MEF and JA2 at UPS
07-27-2010 | 10:49 AM
#131
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Don't kid yourself. As far as the company was concerned, the MOU was not going to prevent furloughs. The MOU was about footing the bill for 125 DC8 crew members who were sitting at home collecting full pay and benefits.
BM tried his usual "let's make a deal" and the company laughed all the way to the bank.
The furloughs were coming, the company just was slick enough to wring $100 million out of the pilots in spite of it.
BM tried his usual "let's make a deal" and the company laughed all the way to the bank.
The furloughs were coming, the company just was slick enough to wring $100 million out of the pilots in spite of it.
The above is only opinion/speculation, we will never know what might of happened as BT/TK achieved their goal and the MOU failed.
I will take BM's tactics over BT's in your face rhetoric any day. At least BM's "let's make a deal" helped allow me to collect a paycheck for another year.
07-27-2010 | 10:56 AM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
N4S,
Don't really imagine you are going to get any angry responses.
Think most of us understand the facts. Simply in awe that it went this way.
Realize, most of us were not at UPS when the original actions were decided, and many hired after the Dorsey event.
At this point, hoping FQS accretion will still go forward successfully with long fences to protect what you all have earned.
This benefits the IPA membership.
Afterall, if the FQS has something better, now represented by IPA, then beneficial as a marker precedent for the rest of the IPA. Therefore IPA has vested interest in maintaining your benefits, pension, etc. It also provides IPA opportunity to capture skills and insights of UPS that would benefit all parties.
Notadog,
We can all conjecture the motivations of UPS. It all boils down to money and control. Insert rest of explanation.....
The present is that UPS has forever sealed the fate of any further similiar opportunity in the future that could have been mutually beneficial to all parties. That is arrogant and shortsighted management at the highest levels.
Believe the furlough and rejection of the MOU sealed the fate that UPS is going to deal with a much more enaged and challenging membership. Had they continued the MOU process, they could have extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the IPA via a less engaged and more docile IPA. ( Including contract waivers, no grievances filed, deal cutting by individual crews, etc)
They were getting the money now and likely would have gotten a less costly contract next go around. Opportunities lost.
From a management view: Can't understand a management philosophy that encourages strict contract awareness and engagement before contract talks???
Don't really imagine you are going to get any angry responses.
Think most of us understand the facts. Simply in awe that it went this way.
Realize, most of us were not at UPS when the original actions were decided, and many hired after the Dorsey event.
At this point, hoping FQS accretion will still go forward successfully with long fences to protect what you all have earned.
This benefits the IPA membership.
Afterall, if the FQS has something better, now represented by IPA, then beneficial as a marker precedent for the rest of the IPA. Therefore IPA has vested interest in maintaining your benefits, pension, etc. It also provides IPA opportunity to capture skills and insights of UPS that would benefit all parties.
Definitely not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, but some of the recent information being posted on this thread is worth paying attention to. I am an FQS, and was here from the beginning of the airline. Right or wrong, good or bad, it was the job I was offered - and is the job I accepted. It's been a good career, and I have no regrets. I am nearing the end of my career here, so the outcome of any integration plan will not affect me one way or another. Whether it ever happens or not is anyone's guess.
In the early days of the airline, Rob Dorsey and I spoke often about his ideas regarding many aspects of the airline (anyone who knows Rob knows that he wasn't shy about expressing his opinions). Rob felt strongly that there needed to be changes in the Flight Operations structure. He felt that the "Fleet Supervisors", as they were referred to at the time, should have representation. Rob climbed WAY out on a limb to try to make this happen. He knew that strength was in numbers, and he counted on the IPA to back him up when he decided to move forward with his plan. I still remember the day that the IPA dealt Rob the coup-de-Gras when they "officially" took the position that they had no desire to represent the UPS Mgmt Pilots. That was the beninning of the end for Rob, and the rest is history. Many "Fleet Supervisors" who supported the integration felt terribly betrayed, and couldn't understand this position.
Somebody mentioned in a past thread that if there was ever a "right time" for the integration, it was early in the history of the airline. They were exactly right. Now, the FQSs are deeply vested in their pension and retiree health care plans that would change drastically if any type of integration were to occur now. This is one reason (among others) why there doesn't appear to be much support in the form of "cards" being returned.
