ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
Jimmy,I really hate even chiming in here anymore-----but, I still can't figure out why anyone-(Union/Negotiating Team) would in their right mind agree to the amount of outsourcing of jobs while getting nothing in return that the IAM has, and it seems they just did it yet again at UA----It's so overwhelmingly obvious what this company exploited from the US/AWA transition Agreement over the last several years in terms of job losses--- what good is making any kind of $$$$ if none of us have jobs in the end!!!!
I'm with you Ograc----and have felt this way for a long time-----there are no good feelings with the IAM and or the merger here !!!!
It's encouraging you and hopefully others see the shortcomings, many labor organizations, have demonstrated regarding this issue. Historically, the paramount issue of labor, has been the preservation of members' jobs. Unfortunately, many unions have failed in achieving this recently. Agreeing to contractual language that allows companies, such as UA and US, to carry out their anti-union agendas. I have my own opinions concerning what has derailed some unions from this fundamental duty... but more on that later. IMO... if unions continue to agree, and be party to, eliminating their members' jobs they have pretty much sealed their long term fate. As stated before... It's getting hard to determine which party, the company or the union, has less regard for the members' interests and livelihoods.