WeAAsles said:
You see readers. This is reason you get the little paranoia bug in your heads. BS like this.
Tim knows full well and I've covered it before what the scenario was over at UAL. The former Continental employees and stations had NO protection language against being outsourced prior to the TA that they ratified.
The position for UAL management was simple. Take it or leave it but those stations are closing no matter what! So the proposal was accepted to be brought back to the membership and recommended for passage that gave those people at least something, other than nothing at all. If you don't already have a union and a contract that has SCOPE language this is what you get. (Remember contracts under the RLA don't expire, they only become amendable)
But Tim would like you to believe that you are in the same position that UAL was. Ohhhhh so far from the truth. You have a union and you have a contract. And when we go into joint talks we BOTH have unions and we BOTH have contracts. And they both have station staffing protections so the UAL scenario is not and will not be a factor period.
But hey if Tim tells you the truth it takes away the big gun he's trying to shoot you with. So he just keeps throwing it out there over and over knowing for some of you it might just stick. Good way to connive a few votes I guess.
Point of clarification:
There WAS merger protection for the sCO ramp before the merger. Like you said, RLA contracts don't expire. Once single carrier was filed (and by the IAM)and 2012 began all bets were off. We was still covered till after the representation election. Once the IAM became the sole bargaining unit (for the ramp, then all hell broke loose.) Our Cargo was "given up", but we still don't know what was gotten back for it. And who told the negotiators not the use the BK contract instead of FTW as a baseline for talks. WHY? There was no "gun to the head" at that time so to speak. The medical portion would have been the sticking point. IMHO, that would have to be given up. Along with "Topped Out" Leads. What was being saved for those two concessions? A whole lot of Scope could have been held. Some of Tier 3 would have been cut no matter what. But the 29 could have been saved with IAH added to the list. IT WAS A BANKRUPTCY CONTRACT for God's sakes!!! How much "cost neutral" it could have been? That should have been the "red line". IMHO, the retro was a big thing for the sUA members, and I guess the Company could have used that against the negotiations. (I'm only speculating since that was a large some of money which was due to them and it had to come from somewhere or something) The company probably looked at it like either "money or scope". Think about it........
Another problem was that our ATO (or PCE) did not had a contract on our side, and I wasn't privvy to what happened. But that's a separate contract. They wanted those new duespayers and once the election was won, I don't know what happened. $$$$$$$$$, I guess.........(IMHO, a win for both sides - company & Union)
Either way we voted it in. The fault lies in us. WE are also saddled with bad leadership and mismanagement (the hiring of TWO expensive consulting firms to "slash and burn"). Mistakes made by the "C" Suite geniuses all the way around, and of course the members have to pay for the mistakes. So we are getting punished every which way with no good news on the horizon.
Morale is bad here, and some are taking their anger at the ballot box.
I'll cast my vote next Wednesday, and you can bet it wont be for the "incumbents".........
I just wanted to get that out there from someone who is looking objectively
