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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kev3188 said:
They clearly felt this latest offer was untenable. Will it bite them in the end? Who knows? Are you saying they should've just rolled over and accepted it?
Click to expand...
I'll say this they are an over entitled and self righteous bunch that think they offer tremendous skill that can't be duplicated and will be in for a rude awakening as they move more operations away. Many in this country would kill for the benefits and terms they found abject. They have made clear they have no loyalty to their hometown and given the politics there I can understand why. Boeing moved customer simulators from Seattle to MIA in past because FL is a RTW state but it also makes them more accessible to customers in Latin America.

Josh
 
Regarding UA announcement, I imagine a sizable part of the savings will come from this CBA and the language that gives UA freewill to contract out many stations. The AGCs can keep boasting that this agreement protects 96% of the membership from outsourcing but the reality is most people will not be able to move to a hub to maintain employment and UA will enjoy tremendous cost savings. Again the IAM could have capitalized on UAs desire to integrate the two sides, airline industry is rebounding but instead they went backwards and the impact will be far reaching to workers across the industry.

Josh
 
Help me out here, Josh:
 
UA workers just ratified a deal that you & I both feel is regressive, right? Based on what you've been posting, I had concluded that you would've cheered a rejection of TA2. Was that incorrect?
 
Boeing workers just rejected one that had many of the same steps backward, and you're tut-tutting them for doing so.
 
I don't get it.
 
it's great to reject a contract because it doesn't meet labor's requirement but you have to make sure you truly have the leverage to gain what you want.

Boeing has the ability to build the jets elsewhere. The work is not there to defend.

UA has thousands of employees working in stations that the IAM was unable to or chose not to protect and defend.

UA says it needs $1B in cost savings which translates to about 2% of UA's costs despite the fact that they have a 10% cost disadvantage to DL.

UA doesn't spend $1B on ramp services with its own employees worldwide. They do if you throw in all of the IAM represented employees but they would have to completely gut those workforces AND NOT REPLACE them w/ contractors to save that much money.

UA can't obtain anywhere close to that much money just from the CBAs that they have and maintain an ongoing operation - unless they dramatically cut the costs of ALL people who actually do services for UA.

And it also doesn't change that UA needs much more than $1B in cost cuts in order to regain its cost competitiveness.

$1B is the number to throw around, in case you missed it. UA is going to cut costs by $1B. New AA will generate $1B in efficiencies thru the merger.

$1B is the new corporate $20.
 
I would characterize the UA deal as regressive. Again, what message does it send the newly organized sCO passenger service agents who have been non-union the rest of their career, become organized and then find themselves unemployed if they don't move to another city? I understand what you are saying but had UA rejected the T/A what options would UA have had? The sUA work was protected at ~65 stations and despite the fear of loss tactics AGCs trying to scare people it is unlikely they would have outsourced sCO in the interim. Boeing has no scope for future work the company has free will to do as they see fit. Comparatively the pay, work rules and benefits being offered to DL 751 was far superior to anything UA offered and among the best benefits available in the US. That's why.

Josh
 
Had a discusion with a UA FS Member at L-1781 Union Meeting about SCOPE in ratified UA CBA and bet him dinner that within two yrs. or less his Station would be contracted-out. TN and others will be proven right. What is the speculation on A/Forum going forward of Stations on UA/CO Group hit list ?
 
Kev3188 said:
Cool, thanks.
Click to expand...
Care to respond to the rest? Specifically, what message does it send the newly organized workers when they join the IAM after two POS agreements and then find out they are either unemployed or have to relocate to a hub to maintain their job? Of course you will counter saying sCO had zero scope and the company could outsource at will all along, but sCO management made zero indication they intended to outsource passenger service en masse. To the employee it is conceivable they would think the IAM didn't do enough to protect their job. Same could be said of CO cargo, Rich Delaney and DL 141 (based on the LOA Tim posted) went ahead and threw those people under the bus because sUA gave away cargo years ago. What is your take on this? Please weigh in. Thanks.

Josh
 
Kev3188 said:
I've been doing exactly that since mid-September...
Click to expand...
Specifically the questions I asked above. If you have already addressed it please provide link to the post. Again, what message does it send to the newly organized? Seems you are avoiding the question. I directly answered your question and would expect the same courtesy.

Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DB Cooper
Mechanics ratify agreement
Replies
1
Views
1K
ualflynhi
U
W
Iam 141 update 12-27-02
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
ual747mech
U
W
IAM Vote Cancelled
Replies
0
Views
2K
wts54
W
Giant Robot!
  • Locked
IAM-TWU Election (Tim Nelson)
Replies
13
Views
8K
robbedagain
robbedagain
U
IAM Voices Support for UA LCC
Replies
11
Views
2K
whatkindoffreshhell
whatkindoffreshhell

Latest posts

Back
Top