UAL could outsource a max of 2600 plus jobs

and yet you cannot deny that if the IAM had strong scope language, UA would have never been allowed to pursue a strategy of allowing IAM members to vote to cut their own pay to retain their own jobs.

and it isn't just a $2 cut in pay.... there are cuts to retirement funding as well.
 
WorldTraveler said:
and yet you cannot deny that if the IAM had strong scope language, UA would have never been allowed to pursue a strategy of allowing IAM members to vote to cut their own pay to retain their own jobs.

and it isn't just a $2 cut in pay.... there are cuts to retirement funding as well.
No I won't deny it. That's what happens when you don't have a Union for about 30 years, pmCO. They brought in the IBT to try and protect themselves from the SCOPE language on the IAM UAL side because of the merger and the IBT wasn't able to accomplish that task since they had zero contract to work with prior. Hard to build something from scratch. So then they took that over to the IAM who had to work with what was handed to them.

You did notice that the IAM was able to secure ALL their stations in their last agreement at least until a JCBA is decided on right. And the TWU at AA have their language as well which of course was weakened due to BANKRUPTCY. 

Your narrative isn't working on these boards because it's consistently disingenuous.
 
no, the narrative that you don't want to accept is that BK or a merger or any other major strategic event can decimate whatever language exists in a CBA.

If a CBA can't stand up to those kinds of tests and DL's employees fared better between 9/11 and the merger than NW's employees did, then what, pray tell, is the value that a union provides?

whether you wan to admit it or not, airline mgmt. has done whatever they have wanted with union CBAs for more than 15 years and there is no indication that trend is changing.
 
WorldTraveler said:
no, the narrative that you don't want to accept is that BK or a merger or any other major strategic event can decimate whatever language exists in a CBA.

Of course I can accept it since I've lived through it. But through the BK process those cuts have to be "Fair and Equitable" Meaning that everyone who is an unsecured creditor takes the same percentage cuts as I do. If I get decimated so do a lot of others as well. It's all even.


If a CBA can't stand up to those kinds of tests and DL's employees fared better between 9/11 and the merger than NW's employees did, then what, pray tell, is the value that a union provides?


Who is talking about Delta? Who cares about Delta in this thread? Why do you constantly have to talk about Delta? Do you masturbate to the thought of Delta?

whether you wan to admit it or not, airline mgmt. has done whatever they have wanted with union CBAs for more than 15 years and there is no indication that trend is changing.

Oh you are so so so wrong. If management was able to do whatever they want no matter what the circumstances then I would be making $12.00 per hour with no benefits right now and I certainly am making much much more than that.
 
Is this a United Airlines page? Is this thread supposed to be about UAL? Does someone have mental issue?
 
Oh and NONE of my language for representation was touched in either the 03 cuts or the BK. If my contractual rights are violated the process for rectifying that situation remains firmly and thankfully intact. All the same non economic items and protections against undue discrimination by my company are still as solid as a rock since the day I hired on.
 
WeAAsles said:
No I won't deny it. That's what happens when you don't have a Union for about 30 years, pmCO. They brought in the IBT to try and protect themselves from the SCOPE language on the IAM UAL side because of the merger and the IBT wasn't able to accomplish that task since they had zero contract to work with prior. Hard to build something from scratch. So then they took that over to the IAM who had to work with what was handed to them.

You did notice that the IAM was able to secure ALL their stations in their last agreement at least until a JCBA is decided on right. And the TWU at AA have their language as well which of course was weakened due to BANKRUPTCY. 

Your narrative isn't working on these boards because it's consistently disingenuous.
 
We voted for a union (sCO) after multiple tried because we needed protections during the merger. Granted it was a contract that lacked scope. But at the same time the IAM could have gotten improvement for their members on the sUA side of the house before the merger. Our crappy deal (albeit it had some protections in it) was in place, so why didn't the IAM do that for their members before going into single carrier? Don't blame none of that on the sCO side of the house. The IAM deal with US proves that point. The negotiatiors had to cater to three different groups and interests, but giving the sUA people some improvements from what they lost should have been the priority. Plus, the IAM could have had us as members. (Our FA's did a whole lot of legwork in trying to organize us and we were ready. But they were committed to organizing DL at that time and, when we reached out to them, we were told to wait.) The IBT moved in.
 
