April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[john john]

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

The Company may contract out work to outside vendors at the followingairports: Austin (AUS), Boston (BOS), Baltimore-Washington (BWI), Cleveland (CLE),
Washington National (DCA), Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), Fort Lauderdale (FLL), Guam
(GUM), Honolulu (HNL), New York Kennedy (JFK), Las Vegas (LAS), New York
LaGuardia (LGA), Orlando (MCO), Minneapolis (MSP), New Orleans (MSY), Portland
(PDX), Philadelphia (PHL), Phoenix (PHX), Pittsburgh (PIT), San Diego (SAN), Seattle
(SEA), Orange County (SNA), and Tampa (TPA).

 

[cltrat]

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)?!

Roa, I know you have a personal vendetta on Nelson but you may want to put aside the blinders and consider he may be right on this. Or at least ask Towbar he seems like he works there.
I don't think it says anything about our nc per say but it sure looks ike the DL is a bit out of touch on this. They even put a full page ad in their rag.(I hate to call it a newsletter) telling everyone how great it was, when even Stevi Wonder could look over it and see what a piece of crap it is, Now the talk of just redressing it and changing how members vote on it in hopes that it will pass is frankly disgusting.

I believe I am correct in saying the in surveys taken by the union before contract talks began, that scope was the most important item listed.
I also believe I am right in saying that if the scope in ours is anything like that mess at UA most members at US would consider it a slap in the face.

 

[cltrat]

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

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

if you think about it from their point of view it makes sense.
Both unions save the time and expense of a card drive and both unions et to keep what means the most to any union, dues paying members.

It would also probably at least delay a card drive on AA property by another union (ibt?) the appears dislike of the TWU is high enough there that at some point someone will give it a try.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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)

Roabilly, I don't want to be any trouble for you but if you make a statement on this board then I think it is reasonable to challenge it without you getting all snotty. In regards to your post #438, you explicitly mentioned you remember reading 'small' stations had some sorta headcount protections. I asked you to clarify that and since you made the statement, the onus was upon you to prove it. Unfortunately, what you quoted above was for the 7 large hubs and had nothing to do with any small stations. In fact, the 65 small stations didn't even make any list. At any rate, those headcount protections you cited were for non core work at 7 stations. As an example, in ORD our members at United do the deicing. It just means they can contract out deicing and absorb those employees in the headcount. Less work, less jobs. You know how this goes. As far as me blaming the District leadership for the United TA, why wouldn't anyone? Am I missing something or are you going to ascribe that blame to me as well? Unlimited part time, unlimited split shifts, abolishment of free health care, that according to the contract could spike to $278 a month then up to a 9% increase per year, scope for only 7 stations, base wage rates increases of less than 1% per year on most steps for United, wage decrease for the sCO rampers who had to be 'red circled' so they wouldn't get a cut in pay. All that for an airline that reported hundreds of millions of dollars in net profits? And you want to blame Republicans for that? It is about time you 'fess up' and put some blame on the unions who have done a shitty job of taking dues and not doing their job. Sheesh! And if you refuse to connect the dots for how Parker would have used that United contract against your negotiation team then you are just being intellectually dishonest since I know you are a lot brighter than that. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.



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

Kev, back before the Northwest bankruptcy, there was the RJ 'grandfather' protection clause and that seems to be what the IAM used for the 23 stations with the Cinderella drop dead date. In BOS, HNL, CLE, and some other very large United airline stations, the company could have started contracting out work prior to the drop dead date provided it grandfathered the current bunch until 2016. So, BOS bagroom could have gotten whacked. Since there was no scope for these 23 midsize stations, I suppose it could have also had others, perhaps a supervisor, do the lead work. As an aside, the first copies of the TA that came out protected the 'core work' in the 23 stations for 3 years and my first video recognized that, BUT when the official copies of the ta came out right before the ballots, the DL141 leadership did a 'bait and switch' that eliminated the core work language. And they continued to pass out the highlight sheet that guaranteed full scope for those 23 stations for 3 years, when in fact those 23 stations had no scope whatsoever in the following language, "The company may contract out work to outside vendors at the following 23 stations..." A mess indeed with this leadership. regards,

 

[T5towbar]

Roa, I know you have a personal vendetta on Nelson but you may want to put aside the blinders and consider he may be right on this. Or at least ask Towbar he seems like he works there.
I don't think it says anything about our nc per say but it sure looks ike the DL is a bit out of touch on this. They even put a full page ad in their rag.(I hate to call it a newsletter) telling everyone how great it was, when even Stevi Wonder could look over it and see what a piece of crap it is, Now the talk of just redressing it and changing how members vote on it in hopes that it will pass is frankly disgusting.