I'm sure there will be many angry responses to this post, which will have a different version of what happened back then - and that's OK. I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not I even agreed with Rob. Again, I'm not trying to defend any position here - I just feel like this perspective is worth being voiced. I really believe the IPA missed a huge opportunity back then, and now it may be too late.
In the early days of the airline, Rob Dorsey and I spoke often about his ideas regarding many aspects of the airline (anyone who knows Rob knows that he wasn't shy about expressing his opinions). Rob felt strongly that there needed to be changes in the Flight Operations structure. He felt that the "Fleet Supervisors", as they were referred to at the time, should have representation. Rob climbed WAY out on a limb to try to make this happen. He knew that strength was in numbers, and he counted on the IPA to back him up when he decided to move forward with his plan. I still remember the day that the IPA dealt Rob the coup-de-Gras when they "officially" took the position that they had no desire to represent the UPS Mgmt Pilots. That was the beninning of the end for Rob, and the rest is history. Many "Fleet Supervisors" who supported the integration felt terribly betrayed, and couldn't understand this position.
Somebody mentioned in a past thread that if there was ever a "right time" for the integration, it was early in the history of the airline. They were exactly right. Now, the FQSs are deeply vested in their pension and retiree health care plans that would change drastically if any type of integration were to occur now. This is one reason (among others) why there doesn't appear to be much support in the form of "cards" being returned.
I'm sure there will be many angry responses to this post, which will have a different version of what happened back then - and that's OK. I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not I even agreed with Rob. Again, I'm not trying to defend any position here - I just feel like this perspective is worth being voiced. I really believe the IPA missed a huge opportunity back then, and now it may be too late.
We can all conjecture the motivations of UPS. It all boils down to money and control. Insert rest of explanation.....
The present is that UPS has forever sealed the fate of any further similiar opportunity in the future that could have been mutually beneficial to all parties. That is arrogant and shortsighted management at the highest levels.
Believe the furlough and rejection of the MOU sealed the fate that UPS is going to deal with a much more enaged and challenging membership. Had they continued the MOU process, they could have extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the IPA via a less engaged and more docile IPA. ( Including contract waivers, no grievances filed, deal cutting by individual crews, etc)
They were getting the money now and likely would have gotten a less costly contract next go around. Opportunities lost.
From a management view: Can't understand a management philosophy that encourages strict contract awareness and engagement before contract talks???
Don't kid yourself. As far as the company was concerned, the MOU was not going to prevent furloughs. The MOU was about footing the bill for 125 DC8 crew members who were sitting at home collecting full pay and benefits.
BM tried his usual "let's make a deal" and the company laughed all the way to the bank.
The furloughs were coming, the company just was slick enough to wring $100 million out of the pilots in spite of it.
BM tried his usual "let's make a deal" and the company laughed all the way to the bank.
The furloughs were coming, the company just was slick enough to wring $100 million out of the pilots in spite of it.
07-27-2010 | 11:01 AM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
Definitely not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, but some of the recent information being posted on this thread is worth paying attention to. I am an FQS, and was here from the beginning of the airline. Right or wrong, good or bad, it was the job I was offered - and is the job I accepted. It's been a good career, and I have no regrets. I am nearing the end of my career here, so the outcome of any integration plan will not affect me one way or another. Whether it ever happens or not is anyone's guess.
In the early days of the airline, Rob Dorsey and I spoke often about his ideas regarding many aspects of the airline (anyone who knows Rob knows that he wasn't shy about expressing his opinions). Rob felt strongly that there needed to be changes in the Flight Operations structure. He felt that the "Fleet Supervisors", as they were referred to at the time, should have representation. Rob climbed WAY out on a limb to try to make this happen. He knew that strength was in numbers, and he counted on the IPA to back him up when he decided to move forward with his plan. I still remember the day that the IPA dealt Rob the coup-de-Gras when they "officially" took the position that they had no desire to represent the UPS Mgmt Pilots. That was the beninning of the end for Rob, and the rest is history. Many "Fleet Supervisors" who supported the integration felt terribly betrayed, and couldn't understand this position.