They got outplayed at the negotiation table. Bottom line. You weren't going to get rid of over 10,000 members and destroy two of your biggest hubs.
If my assessment, isn't correct, than correct me. The following question is all you need to know........
 
Why did a company handbook "Fly To Win" (which had its good points) trump a bankruptcy contract (the 2009 Agreement)?  That's all you need to ask.
 
T5towbar said:
 
We voted for a union (sCO) after multiple tried because we needed protections during the merger. Granted it was a contract that lacked scope. But at the same time the IAM could have gotten improvement for their members on the sUA side of the house before the merger. Our crappy deal (albeit it had some protections in it) was in place, so why didn't the IAM do that for their members before going into single carrier? Don't blame none of that on the sCO side of the house. The IAM deal with US proves that point. The negotiatiors had to cater to three different groups and interests, but giving the sUA people some improvements from what they lost should have been the priority. Plus, the IAM could have had us as members. (Our FA's did a whole lot of legwork in trying to organize us and we were ready. But they were committed to organizing DL at that time and, when we reached out to them, we were told to wait.) The IBT moved in.
 
They got outplayed at the negotiation table. Bottom line. You weren't going to get rid of over 10,000 members and destroy two of your biggest hubs.
If my assessment, isn't correct, than correct me. The following question is all you need to know........
 
Why did a company handbook "Fly To Win" (which had its good points) trump a bankruptcy contract (the 2009 Agreement)?  That's all you need to ask.
T5 your insights in the story are extremely helpful at filling in some of the blanks to the story. I think the entire problem may have amounted to just bad timing? Not having a Union for as long as you did put you guys in a very precarious predicament. Late 90's would have been the best time for you guys to have tried to get one in since the industry was making money and all those ground handling companies didn't exist yet. At least not to the degree they're at now. But usually when people are fat and happy a Union to protect that is the last thing they have on their minds.

I don't think any Union organization has a crystal ball to know if a group is ready or not and maybe at that moment they just had their plate full and couldn't handle two massive organizing drives? But anyway I think when the IBT went to the company looking for protection language that wasn't there to be added the company probably wasn't budging and the IBT got what they could and maybe it was the same scenario with the IAM?

Anyway not to make light of the current situation of more stations closing since people being forced to leave the homes they love is never easy. Maybe you can fill in the blanks? I've heard that the flexible shift scheduling may only be implemented in one of the stations that has to vote on the $2.00 per hour paycut? All in all if I was in one of those other stations the question I would want to know is if I vote the cut in am I now going to be protected from the company coming back at a later date and asking for more? If I couldn't get that guarantee I think I'd have to seriously think about uprooting. If there's also more going to be on the chopping block next year maybe I would want to secure my position elsewhere now when it could be much easier to do?

At least some people now have an opportunity of choice and I guess that's better than no choice at all? What do you think? 

 
 
WeAAsles said:
T5 your insights in the story are extremely helpful at filling in some of the blanks to the story. I think the entire problem may have amounted to just bad timing? Not having a Union for as long as you did put you guys in a very precarious predicament. Late 90's would have been the best time for you guys to have tried to get one in since the industry was making money and all those ground handling companies didn't exist yet. At least not to the degree they're at now. But usually when people are fat and happy a Union to protect that is the last thing they have on their minds.

I don't think any Union organization has a crystal ball to know if a group is ready or not and maybe at that moment they just had their plate full and couldn't handle two massive organizing drives? But anyway I think when the IBT went to the company looking for protection language that wasn't there to be added the company probably wasn't budging and the IBT got what they could and maybe it was the same scenario with the IAM?

