Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines

[john john]

><

 

[Tim Nelson]

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

It's also one reason why the foreign call centers only exist at United now. Not surprisingly, the IAM leadership agreed in the past ta that management can continue with the foreign call centers.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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

At this point, I think "Big Labor" can't be trusted by working people in America. It really doesn't matter whether IAM or TWU or CWA. Some do better than others, but those in charge really are not labor leaders. They manage entities. The AFLCIO is now trying to tie into animal rights groups. WTH?

I'm pro worker, but I also recognize that this means we must also fight when Big Labor teams up with management.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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 think if one is going to try to incorporate express work then it must be done in the context of mainline work, i.e., set mainline work at a minimum seating aircraft. Models like this already exist at US AIRWAYS. At US AIRWAYS, the ramp contract defines scope as any aircraft within US AIRWAYS, inc, that is configured with more than 69 seats. That's the model to use without the drop dead dates. Nothing is being built upon when a union just passes a TA by trading short two year terms with drop dead dates for political gain.

In fact, the 69 seats as part of scope will nip all of the CRJ76 in the bud. At any rate, makes no sense to just punt this to ALPA. BTW, United is hiring hundreds of pilots because it is adding aircraft. Leverage is on the side of he workers. We need to stop the insanity of the union leadership by building upon the current United contract instead of stripping scope from 24 of its stations, and leaving another 60+ stations with no scope.

 

[john john]

Is UA ramp and passengers service agents still in section 6 negotiations if so for how long

 

[jet job]

It is very clear Tim Nelson has very little understanding regarding collective bargaining and the interests of IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

This thread will--point by point--dismantle Nelson's positions as they relate to IAM-represented employees present condition in negotiations with United Airlines:

(1) Nelson claims that IAM District 141 is conceding "scope" protections for IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

The truth is, IAM-represented employees at United Airlines currently possess very little scope protection. Only pre-merger United ramp employees possess scope of any kind. In fact, there are presently a little over 3,000 pre-merger UA ramp employees out of a total of 6,100 that have scope protection.

While there are 29 named stations, two have closed MKE and FLL, in which only IAM-represented ramp service employees can perform MAINLINE United flights, these stations have become over the last decade largely or partially United Express stations in which the work can be contracted out.

All other pre-merger Continental--Fleet and ASA, and pre-merger United customer service work have absolutely no scope protections.

Nelson--a US Airways ramp service employee, advocates that thousands of IAM-represented employees at United without absolutely no protection vote against protecting their jobs because he would like to see the IAM fail at United so he can personally benefit politically.

I challenge Nelson to debate me regarding any and all issues relating to job security at United Airlines. I doubt he will because he never stands up to a challenge of wits. He'd rather spend his time in the sphere of the nitwit.

Lets keep on task. The question at hand is N-E-L-s-O-n

 

[700UW]

I guess you still dont realize US has at least one if not more call centers in Europe, which isnt covered under the CWA CBA.

Also when US closed the one in Manilla and San Salvador, they didnt bring all the jobs back to the US, they still had a several hundred job loss from that.

 

[john john]

Bottom line when somebody calls USAirways reservations they get a USAirways passenger service employee
UA not so much. IAM needs to get this work

 

[Kev3188]

I think if one is going to try to incorporate express work then it must be done in the context of mainline work, i.e., set mainline work at a minimum seating aircraft. Models like this already exist at US AIRWAYS. At US AIRWAYS, the ramp contract defines scope as any aircraft within US AIRWAYS, inc, that is configured with more than 69 seats. That's the model to use without the drop dead dates. Nothing is being built upon when a union just passes a TA by trading short two year terms with drop dead dates for political gain.

In fact, the 69 seats as part of scope will nip all of the CRJ76 in the bud. At any rate, makes no sense to just punt this to ALPA. BTW, United is hiring hundreds of pilots because it is adding aircraft. Leverage is on the side of he workers. We need to stop the insanity of the union leadership by building upon the current United contract instead of stripping scope from 24 of its stations, and leaving another 60+ stations with no scope.

The stronger the language, the better. I'd go with "any jet powered A/C," but a well written seat limit works,too. My concern is that 69 seats leaves too much wiggle room, and a station close to the edge might see a lot of CRJ-200's all of a sudden....

 

[WorldTraveler]

Tim,
UA is not going to add all of those new aircraft to its fleet... they have already said they will remove most of the PMUA 757s in just the next few years. The A320s are probably not far behind. The 744s a 763s along with alot of the PMUA 777s will likely be replaced by the massive amount of widebody aircraft UA has no order. It would be great for labor to think that UA would grow mainline but there is a lot of concern that UA's mainline fleet is actually set to shrink in just the next few years.

john john,
if US has foreign call centers, is that really a US employee on the other end of the phone?

 

[Tim Nelson]

I guess you still dont realize US has at least one if not more call centers in Europe, which isnt covered under the CWA CBA.

Also when US closed the one in Manilla and San Salvador, they didnt bring all the jobs back to the US, they still had a several hundred job loss from that.

The IAM needs to get this work. What is the worth of union dues when non union delta insources their res centers, and non contract sCO insourced their call centers, but the IAM keeps flittering around allowing numorous call centers? Let's get this done and quit signing contracts that support such foolishness. John John is right.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The stronger the language, the better. I'd go with "any jet powered A/C," but a well written seat limit works,too. My concern is that 69 seats leaves too much wiggle room, and a station close to the edge might see a lot of CRJ-200's all of a sudden....

I hear ya Kev3188

 

[T5towbar]

The P.S. fleet is not going anywhere. Some of the older 757s are going to FedEx, but not the PS birds. They have lower cycles on them. The interiors of all of the Airbuses are being refurbished with bigger bins and an interior refresh. And the sCO fleet isn't that old. New 900s are coming into the fleet to replace the older 757s. They will be flown mainly by sUA pilots. (Well strike that because they are now one and will bid for flying since they have a joint agreement). Plus they ordered 50 737 MAX series. Bottom line is they recalled all of the sUA pilots, and they have to fly something, hence the scope agreements allowing the bigger RJ's. This is just the narrowbody flying alone. The.350 will replace the 747's and I guess some of the older 767's will be covered by the 787-8 and 9. So there is a fleet plan and since the pilots are the only group with a joint agreement, well they have to be taken care of.

 

[737823]

Thanks T5. I seem to recall reading comments from an earnings conference call about retiring some of the older Airbus and accelerating the sUA 757 retirements. I'll search for it and post a link, if I can find it. While all the new mainline aircraft is great, you guys still need to hold the line on scope since many markets will remain largely served by Express aircraft.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

towbar,
All of those new aircraft are not going to be delivered in the next two years which is more than long enough for the integration process for labor to be completed.

The aircraft deliveries are over nearly a period far longer than that.

Cabin refurbs for domestic a/c can be justified with less than 5 years remaining on an aircraft; int'l might be a little longer but UA is also trying to standardize its products post-merger.

UA is not going to grow its mainline fleet by hundreds of aircraft.

If you look at UA's traffic report over the past year, you will see that they are reducing mainline capacity in order to push up their RASM, which they have to do to cover the cost of their increased labor costs. UA will undoubtedly want to grow if AA/US succeed at merging but UA must be able to increase their revenues in order to justify that growth and that didn't happen for much of the time after the CO-UA merger.