April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[Harry Callahan]

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

That's where I'm always coming from.

 

[700UW]

The facts are Bush proposed it, negotiated and signed it, the Senate ratified it after Clinton had negotiated labor protections in it and signed it after ratification.

 

[ograc]

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!

The demand in future negotiations should be an across the board "no out-sourcing". Otherwise, the company reduces your numbers, which in turn reduces your leverage in future contract negotiations. Until the members in the hubs realize the importance of this issue... the union leadership will continue to lose leverage in negotiations and their ability to duly represent. What is most troubling to me is our leadership doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of preserving existing union represented jobs either. Based on the UA TA... they seem quite comfortable conceding existing represented work and jobs. As stated before... It's getting hard to determine which party has less regard for the livelihoods and futures of the members in the outline stations.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The demand in future negotiations should be an across the board "no out-sourcing". Otherwise, the company reduces your numbers, which in turn reduces your leverage in future contract negotiations. Until the members in the hubs realize the importance of this issue... the union leadership will continue to lose leverage in negotiations and their ability to duly represent. What is most troubling to me is our leadership doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of preserving existing union represented jobs either. Based on the UA TA... they seem quite comfortable conceding existing represented work and jobs. As stated before... It's getting hard to determine which party has less regard for the livelihoods and futures of the members in the outline stations.

CWA represents members in most of the airports if not all. The IAM coughed up mainline express and I haven't a clue why. Something should have been negotiated to preserve those stations. There is no reason why fleet service shouldn't increase scope. None. regards,

 

[cltrat]

no ideal where the truth lies but I have heard speculation more than once that the IAM and TWU would get in bed together on fleet in this merger.

 

[robbedagain]

cltrat ive long been hearing that too and that they would be on par similar to say the afa-cwa only time will tell what will actually occur

 

[roabilly]

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 actually originated in the George H. W. Bush years and was finished in the Clinton years. The legislation had already been in the works since the mid 80's by Republican Lobbyist under the George H. Bush administration. It was dumped into Bill Clinton's lap with all the obligations and "back room" dealing signed and agreed to by Bush!

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200.The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

Essentially, Republicans masterminded it, and a Republican majority in congress passed it! It really wasn't the main "Outsourcing Bill" anyway... it had nothing to do with China or india. It was supposed to free up trade relations with the US, Mexico, and Canada.

Outsourcing saw it's true beggining in the Nixon administration... but that's off topic...

 

[roabilly]

OK Nelson… since you obviously want to challenge my assumptions (not assertions) you may do so. As I wrote to towbar, I was looking for more information-- I also clearly stated I had read only part of the UA T/A. The reason I read even that much was, I was looking for the supposed buyout language on a member’s smart phone over his shoulder at work… I use an antiquated jitterbug flip phone w/o internet access... so I couldn't look for myself!

Why don’t you post the language that you are referring to here? I’m sure you have it in PDF.
Does the outsourcing language contain any job protections? What are the details? Are the effected stations CO or UA?

 

[roabilly]

no ideal where the truth lies but I have heard speculation more than once that the IAM and TWU would get in bed together on fleet in this merger.

That's been circulating through the rumor mill... we'll see!

 

[roabilly]

The demand in future negotiations should be an across the board "no out-sourcing". Otherwise, the company reduces your numbers, which in turn reduces your leverage in future contract negotiations. Until the members in the hubs realize the importance of this issue... the union leadership will continue to lose leverage in negotiations and their ability to duly represent. What is most troubling to me is our leadership doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of preserving existing union represented jobs either. Based on the UA TA... they seem quite comfortable conceding existing represented work and jobs. As stated before... It's getting hard to determine which party has less regard for the livelihoods and futures of the members in the outline stations.

I agree Cargo... More jobs equals more Members! The math is simple... more Members-- more finacial leverage at the table!

 

[roabilly]

OK, Nelson, sometimes you are more friggin’ trouble than you are worth! Anyway… I found what I was looking at a few weeks ago at work… I remember he was on the 141 site looking through a PDF file of the UA T/A… I’m old… but I still have reasonable cognizance and retention. Here is the Language I read… are there any further articles that augment or disassemble this language? (See below)

F. Job Security

1. Contracting Out of Core Work

a. The Company will not contract out to outside vendor(s) the “core” work
currently performed by Fleet Service employees at the following airports: Denver
(DEN), Newark (EWR), Washington Dulles (IAD), Houston (IAH), Los Angeles (LAX),
Chicago (ORD), and San Francisco (SFO). The core work of Fleet Service employees
generally consists of: loading, stowing, unloading, and pick-up and delivery, to and from
mainline aircraft, of cargo, including mail, express, baggage, freight, Company material,
and the preparation of records in connection therewith; the operation of automotive and
other ramp equipment for servicing aircraft, not including the operation of movable or
telescoping passenger loading devices attached to terminal buildings; and may include
preparing or helping in the preparation of loading plans, maintaining the ramp area and
equipment in a clean, presentable condition and other general ramp service work,
scanning of bags and materials, receipt and dispatch of aircraft, recognized move team
duties, and bag room activity.

b. Non-core work currently performed by Fleet Service employees at these
airports may be contracted out, provided it does not directly cause a reduction-in-force
for employees employed as of the Effective Date of this Agreement at the airport(s)
where the contracting out occurs.

Further, here is the link... UA T/A


P.S. I guess I should check the 141 site more often… I found the information on the buyouts! Towbar was correct… it is NOT part of the T/A… looks more like an LOA contingent on ratification of all contracts prior to April 1st with tons of hoops to jump through (Ain't gonna happen)… (Buyout link)

 

[necigrad]

Supposedly the whole scope protection logic for UA was that it was a huge increase on the number of protected jobs compared to what's there currently. I have no idea if that's true, not quite accurate, or an out and out lie. On the flip side I really don't care either. I don't work for UA and don't plan to.

 

[roabilly]

Supposedly the whole scope protection logic for UA was that it was a huge increase on the number of protected jobs compared to what's there currently. I have no idea if that's true, not quite accurate, or an out and out lie. On the flip side I really don't care either. I don't work for UA and don't plan to.

I hear yah Grad…

The whole reason we got onto this UA T/A stuff to begin with, is that Nelson is using it as ammunition against the Leadership of the 141. His whole argument is that the UA T/A was rejected due to blatant disregard for Membership Job Protection. I suppose his next argument would be to link this to any forthcoming agreements on our side. In actuality, I’m just trying to find if there is any validity to his argument(s)… and if so… what are the contractual articles that support his argument(s)?!

 

[Kev3188]

b. Non-core work currently performed by Fleet Service employees at these
airports may be contracted out, provided it does not directly cause a reduction-in-force
for employees employed as of the Effective Date of this Agreement at the airport(s)
where the contracting out occurs.

They'll just do it by attrition. Or, maybe they'll do like DL does, and outsource parts of the operation (deicing, bagroom, whatever) as they get room to do so at a given point. Either way, scope/job protection gets steadily eroded, and that doesn't even take into account the cities that would've had zero protection from Day One, or the 12/31/16 "drop dead" date for the majority of the rest.

On the flip side I really don't care either. I don't work for UA and don't plan to.

I hear ya, but maybe you should? Things in one carrier's CBA have an odd way of popping up in another's...

 

[john john]

If you exclusively perform the work put it in writing
Why cherry pick