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

[T5towbar]

See my above post. That's the questions I'm asking that I can't get an answer to.
But that's what I'm thinking, as to keep Air Wisconsin as the preferred Express ground handler just to keep the dues flowing. If true, this is sad. That's set an even dangerous precedent with ALL Express in the rest of the hubs can be farmed out. That's a few thousand employees who jobs will be lost. Where are they gonna go? And who gets bumped. Is that's why the 10% not covered is to make room for these affected employees? Something does not quite pass the smell test.

I'm waiting for answers to my TWO questions............

 

[Socplat13]

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




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.

And we have people in those stations as well. The difference is, 95% of them, under the rejected TA could not be involuntarily furloughed. The other 5% have traditional bumping rights. Big difference from non-union DL, right Kevvie?

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

Again, ALL the language serves to protect work and jobs. If only 5% can be involuntarily furloughed than there is a limit to outsourcing. Unless, you want to pay vendors to do the work AND pay IAM-represented workers.

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.

Absolutely not true:


Should the Company have a need to contract with third parties for the
performance of covered work at stations where flight activity does not exceed 12
departures per day, the Company shall be entitled to do so.

That language would whack alot of jobs at UA.

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.

The light is being "shone" on Nelson and his minions who have a fundamental misunderstanding of job security and collective bargaining.

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.

Not pissed. He deceives the membership that is why is is a danger to UA employees.

You sure?

Very sure.

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

Best contract in the industry. That's the bar set by the IAM in the rejected TA. Next one, we'll see.

 

[Socplat13]

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?

Nice deception. You leave out the fact that there were over 40 plans to choose from some as little as $22 bucks per month premium with no deductible. Also, only a small percentage of the sub-UA folks have the "free," HMO, which btw isn't free. It's paid for out of your total comp per hour. What about the sub-CO folks who are subject to unlimited premium increases now? Under the horrendous first TA that ended. Their premiums were capped at 9.25%. That a whole lot better than unlimited, no? What about the dental plan that the sub-CO group received under the rejected TA? Currently, sub-CO employees pay 100% of the cost. TA1 brought that down to 20%, or $1,000 extra bucks in their pocket. What about the sub-CO PTs who pay up to 50% more for their healthcare than do FTs for the same exact plan? Oh right, forget about them too. What's wrong with you? Get your facts straight. That's why you're a danger to the well-being of all UA employees.

 

[Socplat13]

.....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.

The membership isn't stupid you are. First off it's 7 hubs, not 6. Secondly, the work of over 22,000 IAM-represented employees was completely protected. 23 other stations, no employee could be displaced for the term of the agreement.

Seniority-based protections applied to 95% and shielded from involuntary furlough.

But, according to you that's not good enough because it's not perfect. What other contract protects that many people. Tell me, oh so great and wise one.

Because you don't understand, or choose not to understand, these issues you are a danger to all UA employees. Don't worry, your perfect record of electoral defeat is not at risk.

 

[Kev3188]

And we have people in those stations as well. The difference is, 95% of them, under the rejected TA could not be involuntarily furloughed. The other 5% have traditional bumping rights. Big difference from non-union DL, right Kevvie?

Big difference indeed.

The difference is UA employees have a reasonable expectation that the services they are paying for will be delivered. Bumping rights are great- no argument there- but people don't really want to have to try them out because you can't get your sh*t together at the table. them out.

Another difference: I'm not paying $40ish/mo. to get f'ed by 141's NC. UA employees are.

Absolutely not true:


Should the Company have a need to contract with third parties for the
performance of covered work at stations where flight activity does not exceed 12
departures per day, the Company shall be entitled to do so.

That language would whack alot of jobs at UA.

You either don't know any better or are deliberately attempting to deceive.

Here's a few key parts parts you left out:

• ALL employees are covered
• NO outsourcing if it means an invol furlough
• That 12 flight/day threshold only applies to new points opened after the T/A. IOW, EVERY represented employee is covered. Not 90%, not 5%, EVERY ONE of them. The jokers across from Smisek would do well to take a note.

In case anyone wants to read it for themselves, here ya go: http://twu555.org/po...8-201120CBA.pdf

Not pissed. He deceives the membership that is why is is a danger to UA employees.

How is he deceiving them? Is he not pointing out what has been negotiated? If this T/A was anywhere near as good as you'd like to think, he'd be talking into a vacuum.... And the percentage of "no" votes would've been much smaller.

Best contract in the industry. That's the bar set by the IAM in the rejected TA. Next one, we'll see.

I sincerely hope you don't actually believe that...

BTW, still waiting to hear what offices you've ran for/held...

 

[Tim Nelson]

737,
It is no secret that the aflcio has drifted from their core beliefs of family rearing jobs in return for monetary gain.

Broadly speaking this means they have exploited migrant workers and illegal aliens with signups and have subsidized this cheap labor to destroy family rearing jobs. Its something i have been following. Now, afl wants to join forces with animalrights groups. Bizarre indeed.

