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

[john john]

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

I think we get it the present contract(s) SUX! So therefore don’t get your hopes up for big improvements. Just scare you guys are showing the way for the industry

 

[T5towbar]

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

Say what you will about Tim, but he does brings a lot of info to the members that we don't get otherwise. Like the secret LOA's giving up our cargo. What did we get for that? The only thing that I know of is that the former cargo leads kept their override since they cant be leads on the ramp.

Leaving out even 10% of our membership is a problem for me. Who came up with those dates anyway? Everyone working should be protected!!! I know. Some of them are gone right now, due to the cargo loss and bump. Some good friends of mine on the sCO side. Seven stations may be protected, but what about Express in those stations? That can be farmed out as well, just like in IAD, where Air Whiskey does it. We do express at EWR and should not lose it.

What I don't understand is why negotiate DOWNWARD from a Bankruptcy 2009 contract? This company is not broke!

First mistake was to go into single carrier without getting sUA a contract first. That would have eliminated some of the tension between the two groups. They are entitled to retro, not some BS that the company is offering (130 million as a "signing bonus" to split). Then the metal agreement. And the other secret LOA's. A lot of problems that I see. Tim and others just brout this to the members attention. And of course the color coded mail ballots dividing subsidiary and workgroup. Not cool by any means.

So I for one disagree with your assessment of the failed TA. And the strike vote (which no one will discuss) was a very high in the "yes" column. I support my union, but you don't give the sCO ATO members much to be supportive about. The IAM needs these "duespayers" on the books, and they will do anything to get them.

 

[Kev3188]

So much for the point by point "dismantling" of Tim's assertions...

 

[737823]

So much for the point by point "dismantling" of Tim's assertions...

Agreed. Surprised you agree with Tim, 700 and others on this forum that believe it is privilege to allow the IAM to draw dues from employees payroll don't seem to like what Tim has to say.

Josh

 

[737823]

Duplicate post

 

[737823]

Say what you will about Tim, but he does brings a lot of info to the members that we don't get otherwise. Like the secret LOA's giving up our cargo. What did we get for that? The only thing that I know of is that the former cargo leads kept their override since they cant be leads on the ramp.

Leaving out even 10% of our membership is a problem for me. Who came up with those dates anyway? Everyone working should be protected!!! I know. Some of them are gone right now, due to the cargo loss and bump. Some good friends of mine on the sCO side. Seven stations may be protected, but what about Express in those stations? That can be farmed out as well, just like in IAD, where Air Whiskey does it. We do express at EWR and should not lose it.

What I don't understand is why negotiate DOWNWARD from a Bankruptcy 2009 contract? This company is not broke!

First mistake was to go into single carrier without getting sUA a contract first. That would have eliminated some of the tension between the two groups. They are entitled to retro, not some BS that the company is offering (130 million as a "signing bonus" to split). Then the metal agreement. And the other secret LOA's. A lot of problems that I see. Tim and others just brout this to the members attention. And of course the color coded mail ballots dividing subsidiary and workgroup. Not cool by any means.

So I for one disagree with your assessment of the failed TA. And the strike vote (which no one will discuss) was a very high in the "yes" column. I support my union, but you don't give the sCO ATO members much to be supportive about. The IAM needs these "duespayers" on the books, and they will do anything to get them.

Not sure if you meant to direct this reply to socplat13, but in any event I think we are in agreement. This is a POS T/A and it is apparent the IAM wanted to get something merely acceptable ratified ASAP to begin collecting dues from sCO passenger service agents. As it is the IAM has collected dues from the IBT CO ramp since winning the election so no rush there.

Signing away cargo was wrong and especially for the IAM to later hold pickets when they were the very ones who allowed the work to be outsourced. They should have worked to take the better of the two agreements and bring sUA in house rather than outsource sCO.

If the ramp and PCE agreements were viable in 2005 for then bankrupt, stand alone UA why can't they improve on it with a now stable, restructured and profitable airline? They kept touting these great "synergies" the merger provided, employees should get a share.

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

Agreed. Surprised you agree with Tim, 700 and others on this forum that believe it is privilege to allow the IAM to draw dues from employees payroll don't seem to like what Tim has to say.

Josh

Why? Tim & I have both written quite a bit about the vision each of us have for the reshaping of America's labor movement (and it's structures), and how to go about it. We're usually not too far off from each other.

700 & I may differing views on how to get there, but share many of the same ideals. He's a solid union guy, and I'd stand with him any time.

 

[737823]

Why? Tim & I have both written quite a bit about the vision each of us have for the reshaping of America's labor movement (and it's structures), and how to go about it. We're usually not too far off from each other.

