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

[T5towbar]

Damn union put out the health 'special enrollment' numbers but what folks may not have read is that those numbers, even as high as they are for sUA, assumed the smoking credits and spousal 'other insurance' credits. Most don't read the fine print at the bottom of page 7. So, even though the avg health insurance will be $293 for family, that assumes the wife doesn't have other health insurance and that both are non smokers. T5, how much is the credit for the wife having other insurance? I know the credit for non tobacco users is $45 a piece or $90 which would make the $293 family go up to $383. But I don't know how much more the credit is for spousal having other insurance...Do you know? And how much is family dental? Union left all of this stuff off.

Well according to the Medical Preview, the plan I would probably choose would cost about 96.00 per month (0%; 80% coinsurance; 60.00 visit) for myself. It would be 174.00 for spouse/domestic partner. (My kid is an adult and has her own plan thru her job, as well as my wife - she has her own as well. Anything catastrophic happens, I would be covered by her plan, since it's more cheaper in the long run to have separate plans. I'm seeing which would be better. To stay separate or to be covered by her plan) So this is just for me. My dental which would still be MetLife (I do not like Aetna's dental) would be about 36.00 per month (went up 6.00). But that's not listed in the charts. And the non smokers credit is 48.00 per month.

Aetna's Smart Choice, which was a decent plan isn't available this year. The Bronze Plan takes it place, but it has way less coverage and options than Smart Choice.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Well according to the Medical Preview, the plan I would probably choose would cost about 96.00 per month (0%; 80% coinsurance; 60.00 visit) for myself. It would be 174.00 for spouse/domestic partner. (My kid is an adult and has her own plan thru her job, as well as my wife - she has her own as well. Anything catastrophic happens, I would be covered by her plan, since it's more cheaper in the long run to have separate plans. I'm seeing which would be better. To stay separate or to be covered by her plan) So this is just for me. My dental which would still be MetLife (I do not like Aetna's dental) would be about 36.00 per month (went up 6.00). But that's not listed in the charts. And the non smokers credit is 48.00 per month.

Aetna's Smart Choice, which was a decent plan isn't available this year. The Bronze Plan takes it place, but it has way less coverage and options than Smart Choice.

what is the credit if a spouse was part of your plan but didn't have other insurance? With the IAM's health care sheet, the cost shown were assuming both spouses didn't smoke and that the spouse didn't have other insurance. I know both smokers would up the plan $96 but how much would the plan be upped if a spouse had other insurance?

 

[cltrat]

It he offer still stands tonight

wow Dave heard some really interesting stories about you last night.

 

[john john]

After reading this thing carefully, I'm not to sure about this "Scope" on this contract. Why 96% covered and leaving out 4%? I thought a union covers ALL of their members who are duespayers.

I guess the IAM is comfortable with a few stations with scope just like the Mechanics and Related at US have now. It sounds like there M.O. No line stations just concentrate in a force at a few stations

 

[mike33]

wow Dave heard some really interesting stories about you last night.

how does dave equate to Jet Job and wanting his retro...... when he never worked or works for UA?

Too much bashing on both sides....

" You're out of order "......." No!, YOU, are out of order!"......... NO, THIS WHOLE PLACE IS OUT OF ORDER!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Bagfather]

A lot of these arguments would not exist if people were specific about their long term short term goals. AA/US certainly has their short term/5 yr/10yr plans and I'm sure they are always tweaking them. One thing is obvious. The company would like to outsource as much of the ramp as possible long term. My guess is that an outsourced employee cost about half of a full time employee. A union ten year plan to save jobs I with this current environment would have to offer concessions in other departments on a radical scale. The big problem with the UA CO merger is that now the Company has to face the fact of insourcing so many jobs. That's the biggest reason for the compromised scope language in the TA. The best thing for the UA side is to not pass a TA for as long as possible. But that's unrealistic because now the IAM has to consider its CO members. So it ends up as a compromise. If this TA doesn't pass There will be another slightly better one down the road that will not cost the company any more because they will have saved money in the delay. Some may say the union is in a strong position and they can get much more but the biggest weakness of a hub and spoke airline union is that the hubs rule. They may have some or even a lot of care for their brothers in the field stations but ultimately the forces are too powerful not to give into. Unless the IAM came up with their own 10 year plan to save jobs. But as I said there would be some radiclal concessions involved. Thank BF PS Someone tell me how to separate paragraphs.

 

[mike33]

Thank BF PS Someone tell me how to separate paragraphs.

Your communications secretary must be on vacation BF?

Hit Enter !!!!!

 

[cltrat]

how does dave equate to Jet Job and wanting his retro...... when he never worked or works for UA?

Too much bashing on both sides....

" You're out of order "......." No!, YOU, are out of order!"......... NO, THIS WHOLE PLACE IS OUT OF ORDER!!!!!!!!!!

