Tim Nelson
Veteran
the reason why they want to go to "core work" definition is because thats the iam language at united that YOU recommended. Why would Parker want to keep current language when you and sito recommended changing normal ramp to "core work"?First our current contract has the original language from our first contract when it comes to scope. The “ normal and customary “ language has been long established. The company can’t argue against this, that’s why they want to change that language to read “ core work “as has been said on here before. So the conversation took place on what the company considers core work. They stated loading and unloading aircraft only. Then conversations were had about different jobs that we currently own under the normal and customary, which was basically everything else. Again, they only want to recognize core work as loading and unloading. If you choose to not believe that? Then more power to ya.
Now if your question is have they specifically stated they want to get rid of bagroom work? No they did not. Of course they did not. But question to you and anyone that wants to believe they don’t. Is why do they want to remove the current language that’s already been established by many years of past practice.
Core work at United means running and bagroom and i have it 100% confirmed that the company offered bagroom and running as core work.
Did you see the offer? I gotta think you have. But to answer your question, "core work" came into this industry by the unanimous recommendation of you and the 141 eboard.
Why would you ask?
regards,