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

[WorldTraveler]

GMAFB.

I'm not going to rehash here what I've written hundreds of times on this site- most of which you have participated in. but just for you-and your conveniently faltering memory- here's the Cliff note version:

Bottom-up organizing/agitating
Direct action
Dismantling of ossified leadership structure(s)
Elimination of "no raid" clause
Being "union" means inside/outside of workplace/shop floor & community both

Now stop playing coy- it's beneath even you.



He wasn't kidding when he said he's posted that stuff all over the place. Take my word for it- or don't- but you won't have to go far to find it.

Since you've particpated (and still do) in threads where it's come up, I have to believe you are simply trying to get him to waste time (re)posting the same stuff in this here, just as WT is doing.

You have been asked to provide a succinct platform of where you see the issues are with the labor movement and you respond with hostility and verbal assaults of those who ask?

-----

White House Press conference:

Mr. President: Can you tell us how you plan to counter the growing numbers of Americans who are against ObamaCare, including eroded support from labor?

Obama: I told you idiots what I believe on the subject before and you can find it in your archives.


OUCH!

------


I appreciate the summary of items you have highlighted... unless you can find a similar list someplace else, that is the first time I have seen a list like that from you.
But they are still code words and high level thoughts.

Tell me now how what those buzz words really mean to you and what you are doing about those issues now and what you want to do to address them them in the future.

It's not my job to memorize your platform. It's your job to be able to communicate it effectively, persuasively, and continually. And do that all while competing with other ideas in the marketplace.

That's what leaders do.

----

BTW, I have done some searching and found some of Mr. Nelson's work and have to say he is a very credible, persuasive, and articulate speaker and communicator. And most importantly he is fighting for what he believes.

Leaders don't make everyone happy but they do learn early on the importance of being able to shape and communicate messages that matter to them.

Too bad this board doesn't have a respected user button. I've just become aware of Mr. Nelson's work but I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to throw my support behind him and what he is doing.

Whether everyone agrees with him or not, he is standing up for his cause and being influential.

The labor movement esp. in the airline industry needs a whole lot more people like Tim Nelson.

Congrats, Tim, for a job well done. You gained a convert and a fan today.

 

[Kev3188]

You have been asked to provide a succinct platform of where you see the issues are with the labor movement and you respond with hostility and verbal assaults of those who ask?

I have been "asked" by someone who not only knows where I stand on labor, but has also used quite a bit of bandwidth on this site discussing just that.

That said, you are being succinctly "told" it's not gonna happen. Don't like it? Too bad. Unlike others, this isn't my only avenue to communicate with those that have a vested interest in labor reform. I know how to effectively access that audience.

See, you continue to make the demand that people answer you under some self-styled aegis of a "free marketplace of ideas," but it doesn't work that way. Much as you're free to bloviate all over this place, people are "free" to simply deem you irrelevant (or not), and to choose how they respond to you (or not). Choosing the latter doesn't discredit them; it just means they've exercised the same choice you have.

I'm not interested wasting resources by writing a novella of repeated material, and doubt people are interested in re-reading it.

It's not my job to memorize your platform.

True, nor is it anyone's; hence the suggestion to Josh to use the search function. That said, it's pretty disengenuous of you to act like you don't know where I stand. That would be like me asking you to recount your pro business agenda even though I know full well what it is.

BTW, I have done some searching and found some of Mr. Nelson's work and have to say he is a very credible, persuasive, and articulate speaker and communicator. And most importantly he is fighting for what he believes.

Good for you. And if you can do that to find Tim's writing, you certainly can do it to find mine, 700's, or anyone else's...

Leaders don't make everyone happy but they do learn early on the importance of being able to shape and communicate messages that matter to them.

Yep. it also means knowing when to do the same.

Too bad this board doesn't have a respected user button.

Good news! You know what site does have one of those? A.Net. You should check it out.

Oh, wait...

P.S. Much like the "5th week" thread, this one has been taken (purposely?) way out into the weeds. This is the last I'm going comment on this particular tangent.

If anyone wants to bring it around to the original theme, I'll jump back in...

 

[WorldTraveler]

there are no weeds, Kev.

Tim Nelson is a leader who is accomplishing what he has set out to do.

