AA encouraging pilots to fly sick & injured

[TWAnr]

----------------
On 4/26/2003 1138 PM AAStew wrote:


DC just left the company and he is being given 3 years salary compensation.

----------------
​

Just how much do you want to bet that he also got lifetime passes, probably positive space and without having to pay any surcharges to boot?

 

[ualnyc]

Times are rough here at ual for sure - but the company did come out last week and give all furloughed employees pass travel benefits for the duration of the furlough or the end of 2005, whichever comes first.

 

the minute TWANR and or AASTEW do 1 percent for AA that carty has done than you to will deserve his compensation package. I respect any Flight Attendant and any Pilot that respects the company that signs their check. Feel sorry all you want maybe I am an FSM in a base near you....maybe hummmmmmmmm

 

[AAStew]

Puh-leeze.....Good Night A77IGW

 

[Winglet]

First of all, if Arpey continues Carty's abusive policy, then it's ARPEY'S POLICY. Of course, that is, unless you want to debate the definition of "is."

Secondly, if someone that's scheduled for furlough comes down with a headcold and can't fly, THEN THEY DO GET THEIR SIX MONTHS ADDITIONAL PASSES REVOKED.

Thirdly, for example, if someone is injured by a hazard that was ignored by management, then they are tacitly encouraged NOT TO REPORT THE INJURY.

This is wrong, unethical, and just plain lousy managment and leadership . . . . . but that seems to be AA management's way of doing business.

While pursuing a master's degree in business and management, it was generally accepted that corporations that suffer from poor labor relations almost ALWAYS have incompetent management. I also found that to be true in many years of experience in management and leadership positions myself. And in my whole life, I have never seen an organization with worse labor relations than AMR.

 

[Duditz]

----------------
On 4/27/2003 9:08:30 AM Winglet wrote:

....Secondly, if someone that's scheduled for furlough comes down with a headcold and can't fly, THEN THEY DO GET THEIR SIX MONTHS ADDITIONAL PASSES REVOKED....

...This is wrong, unethical, and just plain lousy managment and leadership . . . . . but that seems to be AA management's way of doing business.....

While pursuing a master's degree in business and management, it was generally accepted that....
----------------​

The way I understand your 1st post, an employees is given (earns) ADDITIONAL
passes IF they do not call in sick. They have not yet earned these additional passes, ergo there is nothing to be REVOKED. Using words like REVOKED is a cheap rhetorical trick. (some might say unethical)

This is a simple business incentive - there is no ethics issue involved. Many employees will benefit.

You should have pursued that masters harder, it doesn't sound like you caught it.

 

[TimeOff]

Hi
Question.
In other words its more or less the same thing we had before 9-11, don't call in sick and get 2 free state passes/hawaii and MEX?
Does this also included Eagle employes or just AA?
I never heard of this untill this post. Ohh almost forgot and effective when?
Thanks for the info.

 

[L1011Ret]

A few thoughts about this issue:
1. Use of reinforcers to control behavior is common. We all do it. But the behavior in this instance is not controllable - that is getting sick from a cold or stress is generally not controllable. So applying reinforcers to behavior that is not controllable is at best misguided and might be discriminatory in some cases. Some people get sick often, their genes are hardly controllable so are they discriminating against someone with a genetic vulnerability?
2. The behavior being targeted for reinforcement is not by managements thoughts use of sick leave but "abuse" of sick leave. It is targeted at those about to be furloughed who are thought to be using sick leave for purposes other than those for which sick leave was designed to help.
3. The program may work, that is there will be less abuse than without the program.
4. At the same time the program may cause violations of the FARs, flying when sick. A safety issue as well as a health issue for fellow crewmembers and passengers. At the time of SARS, this might engender great risk.
5. One can understand AA''s need for this program, but in a time of great stress and worldwide health concerns, it seems like a bonehead move. Surely they could have found something that would have more closely targeted the true abusers instead of generating outrage in the ranks.

 

[MADAMT]

To A77IGW

First of all who made you the morality police for AA, this companies upper management has no morals. It stoops to lowest forms to accomplish its goals. To sit there from your mighty throne and preach to others, this must be a heavy burden to bear.

Lets look at this companies ethics.
Demanded concessions from workers while assuring their own financial prosperty.
Assured themselves a retention bonus for staying with the company. Tell me how much did you get for your loyality? What kind of employee needs a bonus to stay?
Even if they leave office the seperation benefits are more than I make in 10 years.
In the past when times were rolling good for them did they offer to open contracts to share the wealth. And don''t tell me about profit sharing, when you go for a mortagage you can not use that as salary. And they received 100 times more in their bonus and stock options.

If your so honorable, why don''t you return some of the money that you have earned to save this company or for the times when you did not put out 100% for AA?

What position beside moralty king do you hold, exactly what position in management do you hold.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

----------------
On 4/27/2003 10:15:05 AM Duditz wrote:

Using words like REVOKED is a cheap rhetorical trick. (some might say unethical)
----------------​

You tend to pick up a few dirty tricks when you've worked for AA long enough. In the very least, it would be easy to learn to be "unethical" I mean hell, they had the MASTER of unethical at the helm for the last five years, its bound to rub off!

 

[Phoenix]

----------------
On 4/27/2003 9:08:30 AM Winglet wrote:

... in my whole life, I have never seen an organization with worse labor relations than AMR.

----------------​

You certainly have not visited US Air lately. (It might not be worse than AA, but it sure as pooey ain''t one whit better!

 

[Phoenix]

----------------
On 4/27/2003 1229 AM A77IGW wrote:


the minute TWANR and or AASTEW do 1 percent for AA that carty has done
----------------
​

News flash... Carty resigned for lack of job performance?

 

[Winglet]

It does, in effect, penalize the employee who gets legitimately sick while the non-furloughed employee who abuses his sick leave has no penalty. This is unfair and unequal treatment. Parse semantics if you wish Dud, but the reality doesn''t change. Sounds like you went to the Bill Clinton school of semantics.

 

[AA80Driver]

----------------
On 4/27/2003 10:15:05 AM Duditz wrote:

The way I understand your 1st post, an employees is given (earns) ADDITIONAL
passes IF they do not call in sick. They have not yet earned these additional passes, ergo there is nothing to be REVOKED. Using words like REVOKED is a cheap rhetorical trick. (some might say unethical)

This is a simple business incentive - there is no ethics issue involved. Many employees will benefit.

You should have pursued that masters harder, it doesn''t sound like you caught it.

----------------​

Duditz, unrestricted furloughee non-rev travel was negotiated as part of the TA and was sent to the membership in the contractual language. The day before the vote closed it disappeared from the contract and was subsequently replaced by this company "policy". So, yes something was "revoked" after many people had already cast their ballots. Some might say that is unethical.

If you''re sick you shouldn''t be flying airplanes. Period. There is no reason you should be penalized for a negotiated benefit that cost the company next too nothing. It appears some paid more attention than others at "B" school to organizational behavior.

 

[AAORDPLAT]

Driver- where do you draw the line on this? I mean, CO offered to put employee''s names in a drawing if they didn''t call of sick for a chance at a new Explorer. Is that considered forcing people to fly sick, penalizing someone who did get sick or offer a benefit to someone who didn''t abuse the system? I deal with admin staff in my job and, frankly, don''t want people to come in sick and risk getting others sick....BUT....there are a few that call in sick when their requested days off aren''t approved...is that what sick days are for? I mean, during the whole Reno thing, you guys were all really sick and in bed with the flu, right?