I believe I am correct in saying the in surveys taken by the union before contract talks began, that scope was the most important item listed.
I also believe I am right in saying that if the scope in ours is anything like that mess at UA most members at US would consider it a slap in the face.

Yes I work at the "new UA". I'm sCO.
Anyway, when this TA came out, once we saw it, this thing was a failure from the get. Nothing we asked for was in it at all.
A lot of promises were made during both elections (ATW and BTW) about thing like free medical and the superior contract that the IAM provides. This was worse than FTW and our IBT contract. They just took the worst of both of them and expected us to just take it. The company knew that the IAM was weak when they didn't make a aggressive attempt to defend sCO cargo. That was the first mistake. Second was the giving up the metal. So they picked and picked at the negotiators until the company got nearly what they wanted. So we wound up with this POS. They think that we are that stupid?

IMHO, This failure started because the IAM filed for single carrier before getting something for the sUA members first. Instead of chasing after the dues, they should have done like all the other workgroups and got something for sUA before going into joint talks since we (sCO ramp) already had a contract till 2013. The MX; the FA's and the pilots got something before going into joint talks. During the election, they laughed at our 10.5 percent raise, but we knew that our contract was bad. It was better to have something in the merger instead of nothing. There are some protections in it, but way not enough. Like our people upstairs which are in limbo right now. They are not members yet and are working under FTW.

Bottom line, none of this looks good for any of us............

 

[mike33]

It would also probably at least delay a card drive on AA property by another union (ibt?) the appears dislike of the TWU is high enough there that at some point someone will give it a try.

Read this article that addresses what a few unions, the Teamsters, and a few employers are proposing. I believe the IAM is a little ahead of the game when it comes to Pensions. Freedom, for your reading pleasure.............

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pension-law-proposal-would-hit-some-retirees-2013-04-15?siteid=yhoof2

 

[mike33]

Yes I work at the "new UA". I'm sCO.
Anyway, when this TA came out, once we saw it, this thing was a failure from the get. Nothing we asked for was in it at all.
A lot of promises were made during both elections (ATW and BTW) about thing like free medical and the superior contract that the IAM provides. This was worse than FTW and our IBT contract. They just took the worst of both of them and expected us to just take it. The company knew that the IAM was weak when they didn't make a aggressive attempt to defend sCO cargo. That was the first mistake. Second was the giving up the metal. So they picked and picked at the negotiators until the company got nearly what they wanted. So we wound up with this POS. They think that we are that stupid?

IMHO, This failure started because the IAM filed for single carrier before getting something for the sUA members first. Instead of chasing after the dues, they should have done like all the other workgroups and got something for sUA before going into joint talks since we (sCO ramp) already had a contract till 2013. The MX; the FA's and the pilots got something before going into joint talks. During the election, they laughed at our 10.5 percent raise, but we knew that our contract was bad. It was better to have something in the merger instead of nothing. There are some protections in it, but way not enough. Like our people upstairs which are in limbo right now. They are not members yet and are working under FTW.

Bottom line, none of this looks good for any of us............

This is why a contract before the merge is so important for us at US........All membership should be reminded of this consistantly on a daily bases so when the managers have their conference Poop-Paa's it will be reverberated to something more than a whisper!

 

[roabilly]

Roa, I know you have a personal vendetta on Nelson but you may want to put aside the blinders and consider he may be right on this. Or at least ask Towbar he seems like he works there.
I don't think it says anything about our nc per say but it sure looks ike the DL is a bit out of touch on this. They even put a full page ad in their rag.(I hate to call it a newsletter) telling everyone how great it was, when even Stevi Wonder could look over it and see what a piece of crap it is, Now the talk of just redressing it and changing how members vote on it in hopes that it will pass is frankly disgusting.

I believe I am correct in saying the in surveys taken by the union before contract talks began, that scope was the most important item listed.
I also believe I am right in saying that if the scope in ours is anything like that mess at UA most members at US would consider it a slap in the face.

Rat-- Actually, I don’t have a vendetta against Nelson in the “flesh and blood”… I have vendetta against the Nelson Doctrine. Specifically, his lifelong ideology that everything wrong with the Organized Labor sector is corrupt, inept, and impotent leadership. You said in an earlier post that you don’t believe everything you see or hear… my suggestion is to apply that to all sources of information. Every action in this Industry is driven by a common influence… (hint) it rhymes with funny.. but ain’t funny when those with the most of it control the majority of everything you hear!

