Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Are the "savings" enough to prevent furlough? >

Are the "savings" enough to prevent furlough?

Search

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines
View Poll Results: MOU savings accepted?
MOU Savings Rejected....Furlough 300
28.38%
MOU Savings accepted...No Furlough
71.62%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Are the "savings" enough to prevent furlough?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-03-2009, 03:46 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: A cushion seat
Posts: 171
Default

Originally Posted by UPSFO4LIFE
I think the MOU will be accepted and a furlough of some sort.
I have to agree with UPSFO4LIFE. If IPA shows the numbers everyday this past week on the web page then they hide it on the 2nd, and the EB is sitting down with UPS to go over the numbers...... make me ask what ever happen to BM pitch of "ALL or NOTHING!" It seems to me the two groups are looking for a happy medium.

MOU plus 100 or so furloughed.
PAX2Cargo is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 03:49 PM
  #12  
Registered User
 
viktorbravo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Capt: Lav Truck
Posts: 288
Default

Cant happen, or should I say highly unlikely IMO. My prediction (man I said I wouldnt do that) UPS will take the money, no furloughs until 2011.
viktorbravo is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 04:08 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Buck92's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Unknown
Posts: 372
Default

Originally Posted by PAX2Cargo
MOU plus 100 or so furloughed.
Can't happen. [many] People who volunteered did so with the understanding that it would prevent a furlough. Both parties went so far as stating the deal was "all or nothing." To take any of the savings and still put folks on the street, even at a reduced number, would be a total breach of contract. It would definitely result in litigation. Obviously, anyone of the 300 (or whatever number) hypothetically furloughed wouldn't have a claim (besides getting their sick time back if they donated any) but anyone left on the property who gave up anything would be able to recoup it. What they could do is say "numbers are sufficient for 2009, so we'll take all the pleged savings for that and not furlough til Feb 2010" -- or whatever the 2010 date in the MOU. That I can actually see happening. But if they enact any furlough mitigation plan for a given year (2009, 2010, 2011) they're not going to be able to furlough for that year. The language re: worsening of the economy etc. is a bit squishy, but still can be litigated. They could NOT get away with a partial furlough based on less than a savings goal met (prorated number for example) and claim "worsening economy." So... it's not all or nothing. It's actually in UPS's court -- accept what we pledged to not furlough anyone for 2009, 2010, and/or 2011. Or take no savings (enact no JS/RDG/PLOA/early retirements and give back sick time) and furlough whatever number they want. The only exception (before Salty jumps in) is mil lv. They can't deny that.

I think the fact that they've been Lucy with the football (Charlie Brown reference) with the signup deadlines indicates something. What, exactly, is open for debate.
Buck92 is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 05:11 PM
  #14  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 540
Default

Originally Posted by viktorbravo
.

UPS would be insane not to take that deal.
The only flaw in your statement is it's logic based...
bifff15 is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 06:05 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Pilot7576's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 679
Default mou versus furlough

Folks...

By definition you can't have a furlough with the mou...the two are mutually exclusive...I think the savings offered are too much for ups to pass up with the resultant chaos from the alternative...

Pilot7576
Pilot7576 is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 07:29 PM
  #16  
Registered User
 
viktorbravo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Capt: Lav Truck
Posts: 288
Default

Originally Posted by bifff15
The only flaw in your statement is it's logic based...
You must have worked at UPS for quite a few years. I agree.
viktorbravo is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 08:03 PM
  #17  
Tri-tanic operator
 
CactusCrew's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Default

Originally Posted by viktorbravo
Consider this ...

UPS would be insane not to take that deal.

When considering any decisions to be made by UPS, you must ask yourself ...

What would the great Cornholio do ?


CactusCrew is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 08:58 PM
  #18  
Freightmama!
 
Freightpuppy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
Default

Originally Posted by Pilot7576
I think the savings offered are too much for ups to pass up with the resultant chaos from the alternative...

Pilot7576

I hope you are right.
Freightpuppy is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 09:20 PM
  #19  
Registered User
 
viktorbravo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Capt: Lav Truck
Posts: 288
Default

Originally Posted by CactusCrew
When considering any decisions to be made by UPS, you must ask yourself ...

What would the great Cornholio do ?


Easy. I am the great Cornholio! I am from lake Titicaca, and I demand TP for my bunghole! Where I come from, my people have no bungholes and are in need of them. Are you threatening me!? Bungholio!
viktorbravo is offline  
Old 06-03-2009, 09:28 PM
  #20  
Registered User
 
viktorbravo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Capt: Lav Truck
Posts: 288
Default

Originally Posted by Jonathan E
The EB has in past changed our contract without a vote. Namely the MD-11 IRO midterm, which led to our first MOU. They later overrode the membership for a new building. With 67% volunteerism, They might feel free to amend the contract sans vote.

The outcome is probably already known to our EB, why do you think the announcement is on Friday? I think they're working on a sales pitch.

Fly Safe
Sorry mate but the points you made are not entirely accurate.

The mid term failed when put to a vote and the IRO agreement was not made until the following contract which was voted on and passed. FWIW I voted against the mid term and it was a mistake in retrospect.

The contract cannot be amended without a membership vote, period.

Please check your facts before you post supposed facts. Just sayin'......

I dont think the IPA is working on a "sales pitch" at this time. Either this MOU will fly as it stands as an all or nothing deal, or its a dead squid, there will be no in between IMO.

Last edited by viktorbravo; 06-03-2009 at 11:00 PM.
viktorbravo is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SLPII
Cargo
231
02-08-2017 11:25 PM
brownie
Cargo
200
03-05-2009 08:55 PM
GOFRTRS
Cargo
7
01-31-2009 11:52 PM
Capt TedStriker
Cargo
76
01-05-2009 03:07 PM
steamgauge
Cargo
200
12-18-2008 07:25 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices