playing second fiddle to FedEx marketing. They cannot look like idiots in the marketplace because it wasn't their pillars fault. So marketing management personnel are impervious to such embarrassment. It is a unique corporate model. It works, many in management really are smart, but ATL corporate in the end runs the finances and all others ride along. Even if it is second place to FedEx.

Roberto

Salty Dog, You may be right, but then again, the IPA never made the counter-offer, so we will never know.

Buck92

NOT trying to nitpick at all, but nowhere in my Feb 8 certified letter was the phrase "other media" used. What it said was "you will be notified of your specific furlough date separately."

I realize separately could be interpreted as via "other media" including carrier pidgeon I suppose... however when the "no less than 90 days from now" letter comes certified mail (per the contract) I kind of expected the actual notification of the date would be via that means as well. While I'm totally appreciative of the IPA's efforts to help UPS (thereby helping the bottom 54) not crash in the middle of a bid period, I don't think the IPA announcement of the 23 May date on IPNN should really suffice as the Company's official notification to me of my date. If nothing else, we shouldn't have saved them the postage! Guess I should grieve it for 44 cents.

JustUnderPar

Anyone out there think this is not going to happen? Does it need to happen? No.

Let this be a reminder.

YouTube - America's Victory: The 1997 UPS Strike

Early contract negotiations. More contractors flying our stuff. Union workers being replaced by non-union workers.

SaltyDog

Buck,
I stand corrected, you are correct. UPS makes no mention of what medium 'seperately' means. Our contract certainly does not require any followup. Only that we are given 90 days (improved from the previous CBA of 30 days).
Getting the extra days was smart for EB, a tad more pay for the 54. Reality:
Regarding EB looking out for UPS, really, simply using sound business management to negotiate a better deal for our 54. The best outcomes are when they see the business value of fulfilling our need/desire. Naturally, often opposed, but when it is available, a good negotiation strategy. The furlough delay was just such an argument that provided what IPA wanted and filled a business desire simultaneously.

Your right, IPA made a better offer, voluntarily, but not enough to cover pension freezes, wage cuts, PBS, RIF rules, etc. that management decided were must haves. UPS really does a poor job of metric collection on employees. Southwest and other corporations are masters of this supposedly intangible metric. Treat employees well, you get amazing productivity and happy customers. UPS is predisposed to strict control ("We make enough money anyway" --UPS manager 1997)
Management--not leadership.
Personally, the 300 when hired bled brown like we all did, but most held onto the brown blood even after a few smacks. Why? They really did leave some decent opportunities to come to Big Brown. They really were an opportunity to management to weaken the IPA IMO. Met many who thought nothing of waiving the contract to help out in a pinch. When UPS violated the contract, you could ask the motivated 300. "You gonna file a grievance?" Answer: "nah, UPS is a good company"

As customary, UPS squandered that opportunity as we all know happens eventually. Now, they have forever altered them and reminded crews, UPS corporate organizational structure is flawed in its ability to maximize profit by taking advantage of employees who would volunteer to take care of fellow crews. That same spirit, managed by leadership in the corporate world are paid extraordinary dividends. Just like crews waiving the contract to make service. Those opportunities to make service in challenging times are now sadly, faced by crews who will hav been furloughed and are not incentivized to look after UPS, but themselves. Thus management continues the cycle they profess to dislike. The really sharp managers must pull their hair out at the inability to really lead. We all lose.

Gunter

I'm not a lawyer (just an aboriginal pilot) but I don't think the first letter gave you 90 days notice of furlough. It sounds like it fell short of meeting the contractual requirement by leaving out the date. To me it was more of a warning that "THE" notice was eventually going to come with significantly less than 90 days. Maybe 1 day. That's what I think you guys are saying.

If it is inevitable, I would love to see you guys win a class action against an illegal furlough.

Talk to an independent lawyer, not the ones paid to protect the IPA.

Buck92

S.D., just to be clear: I have no issue w/the extra time negotiated by the EB -- clearly 2 more weeks of pay is better than a poke in the eye. I'm all about the win-win and helping the other side see the wisdom of a course of action that benefits both parties.

SaltyDog

Gunter,
Here is the contractual letter contents sent on Feb 8, 2010 to affected crews.

Dear First Officer------------,
The purpose of this letter is to provide formal notice of the company's intent to furlough in accordance with Article 8.G of the agreement between United Parcel Service and the Independent Pilots Association.
Your furlough will be for an indefinite period beginning no earlier than ninety (90) days from this notice. You will be informed of your specific date seperately....
...remainder of letter discusses contractual requirements on correct address reporting to UPS)

Seems pretty clear to me that UPS addressed the individual, they had at least 90 days from Feb 8, 2010, final date would be via information sent seperately (nothing required by Article 8.G beyond the 90 day notice).
UPS has (unfortunately) informed crews of actual dates via means other than a certified letter to the crew member (and again, not required by contract for secondary notification).
As much as I would love to see the furlough go away, not going to blow smoke up a smart persons leg and convey that I think UPS failed to follow our contract on notification. Our crews deserve more than false hopes.

CactusCrew

I feel the UPS furlough letter meets the "intent" of the contract language, but barely.

Once again, in typical UPS fashion, they have managed to reinvent the wheel of normal and established airline business practices. In a manner to provoke their employees, even while they are showing them the exit door.