700 & I may differing views on how to get there, but share many of the same ideals. He's a solid union guy, and I'd stand with him any time.

You may not have as strong a kinship to the IAM as him but you certainly are a pretty loud cheerleader for them.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

Tim & I have both written quite a bit about the vision each of us have for the reshaping of America's labor movement (and it's structures), and how to go about it. We're usually not too far off from each other.

I would be interested in reading works from both of you if you would be so kind as to indicate where those can be found... if other than on this board.

 

[700UW]

Tim has done some things in the past that has hurt the labor movement, and how he achieved certain things, so I just speak as to what happened.

He could be a great union guy, if he didnt make it about himself.

And thanks for the kind words Kevin

 

[737823]

Tim has done some things in the past that has hurt the labor movement, and how he achieved certain things, so I just speak as to what happened.

He could be a great union guy, if he didnt make it about himself.

And thanks for the kind words Kevin

Please do...what specifically has Tim done to hurt the labor movement? Seems he is on here educating and informing the membership at UAL to vote no on a POS anti-labor T/A that was being shoved down their throats from the GL and DL 141. What has Time done to hurt labor?

Josh

 

[700UW]

I have all ready posted it many times, and you have read it.

 

[737823]

Unclear what you are referring to, please provide link(s) to such post(s).

Josh

 

[T5towbar]

Not sure if you meant to direct this reply to socplat13, but in any event I think we are in agreement. This is a POS T/A and it is apparent the IAM wanted to get something merely acceptable ratified ASAP to begin collecting dues from sCO passenger service agents. As it is the IAM has collected dues from the IBT CO ramp since winning the election so no rush there.

Signing away cargo was wrong and especially for the IAM to later hold pickets when they were the very ones who allowed the work to be outsourced. They should have worked to take the better of the two agreements and bring sUA in house rather than outsource sCO.

If the ramp and PCE agreements were viable in 2005 for then bankrupt, stand alone UA why can't they improve on it with a now stable, restructured and profitable airline? They kept touting these great "synergies" the merger provided, employees should get a share.

Josh

I was referring to socplat13.
And again, and I also forgot about the Early Out program with their convoluted "formula".
Another failure from the IAM.....

As I said again, the bosses at the IAM was late to the party as the IAH newly formed local organized the first picketing last summer about the loss of cargo @ IAH. No one knew about the secret LOA giving it up without getting something. Our (sCO) cargo was highly profitable and it made lots of money. It's a problem when you don't fight for it, because the IAM had no intention of fighting for it. That bothers me, as I see people that I work with with every day laid off (those who couldn't hold a transfer) and others forced to part time. And now the vendor is wrecking things up. But hey, it saves money!! I for one knew that cargo was a goner because management took a long time in their decision where to keep it or farm it out. The key word was "harmonize". A good union is supposed to negotiate something for the loss. Not to make things worse.

I read all of the previous contracts and agreements, and you mean to tell me that the negotiators couldn't at least "hold serve" and work from the 2009 agreements (since they wasn't going with the older agreements where sUA was making 25 plus an hour.) This TA took the worst aspects of FTW, and you don't even see any aspect of the old sUA contracts. WE (sCO ramp) knew that our agreement was bad, but we knew that we were going back to the table, and/or if sUA won, they promised they were going to start from their contract as a baseline, and combine some of our (sCO) improvements and add IAH to the protected stations. And add ORD to the list of cities that add another 1.00 per hour as "market rate" cities. That's not even in the TA. That's at least a 160.00 (or more) per month hit. They were "red circled" - a fancy word for "eliminated".

Another thing that bothers me is the "agreement" between DL 141 & 142 about the situation at IAD. We should be doing Express work in ALL SEVEN HUBS. We (sCO) do it in our three hubs (although when the Q400 came to IAH, that was originally farmed out, but at least we now do that). They put a "Cinderella" date on that work as well. All it does it sets a bad precedent just to keep the dues flowing. Since Air Wisconsin won't be doing a whole lot of express flying, will they be the preferred ground handler for the hubs (ie: American Eagle - which by the way is the vendor of choice for the six stations that were recently announced for outsourcing). This is another thing that seems like a "conflict". Or another way to keep the dues flowing at the expense of the members you are trying to serve.

This leadership is weak, and it seems like it's keeping us more divided than together. Why pay dues? All Tim did was to look at what is offered and told us some info about this "monumental" TA.

 

[Kev3188]

You may not have as strong a kinship to the IAM as him but you certainly are a pretty loud cheerleader for them.

Josh

I'm a champion of organized labor in this country. That's nothing new.

What's your point?