Have you considered that that Dave is using the retro as a selling point for an agreement that won't stand on it's own to feet even though he himself will not be getting it.

I don't consider it bashing, all I have done is ask either one of the two clowns is to produce contract language to make counterpoints to what Nelson is saying.
Apparently they can't do or certainly it's clear they will not.
Personally I have a real problem with two jackasses,one with a 6 figure salary and the other with a job that was created just for him.
All the while getting paid by those same members, as in me and you too.

 

[mike33]

Have you considered that that Dave is using the retro as a selling point for an agreement that won't stand on it's own to feet even though he himself will not be getting it.

I don't consider it bashing, all I have done is ask either one of the two clowns is to produce contract language to make counterpoints to what Nelson is saying.
Apparently they can't do or certainly it's clear they will not.
Personally I have a real problem with two jackasses,one with a 6 figure salary and the other with a job that was created just for him.
All the while getting paid by those same members, as in me and you too.

Good point

 

[T5towbar]

Have you considered that that Dave is using the retro as a selling point for an agreement that won't stand on it's own to feet even though he himself will not be getting it.

I don't consider it bashing, all I have done is ask either one of the two clowns is to produce contract language to make counterpoints to what Nelson is saying.
Apparently they can't do or certainly it's clear they will not.
Personally I have a real problem with two jackasses,one with a 6 figure salary and the other with a job that was created just for him.
All the while getting paid by those same members, as in me and you too.

I'm not affected by the retro argument. That's for sUA to decide over. It's due to them. But if this is a substandard agreement, I will vote "no". There are a few good points in this TA that is way better than TA1. But I have some questions that need some clarification.
Tim mentioned something about "Temporary Work Assignments" or something to that effect. Why would the union allow something like that? That kills the overtime that members want. And more hours to pick up, when the staffing needs are tight. That is something that needs to be explained to me. IMHO, that shouldn't be allowed, since there are enough members to do the work. Is that mainly for ATW? Also Tim keeps mentioning about the scope for the mainline work. Out of the now 77 stations, how much of it has M/L flights every day that need protecting? I asked because I don't know the exact number, since everybody keeps talking about the Express work. And of course the ever changing medical situation? At least they explained the rationale for not releasing the seniority lists till after ratification. We only have 6 days to make a decision here. I didn't hear of any visits or roadshows to explain it. Even though I didn't make the last union meeting at the LL, this TA should be explained further.

But IMHO, I think it will pass with a combination of people wanting their money; people looking to get out; and apathy, since this is a one day in-person ballot. How close it will be, no one knows. This isn't like the horrible TA1.

 

[Socplat13]

I'm not affected by the retro argument. That's for sUA to decide over. It's due to them. But if this is a substandard agreement, I will vote "no". There are a few good points in this TA that is way better than TA1. But I have some questions that need some clarification.
Tim mentioned something about "Temporary Work Assignments" or something to that effect. Why would the union allow something like that? That kills the overtime that members want. And more hours to pick up, when the staffing needs are tight. That is something that needs to be explained to me. IMHO, that shouldn't be allowed, since there are enough members to do the work. Is that mainly for ATW? Also Tim keeps mentioning about the scope for the mainline work. Out of the now 77 stations, how much of it has M/L flights every day that need protecting? I asked because I don't know the exact number, since everybody keeps talking about the Express work. And of course the ever changing medical situation? At least they explained the rationale for not releasing the seniority lists till after ratification. We only have 6 days to make a decision here. I didn't hear of any visits or roadshows to explain it. Even though I didn't make the last union meeting at the LL, this TA should be explained further.

But IMHO, I think it will pass with a combination of people wanting their money; people looking to get out; and apathy, since this is a one day in-person ballot. How close it will be, no one knows. This isn't like the horrible TA1.

T5,
As usual, Nelson either disports the issue, or doesn't understand the issue. Regarding temporary work assignments, there are two different types: (1) Short-term or seasonal assignments and (2) Longer term, usually temporary full-time assignments.

In the current sUA Ramp and Stores CBA, it allows for 6 month temporary full-time assignments and in the current sUA PCE CBA it allows for 5 month temp assignments. Something Nelson conveniently forgot to mention. Longer-term assignments are temp FT vacancies filled by existing PT employees.

The short-term or seasonal assignments are staffed by temp PTs. The current Ramp and Stores CBA allow for such assignments for 3 months in the summer and 60 days in at any other time of year. Same language in the current PCE CBA.

The sCO ASAs have no contract, so UA can do anything it wants regarding temp employment. The IBT Fleet CBA allows UA to "transfer" or contract out the work of any FSE to other employees at any time, for any amount of time and for any reason.

The new contract allows short term temp assignments of 100 days or less in a rolling 12 month period and longer term temp FT assignments capped at 5 months. Also, the temp FT assignments must be filled in seniority order, something that is missing in current agreements. The language is better in the new contract.