Anyway not to make light of the current situation of more stations closing since people being forced to leave the homes they love is never easy. Maybe you can fill in the blanks? I've heard that the flexible shift scheduling may only be implemented in one of the stations that has to vote on the $2.00 per hour paycut? All in all if I was in one of those other stations the question I would want to know is if I vote the cut in am I now going to be protected from the company coming back at a later date and asking for more? If I couldn't get that guarantee I think I'd have to seriously think about uprooting. If there's also more going to be on the chopping block next year maybe I would want to secure my position elsewhere now when it could be much easier to do?

At least some people now have an opportunity of choice and I guess that's better than no choice at all? What do you think? 

 
For some, it is a difficult choice.
I thought the terms would be worse. 2.00 pay cut (but still keep your differentials), and 401k match loss is a tough pill to swallow if you are in a high cost area. But if you could get by in a lower cost area, some can make that work if they don't or can't move.  But I'm not sure about the split shift situation in places like SAT or IND, which have the largest volume of flights of the cities that are being cut.  The only thing that the District has to do is to make sure that if these employees vote to save their station by accepting the cuts, those cities better be on the Protected "Tier 2" Cities list.  And when we go into negotiations next year, they (and any of the rest of the protected) will not get cut. PERIOD. All must be protected. Just because we have bad (strike that - underperforming) management at the top (ie: we made money, but it was not enough), the front line should suffer. We will be going into battle with a much better hand. Delaney will take his seat on the BOD and we will have a better negotiation team that won't get played by Wall and Bonds.
 
Bottom line: I think that this will pass. Some people don't like the precedent it sets. Especially if you are sitting fat and pretty in a hub with high seniority. And not affected by these decisions. (IMHO, the "Yes" voters). But life in a line station is different.  But I hope and pray that my brothers and sisters make the choice that suits them. And the rest will get choices throughout the system that they can work with. The company will dictate movement, that is for sure and will make things difficult. And will probably send you out to SFO where most of the juniors are. (They did that to the CLE people when they opened up PHX). So some had to take the furlough.
 
Tough times for all, but we'll get thru them!!!!
 
T5,
as you note, the problem is the precedent... because UA knows it can keep chipping away at costs and people will keep cutting off an inch at a time until there is nothing left.

The IAM let the precedent be set, even if the members voted on it.

you can be sure that UA will be back again and again and again.
 
T5towbar said:
For some, it is a difficult choice.
I thought the terms would be worse. 2.00 pay cut (but still keep your differentials), and 401k match loss is a tough pill to swallow if you are in a high cost area. But if you could get by in a lower cost area, some can make that work if they don't or can't move.  But I'm not sure about the split shift situation in places like SAT or IND, which have the largest volume of flights of the cities that are being cut.  The only thing that the District has to do is to make sure that if these employees vote to save their station by accepting the cuts, those cities better be on the Protected "Tier 2" Cities list.  And when we go into negotiations next year, they (and any of the rest of the protected) will not get cut. PERIOD. All must be protected. Just because we have bad (strike that - underperforming) management at the top (ie: we made money, but it was not enough), the front line should suffer. We will be going into battle with a much better hand. Delaney will take his seat on the BOD and we will have a better negotiation team that won't get played by Wall and Bonds.
 
Bottom line: I think that this will pass. Some people don't like the precedent it sets. Especially if you are sitting fat and pretty in a hub with high seniority. And not affected by these decisions. (IMHO, the "Yes" voters). But life in a line station is different.  But I hope and pray that my brothers and sisters make the choice that suits them. And the rest will get choices throughout the system that they can work with. The company will dictate movement, that is for sure and will make things difficult. And will probably send you out to SFO where most of the juniors are. (They did that to the CLE people when they opened up PHX). So some had to take the furlough.
 
Tough times for all, but we'll get thru them!!!!
 
