Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA/CO Ranp/Fleet Workers Pick IAM  
User currently offlineUTAH744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 202 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Combined UA/CO ramp/fleet workers selected IAM over IBT. From the article it seems that "scope" was the major factor as the IBT contract with CO allowed outsourcing. Hope this one will be a smooth transition.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/14100-...rlines-bw-1873850232.html?x=0&.v=1


You are never too old to learn something stupid
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecontrails15 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Best of luck to my fellow ramp agents but not a fan what so ever with these unions. IAM have been trying for years to get us and thankfully they get shot down. Good for them though for taking IAM over IBT if outsourcing is what they would have to deal with.


Giants football!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User currently offlineStyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Looked like a very close vote too. Just about 300 votes difference.

User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

Hopefully it wont take 3 years to work out a contract with UA ...

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Its telling that the CO ramp force was in fact larger than the UA one. Change was clearly desired by many CO rank and file.

NS


User currently offlinenwaesc From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Nothing else in a CBA matters w/o solid Scope. For all intents and purposes, the IBT contract at CO didn't have any.


"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 4):
Its telling that the CO ramp force was in fact larger than the UA one. Change was clearly desired by many CO rank and file.

It was about the contract that the IBT produced. It had an outsourcing clause and job protection that ended on December 31, 2011. That paragraph on Page One of our contract galvanized the UA side. In many aspects, the IAM bankruptcy contract is much better than ours. The IBT contract was put together in 5 months so we could have some protection during this merger. It wasn't exactly what we wanted, but we got pay increases during the duration of the contract (till 2013), but lacked the important thing: SCOPE. The company (CO) wouldn't even negotiate, and passed off the company handbook with dues. A lot of us didn't like it and the ratification vote was quite low. (Over half didn't even voted for the ratification). IMHO, this contract was signed to help the MX (on the CO side) get their bonus. Notice the MX contract had a no layoff clause for the duration of the contract, plus a nice signing bonus. (Side note: the UA IBT MX had turned down their TA over retro) This was just the campaign ammo for the IAM side. If they (the UA side) kept their numbers, and some defectors (myself included) came over, the usual apathy on our side would be enough for the IAM to win. And right they were: 3000 or so people did not vote at all. (At least 287 people voted No Union) I'll bet that at least of 2000 people were from our side.

In this business, Scope is the most important thing. More than money.
The IAM will have to manage our contract till a amalgamated contract will be had. And they will open our own Section 6 talks. But since the IAM have lost a lot of members lately, this will be a showcase contract, and they will work their butts off to get it. This will be an industry LEADING contract. But in my personal opinion, a lot of it will be based on if our pilots hold the line on scope. WE have some smaller stations where we still have mainline employees doing express flights. The IBT saved 7 of those stations. The IAM must work hard to keep them. The company is bring more work inhouse, but we have to make sure they are included in the new contract, where they are not outsourced again. Plus protecting Cargo as well.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 6):
Plus protecting Cargo as well.

That will be a big test for the IAM...IAM already lost all PMUA cargo handling to outsourcing during the bankruptcy, CO's 14 dedicated domestic cargo stations are going to be a telling issue.For example, CO has in house cargo handling at SFO, LAX and ORD right now...as these are UA hubs with outsourced cargo handling, what is the company going to do to them, and what can the IAM do about it? Listening to former CO management who are now part of the "new" UA, they all seem to be toting the PMUA line that "outsourcing cuts costs", i.e. a good thing. This was going to be an issue no matter who won the election. Now that the ball is in the IAM's court lets see what they can do about it.


User currently offlinemalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

PMUA outsourced food (sold it off) outsourced cabin services then cargo operations. wonder if anything else will be next to outsource at the hubs with the merged company?


There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5643 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting UTAH744 (Thread starter):
From the article it seems that "scope" was the major factor as the IBT contract with CO allowed outsourcing.