 

[roabilly]

Yes I work at the "new UA". I'm sCO.
Anyway, when this TA came out, once we saw it, this thing was a failure from the get. Nothing we asked for was in it at all.
A lot of promises were made during both elections (ATW and BTW) about thing like free medical and the superior contract that the IAM provides. This was worse than FTW and our IBT contract. They just took the worst of both of them and expected us to just take it. The company knew that the IAM was weak when they didn't make a aggressive attempt to defend sCO cargo. That was the first mistake. Second was the giving up the metal. So they picked and picked at the negotiators until the company got nearly what they wanted. So we wound up with this POS. They think that we are that stupid?

IMHO, This failure started because the IAM filed for single carrier before getting something for the sUA members first. Instead of chasing after the dues, they should have done like all the other workgroups and got something for sUA before going into joint talks since we (sCO ramp) already had a contract till 2013. The MX; the FA's and the pilots got something before going into joint talks. During the election, they laughed at our 10.5 percent raise, but we knew that our contract was bad. It was better to have something in the merger instead of nothing. There are some protections in it, but way not enough. Like our people upstairs which are in limbo right now. They are not members yet and are working under FTW.

Bottom line, none of this looks good for any of us............

The solution is in the Membership’s (Your) hands… this is actually how the process is supposed to work… You vote NO collectively, until you feel the agreement is worth living under for 4 to 6 years!

 

[700UW]

If everyone puts away their bias, and look at Nelson's behavior over the past 20 years, you will know exactly why roabilly calls him out all the time.

 

[Tim Nelson]

If everyone puts away their bias, and look at Nelson's behavior over the past 20 years, you will know exactly why roabilly calls him out all the time.

My behavior is readily accessible, an open book if you will. Yet, tell me 700, why was I working on the IAM payroll until about 1.5 years ago?? I mean, if I'm who Roabily says and if I hate organized labor then why in God's creation would they have put their airline membership in my hands? Why would Robert Roach have stood up at the Local Chairman conference and thanked me in April 2011? Why would the US AIRWAYS hubs all nominate me over the establishment if the last 20 years accused me? The only ones who have accused me and tried to place me in the witness stand are those firmly entrenched in the establishment and they have been accusing me along the way. Is it wrong for me to come to the necessary conclusion after reviewing the evidence that the previous IAM leader sucked bad, and unfortunately, the new one who we gave a shot reeked even worse? I only need to use their contracts as witness against them for any logical and reasonable member to make the same determination. regards,

 

[700UW]

FSU

AGW

Dual Unionism

File short on cards

Encouraged a slow down on the big picture

Try to sell your name list to the ibt for a job

try to raid the twu at AA also

Removed from grievance committee

You are the one who campaigned for Delaney, O'Donnell and the rest you complain about.

 

[Tim Nelson]

FSU

AGW

Dual Unionism

File short on cards

Encouraged a slow down on the big picture

Try to sell your name list to the ibt for a job

try to raid the twu at AA also

Removed from grievance committee

You are the one who campaigned for Delaney, O'Donnell and the rest you complain about.

The question remains, why was I working for the IAM until 1.5 years ago? Didn't they have access to my history? I myself have no problem with my history nor being a member in bad standing. Clearly the membership and the IAM didn't have a problem with my history. As witnessed with nominations, I got the unanimous nomination support from each US AIRWAYS Hub Local and they knew I was a member in bad standing as well. I stand on those nominations as my witness, and stand on my incredible success while on the IAM dime as my witness. Feel free to comment on any ways in which I let the IAM down when the members paid me, and if there was anything that I didn't deliver that I promised, please chime in. regards,

 

[roabilly]

My behavior is readily accessible, an open book if you will. Yet, tell me 700, why was I working on the IAM payroll until about 1.5 years ago?? I mean, if I'm who Roabily says and if I hate organized labor then why in God's creation would they have put their airline membership in my hands? Why would Robert Roach have stood up at the Local Chairman conference and thanked me in April 2011? Why would the US AIRWAYS hubs all nominate me over the establishment if the last 20 years accused me? The only ones who have accused me and tried to place me in the witness stand are those firmly entrenched in the establishment and they have been accusing me along the way. Is it wrong for me to come to the necessary conclusion after reviewing the evidence that the previous IAM leader sucked bad, and unfortunately, the new one who we gave a shot reeked even worse? I only need to use their contracts as witness against them for any logical and reasonable member to make the same determination. regards,

My guess is this-- They were fully aware that your active drive in the 08 elections had a tremendous influence, and cemented many newly awarded positions. Just a reminder… the Membership was ripe for this due to the crappy T/A, and years of BK abuse. We could have run a rhesus monkey against Canale and took the District!

I’m also guessing-- that they gave you chance in return for your efforts, by awarding you a position in the District. What happened after that…I have NO clue… but, obviously you either left the position, or was asked to leave the position for a reason?!

I’m also am guessing there is now bad blood somewhere in mix, as you now have an even deeper disdain than ever for the Leadership of the 141!