While the Ousties argue whether or not the wages for lower skilled jobs were purposefully raised at the expense of higher skilled jobs, one thing is certain; the Union botched it representational duties when it tried to protect a small number of workers, and in-turn, did a grave injustice to the majority of technicians during negotiations that reduced the number of trades in the workforce a few contracts back. The meetings between the Union officials and a small number of Ousties in 2010 confirmed this problem and the Union side admitted it was fully aware of, but had been unable or unwilling to resolve yet. The problem is related to the general shift of wages that occurred during the combining of trades that created the “Assembly Technician” position, along with the “Product Test Specialist.”
According to the 2009 IAM Constitution, the definition of a Technician is a person who has served an apprenticeship of four years or completed college or vocational training in a particular field or has acquired a fundamental knowledge in the fields of aerospace, electronics, atomic energy, or other related fields or divisions of the machinist’ trade. The expectation required is equal to that of a Journeyman, but in a different skill set. A Specialist is a person who is employed in a particular branch or subdivision of the machinist’ trade, or a person who performs a particular line of work commonly recognized as work connected with the trade but requiring less general knowledge of the trade than a Journeyman (or Technician).
IAMAW LL933 turned this upside-down when they named all Assembly Specialists as Technicians, and demoted all the Test Technicians to Specialists. And they did a similar distortion to their pay too. Within each of these groups, there are members who do meet the constitutional requirements for their respective rating of Specialist or Technician, based upon their skill set. This distinction was never dealt with. As a result, members in both groups were given an unfair deal. Specifically the Prototype Technicians were robbed of the huge raise given to the other Assembly Techs. Electronic Test Technicians with component level troubleshooting skills were insulted when Test Specialists pay was raised to their level.
One solution is as simple as creating multiple pay grades within many of the trades represented within the workforce, depending upon need. Or create pay grades irrespective of trade, and have certain trades occupy a range of pay grades. Promotions are earned by individuals who work more demanding positions within their trade and can demonstrate proficiency to the satisfaction of an agreed upon authority. There are a number of crafts within RMS that could benefit from this proposition.
Skilled workers doing tasks beyond their job titles agree, for example: Prototype Tool & Die, Metrology Techs & Cal Svc Techs, PTS, Process Techs, Assembly Techs, & Prod Machinists should be evaluated for possible ways to meet increased needs for more capable workers and compensate those who meet the challenge. CEP has proven to be a colossal failure, and both the Union and Company are responsible for that mess. Crib sheets and unethical help by insiders gave unqualified workers advancements over others who were more deserving in the past. Why insult high skilled workers by paying low skilled workers the same wages? We need comprehensive pay reform at RMS. It needs to be fiscally neutral to the Company, but beneficial to those who worked the hardest to get skills needed by Raytheon the most. Bring back sanity to our job titles and pay scales.
