Get Ready....system Furlough To Begin In July

[JungleClone]

It would appear that we are gearing up for another system furlough to begin as early as next month. I've heard from a friend in the know at WHQ that all full-time open requisitions for the CS classification have been put on hold per a directive from Labor Relations due to an upcoming system furlough. So, with no considerable downsizing of flying expected that means the same number of flights and system furlough. So that sounds like more outsourcing. This could confirm rumors amongst many IAM PCE folks that the new contract will contain language enabling the company to eliminate many full time positions and/or outsource thousands more jobs at line stations.

I believe that the IAM never intended to strike because there was a handshake agreement behind the scenes. Why do I think this? Because the company had no plan in place for a strike. If they did, it sure wasn't well communicated to those beyond WHQ. For a company to not have a plausible plan to deal with a possible IAM strike, that tells me that some sort of agreement was in place to ensure a strike did not happen. I believe Tilton and Canale had a wink-wink agreement that United would allow the IAM to posture publicly in order to save face with their members and that at the very last moment, they'd announce an agreement. But where is the agreement? If the IAM was so intent on striking without a consensual agreement they felt was fair, than how is it that they agreed to the "framework" of a deal, even though the financial due diligence to reach an actual agreement was nowhere in sight? Sounds like they caved like a $2 lawnchair to me, which just proves my point all along that the IAM did not have the stones to strike UA because they knew it would bring down the company for good. I'm not so sure they really were interested in losing tens of thousands of more dues paying members.

 

[mrfish3726]

It wouldn’t be the first time that the IAM had an agreement in place that would have significant effects on fellow employees to include furloughs! I remember YOU senior mechanics voting on that when they closed OAK and IND, SO DONâ€￾T ACT SOOOO SURPRISED!!!!

 

[UseYourHead]

Did you read the financial press concerning labor actions at UAL? I think LIQUIDATION was the plan with a meltdown of this degree.

Your leadership I would hope saw that and took the prudent course.

BTW, deals behind closed doors are illegal, and those at the IAM have nothing to gain from involvement in something like that.

Could it be that the leadership had the courage to do the next tough choice?

It would appear that we are gearing up for another system furlough to begin as early as next month. I've heard from a friend in the know at WHQ that all full-time open requisitions for the CS classification have been put on hold per a directive from Labor Relations due to an upcoming system furlough. So, with no considerable downsizing of flying expected that means the same number of flights and system furlough. So that sounds like more outsourcing. This could confirm rumors amongst many IAM PCE folks that the new contract will contain language enabling the company to eliminate many full time positions and/or outsource thousands more jobs at line stations.

I believe that the IAM never intended to strike because there was a handshake agreement behind the scenes. Why do I think this? Because the company had no plan in place for a strike. If they did, it sure wasn't well communicated to those beyond WHQ. For a company to not have a plausible plan to deal with a possible IAM strike, that tells me that some sort of agreement was in place to ensure a strike did not happen. I believe Tilton and Canale had a wink-wink agreement that United would allow the IAM to posture publicly in order to save face with their members and that at the very last moment, they'd announce an agreement. But where is the agreement? If the IAM was so intent on striking without a consensual agreement they felt was fair, than how is it that they agreed to the "framework" of a deal, even though the financial due diligence to reach an actual agreement was nowhere in sight? Sounds like they caved like a $2 lawnchair to me, which just proves my point all along that the IAM did not have the stones to strike UA because they knew it would bring down the company for good. I'm not so sure they really were interested in losing tens of thousands of more dues paying members.

[post="276622"][/post]​

 

[scuba]

How much more could it change. As of the 2003-2009 IAM PCE Contract, the company had the right according to Article 2, Paragraph C, Section 6 to contract out any work that they want to provided they could prove that no employee covered by this agreement as of January 26, 1994.

Therefore, what is the point? If memory serves correct, at least 1/3 of the CSR rank was post-esop, (the above date) therefore 1 in 3 CSR's could be out the door with or without the new contract.

In an environment where seniority dictates pay, and thus dictates who gets let go, you can let all the low $ people go and at the end of the day you are not going to make a huge difference on total payroll without some major downsizing of your staff, major paycuts, (in excess of 25%) or buyouts. I doubt UA is going to offer anybody a buyout , I don't see the CSR's taking another 25% paycut, (making top out pay around $14.75), I don't see the CSR's agreeing to paying for 50% of their insurance, so the only choice the company really has in order to cut the payroll of CSR's by the amount they want is to outsource the jobs. :down:

 

[Taipan]

not sure if its true had an employee (csr) get a transfer to midwest station, fulltime yesterday, report date early jul.