UPS Furlough (Part III)
08-21-2010, 04:22 PM
#101
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Capt TedStriker
One force that will move together to move the "business" forward. Until we are one group there will always be a detriment to our bottom line.
Time to be on the same page and turn our focus on "growing the business" instead of being mired in labor relation issues.
Your thoughts?
Time to be on the same page and turn our focus on "growing the business" instead of being mired in labor relation issues.
Your thoughts?
08-21-2010, 04:34 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Thanks for the post.
Many in the IPA would agree that the IPA missed a critical opportunity in the past.
However, the future is the future. So we must address where we are, much like UPS.
We have a different EB. The one almost excusively responsible for the past is no longer relevant in the matter.
I'll pass on your critique though so it can be answered by the EB.
Any other inputs, can send PM's, etc.
Many in the IPA would agree that the IPA missed a critical opportunity in the past.
However, the future is the future. So we must address where we are, much like UPS.
We have a different EB. The one almost excusively responsible for the past is no longer relevant in the matter.
I'll pass on your critique though so it can be answered by the EB.
Any other inputs, can send PM's, etc.
Originally Posted by Need4Speed
As with the very few other posts I have made on APC, I have no desire to kick a hornets nest or to debate this. As an FQM that has been here from the beginning and is nearing retirement, none of the integration will affect me regardless of the outcome. However, the seemingly never-ending missteps made by the IPA on this issue are astounding. I know you can't turn the clock back, but if there was ever a time for the IPA to integrate FQMs, it was early in the history of the airline. No one can argue that the IPA chose to turn their backs on the FQMs that desired IPA representation back then.
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures. In any case, I'm quite sure that a freshman-year intern in the UPS benefits department could rip this analysis to shreds - and probably is doing that as we speak. Again, I guess you can't turn the clock back.....
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures. In any case, I'm quite sure that a freshman-year intern in the UPS benefits department could rip this analysis to shreds - and probably is doing that as we speak. Again, I guess you can't turn the clock back.....
08-22-2010, 08:36 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by aflouisville
You guys and gals are truly disgusting. UPS is the powerhouse here. They will do what they want when they want. You are small in a large ocean
08-22-2010, 08:51 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Originally Posted by aflouisville
I am not ex-IPA; I am not management. But I know all the major players.
Originally Posted by aflouisville
I would like to state that I really like my job in management. I made the choice to leave the line many years ago, but still remember the hard flying we do every day. I respect you guys for what you do day in and day out. I just chose to go the training route for personal reasons. It has worked out for me.
Originally Posted by aflouisville
You are right. Some of us in management like our jobs and really like the pilots we work with. That is mostly true for the standards and training people.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
