Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines
- Thread starter Socplat13
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iam tim nelson united
- Status
A new provision within the current tentative agreement would allow District 141 the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of each effected station to explore ways to keep the stations operating with IAM represented United employees. Our intent, upon ratification of the agreement, is to call for these discussions to begin immediately, prior to November 15th, and apply this new language to the currently impacted stations. Members are encouraged to thoughtfully examine their options and choose the one that works best for them and their families.
You are so right
You do know this quote from your web site
http://www.contract.iam141.org/
"Members in TUS, CVG, ROC, ALB, MDT, and GRR received their option forms for reduction in force due to the contracting out of these stations, planned for November 15, 2013. A new provision within the current tentative agreement would allow District 141 the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of each effected station to explore ways to keep the stations operating with IAM represented United employees. Our intent, upon ratification of the agreement, is to call for these discussions to begin immediately, prior to November 15th, and apply this new language to the currently impacted stations. Members are encouraged to thoughtfully examine their options and choose the one that works best for them and their families."
So new provision within the current tentative agreement only pertains to those stations and not future outsource stations
Tim Nelson
Veteran
700UW, he is talking about the new provision that circumvents a systemwide vote when wages and benefits are negotiated downward. The new provision in TA2 says something like the IAM will have the right to have a exclusive vote at each affected station where 66 2/3% vote for the lower wages/benefits.
At November 1, if ratified, $24 will mean $12 anywhere where the company pins the tail on the donkey and cries 'swissport', and IAM141 comes to the rescue. Such 'mini negotiatins' will have no leverage since the leverage was greater with 30,000 'all in', as opposed to mini concessionary talks ready to commence in renegotiations after a ratification. That's how awful this TA is, they have to go in a second time and take what was just given to any station where the management wolf cries, 'Swissport". 700, that is regarding mainline work. Remember, only 7 stations have scope.
Kev3188
Veteran
There's a link to it off of the 141 page...
OP
Socplat13
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2013
- 101
- 42
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #461
Not true. Being that 96% of the entire group cannot be furloughed due to outsourcing it places a hard cap on UA's ability to outsource. For example, over 26,000 out of 28,000 cannot be laid-off. If employees in a station that does get outsourced choose to want to negotiate terms that keep them in that station/location they can do so. If the employees agree by a two thirds vote to stay, they can. If they choose not to they can exercise on the system.
Little man, stop fear mongering. This gives people more options, more choice to stay in a location. Right now, they have no choice. All UAX, then pack your bags. Now they'll have a chance.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
They should be very fearful of this. There is no cap on anything other than a seniority protection that gives most members a chance for ord, ewr, or furlough. Yes the company can. Your anti union ta doesnt protect scope but in 7 stations so yes the company can. Btw pce has had 1994 protections for any reason but 15,000 decided to take furlough. Same at usairways as we have 1999 protections but most in buf decided to take furlough. Scope in only 7 stations will mean that you will be necessarily be contracting out jobs to yourself.
OP
Socplat13
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2013
- 101
- 42
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #464
You are wrong, once again. You forget that 67% of the entire United flight schedule is UAX which is completely unprotected. If the proposed contract is ratified, UA cannot outsource work that would affect anyone senior to 4/1/2006. That's called a hard cap on what can be outsourced. They cannot fit over 26,000 employees into 7 stations. Just can't happen.
You also disregard that in 23 other stations no employee can be displaced from their location due to outsourcing well past the amendable date. You are lying to people.
The vast majority of the PCE group came from city ticket offices and air freight facilities. Those people could not bump into the classifications that were left. You really should get your facts straight.
There are probably around 60 stations that have two or less mainline flights today. With the 175s coming online, and UA being nowhere near the pilot cap on UAX flying, many of those people and stations are at risk. Under this contract, however, even if all those mainline flights are replaced by UAX 175s, the Company still needs to find jobs for 96% of the workforce. What that means is many IAM-represented workers will be in stations that are all UAX. Never done before. It's not bad job security because you don't understand it.
By the way, why did you lie on facebook the other day claiming your US Airways Fleet contract protects all the express flying at US Airways? Your a bald faced liar and extremely dangerous because you twist the facts.
Kev3188
Veteran
Instead of these ad hominem attacks, why not help him-and us- "understand" and post the full text language?
Does this UAX language cover specific airplane types? A seat count? Anything over a certain MTOW?
If a station should go all UAX, how does the alleged language specifically protect one from being forced to exercise onto the system?
- Status
