AFA mec

[lgwcalling]

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE whether a f/a becomes a supervisor, or NON-f/a. In both cases I have found THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE CONTRACT, and where they do know it, they ignore it and go along with the company position specifically when there is some ambiguity.
The idiot Flores wrote the agenda item, had the MEC vote on the damn thing... and never bothered to check if it conflicts with the C&B and other current f/as seniority position.

SHOULDN'T THE MAIN ISSUE HERE NOT BE WHETHER THEY FLY FOR A TRIP A QUARTER BUT WHETHER THEY PAY THE DAMN UNION DUES TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF ACCRUING F/A SENIORITY WHILE BEING IN A POSITION TO DISCIPLINE F/AS AND/OR CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR PEER TERMINATIONS!!!!

AND, they get to keep accruing their f/a seniority as a management cronnie; keep a contractual priviledge and pay NO union dues??????? What a deal!

Do not one of you have something to say to this? Ask the MEC to explain this????

Hey PITbull, good to hear from you on this subject. I always respect your position and opinion.

I do agree with your position that they should have to pay Union dues to keep accruing seniority. Is this concept possible? Has this ever been the case? What are the pros and cons?

As far as KNOWING THE CONTRACT....well, let's just say that I'm convinced that NO ONE ever knew the contracts like you did. SPVs would have many of sleepness nights preparing for a "meeting" and Labor Reps would always breath a sigh of relief when meetings/negotiations were adjourned for the day.

You mentioned "ambiguities" in a contract. Why are they there? Isn't it the Union's responsibilty to make sure that there are no ambiguities in a contract?

As for discipline and termination(s)....ummm, where to begin. First off, I don't believe that there were ever many SPVs that could levy discipline and certainly there were none that could terminate w/o higher approval (Base MGR, Labor Relations). To perpetuate this myth is unfair. SPVs present their information (dependability problems, code of conduct issues, customer complaints, etc.) to their superiors for review. It's their job to monitor the F/A group in these areas. For the sake of argument, let's just say that there are 20% of F/As that are Super Stews and will never be in a position of worrying about their job security. Again, let's just assume that there are another 20% of F/As that are not very good at their job and a new line of work should be in their future. That leaves 60% of the F/A group that are good, decent and hardworking people. This job is important to them, it's just not their life. In my mind, these are the people that benefit from having F/A SPVs that are/were F/As. SPVs that "understand" the job, the life, the culture of being a F/A. SPVs that come from this culture will often times "go to bat" for F/As that have hit a bump in the road. They will often times counter dependability reports to superiors with other information from a F/A's file (customer compliment letters, always uniform compliant, laudatory notes from Schedulers, Gate Agents, Front-end Crews, other F/As, etc.). Non-F/A SPVs could do the same....I just happen to believe that SPVs that were F/As place much more emphasis on what we're doing right. They know how difficult this F/A life can be, how professionally challenging it is, the time constraints that we're under, the amount of information and data that we're constantly processing, how the job affects our health, etc.).

If your life had taken a different turn....what kind of SPV would you have been? Are all SPVs, management cronnies?

 

[Dilligas]

I am not now nor have I ever been a flight attendant.

To avoid conflict of interest issues, one needs to make a personal decision which side of the field they choose to play on, and do the best job possible on that side. One cannot go from "labor" to "management" and keep one foot in labor and expect to retain the benefits and privileges of seniority that the labor workface earns. Hopefully one can make that transition and not "sell their soul" but sadly we have all seen far too many cases of just that occuring.

Working in management, seniority is supposed to be irrelevant, and it should be. "Fence sitters" make weak ineffective supervisors, and allowing sup's to retain all seniority benefits while earning a management salary will only cause resentment. It's been a given that if one chooses to pursue a career in management, one gives up the security of seniority accrual after a certain time period, for the salary and perks of management.

Labor representatives should not concern themselves with who makes supervisor, or what benefits they retain. Labor representatives should only be focused on obtaining the best deal possible for those they represent, the labor workforce.

Too many "labor leaders" see themselves as extensions of management, and lose contact with those they should be most concerned with.

 

[MustangSally]

Well, definitely do believe that the MEC is doing nothing, but blowing smoke up our ****. Mike's letter states that the MEC decided to give more money to the reserves. That is a joke. Anyone notice that they supposedly took money from the scheduling committee to give to the reserve committee. PLEASE!!!!!! Carol Austin would never see the day for that to occur. How much do you want to bet that she is in charge of the reserve committee now too.

 

[HP_JACK]

Either you are MANAGEMENT or you are LABOR! One or the other ... you can't have the best of both worlds.

How does it work for the Chief Pilots? IMO....Even those guys come back on line its completely different anyways... they are MEN and we have nothing but menopausal middle management. We always have and always will!

 

[Mrs. Doubtflier]

What you should be concerning yourselves with is whether these f/a supervisors are PAYING UNION DUES TO HOLD A CONTRACTUAL PRIVILEDGE OF F/A SENIORITY ACCRUAL!

