Tim, I have been painfully honest with fleet service over the past 6 months and I will continue to do so in this post. I will try to incorporate both of your post under this post. I appreciate the fact that you know I would support a rejection if that was the way the membership chose to go. I would actually admire it if fleet service made it through the risk associated with possibly causing your airline to lose its merger partner. But this whole vote is a direct result of the United merger. Your company had no intentions of negotiating if not for the M & A environment that is being forced on this industry.
Before I answer your questions, I will clarify my position. This tentative is not something to be proud of and it will be used as leverage against our United Airline brothers and sisters when they come to the table in 2009. That's not a proud thing to say but it is what it is because the alternative might be no merger and both airlines in chapter 7.
I have been in this business a long time and I believe that United airlines is not in position to pay fleet service the wages that your merger protections spell out. I also doubt United airlines would want to staff the small west stations or even keep PHX and LAS as hubs. So without a contract ratification, United may think twice about investing in US AIRWAYS. I also believe your company is not a stand alone company and a rejection of this contract will seriously impact 8,000 housholds who may be out of a job. Then where does that leave everyone, at the Lowes unemployment line?
Only a merger makes sense for preserving the jobs of most of our members. We also have a responsibility to make sure those employers who employ our members stay in business. Mergers are never friendly to labor and we realize the ramifications that United may seriously scale back the west side of US AIRWAYS and that a reduced capacity may mean job cuts everywhere, but, the alternative to a merger may mean that neither PHX, LAS, PHL, or CLT are hubs since chapter 7 may very well be around the corner with oil at record highs, stock very low, and other airlines going bankrupt. Does a yes vote make sense yet under these very real circumstances? It makes perfect sense to me to preserve 6,000 households instead of throwing all 8,000 under the Nelson vote no bus.
Now, hypothetically, if I were as smart as you and knew that the United merger and its announcement wasn't being held up by the outcome of this vote, then I'd answer that I would vote no if I could vote.
I'm being fair to your question Tim so don't take this out of context when you know I do not believe a United merger will take place with a rejection. That's all I can say on this matter.
The reason I would vote no is that it would allow fleet service to keep things open where fleet can continue to be a participant at the table during the merger. A ratification will lock fleet service in and silence fleet service for the immediate future. Your ratified contract would then present itself as an annoyance as it will no doubt be used by United as leverage against us when we open up traditional bargaining in 2009 for our United members. However, not in any case do I agree with you that United will shelve US AIRWAYS fleet service until 2016. It's all about M & A activity Tim, you must recognize this. None of us are saying we are thrilled with this tentative but the risks to 8,000 households if United walks away is very real. You don't seem to indicate this as a very real possibility and I think that is unwise.
Again, my positon is that a rejection of this contract may force United to rethink a merger. I think that is a very real possibility that our members must give serious thought to when they chose on May 8th.
District Force,
thanks for your candidness. I also heard that Canale backtracked, while down in LAS, from the 'just shove the west under the east' garbage he was spreading. As with our previous discussions and emails, you know I disagree with you about United backing out, not that I want a merger myself. IMO, I think United needs this more than US AIRWAYS but Darth Parker would do anything so he can get that 200% extra bonus he just signed if we are the number 1 or 2 airline.
At any rate, I truly understand trying to preserve the employers of those we represent but from my perspective, as I mentioned to you privately, I am not swallowing the threat about US AIRWAYS going chapter 7. I hope you do admire us and I'm sure you will because at this point, unless something happens, I forsee at minimal a 65% No vote systemwide. I think United will still merge and I would rather be positioned where fleet service can participate in the merger, instead of being silenced for 10 years and half of us thrown under the bus.
Remember, DF, the majority of United's workers have the no-layoff guarantee [Please refer to the United Airline ramp contract that protects the rampers from layoffs, see letter 94-] so who is going to get laid off if we waive all of our merger protections and scope protections. I agree our numbers might go from 8,000 to 6,000 but if we keep our scope and merger protections it will allow us to be a player where we can negotiate a contract that provides a soft landing instead of United sticking a big 777 up our a$$es.
At this point, this vote isn't at all about the contract since it doesn't matter if it is $20 or $24hr wage if the US AIRWAYS brothers and sisters are going to get hosed over and not be able to participate in the merger, if ratified. Thankfully, everyone now knows what I knew a couple months ago and posted, that United/US AIRWAYS is going to merge. This merger talk is EVERYTHING and is at the top of priorities of why someone would vote yes or no on this contract.
A yes vote will silence fleet service for the next decade. Remember also, if your station isn't one of the 2 dozen ramp stations at United then you're not going with this merger. United PCE works the majority of the ramp stations and with this being fleet service [insert JAX, CMH, etc] you are screwed again. Don't vote to silence your vote, vote NO so you can participate and be a player at the bargaining table. The only one that will not be back to the table is Boss Canale. We will be coming for him to boot him back up to the United Airline Board of Directors......soon enough.
regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