There aren't enough people like him fighting for labor in the airline industry. Far too few.

 

[700UW]

Tim isnt a leader, he cant get elected to office and he is all about himself, go find the info, its out there.

 

[WorldTraveler]

airlines don't need to beat up labor when labor does it to themselves.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Cripes, i walk away from this board for my fantasy football draft and some fresh air, and a whole thread is started about me and being a danger to united members.

First off, i wasnt in any of the hundreds of breaks rooms that the iam visited when their members scolded them over the last ta.

Second off, i didnt fill out one survey, of the 38,000, that demanded more from the union. I didnt have one vote out of the 20,000 no votes who sent a rejection mandate to the union for more.

So im a bit taken back as it seems like the iam has simply not listened to its members or they think their members are dumbarses.

That said, reducing scope down to 6 stations is absolutely asinine. Historu proves it. Further, less than half of those workers in those 6 remaining stations had any protections whatsoever.

And the ta was also destructive to future negotiations for two reasons.
1. If the company enters next negotiations with 6 stations with some element of a unionized workforce then its starting point will be to reduce that number down to 3 next time.

2. Or worse yet, since the company convieniently left off Cle protections (a hub), it would be able to shift its mainline midwest hub from ord to cle and make ord more of a express station, thereby eliminating union jobs in each case.

History tells us not to circle one station without another because the airline will constantly reduce down to the non covered station. Without CLE, is any job protected in ord?

Usairways had 4 union stations but started dismantling buf for ind. Bos for lga. Ended up with only pit and phl and lost their union completely.

I could go on. Also, the last ta lacked scope for 100% of express after two years so unless the end of the world came, it did 0 for express as well.

 

[737823]

Tim isnt a leader, he cant get elected to office and he is all about himself, go find the info, its out there.

And you mean to imply Ira, Sito, Rich Delaney, etc aren't?

If as you say this is all about Tim why would be be taking the time and expense to prepare videos, flyers and communicate with UAL employees? He isn't doing it for politics he is doing it because the district has failed the membership.

Tim speaks the truth and isn't afraid to take unpopular views if it is what he believes is right. You defended the crappy UA T/A, seems to me you think the membership should just be grateful they have been given the opportunity to pay dues to the IAM.

Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

Josh,
Fwiw, i never lost a local election. Ever. Nobody has ever wonan election for intl president. At least when i ran, i beat the intl attorneys and forced a rerun by challenging the intl constitution for the membership.

At any rate, im not sure why the original poster seemed to blame me for the job killing united ta. Puzzling indeed.

 

[Kev3188]

So im a bit taken back as it seems like the iam has simply not listened to its members or they think their members are dumbarses.

Maybe a little from column A, maybe a little from column B?

...Or maybe they were just horribly outmatched at the table, and were too blinded by "We got this" syndrome to see it?

I dunno...

At any rate, im not sure why the original poster seemed to blame me for the job killing united ta. Puzzling indeed.

Maybe it's easier than looking in the mirror and realizing they were peddling what could've been a craft killing T/A?

 

[Socplat13]

Not one person on this thread has answered whether the job security provisions in the rejected TA were an improvement for the entire membership, which they clearly were. Kev says no because every person in each location is not guaranteed to remain at that location even though United has no mainline flights in such locations. Just plain unrealistic.

When confronted with the fact that approximately 95% of the IAM membership at UA gained protection from involuntary furlough, up from about 25%, the answer is, it's "indefensible" because 100% are not covered. When told 100% can utilize their property right of seniority to bump in case of a reduction in force, Kev just shrugs.

No airline union negotiated better protections than those in TA1. Over the last decade IAM 141 has maintained a larger share of its membership than any other union at sub-UA. Pretty good job since the other classifications are mostly licensed classifications.

Also, Tim gets on all forums and calls people who have dedicated their lives to bettering their union and representing their co-workers "scabs," but that's ok.

Tim Nelson is not a leader. What has he ever been elected to do? Maybe a DL Convention delegate, once? Please.

The rejected TA placed a vast majority of the UAX under scope. Never happened at any airline, anywhere. That is not even a mandatory subject of bargaining under the RLA.

Job security in TA1 was a major improvement to current terms and the best in the industry. Fact.

 

[Kev3188]

Not one person on this thread has answered whether the job security provisions in the rejected TA were an improvement for the entire membership, which they clearly were.

No one has to; it's irrelevant because the mark you have "improved to" is unacceptable.

Kev says no because every person in each location is not guaranteed to remain at that location even though United has no mainline flights in such locations. Just plain unrealistic.

No, I say shouting from the rooftops that you're only covering 90% of the members you purport to serve while leaving a full 10% to swing in the wind is ridiculous. That's not a victory, that's a cop out.

You know that DL (non union DL, FFS!) has people in stations that you consider "unrealistic" to cover.

When told 100% can utilize their property right of seniority to bump in case of a reduction in force, Kev just shrugs.

No, I said that good bump language isn't an acceptible substitute for poorly negotiated scope language. Go read it again.

No airline union negotiated better protections than those in TA1.

That's a lie. WN's current Scope is light years more solid than TA1. Hell, DL 143 at NW was able to secure better language across the board- and we were in BK.

Also, Tim gets on all forums and calls people who have dedicated their lives to bettering their union and representing their co-workers "scabs," but that's ok.

The people he's calling out have absolutely failed their membership. They deserve to have a bright light shone on them.

In fact, not only are they (you?) failing the membership at UAL, you are also failing labor in general.

Tim Nelson is not a leader. What has he ever been elected to do? Maybe a DL Convention delegate, once? Please.

So what?

Maybe you should tell us what you've been elected to, so we can compare.

...Or maybe you're just pissed that someone has been able to engage the membership, get info out there, and more- all things the membership pays YOU to do.

The rejected TA placed a vast majority of the UAX under scope. Never happened at any airline, anywhere.

You sure?

Job security in TA1 was a major improvement to current terms and the best in the industry. Fact.

You ignored the wishes of the membership, then set the bar so low you tripped over it. Fact.

There's good news, though; you all have a shot to do right by the people you serve with this latest round of talks.

BTW, I'm still waiting for specific ways that Tim is a "danger" to the UAL rank & file- especially w/r/t to (rightfully) calling TA1 the P.O.S. it is

 

[Tim Nelson]

Not one person on this thread has answered whether the job security provisions in the rejected TA were an improvement for the entire membership, which they clearly were. Kev says no because every person in each location is not guaranteed to remain at that location even though United has no mainline flights in such locations. Just plain unrealistic.

When confronted with the fact that approximately 95% of the IAM membership at UA gained protection from involuntary furlough, up from about 25%, the answer is, it's "indefensible" because 100% are not covered. When told 100% can utilize their property right of seniority to bump in case of a reduction in force, Kev just shrugs.

No airline union negotiated better protections than those in TA1. Over the last decade IAM 141 has maintained a larger share of its membership than any other union at sub-UA. Pretty good job since the other classifications are mostly licensed classifications.

Also, Tim gets on all forums and calls people who have dedicated their lives to bettering their union and representing their co-workers "scabs," but that's ok.

Tim Nelson is not a leader. What has he ever been elected to do? Maybe a DL Convention delegate, once? Please.

The rejected TA placed a vast majority of the UAX under scope. Never happened at any airline, anywhere. That is not even a mandatory subject of bargaining under the RLA.

Job security in TA1 was a major improvement to current terms and the best in the industry. Fact.

.....yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn
oh goodie, we can keep express jobs for two years now. Yippieeeee! Your failed job killing ta said that, not me. See LOA 3-1 with it's 'drop dead' date.

Sorry, sociopath but you need a good doctor to cure you from foot and mouth disease. Instead of taking cheap shots and claiming scope, you would be better served to list the part in the ta that supports what you say. The TA was clear, immediately, only 6 stations were included in scope. And as I said prior, even the six stations weren't protected since 82 stations would have been potentially non union. In that scenario, one of two things would have most definitely happened.
1. Company would start negotiations off in 2016 demanding that 6 stations be dropped to 3. Perhaps LAX, IAD, or DEN gets sacrificed.
2. Maybe the company won't bother with #1 and instead just choose to make ORD an express station and shift all mainline to its other Midwestern hub, CLE, which would be vended out by the next negotiations. Thus, the contract produced a carrot for management to eliminate ORD by keeping CLE without scope. The company intentions is clear, otherwise, why would it bother to insist on it being subject to vending?