Somebody mentioned in a past thread that if there was ever a "right time" for the integration, it was early in the history of the airline. They were exactly right. Now, the FQSs are deeply vested in their pension and retiree health care plans that would change drastically if any type of integration were to occur now. This is one reason (among others) why there doesn't appear to be much support in the form of "cards" being returned.
I'm sure there will be many angry responses to this post, which will have a different version of what happened back then - and that's OK. I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not I even agreed with Rob. Again, I'm not trying to defend any position here - I just feel like this perspective is worth being voiced. I really believe the IPA missed a huge opportunity back then, and now it may be too late.
In the early days of the airline, Rob Dorsey and I spoke often about his ideas regarding many aspects of the airline (anyone who knows Rob knows that he wasn't shy about expressing his opinions). Rob felt strongly that there needed to be changes in the Flight Operations structure. He felt that the "Fleet Supervisors", as they were referred to at the time, should have representation. Rob climbed WAY out on a limb to try to make this happen. He knew that strength was in numbers, and he counted on the IPA to back him up when he decided to move forward with his plan. I still remember the day that the IPA dealt Rob the coup-de-Gras when they "officially" took the position that they had no desire to represent the UPS Mgmt Pilots. That was the beninning of the end for Rob, and the rest is history. Many "Fleet Supervisors" who supported the integration felt terribly betrayed, and couldn't understand this position.
Somebody mentioned in a past thread that if there was ever a "right time" for the integration, it was early in the history of the airline. They were exactly right. Now, the FQSs are deeply vested in their pension and retiree health care plans that would change drastically if any type of integration were to occur now. This is one reason (among others) why there doesn't appear to be much support in the form of "cards" being returned.
I'm sure there will be many angry responses to this post, which will have a different version of what happened back then - and that's OK. I'm not interested in debating this, and I'm not interested in discussing whether or not I even agreed with Rob. Again, I'm not trying to defend any position here - I just feel like this perspective is worth being voiced. I really believe the IPA missed a huge opportunity back then, and now it may be too late.
I agree with you timeline and facts, I've been here since the beginning as well. The way it was explained to us at the time, the IPA made an argument that we were not the bargaining unit for "Fleet Supervisors" at the time, therefore we were exempt from the lawsuit that Dorsey and 177RG filed against UPS and the IPA. While this decision may have mitigating issues pertaining to the organization of the FQS, it was not the original intent of our argument. The sole purpose of the IPA's position at the time was in defense of the above mentioned lawsuit.
07-27-2010 | 11:05 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
The above is only opinion/speculation, we will never know what might of happened as BT/TK achieved their goal and the MOU failed.
I will take BM's tactics over BT's in your face rhetoric any day. At least BM's "let's make a deal" helped allow me to collect a paycheck for another year.
I will take BM's tactics over BT's in your face rhetoric any day. At least BM's "let's make a deal" helped allow me to collect a paycheck for another year.
1. Give the company what they want at all costs to prevent a layoff
2. Continue to attempt to get the MOU to work
3. Confront the company at every opportunity
A three way may sound like fun but the way it broke out the majority may not have gotten to have a strong voice in the direction the union was going to take. We have changed the rules so that in the future this probably won't happen again.
Now the objective is to do what is legall and contractually allowed to get people back on the property as soon as possible if they want to return.
The company decided the direction they where going to take we had little to do with this decision , we just get to respond to it
07-27-2010 | 11:17 AM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: B-747-400 FO
N4S,
Don't really imagine you are going to get any angry responses.
Think most of us understand the facts. Simply in awe that it went this way.
Realize, most of us were not at UPS when the original actions were decided, and many hired after the Dorsey event.
At this point, hoping FQS accretion will still go forward successfully with long fences to protect what you all have earned.
This benefits the IPA membership.
Afterall, if the FQS has something better, now represented by IPA, then beneficial as a marker precedent for the rest of the IPA. Therefore IPA has vested interest in maintaining your benefits, pension, etc. It also provides IPA opportunity to capture skills and insights of UPS that would benefit all parties.
Notadog,
We can all conjecture the motivations of UPS. It all boils down to money and control. Insert rest of explanation.....
