|
Originally Posted by Gunter
(Post 845098)
Saying it's not effective then pointing out how it forces the schedulers to become creative, read sweat out the schedule, and the number of secondary lines are reduced proves it's having an effect. Every little bit of difficulty added makes management more uneasy about squeezing further.
For the more senior naysayers like Roberto, the issue IS about money. The money. The ban forces the company to build all schedules with higher credit. With the ban gone they can be built lower and the senior OT flyers get to bank the extra pay. Saying it's not effective then saying The question is which side does the IPA leadership support. |
Originally Posted by Roberto
(Post 845094)
B2, I am one who believes the company has all the information and the personnel involved to manage their plans extremely well. Even though the IPA collects data to help us in our decisions, I don't expect it compares favorably with the data and manpower that UPS has available to them. And we can only make calculated guesses at their plans, while they have the advantage of devising them and adjusting them as necessary. I have never been one to doubt the company's ability to stay well ahead of events. Just sayin'.
B2P |
Originally Posted by freightretriever
(Post 845110)
What you are missing here is the only thing "experienced pilots" like Roberto are referring to in the ineffectiveness of an open time ban is the money not going into his pocket. Period. The rest is hot air trying to justify a totally selfish action while acting in direct violation of what the union has called for. The open time ban is what it is. Perfect - no. Effective - depends on what you consider effective. They seem to be making all the flights just fine. Does it create a need for more pilots on property? You would have a hard time arguing against that one..........although I am sure some "experienced pilot" will lecture me about how it isn't.
I don't agree with Roberto on the effectiveness, he appears to only look at one area, there are many measures of effectiveness. |
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
(Post 845134)
As an "experienced " pilot who speaks with "experienced" pilots who support the OT/JA position of the IPA for a variety of reasons I find these comments irriatating and counter productive.
|
Originally Posted by say that again
(Post 845143)
Well said. Chalk me up as another "experienced" pilot who supports the OT/JA ban buts finds the frequent comments irritating and counter productive.
Irritating is the 92 that have been gone for 2 months. They know the meaning of irritation. Those of us still here barely have a bur under our saddle. Not even a flesh wound ... :mad: |
Originally Posted by Naven
(Post 845095)
... the OT ban saves UPS money in the short run but it requires them to keep about 200 extra pilots on the list. That is why we are doing OT ban.
|
Originally Posted by Roberto
(Post 845156)
I saw that statement by Jim M, and I always pay close attention to what he says. However, IMO UPS would never reduce the manning so that they were dependent on OT/JA to make service. Just the ability to decline OT/JA is enough to save the extra 200 positions. A ban does not need to be actually implemented.
2. You're correct ups has no need to reduce the manning to be dependent on JA/OT as long as they have guys like you working 3. The ability to decline JA/OT, Now thats funny coming from you since we all know you don't have that ability 4. You are 100% correct the ban doesn't need to be implemented atleast in your world |
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
(Post 845134)
As an "experienced " pilot who speaks with "experienced" pilots who support the OT/JA position of the IPA for a variety of reasons I find these comments irriatating and counter productive.
Originally Posted by 757upspilot
(Post 845134)
In my view we have more pilots in the middle of the list who are headed for financial issues as a result of the OT/JA position of the IPA. |
Originally Posted by freightretriever
(Post 845322)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh please forgive me for irritating you. Really please. :rolleyes: Seriously, get over yourself for once. The comment wasn't directed at "your crowd". It was aimed at one particularly selfish individual.
So let me make sure I understand your position. You are hinting at yanking the open time ban to help middle of the list individuals living beyond their means on a 155K+ a year job. All the while we have guys on the streets just trying to survive. Oh wait, wait - they were downgraded. If you are stupid enough to run out and spend every dime of a captain paycheck right after an upgrade......... well, sorry you deserve whatever mess you got yourself into. I was downgraded to unemployment and there is no financial mess here. It's called planning ahead and living below your means. |
Originally Posted by Slice
(Post 845097)
Bob,
It's really simple. The union instituted the ban via the language provided for it in the CBA. By nearly all accounts it's being respected by the membership. You can claim all you want that it's ineffective. The line has been drawn and you chose to cross it. If you're not with us, you're against us. Being in a union means you should take the good with the bad. If we all look out for number one only, it defeats the purpose. I've got the guard to fall back on so I'll fair better than most on the chopping block and much less emotional than most of my fellow Spartans. However, it's still a dick move what you're doing no matter how you try and justify it. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands