Why Tim Nelson is Dangerous to IAM-represented employees at United Airlines

Status
Not open for further replies.

Socplat13

Advanced
Feb 26, 2013
101
42
It is very clear Tim Nelson has very little understanding regarding collective bargaining and the interests of IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

This thread will--point by point--dismantle Nelson's positions as they relate to IAM-represented employees present condition in negotiations with United Airlines:

(1) Nelson claims that IAM District 141 is conceding "scope" protections for IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

The truth is, IAM-represented employees at United Airlines currently possess very little scope protection. Only pre-merger United ramp employees possess scope of any kind. In fact, there are presently a little over 3,000 pre-merger UA ramp employees out of a total of 6,100 that have scope protection.

While there are 29 named stations, two have closed MKE and FLL, in which only IAM-represented ramp service employees can perform MAINLINE United flights, these stations have become over the last decade largely or partially United Express stations in which the work can be contracted out.

All other pre-merger Continental--Fleet and ASA, and pre-merger United customer service work have absolutely no scope protections.

Nelson--a US Airways ramp service employee, advocates that thousands of IAM-represented employees at United without absolutely no protection vote against protecting their jobs because he would like to see the IAM fail at United so he can personally benefit politically.

I challenge Nelson to debate me regarding any and all issues relating to job security at United Airlines. I doubt he will because he never stands up to a challenge of wits. He'd rather spend his time in the sphere of the nitwit.
 
A personal attack calling someone dangerous, and a nitwit, on a public forum will do little to help your cause. I don't have any idea who you are, but I suspect you have lost more respect than gained by posting this.
 
You beat me to it, GQ...

Love him or hate him, the sort of agitating he does is necessary in order to keep leaders on their toes.

The truth is, IAM-represented employees at United Airlines currently possess very little scope protection.

Then the obvious goal should be to improve it, not go backward. Trying to rationalize poor scope with the argument that it was already poor, is fantastic example of why an overhaul of organized labor's leadership- and specifically IAM DL 141- is in order.

Lemme ask you this; Scope was one of the items deemed most critical to the membership in your own surveys. Why then did Delaney, co. feel free to completely ignore that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You beat me to it, GQ...

Love him or hate him, the sort of agitating he does is necessary in order to keep leaders on their toes.



Then the obvious goal should be to improve it, not go backward. Trying to rationalize poor scope with the argument that it was already poor, is fantastic example of why an overhaul of organized labor's leadership- and specifically IAM DL 141- is in order.

Lemme ask you this; Scope was one of the items deemed most critical to the membership in your own surveys. Why then did Delaney, co. feel free to completely ignore that?

Kev,
DL141 did not ignore the membership's direction that scope protections are a priority. As it stands now, under current agreements, less than 20 percent of the IAM-represented membership at UAL possess scope protections. The rejected proposed contract extended scope protection to more than 20,000 out of the approximately 28,000 IAM-represented membership at United.

When you factor in the seniority based protections--no furlough for any reason if on the seniority list as of 7/1/1999 and no furlough due to outsourcing if on the seniority list as of 4/1/2006--then more that 90 percent of the membership attained protections they never had before.

The goal of collective bargaining is to improve current conditions for the group as a whole. Regarding job security, it is no debatable that the rejected proposed contract did that. However, the membership spoke and DL141 is back at the table to try and make changes to reflect the will of the membership.

The "red herring" that Brother Nelson uses is that we can achieve an infinite amount of gains. There will always be things that could be better. However, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the excellent.

I claim Brother Nelson is dangerous because there are many jobs at risk here and the "drumbeat of no" will only serve to have more people lose their jobs because they are not protected.

The point is, IAM DL141 made vast improvements for all regarding the issue of scope. Nelson says otherwise and he is completely wrong.
 
DL141 did not ignore the membership's direction that scope protections are a priority. As it stands now, under current agreements, less than 20 percent of the IAM-represented membership at UAL possess scope protections. The rejected proposed contract extended scope protection to more than 20,000 out of the approximately 28,000 IAM-represented membership at United.

Just so I'm clear, that would leave over 8 thousand people w/o protection, right? Where I come from, leaving almost 1/3 of the membership in the lurch isn't just poor negotiating, that's inexcusable.

When you factor in the seniority based protections--no furlough for any reason if on the seniority list as of 7/1/1999 and no furlough due to outsourcing if on the seniority list as of 4/1/2006--then more that 90 percent of the membership attained protections they never had before.

Better, but 10% is still indefensible. Smisek & friends must not believe their luck...

The goal of collective bargaining is to improve current conditions for the group as a whole.

Sure is. Yet in article after article, your NC went backwards.

Regarding job security, it is no debatable that the rejected proposed contract did that. However, the membership spoke and DL141 is back at the table to try and make changes to reflect the will of the membership.

