April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[T5towbar]

The TA stated that the "core work" is supposed to be protected in the hubs, except that Express has a "Cinderella" date of 2016, like the line stations. Plus the contract protected everyone that were 1999 and older only. Then there is up to 2006 for outsourcing leaving about 10 to 15 percent of the workforce without any protection including the hubs where most junior people are. So these "protection" dates are a joke. You don't need protection dates with good scope. Everybody should be protected.

 

[ograc]

The TA stated that the "core work" is supposed to be protected in the hubs, except that Express has a "Cinderella" date of 2016, like the line stations. Plus the contract protected everyone that were 1999 and older only. Then there is up to 2006 for outsourcing leaving about 10 to 15 percent of the workforce without any protection including the hubs where most junior people are. So these "protection" dates are a joke. You don't need protection dates with good scope. Everybody should be protected.

As I told the visiting AGC at our last local meeting... there seems to be a huge disconnect on the definition of job protection between the district and the membership. The membership wants jobs protected in their station. The district seems to define job protection as the ability to retain employment with bumping to another location that has an opening. Huge difference in the definition of job protection. IMO... the members at UA want an end to the outsourcing of currently represented jobs. Including the jobs in the outline stations. Additionally, this is what the membership at US, seeks in terms of job protection IMO.

 

[roabilly]

As I told the visiting AGC at our last local meeting... there seems to be a huge disconnect on the definition of job protection between the district and the membership. The membership wants jobs protected in their station. The district seems to define job protection as the ability to retain employment with bumping to another location that has an opening. Huge difference in the definition of job protection. IMO... the members at UA want an end to the outsourcing of currently represented jobs. Including the jobs in the outline stations. Additionally, this is what the membership at US, seeks in terms of job protection IMO.

Cargo,

I think you may be right in that regard… if I’m not mistaken (Maybe towbar can expound) -- the UA T/A allows for outsourcing in some small cities, “provided” there is no reduction in Head-Count. Further, as you wrote… this does nothing to protect the individual small stations that are adversely impacted by the scope language. Essentially… the rejected UA T/A was only guaranteeing jobs… not necessarily WHERE the jobs actually are… or will be!

This is nothing new for Fleet, Mechanics, F/A’s or Pilots at UA or anywhere else. This trend has been progressing for decades… a little at a time. We actually knew in the 80’s that the only places that would be safe in terms of job protection were the “hubs”. We also knew in the 80’s that there would be consolidation, that would result in many displacements. Now, here we are some 30 years later… and ALL of those things have, and will continue to transpire!

I’m not sure what the solution would be… other than to demand “no out-sourcing” language as opposed to “job-protection language”. Either way… the Company and the Union always do their math based on Membership distribution. The mindset is, since the hubs contain the majority, they will democratically supersede the smaller cities in voting power.

This was graphically demonstrated in the US agreement, that folks like freedom supported, knowing full well that the scope would result in the closing of several smaller cities!

 

[T5towbar]

Cargo,

I think you may be right in that regard… if I’m not mistaken (Maybe towbar can expound) -- the UA T/A allows for outsourcing in some small cities, “provided” there is no reduction in Head-Count. Further, as you wrote… this does nothing to protect the individual small stations that are adversely impacted by the scope language. Essentially… the rejected UA T/A was only guaranteeing jobs… not necessarily WHERE the jobs actually are… or will be!

This is nothing new for Fleet, Mechanics, F/A’s or Pilots at UA or anywhere else. This trend has been progressing for decades… a little at a time. We actually knew in the 80’s that the only places that would be safe in terms of job protection were the “hubs”. We also knew in the 80’s that there would be consolidation, that would result in many displacements. Now, here we are some 30 years later… and ALL of those things have, and will continue to transpire!

I’m not sure what the solution would be… other than to demand “no out-sourcing” language as opposed to “job-protection language”. Either way… the Company and the Union always do their math based on Membership distribution. The mindset is, since the hubs contain the majority, they will democratically supersede the smaller cities in voting power.

This was graphically demonstrated in the US agreement, that folks like freedom supported, knowing full well that the scope would result in the closing of several smaller cities!

Our IBT contract had a clause in it that no jobs would be lost if they were "merger related", and when we lost our Cargo, that was clearly a merger related situation. Even the company officials said it was; ie: "harmonization", which leaves a situation where people will lose their jobs, due to a bump. (sCO have bumping rights within a sCO station) But since the IAM will not enforce the contract, some people will be let go, unless they did what IAH done for their Cargo people; find them jobs.

I believe you may be right that outsourcing would be allowed in smaller cities via a certain percentage of flights. I'm not sure on this though. The old UA contract had 29 cities protected, and the company was supposed to insource some more line stations that had split operations (ie: BTW in some cities is being done by sUA on one side & a contractor on the sCO side). There are some stations with that type of situation, like MCO. All of that is supposed to be insourced totally. The cities have a lot of mainline flights and they should be incourced. But with sCO pilots giving up their scope for 76 seaters, that changes things a lot. Especially in the smaller cities where sCO is presently doing the RJ work. So some of the smaller cities may be hammered either way in this. Which leads into the "bump and roll". The IAM was counting on a lot of Early Outs via the buyout package to same some jobs (of the 10 and 15 percenters). But the buyouts depended on a certain amount of people taking them (which I think they would meet their goal of 1000 @75k.) But that is a company offer and I don't think it was tied into the TA like we were led to believe.

IMHO, in the hubs, we should be doing ALL of the work; M/L and Express. And the larger Line stations which have a lot of mainline flights. But the Express work has the 2016 clause like the line stations.

Bottom line is they want the new duespayers on the sCO side ATW.

 

[roabilly]

Our IBT contract had a clause in it that no jobs would be lost if they were "merger related", and when we lost our Cargo, that was clearly a merger related situation. Even the company officials said it was; ie: "harmonization", which leaves a situation where people will lose their jobs, due to a bump. (sCO have bumping rights within a sCO station) But since the IAM will not enforce the contract, some people will be let go, unless they did what IAH done for their Cargo people; find them jobs.

I believe you may be right that outsourcing would be allowed in smaller cities via a certain percentage of flights. I'm not sure on this though. The old UA contract had 29 cities protected, and the company was supposed to insource some more line stations that had split operations (ie: BTW in some cities is being done by sUA on one side & a contractor on the sCO side). There are some stations with that type of situation, like MCO. All of that is supposed to be insourced totally. The cities have a lot of mainline flights and they should be incourced. But with sCO pilots giving up their scope for 76 seaters, that changes things a lot. Especially in the smaller cities where sCO is presently doing the RJ work. So some of the smaller cities may be hammered either way in this. Which leads into the "bump and roll". The IAM was counting on a lot of Early Outs via the buyout package to same some jobs (of the 10 and 15 percenters). But the buyouts depended on a certain amount of people taking them (which I think they would meet their goal of 1000 @75k.) But that is a company offer and I don't think it was tied into the TA like we were led to believe.

IMHO, in the hubs, we should be doing ALL of the work; M/L and Express. And the larger Line stations which have a lot of mainline flights. But the Express work has the 2016 clause like the line stations.

Bottom line is they want the new duespayers on the sCO side ATW.

Thanks for the response… I read some of the UA T/A awhile ago, and saw no specific language regarding the buyouts. I know the F/A agreement here on the US side actually does contain contractual language regarding their buyout program. Until this point, I regarded the 75k UA fleet buyouts as a myth. Are you aware of anyone that actually participated in the UA buyout offer?

I also find it interesting that loss of Pilot Scope has impacted Fleet Work… this is one of the things that a lot of people never consider. It is happening all over the industry! Job protection cannot be guaranteed if the Pilots don’t fly the equipment into the station to begin with. This is where unforeseen circumstances develop that was never envisioned years/decades before in negotiations!

Contractual Language that is meant to protect jobs is often lost… or diluted in Mergers, Union changes, and Bankruptcy (Abrogation) proceedings. There are many ways the industry can chip away at those protections… as we have all witnessed!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Thanks for the response… I read some of the UA T/A awhile ago, and saw no specific language regarding the buyouts. I know the F/A agreement here on the US side actually does contain contractual language regarding their buyout program. Until this point, I regarded the 75k UA fleet buyouts as a myth. Are you aware of anyone that actually participated in the UA buyout offer?

I also find it interesting that loss of Pilot Scope has impacted Fleet Work… this is one of the things that a lot of people never consider. It is happening all over the industry! Job protection cannot be guaranteed if the Pilots don’t fly the equipment into the station to begin with. This is where unforeseen circumstances develop that was never envisioned years/decades before in negotiations!

Contractual Language that is meant to protect jobs is often lost… or diluted in Mergers, Union changes, and Bankruptcy (Abrogation) proceedings. There are many ways the industry can chip away at those protections… as we have all witnessed!

Best part is not to use the Pilots TA to dictate fleet work or benefits, right? 32,000 workers on the ground [85% of all United ground employees] have stand along leverage and are separate from the Pilots. When the union leaders came back and said they had to scrap the free medical due to the Pilots agreement, that didn't make any sense, especially when free medical is a great benefit that shouldn't be given up unless the value can be increased in some other benefit. If the Pilots scope and benefits dictated the benefits/scope of our members, then why didn't the Pilots 16% 401k base contributions by the company [or any other increase benefits/wages....63% wage increase??] didn't dictate the same for fleet, right? Why is it necessarily that the Pilots dictate scope on the ground and health care, [or any other flimsy concession], but then it doesn't naturally follow that the huge increases in other parts of the pilot contract doesn't dictate big wage increases or other perks? If the one is true, then the other must be, or neither is true. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Cargo,

I think you may be right in that regard… if I’m not mistaken (Maybe towbar can expound) -- the UA T/A allows for outsourcing in some small cities, “provided” there is no reduction in Head-Count. Further, as you wrote… this does nothing to protect the individual small stations that are adversely impacted by the scope language. Essentially… the rejected UA T/A was only guaranteeing jobs… not necessarily WHERE the jobs actually are… or will be!

This is nothing new for Fleet, Mechanics, F/A’s or Pilots at UA or anywhere else. This trend has been progressing for decades… a little at a time. We actually knew in the 80’s that the only places that would be safe in terms of job protection were the “hubs”. We also knew in the 80’s that there would be consolidation, that would result in many displacements. Now, here we are some 30 years later… and ALL of those things have, and will continue to transpire!

I’m not sure what the solution would be… other than to demand “no out-sourcing” language as opposed to “job-protection language”. Either way… the Company and the Union always do their math based on Membership distribution. The mindset is, since the hubs contain the majority, they will democratically supersede the smaller cities in voting power.

This was graphically demonstrated in the US agreement, that folks like freedom supported, knowing full well that the scope would result in the closing of several smaller cities!

Roabily, I know you were just referencing some of the smaller stations but, as a note, the UA TA allowed outsourcing in some small stations, some mid size stations and some large stations that are close to being hubs. At any rate, when discussing 'small stations' are you saying that United Airlines had to keep the current headcount, unconditionally, or it couldn't outsource? Please clarify and cite your references. Thank you in advance. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Regarding the CWA website. There is a Q & A discussing timelines and legal paths regarding representational issues that I find to be in error. 1. It cites that only a union can call for a single carrier status. Cases show that that is incorrect. If the CWA does not call for single carrier after some things have been exhausted, then it can't stall and just stay on the property. The spirit of the law assumes that a union will call for a single carrier status but if the union doesn't then we have seen through other cases that a court will force it if a carrier has fulfilled the sorta things a single carrier status would dictate. Secondly, the MBA will not apply in the context that the CWA states on its webpage. If the CWA were to win an election at AMR then in no way will the MBA apply. I just wanted to note those two items that the CWA is stroking its members about. I understand they want to make the members [at US AIRWAYS and AMR] feel that they can lean on the MBA as a sorta secure future, and I understand that they want their union shop leaders to feel more secure that the union itself can only call for a single carrier.....but both opinions are contrary to the case law. regards,

 

[roabilly]

Who pooped in your Cornflakes Nelson? Is reality interfering with your agenda again?

I find it amazing that you NEVER write about issues that REALLY impact the Membership-- Like the GOP’s initiatives to finish-off what’s left of the Airline Unions with the National Right to Work Act. Further, you never mention amendments to the RLA, bankruptcy proceedings, or the FAA reauthorization act. You never utter a peep about any of the actual enemies to labor!