It's a sad thing that the reality is and was quoted that UAL is competing in these markets against Delta and AA and the rates they are paying. Delta is ultra low pay from the "ready reserve" numbers and AA since we lost some of those stations in concessions and BK cuts to vendors. It's hard to compete against sub contractor wages even if one company declares that the work is performed in house (solely to their financial benefit)

Otherwise the only 2 stations I see on that list that are high COL areas are SJC and SMF and their choice will probably be the hardest to make. I would have to think once the full details of the agreements come out that there will be a measure of protection at least given in some type of timeframe? Otherwise it's rather pointless to make the agreement in the first place IMO.
 
you do realize that DOT stats show what DL's average pay for its ACS personnel (there is no separate DOT category for passenger service, ramp, or cargo) is the highest of AA and UA?

if there are so many RRs at DL and they are paid so low, then the total pay for RRs should be pulled down because they are based on FTEs.

either that or DL's FT ACS personnel make so much more than their peers at AA or UA to pull the average UP.

it's pure math.
 
"We need to ensure that our costs are competitive," company spokesman Luke Punzenberger said.
United likely has faced pressure from Delta Air Lines, which has kept costs low because many of its workers lack union representation, according to a source familiar with the situation."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/us-ual-outsourcing-iduskbn0kl2dt20150113
 
"Delta Air Lines Inc pays significantly less than other places with a median salary of $23K, about half the top paying employer's rate".

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Baggage_Handler_%28Aviation%2fAirline%29/Hourly_Rate
 
Other U.S. carriers have also kept costs low because many of its workers lack union representation, including Delta Air Lines.

http://seekingalpha.com/news/2218725-united-airlines-looks-to-outsource-2000-jobs

American said the vast majority of its domestic airports already are staffed by Envoy or other contractors. Delta said only 42 of its 230 domestic airports employ Delta employees exclusively. Thirty-three airports have Delta workers as customer-service agents and Delta Global Services workers employed as ramp workers. In 80 airports, Delta Global Services workers perform both functions. Another 75 airports use other outside vendors.

Union employees who have been with the company for years -- many making a respectable $50,000-per-year salaries -- will be replaced by non-union employees who will be paid less than half -- between $9.50 and $12 per hour.
Nine-fifty an hour is a poverty-level wage if you are trying to support a family -- and $12 barely exceeds the poverty level. In fact at $12 a family of three makes so little that they are eligible for food stamps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/united-airlines-outsourci_b_5609016.html

 
 
Kev3188 said:
DL's entire pay structure is based on being "average."
And after the last few articles I posted a certain individual wonders why I am concerned about what happens with Delta FSC and the initiative to become organized. Because those of us in a Union in this chosen career field have to compete directly against whatever it is that Delta management chooses to do with that workforce that has no contract and no rights. I am concerned because ultimately it affect ME.
 
anyone that posts salary comaparisons from payscale.com and expects to be seen as credible completely shows their ignorance on the subject.

I suppose you just glossed over Country: United States | Currency: USD | Updated: 11 Dec 2014 | Individuals Reporting: 139

139 individual, voluntary submissions in an workgroup that contains tens of thousands of employees and you want to accept it as the truth instead of US DOT data?

of course you would because DOT data clearly shows that DL airport employees make more than their peers at AA and UA.

how about you use a credible source like MIT's Airline Data Project to look at real data?

while you are at it, how about you post the number of airports that AA and UA staff?

you won't because no matter what source you use, DL has its own people in one capacity or another at more airports than AA or UA.

Envoy is a lower paid subsidiary than AA. trying to argue that AA employees are better off because Envoy took their jobs is meaningless. and that is EXACTLY what happened to hundreds of AA employees in BK where the TWU was unable to save those jobs.

The only real surprise is not that AA succeeded in BK but that UA has done as much outsourcing as it has SINCE LEAVING BK.

and clearly DL's stated strategy might be to compensate its employees at least at average - but they clearly exceed it. that fact is one which unionistas will never admit, no matter what source is used.....

because if DL employees are really paid above average (as they are) there is no viable reason for a DL employee to take the risk of voting for a union where arbitration and negotiation IS very much based on average compensation.

the reason why DL employees have rejected unionization efforts over and over is because they aren't willing to take the risk of really becoming just average in compensation.
 
Back
Top