Not debatable? You're kidding, right?

This thing is an embarrassment.

The "red herring" that Brother Nelson uses is that we can achieve an infinite amount of gains. There will always be things that could be better. However, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the excellent.

I claim Brother Nelson is dangerous because there are many jobs at risk here and the "drumbeat of no" will only serve to have more people lose their jobs because they are not protected.

The "drumbeat of no" should serve Delaney, Levy, and the rest notice that business as usual is no longer acceptable to the people they serve.

The point is, IAM DL141 made vast improvements for all regarding the issue of scope. Nelson says otherwise and he is completely wrong.

No he's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
It is very clear Tim Nelson has very little understanding regarding collective bargaining and the interests of IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

This thread will--point by point--dismantle Nelson's positions as they relate to IAM-represented employees present condition in negotiations with United Airlines:

(1) Nelson claims that IAM District 141 is conceding "scope" protections for IAM-represented employees at United Airlines.

The truth is, IAM-represented employees at United Airlines currently possess very little scope protection. Only pre-merger United ramp employees possess scope of any kind. In fact, there are presently a little over 3,000 pre-merger UA ramp employees out of a total of 6,100 that have scope protection.

While there are 29 named stations, two have closed MKE and FLL, in which only IAM-represented ramp service employees can perform MAINLINE United flights, these stations have become over the last decade largely or partially United Express stations in which the work can be contracted out.

All other pre-merger Continental--Fleet and ASA, and pre-merger United customer service work have absolutely no scope protections.

Nelson--a US Airways ramp service employee, advocates that thousands of IAM-represented employees at United without absolutely no protection vote against protecting their jobs because he would like to see the IAM fail at United so he can personally benefit politically.

I challenge Nelson to debate me regarding any and all issues relating to job security at United Airlines. I doubt he will because he never stands up to a challenge of wits. He'd rather spend his time in the sphere of the nitwit.

You are just like BLUTO and 700UW attacking Tim for educating and informing the UA membership about the awful T/A the NC brought back and was heiled as "monumental" agreement by Ira Levy, Sito Pantoja, and Rich Delaney. What a joke, you guys will only have seven stations with SCOPE by 2016, highest medical contribution in the industry, and still lag behind your peers at DL and WN in pay. I get that it's a great agreement for the IAM with unlimited part time and unlimited split shifts but the implications of this agreement are disastrous to airline workers, not only at United. As Kev said you guys pretty much gave the company exactly what they wanted and succeeded in pitting the membership against each other.

Tim speaks the truth, it is rather honorable that he comes on here and posts with his full name and takes the time to educate his peers at UAL. The IAM screwed up big time here, they have given away tremendous leverage to the company. Whenever you guys go back to negotiations the T/A the membership rejected will be the starting point and UA will push hard to keep SCOPE out of the agreement and say "you agreed to this before". Throughout all this you have also given the unorganized CO agents a taste of what the IAM is all about, many of of whom didn't support the IAM in the election but some were willing to give it a try. I'm sure the No Way AFA/IAM activists at DL just love poking fun at this agreement as they meet with FAs around the system to counter the "grassroots" drive underway now.

IAM and DL 141 has failed their membership, are happy to collaborate with the company to reach an agreement beneficial to both businesses since after all the membership is an expendable commodity, only good for providing dues to the grand and district lodges. It is so obvious the District worked quickly to put together a garbage contract that would get just enough votes to pass so the dues can begin flowing from the non-union CO agents.

Josh
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The "drumbeat of no" should serve Delaney, Levy, and the rest notice that business as usual is no longer acceptable to the people they serve.

Delaney gets elected by the DL 141 membership but the fact is Ira and Sito are untouchable. It is apparent they have become too cozy slurping $250k+ salaries and grand lodge bennies while the membership suffers and sacrifices. As you said before, you were initially leery of Sito Pantoja as GVP but had been told good things by 700 so were willing to give him a chance. How do you feel now if with his considerable participation and support in this process he comes back with 50 stations on the chopping block, calls the agreement "monumental and unprecedented" only to have it resoundingly defeated by the membership? You keep talking about bottom up approach to labor, and its obvious IAM politics do not support that approach. Again, when was the last time Sito worked as a mechanic? When was the last time Roach loaded bags on the ramp? It is evident they are out of step with the needs of the membership, so as you say they should "get out of the way".

Josh
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
In what world is the extension of specific job security provisions from only 23 percent of the IAM represented membership at UA to over 90 percent is not better?

The remainder has their property right of seniority to exercise if they are displaced, as has been the case for decades.

The fact is, the rejected TA provided more IAM represented workers specific job security provisions in than ever before. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. 90+ percent is better than 23 percent, is it not?

How many stations are on the chopping block now? How many jobs are at stake now?