I can't speak for the IBT contract or the possible IAM/UA contract, but the IAM contract for US fleet/ramp workers allows for stations to be outsourced when mainline flights drop below a certain level, but are only able to be in-sourced when mainline flights hit a level greater than that. I believe it's less than 28 departures/week can be outsourced, while over 30 are needed to insource. This is on an annualized basis, so US can (and has) dropped mainline flights for 6 months, getting the "magic number" to 27.5, only to ramp it back up to 29.5 the other six months.

Quoting malaysia (Reply 8):
PMUA outsourced food (sold it off) outsourced cabin services then cargo operations. wonder if anything else will be next to outsource at the hubs with the merged company?

Everyone is outsourcing everything everywhere they can. I'm not a fan of today's unions, but if it was up to the companies they would farm out everything imaginable, and then some, becoming a virtual company.

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 7):
outsourcing cuts costs

In the short and medium term, yes. As we've seen though, it's nowhere near enough to cover the volatile oil prices, not to mention many senior managers and officers started their airline careers in ramp, customer service, and maintenance. It's really sad to see them forget where the best come from, all because some bean counter with an MBA can't look up from a balance sheet to see what it takes to run an airline.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinetsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 9):
Quoting tsnamm (Reply 7):
outsourcing cuts costs

In the short and medium term, yes.



You took just a snippet of the statement to make it look like I was saying it...the point being made was PMCO which kept most tasks inhouse are now singing the UA song of outsourcing, giving the usual explainations. That PMCO's cargo operation is much more effiecient, productive and reliable than the outside vendors PMUA uses is never brought up. Its simply about how much money you can save by cutting salary per hour. As Gordon Bethune said in his book "From Worst to First" concerning outsourcing and other cost cutting measures..."you can make a pizza so cheap no one will want to eat it!"


User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5643 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 10):

You took just a snippet of the statement to make it look like I was saying it

Totally not my intention... just a response to those that would say that.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinesulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Congratulations to the IAM. Hopefully we will be able to see a new, unified contract sooner rather than later.


In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineStyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 6):
but lacked the important thing: SCOPE

Question, what does the IAM do if the company doesn't agree to scope?


User currently offlinePrinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 744 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Foolish vote. I see the IAM steal over 53.00 each month from my paycheck and we see nothing in return. Only the usual union bull but no action. Hard to believe some people are still foolish enough to vote an union in.


PRINAIR : Puerto Rico International Airlines
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

They both had unions already. They had to pick one.

NS


User currently offlineStyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1594 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 15):
They both had unions already. They had to pick one.

They could have voted for no union representation. Actually, a few hundred of them did. In addition a few thousand didn't vote at all. There is a disconnect somewhere...


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting Reply 16):
They could have voted for no union representation.

Please explain the process in detail.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5643 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1461 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 17):

Please explain the process in detail.

All workers in a craft or class being organized receive a ballot in the mail from the NLRB.

In this case, there were 4 choices for representation on the ballot:

-IAM
-IBT
-A space for a write in
-No union.


This is how every union election goes. Before, one would need a simple majority (50% +1) of ALL the workers to be certified, whether they voted or not. Under the new rules, it's a simple majority of the total votes cast.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1653 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting Prinair (Reply 14):
Foolish vote. I see the IAM steal over 53.00 each month from my paycheck and we see nothing in return. Only the usual union bull but no action. Hard to believe some people are still foolish enough to vote an union in.

I can understand your pain..I hate the IAM but for different reasons. All I can tell you is give them a chance and see if your life is better with them as opposed to when you were non union then you can decide if your 53 dollars a month are wasted. The IAM might be a good deal but only you can decide that for yourself.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlinenwaesc From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3389 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 18):
All workers in a craft or class being organized receive a ballot in the mail from the NLRB.

Small correction: All employees received their ballots from the NMB.



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineT5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting Reply 13):
Question, what does the IAM do if the company doesn't agree to scope?

