What's with the defeatist attitudes shown on the BG concerning a NO VOTE when it comes to NURP tolerance?

 

Typical Fleet. He is God is his own mine. And he has many followers. Which is Sad to say the least.

 

He must be very, very rich.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

Not what one would expect to hear from a supposed "elder statesman" of the union.

 

UPSPilott, Considering the (seemingly untold and forgotten) history regarding the FQM structure at UPS, the actions of the “elder statesmen” should come as no surprise. The point seems all but forgotten that it was Rob Dorsey and the “NURPS” in the early years of the airline who believed that the FQM structure should be eliminated, and ALL UPS pilots should be integrated into the IPA. Another point that seems all but forgotten is that it was the “Elder Statesmen” of the IPA who made a concerted effort to oppose Dorsey’s actions. The IPA doesn’t seem too anxious to remind its membership that the reason the FQM structure exists today is because the IPA completely abandoned Rob Dorsey, and sided 100% with UPS in its opinion that management pilots should not be integrated into the IPA. It was this position taken by the IPA that sealed Dorsey’s fate, and reinforced the FQM structure to the extent that it would be nearly impossible to ever dismantle. The common myth is that the IPA’s position regarding Class and Craft and integration has always been in line with the final court ruling in the Dorsey case, and that the IPA has always desired a unification of all UPS pilots in order to eliminate the FQM structure. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, the latest position from the IPA regarding management pilot integration is a complete and total reversal.

Memories fade, and few now seem to be aware that Dorsey’s lawsuit was not just against UPS; it was also against the IPA. Rob sued the IPA after the union stood in complete solidarity with UPS against the management pilots. In the months leading up to Dorsey’s integration attempt, he had no reason to doubt that a unification of the pilot group was in the IPA’s best interest. Dorsey expected many hurdles, but opposition from the IPA was certainly not one of them. For this reason, the IPA’s actions left Dorsey and the management pilots in a state of stunned disbelief, and no doubt left UPS in a state of total jubilation. My guess is that those who continue to cite the Dorsey ruling regarding class and craft as a logical and obvious justification for the IPA’s current position are not aware of these facts, and have never actually read Judge Heyburn’s original court ruling. Judge Heyburn, citing the IPA’s complete and total solidarity with UPS, ruled against Dorsey, and in favor of UPS. Take the time to read these court documents, and also read the IPA’s letters to the court and to management pilots that document their original position. Considering the IPA’s current position, what you will learn is certainly an inconvenient truth. Dorsey eventually won the lawsuit on appeal, no thanks to the IPA.

It was the “elder statesmen” who made the bewildering decision to stand side by side with UPS against Dorsey and the management pilots that resulted in the airline structure that continues to exist. Rob prevailed despite the astonishing position taken by the IPA. Rob may have won a settlement, but he lost a career. What the IPA lost in its refusal to welcome the integration seems far greater.

Sure, there will be many who simply brush this aside and say, “that was then, and this is now”. The problem is that erasing this piece of history is not that simple. The IPA’s actions created a monumental mess that, for many reasons, will now be exponentially more difficult for them to clean up. The IPA shouldn’t just get a pass on a failure of this magnitude. So, the next time you wonder why the FQM structure continues to exist at UPS, maybe it’s time to knock on the doors of these “elder statesmen” for the answers. After all, if not for the actions of the IPA, this would likely be a very different airline right now.

 

^^ This

Excellent summation. And 100% true.

As for the "elder statesman"...well, he sure is a legend in his own mind.

The pertinent except from the Appellate ruling below:


22 F.Supp.2d 617 (1998)

Frank Robbins DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO., Defendant.
United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.
September 30, 1998.


"The dispute between Dorsey and UPS had its genesis in undisputed events occurring during the spring of 1995 when Dorsey, a pilot with the title of captain, served as a B-747
Flight Training Supervisor. He and other members of a group of Flight Qualified Supervisors (a classification that includes Flight Training Supervisors, Flight Test Supervisors, Systems Operations Supervisors, Flight Standards Supervisors, and Assistant Chief Pilots) requested that the Independent Pilots Association ("IPA") agree to represent them. The IPA was certified to represent Flight Deck Crew Members at UPS. The Flight Qualified Supervisors wanted the union to include them within that classification. The IPA's collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") defines "Crewmembers" as including Captains, First Officers, Professional Flight Engineers, and Second Officers. The CBA, however, specifically excludes Management Crewmembers although the contract conspicuously fails to define that classification. Out of courtesy to the company, Dorsey initiated a series of meetings with UPS management to explain that the group of Flight Qualified Supervisors had organized to determine their employment status under the RLA and, thus, their eligibility for union representation. By the end of June, 1995, events had taken a turn for the worse for Dorsey. After he wrote to all Flight Qualified Supervisors about the efforts to gain union representation, the IPA informed Dorsey's group of its refusal to recognize the eligibility of Flight Qualified Supervisors. Meanwhile, UPS relieved Dorsey of some duties and, then, reassigned him to the position of Assistant Chief Pilot. A UPS manager told Dorsey that the company transferred him because of his "recent activities." Later in the summer of 1995, Dorsey received a low performance evaluation. Early in the fall, UPS managers confronted Dorsey directly. Flight Operations Manager Rob Ruf told Dorsey, "I want this action to stop right now." Ruf reassured Dorsey that, if Dorsey ceased his organizing efforts, the company would take no further action and would "put this matter behind us." Ruf intimated that Dorsey might receive a transfer back to flight training if he acceded to management's requests. Finally, Ruf threatened that the company would fire Dorsey if he continued his activities."

 

Tsk, tsk....why so many so called good union members fail to grasp the intricacies of the RLA and D.C. politics is beyond me. In my 30 years in this business, I have seen many people who talk tough in the cockpit and on the internet suddenly tuck their tail and whimper like a scolded child when they have to state their case at the negotiating table or at a hearing. He who talks the toughest is usually the first run across the picket line.

 

I don't totally understand here. Are you saying FS is the type to tuck his tale and whimper away?

In general I didn't read FS's words on the B&G as defeatist. I think sometimes, we has humans, struggle to accept tough realities at times. I think the FQS subject is one of those. I think we can win many battles while understanding we will not win the war on certain issues. I think realistically we can round off corners, so to speak, but will never take the whole square off the table.

 

Until and unless the IPA negotiates training and checking duties, they need to hire FQS. Simple as that, they are leaving in droves. It takes a long time to get a a guy qualified to do training and checking duties. We might we get that in the next contract, perhaps. Will we throw them on the street, nope. We need to take over training and checking, and let the rest retire eventually. Most likely scenario IMO

 

"Scabs"? Is UPS on strike?