Exactly. Just like SERE School (POW camp phase), "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."

 

Can someone explain what the issue was with WO/WO? It was discussed on the B&G a while ago but there was no real answer (even from the greviance committee). What was the real beef?

Good point on the OT ban. Never thought about it this way. What I don't understand is that it seems like the company always wanted to have too many reserves "just in case"...seems like they are not following that philosophy and have gone the way of regionals. Get by with as little pilots as possible and just fly the **** out of them. I feel like this is a hard mentality to change so I'm nervous that it will be status quo from now on around here.

 

WO/WO??? What is that?

 

One of the reasons the company won't talk is they are realizing savings with the OT JA. OT JA was a tactic , as a surprise it worked , giving them notice and implementing it for a year plus just gave them time to adapt.
It will be the status quo unless we want to negotiate, give up something or not get something, to change it. Right now the IPA is standing in the corner holding their breath turning blue and expecting the company to change their minds.
One of them is trying to learn how to count.

 

Week on/week off

 

Yeah, it sucks that it seems like no matter what we think of/do, the company finds a way to exploit it/use it to their advantage. Maybe we need to hire some of their guys...LOL! We probably couldn't afford them.

 

We used to have guys that where good at managing the situation . Problem was/is that we had people in the membership who aren't smart enough to realize what was happening. There is smart tough and dumb tough, right now we are dealing with the results of dumb tough. The only thing that is worse is dumb weak or turning someone who thinks they know everything loose without supervision .
The only thing that will end what is happening, people laid off, is for the economy to improve enough that they can't cover the flying with the current staffing levels and can't find a way to squeeze more out of the contract. Then we will have people back and still have the contract squeezed.

 

The week on/week off is a requirement of domestic EDW lines. The contract did not specifically define this but rather referred to "footprints" that would be created as examples of what these lines would look like (13 B.2.d.(6)). The footprints were to be an "addendum" to the contract. The problem was they were not part of the contract when it came to the membership for a vote and after it was ratified they were never created. (We were shown examples that were agreed by the IPA and UPS not to be binding. Got us on that one.)

Why were they not created? There are a number of stories out there - since all I heard was hearsay or he said/she/said I won't add - but if you were UPS why would you ever want them created?

The arbitrator cited the lack of footprints as the reason for ruling for the company in the wo/wo grievance. That's why a week can be 10 days and start on Tuesday. Because UPS says so.

g

 

Sounds like arbitrators are bought just like moderators. Impartial.....yeeeeeaaaahhhh riiiiiiiight! Anyone in their *******ing right mind knows a week is 7 days.

 

This is the only place on earth that pays you on base of 13 months a yr so why shouldn't thier week be 10 days