I'm new to this blog normally I just go to work, do my time and go home. But the industry has changed and we must change or we will be gone. Nelson reminds me of that commercial bonjour........French model. I've been reading about him on the Internet. He is an opponent of Delaney and so he must always say NO to whatever Delaney does or says. He can never agree with Delaney or his political career is over.
Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines
- Thread starter Socplat13
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iam tim nelson united
- Status
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The last TA would not have insourced the foreign call center work as all other airlines have done. That was another disappointing thing. I'm hopeful, in any future ta that the union will be successful in bringing in all the foreign work like non union airlines, and the other unionized airlines have done.
Bankruptcy was tough on the unions for sure, but their lies about the 1113 letters and other scandals didn't help matters. It's time they focus on family rearing middle class jobs instead of replacing them with AFLCIO cheap labor [but dues paying] Piedmont ground services, and American eagle, and air willy. Disturbing indeed.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The cargo LOA wasn't necessary at all. That's why management demanded one. The Union leadership admitted that the merger protections in the Teamster contract protected cargo against the outsourcing. See the iam141 update [google] "Can't harmonize your way out of a contract". In that update, Delaney stomps his feet and claims he will arbitrate the cargo contracting out. Myself and Mitch Buckly, the LC at EWR, wrote a winnable grievance that was denied. The denial claimed that a LOA was signed by the union that prevented any grievances to be filed over the article one of the IBT agreement. Although we didn't know about the secret LOA, I have since intercepted it, and sure enough Delaney agreed to drop all grievances and to waive article 1 and future grievances.
Disturbing indeed.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
It's a domino's effect. Given the initial vulnerability, the company will shut down perhaps a couple dozen stations a year where thousands will get laid off. At US AIRWAYS, the scandalous 1999 protections allowed the company to close about 20 stations per year. But, it would get worse at United if the early out saw a few thousand members leave. Given the language of the TA1, we should conclude that those jobs will not be filled with IAM members but would also be contracted out. The only thing remaining in 82 stations would be 2 year grandfather rights for those who have remained in the 23 stations with the "Two year" drop dead grandfather rights. But then they will also be gone come next negotiations when the company can complete its plan and prepare its new negotiation proposal which reads, "Tuffa Lucka....we tricked you to make 82 stations non union, now give us 3 of the remaining 7!"
Difficult situation indeed.
Tim,
As far as you know how involved is Sito in the UA negotiations? 700 keeps saying he is a great leader and will do amazing things for the membership and to give him a chance. He has been at the helm nearly two years, brought back the worst T/A at UA. No progress whatsoever at US, ongoing negotiations at AS, what has really done as he presided over the transportation dept?
Now that Ira is promoted airline coordinator, will he have more influence over the process? He seems one the biggest proponents of this crap, based on his comments online and in the DL 141 video.
Josh
As far as you know how involved is Sito in the UA negotiations? 700 keeps saying he is a great leader and will do amazing things for the membership and to give him a chance. He has been at the helm nearly two years, brought back the worst T/A at UA. No progress whatsoever at US, ongoing negotiations at AS, what has really done as he presided over the transportation dept?
Now that Ira is promoted airline coordinator, will he have more influence over the process? He seems one the biggest proponents of this crap, based on his comments online and in the DL 141 video.
Josh
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The primary focus in negotiations needs to be to protect the 'core work', i.e., mainline first, then address express work. One additional item that I failed to mention that makes the negotiation environment even better, is the fact that United is not only making money but that it intends on expanding the mainline product.
Consider, that United's public statements say that they have 692 mainline aircraft as of its last annual report. And have Firm Order and Option Aircraft
to purchase an additional 500 mainline aircraft. I think the smallest of these is the 737 max.
That means that United has every intention to expand mainline aircraft, especially since avg age of current aircraft is only at 13 years old, replacing aircraft doesn't seem to be the great need.
Fundamentally, the union should focus on negotiating and enhancing scope for "United Airlines" first and foremost. That means keeping the core work in the 29 ramp stations at UA and taking a position to graft sCO work into it as well. Gosh forbid it eliminates the 50 year ramp contract and negotiates a new one again. Yikes!
Secondly, negotiating express work is also worthy, but coughing up 'core work' to get express work with drop dead dates makes no sense at all, especially given the environment that United expects to expand its mainline business [see 500 aircraft on order].
Let's focus and complete negotiations for "United Airline" work first, then focus on insourcing express work. Since United is expanding its core business, there is no reason to think that this good negotiation climate should mean thousands more IAM jobs if a fair ta is reached. Remember, job security is measured by the growth of a particular company, and the evidence is convincing that United wants to nearly double its mainline fleet.....but they want to do so by weakening the current scope of the IAM sUA ramp contract. We don't have to let them.
At any rate, TA1 produced no language that protects work for one single express jet after a couple years. So the half dozen LOA's signed in the last TA just piled up the BULL S higher and deeper because at the end of the day....NO EXPRESS JOB WAS PROTECTED in a couple years. So what's the fuss?
And I think that trying to incite fear by telling certain stations that united is going to pull out all mainline flights and make things express is being unfair. Where is United going to fly 1200 mainline aircraft in a few years? Are they going to ground them all because it doesnt' want to pay a ramper $26?
How does an airline pull out 1200 mainline aircraft in most stations? Sounds dumb and illogical for a airline that is growing its business by providing even more seats to its passengers in the future.
Some are concern and worry that the IAM leadership will lower the bar for future negotiations at other airlines. They have a big responsibility to get an industry-leading contract how about
Three jets a day must be work by mainline employees… Sounds like a good place to start with IAM leadership/negotiators. It’s hard to follow one of the biggest airlines with a lacking contact
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I think if one looks at everything Ira has done, one would have to say that he is incredibly pro management and has no passion or drive for working people. Starting with the terrible PCE agreement that provided no scope back in 1999 or later, that resulted in the elimination of 15,000 PCE IAM members, and ending with his failed accomplishments of creating even more job loss anti union scab contracts at United just last year.
In between, he was assigned to head up the organizing drives at United with the stews and with IAM141 ramp/PCE. He lost a very winnable stew election at sCO and lost 9,000 more members. I blasted him in person and in email that he was going to F up the United iam141 campaign. I had leverage over Roach [nuff said] and Delaney even sided with me to get Ira removed from destroying the ramp campaign. Trust me, no way was I going to allow Ira to have any responsibilities over the ramp campaign.
Sito has been unresponsive to the working people for as far as I can remember.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Presently, the ramp contract has that all ramp stations with at least one mainline is IAM work. That's the way it should be, then graft in the sCO rampers to make things 'seamless'. And Jet Jobs is correct that we should also pay attention to express work. My disagreement with Jet Jobs, Quartuccio, Bartz, and Rose Brady Cohen is that we don't need to sacrifice scope that we already have, but we should build upon it. And it makes no sense that they don't adequately address express past only two years. Makes no sense at all.
Kev3188
Veteran
Couldn't agree more.
So why is it then, that you are endorsing an NC (and organizing style) that acts as if it's still 1986?
???
Kev3188
Veteran
In this context, I think "build on it" means also crafting clear, concise language that secures Express work in addition to a mainline base.
Without that, the line station is more or less a thing of the past...
I did not know passenger service agents (above the wing) at UA had NO scope protection at all under the IAM contract NOW that is BAD! How did that happen in past IAM negotiations? It sounds like they gave up inside for outside
Interesting. I guess he is keeping the right people at the top happy. The two NTA FAs I know well did not speak highly of the IAM, particularly their experience with LL 2339N. AFA is better but they'd rather be non-union.
Josh
- Status
