Required RDG coming to UPS
10-18-2009, 06:27 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 120
notadog,
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.
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.
I completely understand the market and business realities. I also understand that handing a company $100+ million when they are profitable sends a message. Do you understand that?
Don't get me wrong...the MOU was admirable on many levels, and protecting our junior members should be a priority. There comes a tipping point, however. I think we are approaching that point.
10-18-2009, 07:41 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Unity? You're joking, right? Maybe we can order some "IPA Good Day" hats or something and that will make it all better. Sorry, unity was a nice thing while it lasted. It's long gone. Our group has grown and diversified with many competing agendas.
I completely understand the market and business realities. I also understand that handing a company $100+ million when they are profitable sends a message. Do you understand that?
Don't get me wrong...the MOU was admirable on many levels, and protecting our junior members should be a priority. There comes a tipping point, however. I think we are approaching that point.
I completely understand the market and business realities. I also understand that handing a company $100+ million when they are profitable sends a message. Do you understand that?
Don't get me wrong...the MOU was admirable on many levels, and protecting our junior members should be a priority. There comes a tipping point, however. I think we are approaching that point.
Don't give a rip for 'feel good' junk. You again contradict yourself with your second paragraph. I do understand, know how UPS takes the message. Not the way you understand it at UPS.
Agree we have grown and have competing agendas. Reason time should be spent on education and discusion, but rancor only benefits Labor into giving us a concessionary 2012 contract. Agree we are at a tipping point. However, your solution is?????
10-18-2009, 08:39 AM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,701
I agree with that and I wonder if proceeding past that tipping point and putting on a major drive that fails will weaken us further in the eyes of the company and those at the bottom. Sometimes questions are better last unasked.
10-18-2009, 01:47 PM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 747-400 FO
Posts: 123
Don't sell us short, navigatro
As the guy 170 from the bottom, I wouldn't. As a guy who is familiar with what it's like outside the golden halls of UPS - and hates posturing - I still wouldn't. I think a lot of the bottom 400 are a lot more in touch with the real world "outside" than the top 2000, and wouldn't support a mandatory action.
10-18-2009, 02:05 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 129
As the guy 170 from the bottom, I wouldn't. As a guy who is familiar with what it's like outside the golden halls of UPS - and hates posturing - I still wouldn't. I think a lot of the bottom 400 are a lot more in touch with the real world "outside" than the top 2000, and wouldn't support a mandatory action.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
