UPS Efficiency
 

From all the buzz I have been hearing I guess UPS is squeezing many efficiencies out of its pilots. As long as we have a large group of our members no knowing the contract, it is not going to change any time soon.

Careful for what you wish for. I guess you can't spell stupid without UPS, but I guess they are the one's laughing right now. That's what we get for having a hot head in a critical position. :mad:

If by "many efficiencies" you mean my ballz, I agree.

Good one, Buck !

Seriously...and I am sincerely asking:

If we had elected either of the other two choices, do you think (and stipulate which choice and why you agree with):

1) UPS would not have furloughed
2) They would have violated the CBA less
3) We would have made concessions to the existing CBA
4) And if yes to #3, what concessions YOU would have supported
5) In general do you consider UPS to be an honorable company?

Bob,

Thankfully I don't work at Brown, but let me take a crack at your questions, and I'd bet that my answers are in line with what you'll get from other IPA members.

1) UPS would have furloughed, regardless of concessions or monies paid back to them. Why, because they could.

2. No, they would have continued to violate the CBA, at their whim.

3. Unfortunately, Yes, you would have made concessions, because while IPA was trying to look out for it's membership, your company was doing it's usual squeezing of an employee group.

4. Probably no more or no less honorable than any other major corporation.

None of this matters. It does not change the fact that said person says and does things without thinking them through. Saying something that you want to be true and something actually being true are two different things. No one wanted concessions. That was clear. The membership spoke clearly. I would have been furloughed regardless who was elected. I did not want ANY concessions.

This is a classic argument. What I said had nothing to do with any of 1-5. I will however address No.5. I do not think it is an honorable company. They only do things when it makes them look bad. Furloughing people that moved to Alaska and leaving them there (myself included) is pretty sad from a company that could have come to a better solution. I guess that is why R.B. and B.L. were asked to retire! Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

I'm still not clear what your point is.

What exactly doesn't matter?

Just to clarify what I at least think matters:

1) Would UPS have dumped the MOU (after getting some cash out of us) and furloughed regardless of who the president was?
2) Would either of the other candidates tried to sell us concessions for UPS not to furlough?

I happen to think things like those matter...

It seems duplicitous to say nothing matters, and it matters in the same thought, no?

Nice and very Zen-like Bob!

Well said! Well Spoken.

The person being discussed has decided to step down and turn over the job to the second in command. It is being done seamlessly and without disruption to the important business of the IPA pilots.

And IMHO not a minute to soon, I've been hearing rumors for the last few months glad they finally came to fruition.

I bet we see substantial progress in the furlough negotiations, now that the "My way or the Highway" mentality is gone.