Bob Owens - Posted: Feb 7 2004, 12:08 PM
UT:
Dont you understand? Thats all they have. They have been lying for so long that is all they know. They cant stick to the facts because if they do they would have to back AMFA.
Bob,
As you know, I understand only too well.
This mirrors the same disinformational bantering and lies that happened with us.
Sometimes I felt like we should be paying them to post as their lies and deceit destroyed their credibility far more than we ever could. Just sit back and wait for them to put their foot in their mouth and throw a little ‘TRUTH’ back at them. They’ll do the rest.
Have the AFL-CIO thugs showed up at your gates yet?
Good luck on your fight for AMFA representation.
mojo13 - Posted: Feb 7 2004, 02:21 PM
I was told that the engine work was warranty work and not covered under the IAM's scope. So that would mean that they never lost it because they never had it. It would appear to me that AMFA did not keep it when the warranty period expired and has lost it to outsourcing, am I wrong?
Mojo13,
Yes, you are incorrect. The ‘warranty’ period was for three years.
First A320 purchased by UAL in 1993. 1993 + 3 = 1996
We should have begun ‘tooling’ up for the work in 1996/1997, however this did not happen.
UAL continued to outsource the V2500 uncontested by the IAM.
Since AMFA won the election for representation in July, 2003 (hardly 8 months ago)
I can’t see how this situation can be blamed on AMFA, can you?
:huh:
Leading Edge - Posted: Feb 7 2004, 03:52 PM
Does anyone know if this is true about the farmed out work at united airlines?Did the iam really negotiate the exclusion of heavy overhaul from the scope agreements before leaving?If this is true then why is twu telling us that amfa is the problem?I just want the truth so I can understand and decide which union is best.
Thanks for anyone who can help clear up the confusion that is now out there.
Leading Edge,
Here is the ‘TRUTH’, Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.
RestructuringAmendment141M.pdf
Excerpt: Page #7 & 8
Job Security
and Scope
Revise Article II-D (restriction on contracting out no more than 20% of all
maintenance work) to provide that ( a ) the Company may contract out the work
of heavy maintenance visits2 without restriction and ( b ) the Company may
contract out up to 20% of all remaining maintenance work as currently
measured by the sum of the annual budget. Article IV-B will also be revised to
provide that IAM inspectors will perform oversight inspection at any location
where United’s heavy maintenance is performed, applying Company standards
and subject to Company review.
Revise Article II-D to read:
D. The Company may contract out the work of heavy maintenance visits (as
defined by current Company practices consistent with AOP and MOP
guidelines) without restriction. Additionally, the Company may contract out up
to 20% of all remaining maintenance work annually as measured by the sum of
the Maintenance Operations Division's gross annual budget, excluding the cost
of heavy maintenance visits, plus those portions of stations' total gross annual
budgets attributable to building maintenance and ground equipment
maintenance, provided however this percentage may be exceeded in the event
the Company has fully utilized its existing equipment or facilities.
Eliminate Articles II-E (Mechanics and FTI) and Article II-D (MI) that restrict the
outsourcing of work that results in the layoff of any IAM-represented employee.
Revise Article II-F to allow the Company to dispose of its Oakland and
Indianapolis maintenance facilities while preserving the protection of the San
Francisco Maintenance Center. Add language permitting a joint venture with a
third party to provide capital improvements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this clears the air.
The 'TRUTH' is out there if you look for it!!!
Take Care,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bcee8/bcee848f7f56307b44f58867b24ca81b3161c965" alt="up :up: :up:"
UAL_TECH