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

[Socplat13]

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?

Kev,
All IAM-represented employees at UA with a seniority date of 4/1/2006 or senior cannot be involuntarily furloughed as a result of outsourcing. The language will be available after the local committees are briefed. As has been the case in the IAM.

There are currently approximately 28,000 under the three contracts. Over 26,000 have a 4/1/2006 seniority date or earlier and thousands currently perform UAX work now that is not protected. Under the proposed contract, lets say United decides to "contract out" a location that is all UAX. Currently, if that scenario occurs only sUA PCE and Ramp have language that states they cannot be laid off if they have a seniority date of 1/26/1994. If it occurs on the sCO side there is no language to protect them. Under the new contract, if UA decides to subcontract UAX work that is currently performed by IAM-represented workers that would trigger the 4/1/2006 language because it would be considered outsourcing "our" work.

The 4/1/2006 language does not have an expiration date and extends into the status quo. It will save ALOT of jobs considering 67% of United's flight schedule is UAX.

And Tim Nelson should either admit he doesn't know his current US Airways contract or lied. In either case, he should not be trusted as he has political motivations that could ultimately harm the UA membership.

 

[jet job]

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?

It has been tryed. Nelson says he speaks the truth but when you examine his body of work it is full of lies.

 

[jet job]

Nelson do you follow this saying? Make a lie big, make it simple, and keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.

 

[737823]

Why do you guys keep going after Tim? Some DL FAs got a hold of your handout calling him out and posted it on the anti-union/anti IAM DL F/A FB page. Unions silencing an opposing view....really makes the labor movement look good.

Josh

 

[Socplat13]

Why do you guys keep going after Tim? Some DL FAs got a hold of your handout calling him out and posted it on the anti-union/anti IAM DL F/A FB page. Unions silencing an opposing view....really makes the labor movement look good.

Josh

Because he's a liar. His lies and political motivations could cause great harm to UA members. How are we silencing him? Just pointing out his lies. And, by the way, you're a liar too. You said your US Airways contract has its express operation under scope. It doesn't. You're probably one of Nelson's aliases anyway.

 

[737823]

Because he's a liar. His lies and political motivations could cause great harm to UA members. How are we silencing him? Just pointing out his lies. And, by the way, you're a liar too. You said your US Airways contract has its express operation under scope. It doesn't. You're probably one of Nelson's aliases anyway.

Funny I don't work for US, and it was the CWA passenger service agreement I referenced, not the IAM fleet agreement. You must be confusing me with another one of your targets.

Josh

 

[pjirish317]

Kev,
All IAM-represented employees at UA with a seniority date of 4/1/2006 or senior cannot be involuntarily furloughed as a result of outsourcing. The language will be available after the local committees are briefed. As has been the case in the IAM.

There are currently approximately 28,000 under the three contracts. Over 26,000 have a 4/1/2006 seniority date or earlier and thousands currently perform UAX work now that is not protected. Under the proposed contract, lets say United decides to "contract out" a location that is all UAX. Currently, if that scenario occurs only sUA PCE and Ramp have language that states they cannot be laid off if they have a seniority date of 1/26/1994. If it occurs on the sCO side there is no language to protect them. Under the new contract, if UA decides to subcontract UAX work that is currently performed by IAM-represented workers that would trigger the 4/1/2006 language because it would be considered outsourcing "our" work.

The 4/1/2006 language does not have an expiration date and extends into the status quo. It will save ALOT of jobs considering 67% of United's flight schedule is UAX.

And Tim Nelson should either admit he doesn't know his current US Airways contract or lied. In either case, he should not be trusted as he has political motivations that could ultimately harm the UA membership.

Socplat13,

Let me ask you this. What do you consider "invonuntary furlough". Lets say that a UA station currently staffed with UA mainline employees is reduced to all UAX flights. The company decided to "vendor" the work out, but give the employees furlough packets for available stations. If the employee chooses to take the furlough, would'nt that be considered vonuntary? That is where you guys dropped the ball. The dates are all well and good, but if your not willing/can't move for whatever reason, the company will point to the language you agreed to and say, sorry he/she "CHOSE" not to move therefore it is considered a "voluntary" furlough. We at US lived almost that exact same language. Why can't you see that? And I am by no way a Tim supporter, many on here can verify that fact, so can you help us understand why that language is ironclad in the above scenario?

 

[john john]

Socplat13,

Let me ask you this. What do you consider "invonuntary furlough". Lets say that a UA station currently staffed with UA mainline employees is reduced to all UAX flights. The company decided to "vendor" the work out, but give the employees furlough packets for available stations.

