Required RDG coming to UPS
10-17-2009, 01:30 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
10-17-2009, 01:48 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 135
Come on freightpup, climb on that menstrual cycle and run him over with something clever! (a la Jeff Dunham)
here's some inspiration:
"Gee freightpup, your daughter is adorable!"
I know, I know... it's a boy... jeez... but come on fp... cut that little fella's dreadlocks already! Freakin' hippy!
here's some inspiration:
"Gee freightpup, your daughter is adorable!"
I know, I know... it's a boy... jeez... but come on fp... cut that little fella's dreadlocks already! Freakin' hippy!
10-17-2009, 02:09 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
This. The unintended consequences of MOUs.
The company has discovered how little it takes (just a threat...) to get this group to cough up $100 million or so in savings to them. This, at the same time they are banking $450 million in profits last quarter.
If you think for one moment they aren't going to ask for more at the bargaining table in 2012, you probably are going to be very surprised.
They are just waiting to see how low we will set the bar.
So, what you need to ask yourself, is this:
How much will you PERMANENTLY give up to postpone a furlough? Because in the end, it is only a postponement.
The company has discovered how little it takes (just a threat...) to get this group to cough up $100 million or so in savings to them. This, at the same time they are banking $450 million in profits last quarter.
If you think for one moment they aren't going to ask for more at the bargaining table in 2012, you probably are going to be very surprised.
They are just waiting to see how low we will set the bar.
So, what you need to ask yourself, is this:
How much will you PERMANENTLY give up to postpone a furlough? Because in the end, it is only a postponement.
Respectfully, you appear by your comments to not grasp the realities of basic business or you simply enjoy the simple rhetoric. Suspect you like the rhetoric. A union must understand the market and business or forever fail their members.
The MOU venture was not knuckling in fear as you suggest, the furlough threat was real and verifiable in the market and by past UPS management practice (company wide). FedEx gave UPS the hope we would knuckle in fear and cave on our contract. We did not. As stated by previous posts, the fact that UPS has violated portions of the MOU, is no different than UPS violating the contract. The violations are not the fault of the IPA, the MOU, our contract. Rather, it is soley the responsibility of UPS Labor.
The supes have already taken financial hits, mechanics are in for a long haul and still losing jobs, except for a few at the top that UPS is compensating more, the rest of management are also paying for those pay raises. Thus, the rhetoric that UPS was singly targeting the IPA pilot group is not looking at the realities of our employment picture. Looking at the rest of the environment, it was clear UPS management could contractually extract savings from the pilot group via furloughs. Profitable companies remain so only by competent management. Fact is, a union should recognize the 40 styles of management we face and treat each appropriately. Looking at the company as a monolithic singularly managed company would be a huge error by union leadership. Make inroads where able, don't concede when under attack. You seem to think that a valid cost savings contractually allowed and avoided via the MOU was a weak move. Quite the contrary. The MOU has clearly stated to Labor that the bar is high, we won't concede in 2012, we understand the realities of the market (bummer for them, they wish everyone would not bother to study such 'management' market realities, especially union members). On the flip side, the MOU does have its limitations and the well is only so deep.
The MOU despite its challenges, did put UPS in a challenging position. The success of the MOU IMO caused them to start violating the MOU to recoup more savings. Many in managemet want to furlough for no other reason than to conquer and divide. They will then sit back and exploit and create more 'group divison'. Throw a nickel at us, and we trip over it sniping at each other as they pick up the dollar that could be ours. Disagree with your rhetoric, the bar will be high, myself, am willing to give some now to claim a much larger payoff that unity provides. Am not on the EB, not running, but have some ideas and have offered them to mitigate the furloughs in lieu of the MOU. Up to them to decide if they will pursue. However, just like a football game, everyone needs to keep the eye on the realities and not smash our own players just because we don't like our current score. notadog, we both agree if UPS furloughs, it is their decision. My question for you and everyone who is IPA lurking here: will you work to maintain our unity in such an event? Leadership from the trenches, or aid and abet UPS management by facilitating friction and a Labor ideal? I'll patiently encourage unity, warts and all. It is our best weapon for a better future for all of us. Probably the singularly most difficult concept a union has to conquer.
10-17-2009, 02:43 PM
#75
Freightmama!
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
Come on freightpup, climb on that menstrual cycle and run him over with something clever! (a la Jeff Dunham)
here's some inspiration:
"Gee freightpup, your daughter is adorable!"
I know, I know... it's a boy... jeez... but come on fp... cut that little fella's dreadlocks already! Freakin' hippy!
here's some inspiration:
"Gee freightpup, your daughter is adorable!"
I know, I know... it's a boy... jeez... but come on fp... cut that little fella's dreadlocks already! Freakin' hippy!
10-17-2009, 04:21 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Z F/O
Posts: 213
From a good union source at UPS. The new furlough number coming in at around 400, and the relatively low participation in the previous RDG, mandatory participation is being seriously discussed. Everyone would be required to take at least one RDG period in the next two years. Instead of a full bid period, an optional 25 hour sick bank deduction would be available. For those that have already particiated, a 10 hour sick bank deduction would be the only requirement. The thought is this would avoid massive seat movements and limit the QOL decreases for the majority of IPA members. Look for this in the VERY near future....
10-17-2009, 05:25 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 129
I'm not sure who you spoke to, but there is concern about the 29.3% participation rate. The staffing numbers speak for themselves. A one shot, full member participation RDG has been discussed.(with membership vote, of course.) This would get the pilot group through 2011, and into more advantagous staffing and economic numbers. The ONE RDG period in the next two years is being looked at as reasonable middle ground. Keep calling other members, it's there.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