The present is that UPS has forever sealed the fate of any further similiar opportunity in the future that could have been mutually beneficial to all parties. That is arrogant and shortsighted management at the highest levels.
Believe the furlough and rejection of the MOU sealed the fate that UPS is going to deal with a much more enaged and challenging membership. Had they continued the MOU process, they could have extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the IPA via a less engaged and more docile IPA. ( Including contract waivers, no grievances filed, deal cutting by individual crews, etc)
They were getting the money now and likely would have gotten a less costly contract next go around. Opportunities lost.
From a management view: Can't understand a management philosophy that encourages strict contract awareness and engagement before contract talks???
Don't really imagine you are going to get any angry responses.
Think most of us understand the facts. Simply in awe that it went this way.
Realize, most of us were not at UPS when the original actions were decided, and many hired after the Dorsey event.
At this point, hoping FQS accretion will still go forward successfully with long fences to protect what you all have earned.
This benefits the IPA membership.
Afterall, if the FQS has something better, now represented by IPA, then beneficial as a marker precedent for the rest of the IPA. Therefore IPA has vested interest in maintaining your benefits, pension, etc. It also provides IPA opportunity to capture skills and insights of UPS that would benefit all parties.
Notadog,
We can all conjecture the motivations of UPS. It all boils down to money and control. Insert rest of explanation.....
The present is that UPS has forever sealed the fate of any further similiar opportunity in the future that could have been mutually beneficial to all parties. That is arrogant and shortsighted management at the highest levels.
Believe the furlough and rejection of the MOU sealed the fate that UPS is going to deal with a much more enaged and challenging membership. Had they continued the MOU process, they could have extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the IPA via a less engaged and more docile IPA. ( Including contract waivers, no grievances filed, deal cutting by individual crews, etc)
They were getting the money now and likely would have gotten a less costly contract next go around. Opportunities lost.
From a management view: Can't understand a management philosophy that encourages strict contract awareness and engagement before contract talks???
07-27-2010 | 11:18 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
My question as an IPA member albeit furloughed is how long will the IPA membership blindly follow BT and TK.
Can someone name anything good that has come from the current administration.
Before you jump on the Unity fund bandwagon I contend BT/TK have major ownership in the furlough MOU failing. Both gentlemen were against the MOU during the election campaign and were totally silent in the final weeks before the end of the sign up period. If the agreed upon amount had been reached it would have been much harder for UPS to have reneged on the MOU (my opinion).
I do agree with BT concerning the need to bring the FQS into the IPA but do not agree with the timing or the haphazard way it is being executed.
BT's off the cuff comments and statements have done much to damage his credibility with me,
1) furloughs wont happen.
2) IPA will file injunction to stop FQS MEF flying when first crewmember furloughed.
3) Furloughs will stop at 90
4) Furloughed crewmembers will be back by peak, (which year??)
5) Will have favorable POI's ruling on P3's by end of June
In the end I realize that UPS made the final decision to furlough me and the rest of the folks on the list but I believe things might have been different with someone else at the helm of the IPA.
Can someone name anything good that has come from the current administration.
Before you jump on the Unity fund bandwagon I contend BT/TK have major ownership in the furlough MOU failing. Both gentlemen were against the MOU during the election campaign and were totally silent in the final weeks before the end of the sign up period. If the agreed upon amount had been reached it would have been much harder for UPS to have reneged on the MOU (my opinion).
I do agree with BT concerning the need to bring the FQS into the IPA but do not agree with the timing or the haphazard way it is being executed.
BT's off the cuff comments and statements have done much to damage his credibility with me,
1) furloughs wont happen.
2) IPA will file injunction to stop FQS MEF flying when first crewmember furloughed.
3) Furloughs will stop at 90
4) Furloughed crewmembers will be back by peak, (which year??)
5) Will have favorable POI's ruling on P3's by end of June
In the end I realize that UPS made the final decision to furlough me and the rest of the folks on the list but I believe things might have been different with someone else at the helm of the IPA.
