It would appear that we are gearing up for another system furlough to begin as early as next month. I've heard from a friend in the know at WHQ that all full-time open requisitions for the CS classification have been put on hold per a directive from Labor Relations due to an upcoming system furlough. So, with no considerable downsizing of flying expected that means the same number of flights and system furlough. So that sounds like more outsourcing. This could confirm rumors amongst many IAM PCE folks that the new contract will contain language enabling the company to eliminate many full time positions and/or outsource thousands more jobs at line stations.
I believe that the IAM never intended to strike because there was a handshake agreement behind the scenes. Why do I think this? Because the company had no plan in place for a strike. If they did, it sure wasn't well communicated to those beyond WHQ. For a company to not have a plausible plan to deal with a possible IAM strike, that tells me that some sort of agreement was in place to ensure a strike did not happen. I believe Tilton and Canale had a wink-wink agreement that United would allow the IAM to posture publicly in order to save face with their members and that at the very last moment, they'd announce an agreement. But where is the agreement? If the IAM was so intent on striking without a consensual agreement they felt was fair, than how is it that they agreed to the "framework" of a deal, even though the financial due diligence to reach an actual agreement was nowhere in sight? Sounds like they caved like a $2 lawnchair to me, which just proves my point all along that the IAM did not have the stones to strike UA because they knew it would bring down the company for good. I'm not so sure they really were interested in losing tens of thousands of more dues paying members.
I believe that the IAM never intended to strike because there was a handshake agreement behind the scenes. Why do I think this? Because the company had no plan in place for a strike. If they did, it sure wasn't well communicated to those beyond WHQ. For a company to not have a plausible plan to deal with a possible IAM strike, that tells me that some sort of agreement was in place to ensure a strike did not happen. I believe Tilton and Canale had a wink-wink agreement that United would allow the IAM to posture publicly in order to save face with their members and that at the very last moment, they'd announce an agreement. But where is the agreement? If the IAM was so intent on striking without a consensual agreement they felt was fair, than how is it that they agreed to the "framework" of a deal, even though the financial due diligence to reach an actual agreement was nowhere in sight? Sounds like they caved like a $2 lawnchair to me, which just proves my point all along that the IAM did not have the stones to strike UA because they knew it would bring down the company for good. I'm not so sure they really were interested in losing tens of thousands of more dues paying members.
, I don't see the CSR's taking another 25% paycut, (making top out pay around $14.75), I don't see the CSR's agreeing to paying for 50% of their insurance, so the only choice the company really has in order to cut the payroll of CSR's by the amount they want is to outsource the jobs. :down:
