Us Airways Revisits Outsourcing

[Bird Doctor]

November 3. 2005
William O'Driscoll
President & Directing General Chairman
Air Transport District 142,IAM
400 N.E. 32nd Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64116
via certified letter
Dear Mr. O'Driscoll:

I've read your latest letter to the USAirways employees dated October 18, 2005 and am offended that you and other IAM representatives would use management-style scare tactics designed to panic employees into staying IAM. USAirways mechanics, utility and stock clerks have been through enough already from the company and the bankruptcy judge, without being manipulated and deceived by the IAM. They deserve more from a union.

Below are issues that you and other IAM officials are manipulating:

You've already surrendered the right to renegotiate both agreements after the certification of a single carrier by the NMB. Worse, you are deceiving your members by claiming that the issue is whether the 1AM agreement "survives." Anyone with experience under the Railway Labor Act knows that the two agreements continue as the "status quo" after the single carrier proceeding. It is not an option for management to negotiate, the company is legally obligated. You have given up the employees' right to renegotiate their agreement and never informed the members of their right to renegotiate in the first place.

The Teamsters are committed to renegotiate the substandard IAM agreement after it is certified by the NMB. We did the same thing at Piedmont when we beat IAM to represent the mechanics and related employees there. Though IAM used the same manipulation with the Piedmont employees, telling them that they'd be stuck with an inferior !AM agreement after the merger, the Piedmont employees ignored your lies and voted for the IBT. Now the Piedmont mechanics are in bargaining for a new agreement to replace their low-wage IAM contract. The USAirways employees will get the same opportunity-only when they are represented by ihe 1BT.

You blatantly lied about the Teamsters and our contract with America West Airlines. The IAM agreement has lower hourly rates, no shift differential, lower license premiums, and inferior overtime accumulation than the Teamsters at AWA. AWA Teamsters also have superior sick pay, holidays, and vacation time accrual. Since you refuse to provide your members with a copy of their own agreement from January 2005, the Teamsters posted both the AWA and USAirways contracts on line so that members can read and compare for themselves at www.teamsterslocal 104.org.

The Teamsters are outraged that you would impose your substandard agreement on us.
Under the IAM contract, the AWA mechanics would take an across the board wage and benefit cuts. The GSE and stock clerks would benefit monetarily, only if they are employed long enough. Your scope language endangers these jobs by allowing the company to contract out their work in outstations without limitation.
You also make false claims about scope protections by asserting that the IAM scope agreement would bring in-house work that has been outsourced at AWA since before the IBT came on the property. The fact is that IAM could not prevent the outsourcing of heavy maintenance work on Airbuses as that plainly belongs to the USAirways AMTs. Also, every IAM scope clause, including the USAirways IAM scope clause, permits companies to continue historic outsourcing. No IAM agreement has provisions to capture outsourced work. Indeed, the USAirways IAM scope clause has no prohibition on subcontracting. There is no presumption against subcontracting under your agreement.

In contrast, the IBT has won scope clauses that prohibit subcontracting and permit it only within strict limitations. Further, IBT agreements require the company to create full-time positions from subcontracted line maintenance work. IBT agreements also require creation of new heavy maintenance lines to grow headcount. The IBT's scope proposals to AWA in current bargaining seek to gain these protections and the current language protects work that is done now. No IAM agreement anywhere in the industry has such protections, and you have made clear you will not seek such protections for the USAirways employees.

The Teamsters have industry-leading scope and work-capture protections. Unlike IAM, the IBT has not lost work that had long been performed in-house. Rather, we're working on gaining work in the future over and above what we've historically done.

You won't tell them—but the members need to know that the only way for them to renegotiate the substandard IAM agreement at USAirways is to sign a card and vote Teamster.

Unlike the IAM, we believe that both contracts require dramatic improvements and we are negotiating those improvements with AWA right now. We are not satisfied with either our first contract with AWA or your bankruptcy contract and believe that the members deserve more with a Union that is willing to fight for more.

You have conditioned this workforce to expect the very least from their union and you deliver
every time. By joining the Teamsters, the members will a have a say in their contract, be
informed of decisions that affect them, have an opportunity to read all agreements made by the
Union and company, and vote on their contracts by mail ballot. We know that the members are
aware of what is best for them.

Finally, in order to set the record straight, I challenge you and any other IAM representatives to a debate, at any location, at any union hall, in any city. Make your case and defend your positions in front of the membership. Let them decide who is straightfonvard and who is misrepresenting the facts. I am available any day of the week.

Sincerely,


Andrew Marshall
Secretary-Treasurer


Cc:
James P. Hoffa, General President
Don Treichler, Airline Division Director
Tom Buffenberger, LAM President
Teamsters Membership

 

[john john]

Bird Doctor Whats up with your post.

 

[320tech]

Great post you know the truth hurts, hey Andy maybe mr. 700 will take you up on your offer "not". I doubt any IAM person will step up. they will act just like they did today when they are backed up into a corner.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It's not surprising that the outsourcing to India is being reconsidered. There are companies who outsource phone support to India who require that the agents learn to speak English with an American accent before they can be hired. I think it's partially for deception, but I feel the American ear (at least mine) finds English spoken with the typical Indian accent to be irritating.

I'm certain these people are very nice, kind, and trying to be helpful. But Indian accented English always sounds high-handed to me. No matter what's being said, it sounds to me like I'm being sternly lectured to because I've done something naughty or inappropriate. The last thing a company wants to do is to inadvertantly alienate customers over what is really a misperception.

Then again, maybe it's just me. But it is true about some companies requiring "American English" for their foreign sourced telephone support.