Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines
- Thread starter Socplat13
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iam tim nelson united
- Status
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Joe,
Are you trying to suggest that express is part of the core work definition? Lmao
Btw, why not use the leverage you have due to the reality of the environment, and just negotiate scope so you dont need ""frequent flyer miles" to keep a job?
At any rate, why do you keep talking about ta1?Regardless of what me and you fuss about, the membership read the ta and agcs explained it to them but they gave management a mandate to get far more protections and benefits.
Thus the only real question is what have you guys been doing about it to prevent ta! from rising from the dead like Frankenstein?
Are you trying to suggest that express is part of the core work definition? Lmao
Btw, why not use the leverage you have due to the reality of the environment, and just negotiate scope so you dont need ""frequent flyer miles" to keep a job?
At any rate, why do you keep talking about ta1?Regardless of what me and you fuss about, the membership read the ta and agcs explained it to them but they gave management a mandate to get far more protections and benefits.
Thus the only real question is what have you guys been doing about it to prevent ta! from rising from the dead like Frankenstein?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Joe, the no furlough dates are in the usairways contract as well. They dont work because they are conditional.
The 1999 "iron clad" no furlough due to contracting out didnt do dick. Im sure a bright guy like you realizes that 90% never want to leave their families and travel thousands of miles to chase a job.
Also, the future isnt now. Most folks dont plan on dying in two years and actually vote on a contract thinking about what they may be making and where they will be 5 years from now.
What you have failed to grasp is that people didnt see a futurewith your job killing contract because it was very difficult for them to see themselves thousands of miles from home.
I understand how you tried to sell the ta by your dopey "future is now" spin but our members were too wise to look at 2013 without considering 2016 and all the tragic drop dead dates.
Listen to the membership and use your leverage and things will be much more promising. Just saying
The 1999 "iron clad" no furlough due to contracting out didnt do dick. Im sure a bright guy like you realizes that 90% never want to leave their families and travel thousands of miles to chase a job.
Also, the future isnt now. Most folks dont plan on dying in two years and actually vote on a contract thinking about what they may be making and where they will be 5 years from now.
What you have failed to grasp is that people didnt see a futurewith your job killing contract because it was very difficult for them to see themselves thousands of miles from home.
I understand how you tried to sell the ta by your dopey "future is now" spin but our members were too wise to look at 2013 without considering 2016 and all the tragic drop dead dates.
Listen to the membership and use your leverage and things will be much more promising. Just saying
OP
Socplat13
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2013
- 101
- 42
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #110
Again, not Joe.
UAX is not core work, but under TA1 the vast majority of the UAX was protected for the term of the CBA.
Do you not understand that 95% of the entire IAM-represented United workforce cannot be laid-off due to outsourcing? That means that United MUST employ over 26,000 IAM-represented workers REGARDLESS of any outsourcing it does. This language severely hampers United's ability to outsource work. There is absolutely no expiration date on this language and simply stated protects more workers than any other language that has ever been negotiated in the airline industry.
If you are serious about wanting to better the lives of people you hope to represent one day, you should really try to understand these issues. How is immunizing 26,000 fro losing their jobs due to outsourcing a failure?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Joe
Of course it can lay iam members off by the thousands. The actual language allows them to if members dont want to take a job thousands of miles away.
Your members read the agreement and were educated by their agc and became convinced that 2016 didnt add up for probably 20,000+ of them. Never mind that the money blowed and health care spiked and about a dozen things were unlimited in managements favor.
Please negotiate scope this time so you dont need drop dead dates and "will travel" protections. Thank you in advance
Of course it can lay iam members off by the thousands. The actual language allows them to if members dont want to take a job thousands of miles away.
Your members read the agreement and were educated by their agc and became convinced that 2016 didnt add up for probably 20,000+ of them. Never mind that the money blowed and health care spiked and about a dozen things were unlimited in managements favor.
Please negotiate scope this time so you dont need drop dead dates and "will travel" protections. Thank you in advance
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Btw, that loa in the back didnt extend express work through status quo so quit lying. Fact is that xpress has more work today in ord than your rejected job killing ta will in 2016. Ah ha ha. Lmao
OP
Socplat13
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2013
- 101
- 42
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #114
I didn't say the express work was protected into the status quo. I said it was protected for the term of the agreement.