Most, if not 99% of the supervisors who ARE f/as still do not know the contract even if it is open to the page with the exact language in front of them!!!

This is a "winfall" for supervisors.

Uh...what is a "winfall" ? Is that like someone falling down after they cross the finish line?

Perhaps you meant Windfall?

Pitbull reel it in a little..the constant name calling of Mike Flores is tiresome and I dare say that you no longer have contact with 99% of the present supervisors so your assessment of their contract knowledge or reading ability might be a tad emotional....

The payment of union dues may be an issue but it is concern for F/A's is that the person they report to has a current,realistic and empathic viewpoint of an F/A's job.

 

[john john]

One of the worst agreements the CWA negotiating committee (agents) made with management in the transition agreement was to let MANAGEMENT DUE AGENT WORK. Management insisted on this and CWA negotiating committee caved.

 

[SKY HIGH]

Uh...what is a "winfall" ? Is that like someone falling down after they cross the finish line?
Perhaps you meant Windfall?

sky high states: You accuse her of being a tad emotional. Personally, I've found her passionate, not emotional.
Yet you criticize her "spelling".......isnt that a tad...........PETTY?


ONLY stating opinions

 

[HP_JACK]

So what would happen tp these people if we strike and they are in a "management" position?

 

[flybynite]

It's not just about F/A supervisors.
It's F/A trainers too.
This should help create more full time positions in the training dept.

 

[safety stud]

With all the issues facing the flight attendant group our mec at AFA is focused in supervisors seniority and embroiled in a dance of constitutional legality? we have much larger issues to focus on my friends one being reserve and the overall morale of the flight attendants. who is Mike Flores to introduce this agenda item to the mec as his position takes direction from the respective lec presidents not the other way around! afa has turned into nothing more than a circus with not enough rings. Cindi Simone and the company approach mike about something they want yet when we ask for relief it falls on deaf ears. what a disgrace.

Baja,
I know why you wrote this... And I sort of understand your reasoning. However, Mike, DID provide contractual language that allows flight attendants to become supervisors, trainers, and such so that the group as a whole has more flexability.
Remember, It might be you that want's to become a supervisor or trainer. Wouldn't it be nice to be protected with such language? Hmm.
There are many things that need work on the flight attendant contract... Pay, RSV, etc., and in due time these issues will be resolved. It is important to note, that when an agreement between the company and union can be reached that benefits both parties is a good thing. It may not be the exact thing people want at the time, however, it is beneficial.
You were the one in the PHL crew lounge that got the group of flight attendants fired up about "loosing DOH" prior to the BOD meeting in Palm Springs. I told you then, at the crew lounge, that wasn't going to happen. You said it was a possibility. It was never going to happen, and you knew it...
AFA bylaws would never have allowed it to happen. All you wanted to do, was to fire up the flight attendants with a cause that already had an outcome. This is why, I feel you are trying to fire up this group with a cause that has no merit. Since when is it a bad thing to provide opportunity to a flight attendant. This language provides it. Shame on you for thinking this is irrelevant.
Yes there are many issues..still to be negotiated, let's just be happy Mike took the opportunity to provide this.

Kuddos to Mike
Shame on Baja

Just my opinion...

 

[beachboy]

saftey_"stud"

Yes is was Terri that got everyone fired up about DOH as well she should have. It was not just in PHL but in all bases. Would you have rather AFA sit around and let AW try for the land grab? They introduced an amendment to the constitution of AFA International for pete sake and you think AFA East should have said "there is no possibility of this happening"? Nieave party of one your table is now available ,Nieave . And I know your kind, dismissive at the cause and when it doesn't go your way and you get blind sided you run around crying foul and OUTRAGED this was allowed to happen. PAAAALEASE.
Terry and the AFA officers united the group against a potential threat to our most valuable thing, senority. You don't gamble with such things. I am glad your not a union officer. Your like the wimp in school that gave his lunch money away everyday in fear of being beat up.
And as for the supervisors seniority, I think they like to have it both ways. They should pay union dues in my view if they want a seniority number. This is an important issue but no issue is more important than RESERVE at the moment! There are 20 other items that need addressing right off the bat before we grant them "relief" on anything. :down:

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> I think ALL LECPs should spend 3 months on this RSV system and then they can tell me that we have to live with it until a joint contract is voted in.

Wouldn’t that be cool?

 

[ussnark]

deleted

 

[BajaBabe]

Look it here numb nuts Seniority has ALWAYS been important to me. I should apply for a job in management and do what I should have done years ago establish some accountability for all of you who think they know me. I was Management in my earlier career and it was enjoyable. I have learned that you take NOTHING for granted I informed the flight attendants to get involved. The Union is the membership. I negotiated THREE contracts and never asked to take away Seniority . Do you think that I am waivering on this issue?
My track record speaks for itself. Now go off and blow smoke up someone else's skirt!
and saftey stud????? There are very few of those left around here until PHX opens.

 

[flybynite]

Mercy.
Somebody has got thier knickers in a twist.