The entire United flight schedule is 67% UAX. There are 60 stations that have 2 or less mainline flights. What that means is we don't have much protection because we have no right under current sUA agreements to UAX work and the sCO have no right to any of the work.

The new agreement protects 96% of the membership either through scope or seniority based protections that have no expiration date. 26,000+ out of 28,000 cannot be involuntarily furloughed due to outsourcing. That places a hard limit on the Company's ability to outsource. There is no doubt that the new language protects many more people than existing language.

Nelson's claims of only 7 stations will be left is hogwash. They can't fit all those employees in 7 stations. Just can't happen. Will some smaller stations be lost? Yes. Will some people have to move to stay with UA? Yes. But that has always been the case in the airline industry. Location protection has NEVER been the case.

 

[Socplat13]

CLT, you''re from US Airways. United people deserve the thousands they stand to get in this contract. They will vote yes because it's the best contract in the industry. More money, more protection. sCO brothers and sisters and sUA brothers and sisters will be one and go from there. Why don't you explain to everyone how Nelson screwed the Airways guys when he campaigned to shoot down the CBA because he said you would win the "change of control" grievance. That hurt you guys and took money out of your pockets. But, who cares, right. $15 million in losses from that fiasco. Remember?

 

[john john]

The new contract allows short term temp assignments of 100 days or less in a rolling 12 month period and longer term temp FT assignments capped at 5 months. Also, the temp FT assignments must be filled in seniority order, Will some smaller stations be lost? Yes. Will some people have to move to stay with UA? Yes.

Great Contract ?
Not seeing it

 

[cltrat]

CLT, you''re from US Airways. United people deserve the thousands they stand to get in this contract. They will vote yes because it's the best contract in the industry. More money, more protection. sCO brothers and sisters and sUA brothers and sisters will be one and go from there. Why don't you explain to everyone how Nelson screwed the Airways guys when he campaigned to shoot down the CBA because he said you would win the "change of control" grievance. That hurt you guys and took money out of your pockets. But, who cares, right. $15 million in losses from that fiasco. Remember?

I have never voted yes on a contract here yet and have never regretted it. The current contract is pitiful.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I'm not affected by the retro argument. That's for sUA to decide over. It's due to them. But if this is a substandard agreement, I will vote "no". There are a few good points in this TA that is way better than TA1. But I have some questions that need some clarification.
Tim mentioned something about "Temporary Work Assignments" or something to that effect. Why would the union allow something like that? That kills the overtime that members want. And more hours to pick up, when the staffing needs are tight. That is something that needs to be explained to me. IMHO, that shouldn't be allowed, since there are enough members to do the work. Is that mainly for ATW? Also Tim keeps mentioning about the scope for the mainline work. Out of the now 77 stations, how much of it has M/L flights every day that need protecting? I asked because I don't know the exact number, since everybody keeps talking about the Express work. And of course the ever changing medical situation? At least they explained the rationale for not releasing the seniority lists till after ratification. We only have 6 days to make a decision here. I didn't hear of any visits or roadshows to explain it. Even though I didn't make the last union meeting at the LL, this TA should be explained further.

But IMHO, I think it will pass with a combination of people wanting their money; people looking to get out; and apathy, since this is a one day in-person ballot. How close it will be, no one knows. This isn't like the horrible TA1.

The temporary full time ready reserve will be used not only to stop ot but also to void out vacancies. The company determines such things. No matter how you slice it, same as delta ready reserve. The iam just sticks a iam logo on them and takes their dues. This coupled with unlimited part time and the reduction of full time will be great pain.
As far as the 7 stations, thats it. Socopath can say that its impossible to fit 10,000 non protected employees in 7 stations but that is just a straw man argument.
Saying 96% are protected is another straw man.

Hell, we have the same 1999 protections at usair but our most senior station, buf, got contracted out. In fact 60 stations got contracted out with those protections. Why? Because they are only seniority protections that allow someone to displace a junior agent. If i said 100% of all united employees have seniority protections, that would be correct because your reduction in force article gives protections to displace anyways..
Job protection means "whose work is this?" Focus should be on 7 stations and each contract. For ramp, any station in the usa can b contracted out other than 7. Stl or ind can beef up to 250 flights a day and have hub status and still be contracted out. Otoh, ord can be downsized as the company shidts its mainline midwest conx flights to non union cle. Iad can be downsized for ewr and they can displace ewr agents with an influx of iad agents.

They can also take the same number of employees and reduce full time equivalents by having full timers shift to part time. All they have to do is claim a new headcount compliment based on flight activity, flight shidting or even due to financial concerns.
None of these seniority protections would protect anyone, even if someone has 40 years. Remember, seniority protections are ONLY displacement rights.