It sounds likes it doesn’t even haft to be express flights. From what I am seeing a station with a substantial amount of mainline flights can be outsourced. No protection for stations other than a select few

 

[john john]

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.

This is not job security this is call playing the odds

 

[Kev3188]

Kev,
All IAM-represented employees at UA with a seniority date of 4/1/2006 or senior cannot be involuntarily furloughed as a result of outsourcing. The language will be available after the local committees are briefed. As has been the case in the IAM.

There are currently approximately 28,000 under the three contracts. Over 26,000 have a 4/1/2006 seniority date or earlier and thousands currently perform UAX work now that is not protected. Under the proposed contract, lets say United decides to "contract out" a location that is all UAX. Currently, if that scenario occurs only sUA PCE and Ramp have language that states they cannot be laid off if they have a seniority date of 1/26/1994. If it occurs on the sCO side there is no language to protect them. Under the new contract, if UA decides to subcontract UAX work that is currently performed by IAM-represented workers that would trigger the 4/1/2006 language because it would be considered outsourcing "our" work.

The 4/1/2006 language does not have an expiration date and extends into the status quo. It will save ALOT of jobs considering 67% of United's flight schedule is UAX.

And Tim Nelson should either admit he doesn't know his current US Airways contract or lied. In either case, he should not be trusted as he has political motivations that could ultimately harm the UA membership.

Those are nice talking points, but that's not what I'm looking for. Again, please describe fully (or better yet, post) the specific language from TA2 that discusses UAX work, and what specific protections it has that prevent someone from having to exercise onto the system should their station go all UAX.

It has been tryed.

What's been tried?

 

[jet job]

Why do you guys keep going after Tim? Some DL FAs got a hold of your handout calling him out and posted it on the anti-union/anti IAM DL F/A FB page. Unions silencing an opposing view....really makes the labor movement look good.

Josh

Your kidding,Nelson is the problem. Not because he sparks conversation and debate but because he opposes to oppose and crosses the line with lies. If it makes the labor movement look bad then place the blame on Nelson. Silencing an opposing view? I call it setting the record straight. If Nelson doesn't like it, too bad.

Why doesn't Nelson come here to post his views? Answer, he can't control this format.

 

[Kev3188]

Why doesn't Nelson come here to post his views?

You're kidding, right? Seems to me he's been on here plenty...

Answer, he can't control this format.

No one can; that's the beauty of an open website.

 

[pjirish317]

Socplat13,

Let me ask you this. What do you consider "invonuntary furlough". Lets say that a UA station currently staffed with UA mainline employees is reduced to all UAX flights. The company decided to "vendor" the work out, but give the employees furlough packets for available stations. If the employee chooses to take the furlough, would'nt that be considered vonuntary? That is where you guys dropped the ball. The dates are all well and good, but if your not willing/can't move for whatever reason, the company will point to the language you agreed to and say, sorry he/she "CHOSE" not to move therefore it is considered a "voluntary" furlough. We at US lived almost that exact same language. Why can't you see that? And I am by no way a Tim supporter, many on here can verify that fact, so can you help us understand why that language is ironclad in the above scenario?

scoplat 13 or jet job, All I hear are crickets? Anybody have an answer here?

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.

calling me a liar and saying im wrong wont give you scope in 90%+ of your stations. Count them...83 out of 90 with no scope, including the 23 second class stations. Lets apply your ta to a big station, BOS.
The bos station manager comes to the passenger service and the ramp committee and informs them that he is going to start vendor encroachment by contracting out the bagroom and baggage service office (or all bag running or the opening shift to swissport).
Your committee calls you and says the grievance got denied because you nitwits put in language that reads "the company may contract out work in the following 23 station".

Your committee starts yelling at you saying you lied to themand ask you for contract language that prohibits the company from vending out the opening shift to airserve. What can u do?

Also, BOS is one of the 23 but because you have signed a dopey contract that tosses out ALL mainline scope for one of your biggest stations only to get temporary express work for a few years,bos is screwed.
I fully understand express should be addressed but talk about tossing the baby out with the bathwater. United airlines is the biggest airline in the world and has 695 jets with 500 more on order. You make it sound like united is going to ground all of its planes. Chasing temporary skywest work by not protecting mainline work but in 7 stations points to the iam having the ability to contract out all of those jobs to itself and create there very own United Eagle.

Answer me question about bos?

 

[cltrat]

scoplat 13 or jet job, All I hear are crickets? Anybody have an answer here?

you have a better chance seeing a solar eclipse than getting a straight answer from Scoplat,
I have seen him in action elsewhere.