What this means specifically for our members is that we are losing our jobs to other aflcio members. American eagle just contracted with 6 ua stations through the cooperation of the twu. Iam142 cooperated with ual when they slashed the wages of their members in 2012 for air willy to stand by and gain ual jobs. Scandalous indeed.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Joe,
Show me the language that protects the work at those 23 stations for just the first day. I know you said that the work of 23 additional stations is protected from any outsourcing so id like for you to show us. Again, please stip using your dopey reasoning and please reference the language. Btw why did you blow up stores by separating it from ramp?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Another thing your missing is that you claim 95% cant be involuntarily furloughed cuz of 1999 no furlough protections. That language also exists in the usairways agreement where the "involuntary furlough iron clad 1999" still exists. Trouble is that there wasnt any scope in 82 stations so all those stations are now gone, and 90% of those members didnt want to leave home for phl so that 1999 no furlough didnt mean D*ck.

Same will happen at ua if you guys are stupid enough to bringback the last ta and lucky enough to get it passed.

Wn doesnt have your job security "must travel" pseudo protections because all of their stations prior to 2009 is their work. There is also a little thing called cargo that they have. Too bad delaney signed off on 1700 cargo jobs.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Also socopath(Joe), where you coming up with your fuzzy math?
Can you break it down where scope protects these 20,000 iron clad job?

Btw, dont you think something north of $23.85 at the end of 2016 should be a bit more of your focus?

 

[Socplat13]

Little Man and Kev,
Yes, WN has language that does not allow outsourcing if it results in an involuntary furlough. However, due to attrition the same exact scenario the Little Man incessantly bashes the IAM about could happen at WN: WN could outsource work and force people from their home stations. Little Man hails the WN scope but it is the exact language he rails against in TA1. In fact TA1 had scope protections for all Ramp, PCE, Stores in the 7 hubs and ALL Reservations Centers--approximately 20,000+. WN has no scope, just protection from involuntary furlough.

Little man, the 12 daily departure language applies to all locations post 2009. All locations previous don't own their work, just immunization from involuntary furlough due to outsourcing. That means, they could be moved from their location. Tuffa luckka, as you would say.

TA1 mandated that no employee could be displaced from their location due to outsourcing for the term of the agreement. So if the Company cannot displace employees out of their LOCATION then the incentive to outsource work is zero. Why outsource if you can't displace?

The point is, which is irrefutable, that TA1 provided much, much more in the way of job-security for all. In the 23 stations I mentioned previously, the Company could TODAY outsource ALL the sub-CO Fleet work and ALL the UAX work EVERYWHERE. Why make the perfect the enemy of the best?

 

[737823]

For the term of the agreement but again what happens in 2016? With no scope beyond seven stations what is to stop UAL from asking to outsource more work at the hubs? Whoever you are, what do you hope to gain by defending this nonsense? I mean you start a thread to attack Tim and provide a counterpoint, so far you have failed to show how the language protects jobs and in the process look like an idiot. The membership has spoken, in fact it has been nearly six months since your POS T/A got shot down, and since then what have we seen from the District? Nothing. They have stood by and allowed UA to outsource six more stations next month. Until there will be meaningful change people like yourself need to acknowledge their missteps, learn from them and move forward or get outta the way.

Josh

 

[Socplat13]

For the term of the agreement but again what happens in 2016? With no scope beyond seven stations what is to stop UAL from asking to outsource more work at the hubs? Whoever you are, what do you hope to gain by defending this nonsense? I mean you start a thread to attack Tim and provide a counterpoint, so far you have failed to show how the language protects jobs and in the process look like an idiot. The membership has spoken, in fact it has been nearly six months since your POS T/A got shot down, and since then what have we seen from the District? Nothing. They have stood by and allowed UA to outsource six more stations next month. Until there will be meaningful change people like yourself need to acknowledge their missteps, learn from them and move forward or get outta the way.

Josh

Josh,
The question is, what happens NOW? All sub-CO and UAX can be gone TODAY. Should we just bury our heads in the sand and pretend UA cannot do this? 67% of UA's operation is UNITED EXPRESS. That is a fact.

Under TA1 UA couldn't outsource work in any classification in any hub. It was all protected by pure scope language. The fact is if you didn't know this you, sir, are the idiot.

I failed to show how the language protected jobs? Are you living on Mars my friend?

TA1 protected approximately 20,000 people in the UA system with pure scope language. Something you obviously missed. I guess because the Little Man deceived you.

Little Man, the fact you don't know the Southwest scope language is truly frightening. And you wanted to be the PDGC.

 

[737823]

Express work at hubs is protected throughout the agreement. My point is had this been ratified whenever you reopen negotiations the company may seek to outsource Express, bag room, etc at that time. How is an agreement with unlimited part time and unlimited split shits something to be proud of?

Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

Socplat,
Practically everything, if not everything, you just said was not true. Instead of your fairy tale, i ask again for you to reference any of what you said. You butchered both the wn language and the language in ta1.
Please break down this 20,000 figure as well. Since u keep mentioning that number then the onus is on you to tell us specifically what this number includes.
Also, please share the language that supports your comment "ta1 mandated that no employee would be displaced from their location due to outsourcing"?

 

[T5towbar]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my two questions..............