UPS Furlough (Part III)
08-22-2010, 10:47 AM
#111
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 332
I do not think the company will ever agree to FQS's on the line unless it is a 50% +1 majority. If it is any less than that, UPS will appeal it in the Federal Courts and drag it out to make IPA costs to defend it go through the roof
08-22-2010, 03:53 PM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
(if that is what you meant by leaving the line)
and now retired.
Well, I'm not nuetral, but Im objective. We want the FQS to be represented.
It's going to be a long, long grind. Both side will not back down. The furlough guaranteed that fact.
Am glad UPS is saving Open time money. Just proves they are penny wise and pound foolish. How many customers we going to lose over service failures?
Mind you, if senior management had taken the 100+ million up front, kept on taking IPA givebacks through 2015, the negotiations would have been less costly to UPS.
Now, not so much.
UPS kicked the bee hive, and before the furlough, it was asleep. Now folks read the contract with great interests. Not my idea of the way to enter negotiations.
Oh well. Enjoy the show from the sidelines and Happy Retirement!
08-23-2010, 09:05 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Short the Market
Posts: 139
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures.
08-25-2010, 01:54 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 511
As with the very few other posts I have made on APC, I have no desire to kick a hornets nest or to debate this. As an FQM that has been here from the beginning and is nearing retirement, none of the integration will affect me regardless of the outcome. However, the seemingly never-ending missteps made by the IPA on this issue are astounding. I know you can't turn the clock back, but if there was ever a time for the IPA to integrate FQMs, it was early in the history of the airline. No one can argue that the IPA chose to turn their backs on the FQMs that desired IPA representation back then.
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures. In any case, I'm quite sure that a freshman-year intern in the UPS benefits department could rip this analysis to shreds - and probably is doing that as we speak. Again, I guess you can't turn the clock back.....
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures. In any case, I'm quite sure that a freshman-year intern in the UPS benefits department could rip this analysis to shreds - and probably is doing that as we speak. Again, I guess you can't turn the clock back.....
The analysis for the payouts are worthless if UPS decides to do away with your pension, just like they did with pay raises and bonuses in 2009. Do you have a contract stating what your payouts will be? Say it cannot happen? Kinda like "Welcome to the last job you will ever have!". Point is you are not part of UPS's "core" company. As an airline pilot you are an outsider. Don't kid yourself. You are simply an asset, much like IPA pilots, that can be dispenses with at the companies pleasure. It's business remember. That is all.
The way that the FQS has been utilized has changed. With this furlough, UPS has crossed a labor line that the IPA cannot ignore. Forced their hand so to say. If the IPA wins, there will no longer be an airline within an airline. If the IPA loses, then in 15 years there will be 1200 managers and 1000 IPA pilots. As you can see, it is not something the IPA can afford to lose.
08-25-2010, 05:25 AM
#118
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 332
You have to remember, UPS and the IPA have one very important thing in common: both need to survive, no matter what happens. They are like the proverbial scorpions in a bottle: they cannot eat each other and don't really like each other, but both need each other. There will be a compromise in the end. I doubt that the IPA will get the cards it needs to go to the NMB, but on the other hand, if they do, UPS will accept it in the end.
08-25-2010, 06:59 AM
#119
Freightmama!
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
It seems to me like the IPA loses out all the time and UPS always gets their way. It makes me sick to constantly see the entities with more money win all the time. Where is the "compromise"?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
