Union Cards sent to UPS Flt Qual MGRs??
03-09-2010, 10:01 PM
#51
Freightmama!
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
Come on. We talk a good game but in reality 30% of us couldn't even be bothered to participate in the MOU and 20% participated minimally. Now we have a President elected with 33% of the vote fulfilling his promise of attempting to bring over the FQS's and offering date of hire. Sorry we did not vote on that. Keeping one guy on the street one day longer than he should be to integrate the supervisors is BS.
03-09-2010, 10:36 PM
#52
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 14
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we vote on our opinion of bringing the FQMs on board and didn't it say something about integration by DOH? I could just be making all of this up in my head (I'm pregnant again and that makes me a big airhead) but I am remembering it that way.
03-10-2010, 05:01 AM
#53
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: ANC
Posts: 16
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we vote on our opinion of bringing the FQMs on board and didn't it say something about integration by DOH? I could just be making all of this up in my head (I'm pregnant again and that makes me a big airhead) but I am remembering it that way.
EB STATEMENT ON STRAW POLL
“Our core unity has never been higher.” That statement came today from the IPA Executive Board after announcing the results of the Straw Poll on the possibility of organizing UPS’ flight qualified supervisors. An unprecedented 80.4% of the eligible IPA membership participated in the poll. Of that number, 1, 687 members, or 79%, expressed their support for moving forward on the issue while adopting the principle of a fair and equitable integration of the seniority list based on date of hire. On that same issue, 438 members, or 20.5% opposed moving forward.
DA
03-10-2010, 07:52 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Brown 747-400
Posts: 524
It all started Monday September 24, 2007 and several iterations of it have occured since then but the result is the same. And BTW it was the BM administration that started the ball rolling..........
EB STATEMENT ON STRAW POLL
“Our core unity has never been higher.” That statement came today from the IPA Executive Board after announcing the results of the Straw Poll on the possibility of organizing UPS’ flight qualified supervisors. An unprecedented 80.4% of the eligible IPA membership participated in the poll. Of that number, 1, 687 members, or 79%, expressed their support for moving forward on the issue while adopting the principle of a fair and equitable integration of the seniority list based on date of hire. On that same issue, 438 members, or 20.5% opposed moving forward.
DA
EB STATEMENT ON STRAW POLL
“Our core unity has never been higher.” That statement came today from the IPA Executive Board after announcing the results of the Straw Poll on the possibility of organizing UPS’ flight qualified supervisors. An unprecedented 80.4% of the eligible IPA membership participated in the poll. Of that number, 1, 687 members, or 79%, expressed their support for moving forward on the issue while adopting the principle of a fair and equitable integration of the seniority list based on date of hire. On that same issue, 438 members, or 20.5% opposed moving forward.
DA
It was Amendment 1 in the last election (Thrush election) that allowed the EB to move forward and try to integrate these FQS guys onto our seniority list. If memory serves me correct, 84% voted in favor of this amendment.
My question is: if this issue was so darn important to the membership, why wasn't this attempted YEARS ago? I've only been here a little over 3 years, so I'm not privy to all the politics that went on between the EB and UPS management, but my experience with previous airline unions tells me that SOMETHING was going on between the two concerning this issue. Why did it take until 2010 for this to move forward? Anyone care to comment?
03-10-2010, 07:59 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 222
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the straw poll under BM got anything officially "rolling". I thought that the 79% figure wasn't enough to start the process.
It was Amendment 1 in the last election (Thrush election) that allowed the EB to move forward and try to integrate these FQS guys onto our seniority list. If memory serves me correct, 84% voted in favor of this amendment.
My question is: if this issue was so darn important to the membership, why wasn't this attempted YEARS ago? I've only been here a little over 3 years, so I'm not privy to all the politics that went on between the EB and UPS management, but my experience with previous airline unions tells me that SOMETHING was going on between the two concerning this issue. Why did it take until 2010 for this to move forward? Anyone care to comment?
It was Amendment 1 in the last election (Thrush election) that allowed the EB to move forward and try to integrate these FQS guys onto our seniority list. If memory serves me correct, 84% voted in favor of this amendment.
My question is: if this issue was so darn important to the membership, why wasn't this attempted YEARS ago? I've only been here a little over 3 years, so I'm not privy to all the politics that went on between the EB and UPS management, but my experience with previous airline unions tells me that SOMETHING was going on between the two concerning this issue. Why did it take until 2010 for this to move forward? Anyone care to comment?
03-10-2010, 08:06 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: DC-8 756/767
Posts: 1,144
WOW, just got an in-the-middle of the morning update e mail from BT about the FQS issue. Seems UPS is having a must attend meeting with all the FQS off campus. Would love to be a fly on the wall in that room. How many threats do you think will come from that meeting?
03-10-2010, 08:50 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Unknown
Posts: 372
I actually thought the language of the amendment in question allowed only for the EB to "move forward" on bringing the FQMs onboard. I did NOT think the EB could determine terms of integration (seniority list) on their own without a vote. I'm calling shennanigans until Salty or someone can produce language that states otherwise...
03-10-2010, 09:12 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Short the Market
Posts: 139
My question is: if this issue was so darn important to the membership, why wasn't this attempted YEARS ago? I've only been here a little over 3 years, so I'm not privy to all the politics that went on between the EB and UPS management, but my experience with previous airline unions tells me that SOMETHING was going on between the two concerning this issue. Why did it take until 2010 for this to move forward? Anyone care to comment?
03-10-2010, 09:16 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Short the Market
Posts: 139
Umm... I think the NMB determines the terms of integration assuming this gets that far. Our C&B vote was mainly a message.
03-10-2010, 09:31 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 222
Well we are offering date of hire. Do you really think the NMB would do anything worse than that. Besides I don't think the NMB has anything to do with how the two lists would be integrated anyway.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