Instead you make it a smear campaign aimed at handful individuals that will ultimately follow what the membership dictates… just like the F/A’s just did! One more question... do you still support the GOP? This is a relevant question for a supposed LABOR man!

 

[700UW]

Found this put out by JetBlue in its anti-union campaign, yet they state it will apply to union and non-union workers.

http://www.jetbluefacts.com/2011/the-mccaskill-amendment-clearly-applies-to-unionized-carriers-via-a-cba-explain-to-us-how-our-peas-will-be-viewed-by-an-arbitrator-as-a-fact-of-law-as-it-relates-specifically-to-the-amendment-are/

 

[Tim Nelson]

Who pooped in your Cornflakes Nelson? Is reality interfering with your agenda again?

I find it amazing that you NEVER write about issues that REALLY impact the Membership-- Like the GOP’s initiatives to finish-off what’s left of the Airline Unions with the National Right to Work Act. Further, you never mention amendments to the RLA, bankruptcy proceedings, or the FAA reauthorization act. You never utter a peep about any of the actual enemies to labor!

Instead you make it a smear campaign aimed at handful individuals that will ultimately follow what the membership dictates… just like the F/A’s just did! One more question... do you still support the GOP? This is a relevant question for a supposed LABOR man!

Roabily, you are the one who makes things personal. My comments to you were very objective and I left out any personal attacks. I'm concerned with the 'close by' stuff and our own housekeeping matters that we can control, not that the 'far from home' things in DC are not significant but the IAM legislative department is actually fairly good and is fighting the far away matters. [FWIW: I went to Ohio with a hundred IAM members and went to rallies in CLE supporting opposition against some new bills that failed] I wasn't aware of how the NRWA is finishing off airline unions but I'm sure we can be confident that the IAM will fight that just as it did the FAA bill. At any rate, I have never been a registered Republican although many Republicans have been supported by unions. Bush senior was endorsed by the Teamsters. Teamsters also endorsed Ronald Regan both times due to his tough stance in their industry. A stance that was much tougher than the democrat. OTOH, Clinton signed NAFTA. Go figure. Both political groups frustrate me when dealing with labor, not just Republicans. At any rate, you mentioned a few things in two post regarding our membership and a ta, and I wanted to challenge your premise, thus, I didn't personally attack you, I just objectively challenged your assertions. If you can not, or are not willing to defend them then I think you are being non-academic and at risk of intellectual dishonesty. regards,

 

[700UW]

Clinton did not propose NAFTA, that would be Bush the first, Clinton negotiated labor protections into NAFTA before it went to the Senate and the Senate ratified NAFTA.

Bush's trade rep negotiated NAFTA.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Clinton did not propose NAFTA, that would be Bush the first, Clinton negotiated labor protections into NAFTA before it went to the Senate and the Senate ratified NAFTA.

Bush's trade rep negotiated NAFTA.

NAFTA was signed by Clinton. Bottom line. NAFTA, as written, blows and has cost jobs. Clinton was President and shouldn't have signed it, but with all politics, deals are born. Democrat or Republican. Clinton let labor down on that one and if you can't see that then you are being intellectually dishonest. The only president that has stopped alot of this mess is Obama. Bush's Korean free trade act sucked monstrously but Obama canned it. Getting 700 Korean car imports with only 1 american export sucked under Bush. I don't wear party tags so I'm free to say that Clinton blew it on NAFTA and Bush sucked bigtime on the KFTA. regards,

 

[700UW]

When Was NAFTA Started?:

NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: History.com, NAFTA Signed into Law, December 8, 1993)

It was actually signed by both.

 

[cltrat]

NAFTA was signed by Clinton. Bottom line. NAFTA, as written, blows and has cost jobs. Clinton was President and shouldn't have signed it, but with all politics, deals are born. Democrat or Republican. Clinton let labor down on that one and if you can't see that then you are being intellectually dishonest. The only president that has stopped alot of this mess is Obama. Bush's Korean free trade act sucked monstrously but Obama canned it. Getting 700 Korean car imports with only 1 american export sucked under Bush. I don't wear party tags so I'm free to say that Clinton blew it on NAFTA and Bush sucked bigtime on the KFTA. regards,

Tim I am sure you have seen enough 700's post to know that in his world anything Democrat is great while anything Republican is bad while rational people know there are good and bad on both sides of the asle