67 percent of United's operation is UAX flying, in which a big fat zero is protected. The rejected TA protected much of that work for the term of the TA.

You guys make it sound like there is somehow some concession of scope going on here. That's false.

15,000 at sub-CO have absolutely no job protection at all other than their property right of seniority, and about 8,000 on the sub-UA side are in the same position in all classifications. Do we forget about them? Pretend they don't exist?

Also, Veteran, the rejected TA did not have the highest medical contribution in the industry. Get you facts straight. US Airways is top at 19.4% aggregate contribution, the UA rejected TA was second at 20%. Every other airline was higher.

Also, Veteran, due to the seniority based job protections, UAL could not force all employees into the 7 hubs, not even close. Those protections, coupled with scope protections serve to protect work

Nice try guys, but your way, way off base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
In what world is the extension of specific job security provisions from only 23 percent of the IAM represented membership at UA to over 90 percent is not better?

The real world.

The better question is why you're trying to rationalize ZERO protection for a full 10% of the membership as a good thing?

The remainder has their property right of seniority to exercise if they are displaced, as has been the case for decades.

...And had this passed, lots of people would've had the opportunity to test drive that language, too.

Good displacement laguage is not an acceptable substitute for poorly written Scope.

The fact is, the rejected TA provided more IAM represented workers specific job security provisions in than ever before. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. 90+ percent is better than 23 percent, is it not?

You're continuing to defend the indefensible.

You're right about one thing, though; I'm not entitled to my own facts. Good thing I have the T/A as well as DL 141 officer commentary to go by...

This T/A- and Delaney & Co's amazing fumbling of it- are the perfect case study in how to F'up contract talks, and labor relations in general...

You guys make it sound like there is somehow some concession of scope going on here. That's false.

Not from where I'm sitting, it isn't...

Not just a "concession," but an almost complete abdication, really.

Also, Veteran, the rejected TA did not have the highest medical contribution in the industry. Get you facts straight. US Airways is top at 19.4% aggregate contribution, the UA rejected TA was second at 20%. Every other airline was higher.


To use your term:


In what world is 20% less than 19.4%?

In what world is going from free medical (depending on plan) to paying 20% seen as an improvement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The TWU laughed at that TA and they're pretty inept negotiators themselves.

Let's get to the point, the IAM wanted the dues income,period.

to their credit they have at least been smart enough not to bring garbage like that to a vote at US,they get laughed off the property. What I wonder is after you have taken out huge ads saying how great a contract it is , how you you go back to the table with the egg on your face asking for more?
 
67 percent of United's operation is UAX flying, in which a big fat zero is protected. The rejected TA protected much of that work for the term of the TA.

At the seven protected stations Express work would be protected but many stations would have become eligible for outsourcing DOS while some would be on 4/1/2016. Again, this is another example of how the NC worked to divide the membership pitting the hubs vs smaller stations against each other in negotiations.

You guys make it sound like there is somehow some concession of scope going on here. That's false.

Well obviously if as Kevin said you would lose nearly 1/3 of the membership and displace many others to the hub stations. Again you have to look at the big picture and see this will set an industry standard that AA, DL, US, WN, etc will follow. The District must have reached a book door deal with UAL to make Air Willy the preferred the outsourcing partner, they must have something lined up to maintain their dues payers in those cities.

15,000 at sub-CO have absolutely no job protection at all other than their property right of seniority, and about 8,000 on the sub-UA side are in the same position in all classifications. Do we forget about them? Pretend they don't exist?

They don't have SCOPE because they were unorganized. While the work wasn't protected under a CBA CO made no indication leading up to the merger they would contract out many stations (as UA has done). Even many entirely Express stations under CO still have mainline employees, can't say the same of sUA under the IAM. Again, this agreement has really shaped an image of the IAM among the unorganized CO agents, many of whom placed trust in the IAM are now finding themselves out of a job. Union protection at work I guess. Again the No Way AFA/IAM group at DL loves bringing up this garbage T/A and the IAM's interest in speedy negotiations to begin collecting dues.

Also, Veteran, due to the seniority based job protections, UAL could not force all employees into the 7 hubs, not even close. Those protections, coupled with scope protections serve to protect work

Nice try guys, but your way, way off base.

You conveniently leave out that the agreement would have unlimited part-time and unlimited split shifts.

Josh
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
The ramp at CO had a CBA in Nov of 2010, five months after the merger was announced.

Under the IBT, not the IAM. Worker out great for the IAM, that way they could begin collecting dues immediately for administering the IBT CBA. How are the negotiations going for the Commutair F/As? They have been in the IAM since 2008, no CBA, no progress on negotiations, no nothing. Could it be the grand lodge doesn't want to invest the necessary resources since they are a small group of dues payers and have already gone five years without paying dues?

Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.