At any rate, I'm not sure why we have to discuss this at all since all of this is profane to a real labor guy. Having 88 stations but only having 6 with scope is ridiculous. And save all of your 20,000 folks protected. If you don't protect work, which you don't, then don't count the 'conditional no layoff protection' as protection when you know that 90% of workers will take furlough instead of going to EWR or ORD.

People want their work protected at THEIR HOME STATION, they don't want to be a part of your number scam vending out their work at THEIR STATION handing them a one way ticket to ORD or EWR or "Tuffa Lucka".

THe membership isn't as stupid as you think.

 

[T5towbar]

Not one person on this thread has answered whether the job security provisions in the rejected TA were an improvement for the entire membership, which they clearly were. Kev says no because every person in each location is not guaranteed to remain at that location even though United has no mainline flights in such locations. Just plain unrealistic.

When confronted with the fact that approximately 95% of the IAM membership at UA gained protection from involuntary furlough, up from about 25%, the answer is, it's "indefensible" because 100% are not covered. When told 100% can utilize their property right of seniority to bump in case of a reduction in force, Kev just shrugs.

No airline union negotiated better protections than those in TA1. Over the last decade IAM 141 has maintained a larger share of its membership than any other union at sub-UA. Pretty good job since the other classifications are mostly licensed classifications.

Also, Tim gets on all forums and calls people who have dedicated their lives to bettering their union and representing their co-workers "scabs," but that's ok.

Tim Nelson is not a leader. What has he ever been elected to do? Maybe a DL Convention delegate, once? Please.

The rejected TA placed a vast majority of the UAX under scope. Never happened at any airline, anywhere. That is not even a mandatory subject of bargaining under the RLA.

Job security in TA1 was a major improvement to current terms and the best in the industry. Fact.

I tend to disagree because I know for a fact that a lot of people would not be protected at all.
We lost people during this past year because of cargo being given up. WITH NOTHING GAINED FOR IT. At least our weak IBT contract, we had bumping rights which some exercised. Some could not because of the choices they were left with. The only full time city that was available was SFO. Everything else was PT. But some of the people let go were 2008 hires that were forced to PT during the fuel spike when we stopped hiring. But we (sCO) hired a lot of people between the years of 2006 thru 2008. Those people aren't protected at all in this TA. In other words - the expendable 10%. Not acceptable in my book. I knew a lot of people that were forced out, and just as many got forced to PT. This is just in EWR alone. That's over 300 or more people affected. (Probably the amount of cargo came over because most of cargo have high seniority) And who came up with these dopey seniority dates??? Good scope is supposed to protect ALL that is in any agreement, not some.

And what about the situation with IAD? No one has even answered that question. Is there a tacit agreement between DL 141 & 142 to keep the dues flowing? If Express is protected, why isn't that resolved? Do we get that work? Or do Air Wisconsin keeps it? And gutting Express will definitely kill jobs, especially CLE and some of our stations who have M/L employees who still work Express. That should be our work.

I asked one basic question to every union official and anyone in the know which no seems willing not to answer.. Why negotiate DOWNWARD from a BANKRUPTCY contract? WHY wasn't that the baseline from negotiations should have started. We were told that the superior IAM contract was going to be improved into a "Leading Industry Contract".

This isn't and you can't dress up a pig. That's why it was roundly defeated. We aren't stupid. Don't blame Tim and others for this.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Hey, can I pay another $250 a month for my health care that I presently enjoy for a few bucks? Gosh, if you think our members are just thrilled to take their two dollar an hour pay raise over the past 10 years and gobble it all up for your new health care spikes, then what is wrong with you?

 

[737823]

Tim, Kev or T5:

Do you guys agree that it is atrocious that the PCE and ramp agreement from 2005 (UAL was bankrupt) was viable then but not now? Since then they have restructured the business, merged with Continental which Smisek touted tremendous "synergies", and UAL is once again profitable, generating billions in ancillary fees. The T/A should recognize this and work forward, not backward to improve what you had. Like I said there must have been some motivation for the IAM to add unlimited part time and split shifts and reduce SCOPE to seven stations. Is it likely they have a back room deal with Air Willy to replace those stations?

Josh