I just read the latest IAM flyer regarding the gutting of scope and I thought at first this was meant to be a satirical piece. As I read further however I realized this is the typical blather and misdirection that this group uses to communicate its political message. When reading these missives lately I always half expect an ad from Lyndon LaRouche screaming "Let's colonize Mars because it's good for the economy!"
Let's examine the substance of the flyer for a minute and that is the gutting of the Scope of the Agreement. Brothers and Sisters as I've said in many past blog posts there are virtually no protections left in our current Agreement. In fact we would have an easier time gutting "Harvey the Rabbit" than gutting our protective provisions. The only substantive protection left in the agreement is the LOA that provides for 10/89 seniority protection. In examining that Letter however it has to be read in conjunction with Article X of the current Agreement where the layoff and recall provisions currently reside. Certainly the Company has to provide you a job if you have greater than 10/89 seniority but in reading Article X you are limited to bumping the most junior person on the system if you wish to maintain employment. We've all witnessed the devastating effects of members having to move across the country to maintain employment and in the last round of layoffs fewer than 40% of the members chose to follow the work due in no small part to this provision. Much of the destruction of the scope article occurred in bankruptcy and it's disingenuous at best, and an outright bald faced lie to be more accurate, to claim that what is proposed in the TA is in any way worse than what we currently have.
In examining scope language it is important that as many members are protected as possible, there are provisions for the reclamation of work, and that there are provisions to explore new work. The presence of exception clauses should be limited and if they are in the agreement they should have parameters around them. I believe this TA has achieved that goal and this is why; the scope in the TA protects the members against outsourcing new work, but if the Company does outsource there are several provisions to protect against the exception clauses. The first is expedited arbitration, the second is if work is outsourced no member can be laid off as a result, the third is an LOA protecting everyone (this includes members currently laid off who return to work) and not just those with greater than 10/89 seniority, the fourth is point protection for the largest of the unit in the San Francisco Maintenance center (which provides stability to the rest of the system), and the fifth is the new layoff and recall rules that allow members to truly exercise their seniority making it very difficult and costly for the Company to furlough people to other stations. As far as the reclamation of work and exploration of new work there is language regarding both of these contained in the article and therefore subject to the provisions of expedited arbitration if the Union feels they are violated. In our current agreement there are similar provisions, but they are constructed using precatory language in letters of agreement or in other words they are worthless. For the TA before us anyone that understands scope language, unlike the authors of the recent IAM piece, knows this is how scope should be constructed.
What is the measure of scope given what I've claimed in the above paragraph? I could rely on conjecture, whimsy and fabrication like the authors of the other piece, but let's try to examine my claims with some facts. The first fact is that United has decimated our craft and class much more than any other group within the Company. We have gone from a high of over 16,000 to approximately 4700 currently. This represents close to a 75% reduction in head count while the Company shipped our jobs overseas as well as to other domestic MRO providers. Contrast this to Continental mechanics since they have achieved similar scope language. During the last decade while every other carrier shed mechanics, of the major trunk carriers, only CAL actually added jobs. In fact they added about 15% more in head count throughout the decade growing by over 500 despite the looming specter of bankruptcy. These are a couple of very basic and striking facts and if the retort is the IBT can't defend the scope at United, my question is how did they accomplish this task at Continental? To me the answer is simple; one clause is defensible and the other is nonexistent.
Previous Unions on this property as well as Unions on other properties have tried to protect work instead of jobs. This seemed a worthwhile goal but it has produced mostly poor results throughout the industry. These types of positions don't produce the real results we need to attain in order to provide stability for the membership. One only needs to look at the explosion in the MRO industry over the last twenty years to see that's true. The real goal should be not to protect the work, but rather the jobs. We've all seen firsthand how the Company can manipulate the current nonexistent work protections. We only need to examine the 20% provision to see that these types of clauses are worthless. I say that because the work is gone under this provision and the Union is always left chasing the Company's numbers while more members go out the door. It is a never ending cycle of despair for those that are gone waiting to return as well as those still here waiting to be cut. Another example of protecting the work in our current agreement is protecting the C check lines. What happens when the OEM's decide to change from letter checks to something else? I bring this up because as I stated in a recent post Airbus stated in the MRO America's conference that they will be moving away from letters to something that they feel makes more sense and it sounds like they are getting initial buy in from the FAA. So let's say we kept the language protecting that work, but that work no longer exists, what protections have we secured for the membership? You know the answer already.
It really is disturbing that these very same people that forced the IAM out by claiming they were worthless, have now changed their tune and claim the IAM is the premier vehicle we need to use to restore our former glory. What's worse is they are using the same tactics which they previously employed to depose the IAM. Their shameless political cynicism Brothers and Sisters is the very definition of the term disingenuous.