I agree with everything you stated. FWIW, the IPA's history has proven that blind faith tends to be a short term affliction. I don't think you'll find too many members that will disagree with your observations on the decision and methods used to organize the FQS. I've advocated keeping our powder dry until we have a clean head shot for a long time now, the "ready shoot, aim" logic of late only serves to weaken the association. Look at what happened over at the APA with Lloyd Hill and his gang. Unless we learn from history we're condemned to repeat it.
On the flip side,
Tough talk get's elected time and time again. In defense of our current administration, once the first IPA member was furloughed, the IPA had no choice but to seek an answer to the FQS issue. They really had no choice. They are seeking to change 20 plus years of history with limited resources do do so. While there may have been smarter choices, remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy for those of us without the burden of representing the membership to pass judgement.
07-27-2010 | 11:56 AM
#137
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Onstep;
I agree with everything you stated. FWIW, the IPA's history has proven that blind faith tends to be a short term affliction. I don't think you'll find too many members that will disagree with your observations on the decision and methods used to organize the FQS. I've advocated keeping our powder dry until we have a clean head shot for a long time now, the "ready shoot, aim" logic of late only serves to weaken the association. Look at what happened over at the APA with Lloyd Hill and his gang. Unless we learn from history we're condemned to repeat it.
On the flip side,
Tough talk get's elected time and time again. In defense of our current administration, once the first IPA member was furloughed, the IPA had no choice but to seek an answer to the FQS issue. They really had no choice. They are seeking to change 20 plus years of history with limited resources do do so. While there may have been smarter choices, remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy for those of us without the burden of representing the membership to pass judgement.
I agree with everything you stated. FWIW, the IPA's history has proven that blind faith tends to be a short term affliction. I don't think you'll find too many members that will disagree with your observations on the decision and methods used to organize the FQS. I've advocated keeping our powder dry until we have a clean head shot for a long time now, the "ready shoot, aim" logic of late only serves to weaken the association. Look at what happened over at the APA with Lloyd Hill and his gang. Unless we learn from history we're condemned to repeat it.
On the flip side,
Tough talk get's elected time and time again. In defense of our current administration, once the first IPA member was furloughed, the IPA had no choice but to seek an answer to the FQS issue. They really had no choice. They are seeking to change 20 plus years of history with limited resources do do so. While there may have been smarter choices, remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and it's easy for those of us without the burden of representing the membership to pass judgement.
I agree with you 100%, decisions are much easier to second guess after the fact.
I respect BT for his convictions and hard work, just don't agree with his methodology. Not sure I could do any better though?
07-27-2010 | 12:36 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Need4speed;
I agree with you timeline and facts, I've been here since the beginning as well. The way it was explained to us at the time, the IPA made an argument that we were not the bargaining unit for "Fleet Supervisors" at the time, therefore we were exempt from the lawsuit that Dorsey and 177RG filed against UPS and the IPA. While this decision may have mitigating issues pertaining to the organization of the FQS, it was not the original intent of our argument. The sole purpose of the IPA's position at the time was in defense of the above mentioned lawsuit.
I agree with you timeline and facts, I've been here since the beginning as well. The way it was explained to us at the time, the IPA made an argument that we were not the bargaining unit for "Fleet Supervisors" at the time, therefore we were exempt from the lawsuit that Dorsey and 177RG filed against UPS and the IPA. While this decision may have mitigating issues pertaining to the organization of the FQS, it was not the original intent of our argument. The sole purpose of the IPA's position at the time was in defense of the above mentioned lawsuit.
The original EB of the IPA cut a deal with the company back in the early days wherein they agreed to not to represent the FQSs.
07-27-2010 | 12:37 PM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
The above is only opinion/speculation, we will never know what might of happened as BT/TK achieved their goal and the MOU failed.
I will take BM's tactics over BT's in your face rhetoric any day. At least BM's "let's make a deal" helped allow me to collect a paycheck for another year.
I will take BM's tactics over BT's in your face rhetoric any day. At least BM's "let's make a deal" helped allow me to collect a paycheck for another year.
07-27-2010 | 12:59 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Captain
If the IPA was not party to the wrongful termination suit, why were we listed as a defendant? I'm not speaking from experience, I was not privy to the EB's discussions at the time. I'm only repeating what was stated to us at the time.