Most of the scope is already in the bankrupt IAM contract. Cargo; IAH; CLE; and some of the other stations just have to be included. A LOA should take care of that in the interim until a new contract is settled. Most likely the starting point during these negotiations is working from this contract and going upward. The IAM has to also our open Section 6 so we can get rid of that Page One about the outsourcing and job protection that ends on 12/31/11. We will be still working under the IBT contract that the IAM would administer. Dues will be going to the IAM once things are set up and running. More stewards and officers will have to come to our hubs.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 18):
This is how every union election goes. Before, one would need a simple majority (50% +1) of ALL the workers to be certified, whether they voted or not. Under the new rules, it's a simple majority of the total votes cast.

BTW: we won our original union election last year under the OLD rules.

Quoting Reply 16):
Quoting gigneil (Reply 15):
They both had unions already. They had to pick one.

They could have voted for no union representation. Actually, a few hundred of them did. In addition a few thousand didn't vote at all. There is a disconnect somewhere...

That may be true in some aspects. 287 people made their feelings known about that. But a lot just didn't care to vote. About 3000 or so didn't care to vote. That's what's so upsetting. And I'll take a bet that most was from our side... Once the UA people saw our contract, they knew that most or all was going to vote IAM so they wouldn't lose what they have.

Quoting Prinair (Reply 14):
Foolish vote. I see the IAM steal over 53.00 each month from my paycheck and we see nothing in return. Only the usual union bull but no action. Hard to believe some people are still foolish enough to vote an union in.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but not having a union was not an option at this time. Especially now. Even though we outnumbered UA by about 700 or so people, a union was going to be on property. We lost way too much while other (unionized) workgroups got theirs back. We took more of the hits (even more than passenger service). At least with the union in place, we got most of things back that we lost. That also helped the people upstairs too. That will be the next battle, because a lot of our people are anti-union while the people on the UA side are strongly union. They remember the "C" scale employees who got paid a lot less then their coworkers. (someone from UA can explain it better than I can)

We needed a union in the worst way. Gordon is not running the new UA. Jeff set the tone for all of this mess by bypassing our pilot's scope with the 170's at the hubs. So all of the workgroups know that scope will be the most important thing. The only thing I feel that may be a problem in any new contract is the medical situation. I think UA (IAM members) have either free or heavily reduced medical HMO. This may be a major sticking point. Nowadays, companies don't want to foot the medical for employees, making employees pay more for it. (Hell, I got four relatives on the picket line right now in the Verizon strike for those reasons) Same as pensions. But the IAM has their own pension plan. But this may be a problem and what will the IAM be forced to give up in return for this? Cargo? That shouldn't be an option. I know that Dolan and McDonald believe in outsourcing, but some of the people in management from our side should explain to them the value of keeping things in-house. Most of our cargo is insourced and it is doing well and making money. It's employees are highly scored well in the system and are very productive. In fact, all of us on the CO side, since we have been shorthanded for last couple of years. So you can't use that excuse that we haven't been productive and don't earn our pay.



A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Will The "New UA" Do With CO's GE-fleet? posted Mon Nov 22 2010 14:26:10 by Northwest727
Active Widebody Fleet Of UA/CO Vs DL Vs AA In 2010 posted Sat Apr 24 2010 12:58:51 by CV880
UA And CO Perfect Fleet Match Up posted Tue Mar 17 2009 07:07:24 by Jetfuel
AA,UA,DL,NW,CO,US. Choose Your Pick. posted Mon Oct 13 2003 22:06:13 by GoAibusGo
UA (CO) 738 At MKE posted Fri Aug 5 2011 00:40:57 by rj777
UA/CO Row 33? posted Tue Aug 2 2011 17:12:04 by uaord2000
Does Anyone Know The Status UA/CO Joint Contracts posted Sun Jul 31 2011 09:58:21 by UnitedTristar
UA/CO Merger: I Don't Understand Anything... posted Sun Jul 31 2011 03:45:48 by LY777
When Does UA/CO Get Their Single Operating Certifi posted Sat Jul 30 2011 13:05:24 by vulindlela744
UA/CO Narrowbody Crossfleeting posted Wed Jul 27 2011 22:53:45 by boilerla