A long time ago I learned that the old adage "actions speak louder than words" was true. Recently I saw a flyer from the Mechanics for Change where they called David Bourne and Ed Gleason liars (again) regarding what Linda Pachula told the parties. The flyer is incorrect on many levels. The first point I'd like to address is the fact is this statement was made at every road show in exactly the same manner not just SFO and IAD. After the fact a letter was written to the NMB and counsel for that agency answered that the NMB would never violate the law or the rules. Of course in the aftermath of the rejected TA the results speak for themselves. The TA was rejected by a margin of 600 votes and given recent bargaining history at UAL it would probably have taken only a few tweaks to get a ratified agreement. However the Company applied for mediation three business days after the vote effectively ending any hope of a quick resolution to the major sticking points. The NMB, as required by law, accepted the Company's application for mediation. (as of this writing we are still waiting for the NMB's decision regarding the Company's application to go straight to amalgamation) Then the NMB set a schedule where we will not begin real negotiations until next February. That is nine months from the date of the rejected TA. Why would the NMB do this? The NMB saw the results of the vote and also the TA. The NMB which is severely understaffed and overworked could have gotten the parties together immediately to see if there were some adjustments to be made to get a ratified agreement. That is their purpose. Instead they put us on the backburner. So did the meetings take place? You can judge for yourself. For me I know the meetings, first with the Company and then with the Union, happened and I'm not ashamed that I shared this information.
The next point I'd like to address is scope. Are these guys serious? A loss of 11000 mechanics isn't enough to convince these folks that our scope sucks? Prior to 1994 and the ESOP we didn't have the greatest scope, but it worked because there was no real domestic or foreign competition to take our jobs. During the negotiations leading up to the ESOP the Union (IAM) realized that our scope did little to protect us. Once the flight kitchens were sold, the IAM recognizing that we were extremely exposed, agreed to a 20% cap on outsourcing. This concession was made at the time to try and protect our jobs. In addition a letter of protection for those with greater than 1994 seniority was also agreed upon. The amount of work being outsourced remained flat for a time and then began to increase dramatically at the end of the decade. Bankruptcy through two hearings further eroded our scope as well as the 1994 protection date. In the first of the bankruptcy "negotiations" in 2003 the protection date was moved to October of 1989 based on a formula of retirees. Also during this time period Indy and OAK were closed resulting on huge numbers of furloughs. Further "protections" were added in the second round of "negotiations". At that time we were already down to about 9000 mechanics and the Union (AMFA) believed adding the shop protections and line protections would stop the bloodletting. It didn't. This very same language continues to keep us down yet the MFC steadfastly want to cling to it. Do they not understand basic math? If that's the case here is a quick lesson 15700>4700. Under very similar language (the United TA scope language was better than the CAL CBA scope language because of the SFO point protection provision) Continental mechanics enjoyed a 15% increase in jobs. In other words protecting the work instead of the jobs hasn't worked and vice versa. The results speak for themselves.
Unlike the continued garbage spewing from the Mechanics for Change, proudly signed,
Bob Fisher