So, the UAX work currently performed in ORD is more than IAH, EWR, ORD, IAD (above the wing), SFO (above the wing), which was brought under scope language for the first time in any airline contract? Uhmm, yeah, ok, that makes sense. You are laughable.
I said the 4/1/2006 language extends into the status quo. Learn how to read and stop diverting the issue you little dunce.
Again, and again, 26,000 must be employed REGARDLESS of outsourcing. That limits outsourcing, does it not?
And why do you refuse to answer my question? What contract in the airline industry protects against being displaced from one's location? NONE do. Learn your industry.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Management Must employ 28,000?
Really? Lmfao
Just for an exercise, please consider the 6 stations that just go contracted out. Please tell me how your job killing scopeless ta would have kept that station open?
Try to do so without painting delusional outcomes like those that suggest management wont contract jobs and stations because it is afraid of providing severance pay.
Really? Lmfao
Just for an exercise, please consider the 6 stations that just go contracted out. Please tell me how your job killing scopeless ta would have kept that station open?
Try to do so without painting delusional outcomes like those that suggest management wont contract jobs and stations because it is afraid of providing severance pay.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Yes. Ord has more express work protections than all of those others combined in a couple years according to ta1.
Practically every contract i have ever read has scope against being displaced due to outsourcing.
Practically every contract i have ever read has scope against being displaced due to outsourcing.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Again, you claim the future is now and pay no attention to 2016 termination dates. 80% of your members think their future extends a bit more than a couple years. Btw please show me the language that says the company must employ 26,000 iam members?
I thought you originally said 20,000?
Im starting to think you are really someone who doesnt like the ta and is just purposely not making any sense
I thought you originally said 20,000?
Im starting to think you are really someone who doesnt like the ta and is just purposely not making any sense
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Ill have to read the ta1 but is there anything preventing management from splitting up a full time shift 3 ways? Maybe 2 hours in the morning, 4 ours afternoon, and 2 hours later for terminators?
Its appaling how split shift language can even exist in a union contract?
Its appaling how split shift language can even exist in a union contract?
OP
Socplat13
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2013
- 101
- 42
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #119
You have no clue, do you?
Ok, let's try this again. Under TA1 no employee could be furloughed due to outsourcing if he/she had a seniority date of 4/1/2006. That's 95% of the IAM-represented employees at United. Approximately 28,000X.95=26,600. That language has no expiration date; meaning all those people cannot be laid-off due to outsourcing.
Approximately 20,000--Fleet, PCE and Stores--are employed at the hubs and Reservation Centers who would have had all their WORK protected under TA1. You need to start paying attention and maybe you'll learn something.
I asked you what contract protects people from being displaced from their LOCATION due to outsourcing. And, again, TA1 provided that 95% of IAM-represented employees would be protected from furlough due to outsourcing. Do you understand now?
Why not the 100%. And why the date of 2006? There are many people (especially from the sCO side) who were hired AFTER that date. I call them the expendable 10%. Are they the people who are to sacrificed, in event of a bump and roll? To make room for transferees? Even those most of these people are in hubs (since if you are sCO, you have to have some sort of seniority to work at a line station - not a lot of new hires were working in a line station). Any good agreement should protect ALL that works under it. And Express should be covered in some sort of way as well. Especially in a hub. No split operations. We in EWR have a near 52/48 give a take a few over/under ratio of Express to Mainline flying out of over 600 flights a day. So our Express should be covered. But that has a date on that.
Again, what about the situation in IAD? Tim sort of answered my question that DL 142 signed a agreement with Air Wisconsin. seems like they will be the vendor of choice to replace the work in the hubs? Or am I reading different? No loss of dues, of course.
And why was the contract negotiations start at the 2005 agreement and worked UPWARD, instead of FTW (that's what the TA at present is) Please tell us why? We were told/sold that the superior IAM contract which lasted throughout the years would be the building block.
Again, what about the situation in IAD? Tim sort of answered my question that DL 142 signed a agreement with Air Wisconsin. seems like they will be the vendor of choice to replace the work in the hubs? Or am I reading different? No loss of dues, of course.
And why was the contract negotiations start at the 2005 agreement and worked UPWARD, instead of FTW (that's what the TA at present is) Please tell us why? We were told/sold that the superior IAM contract which lasted throughout the years would be the building block.
- Status
