AFA mec

[Mrs. Doubtflier]

No. It's fact...called "empirical evidence".

I worked with Most of the supervisors and managers in inflight for almost 5 years...4 contracts ( 2000, 2002 summer, 2002 winter, 2004). They got to keep their jobs by mounting up disicplines in their group to eliminate "heads".

I would know...what are your facts to dispute my statements? The f/as take the supervisor to get off the line. They wiill do anything management and labor relations tell themn to do...period. I didn't say they are ALL like this (there were a very few that were good people and fair-minded...few indeed.

No, you may be an empircist, which is one who relies solely on obervation to construct a theory without a hypothosis to guide the process i.e. strictly by trial and error method. But you do not have empirical evidence...that requires a large collection of hard data on which to base a theory.

You did not and do not have actual data on why F/A's become supervisors or their effectiveness in their positions. You have your opinions and your "passion" but you do not have facts and you do not have objectivity.

Your original assertion that "99% of the supervisors could not read the contract even if it was open in front of them" is falsifiable. In other words it is logically possible to do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. That is the statement that I took issue with.

Oh and...Calling me Mrs Dumbflier....Ad hominem argument....always invalid in logical discourse.

And hard data shows that you used the term "winfall" in two separate posts so it may have been a typo, then again it may have been........reading comprehension. I did apologize for my sarcasm but we shall carry on with this if you wish.

Your "observation" is that most supervisors are traitorious illiterate management shills who slay flight attendants like innocent lambs. So please enlighten us...should the job be eliminated? Have you done research about the position at other airlines? Is it structured differently and more effective at other airlines? Is it possible that flight attendants and union representatives can also be contributing factors in the burn out of good supervisors? Anything progressive to say about this subject or are we just going to view this strictly through the window of the past and do a little more name calling?

 

[flybynite]

Whew!!

 

[ussnark]

No, you may be an empircist, which is one who relies solely on obervation to construct a theory without a hypothosis to guide the process i.e. strictly by trial and error method. But you do not have empirical evidence...that requires a large collection of hard data on which to base a theory.

Actually, you are quite wrong. You have no idea what it means to be an "empircist". There is a lecture on the 23 Jun, 2007 I intend to attend, I'll make a place for you if you wish. It concerns your apparent ignorance when it comes to "logic". IM me.

 

[MustangSally]

We have had numerous wonderful Flight Attendant Supervisors who were flight attendants. But I have to agree that if they are going to work in management positions then they are management. If they want to hold their flight attendant seniorities then they need to continue to pay union dues each month. But saying that then if a flight attendant takes a volunteer furlough, a PCP or FML or anyother type of leave then they should also have the ability to contiunue to accrue seniority while they are out.

 

[PITbull]

No, you may be an empircist, which is one who relies solely on obervation to construct a theory without a hypothosis to guide the process i.e. strictly by trial and error method. But you do not have empirical evidence...that requires a large collection of hard data on which to base a theory.

You did not and do not have actual data on why F/A's become supervisors or their effectiveness in their positions. You have your opinions and your "passion" but you do not have facts and you do not have objectivity.

Your original assertion that "99% of the supervisors could not read the contract even if it was open in front of them" is falsifiable. In other words it is logically possible to do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. That is the statement that I took issue with.

Oh and...Calling me Mrs Dumbflier....Ad hominem argument....always invalid in logical discourse.

And hard data shows that you used the term "winfall" in two separate posts so it may have been a typo, then again it may have been........reading comprehension. I did apologize for my sarcasm but we shall carry on with this if you wish.

Your "observation" is that most supervisors are traitorious illiterate management shills who slay flight attendants like innocent lambs. So please enlighten us...should the job be eliminated? Have you done research about the position at other airlines? Is it structured differently and more effective at other airlines? Is it possible that flight attendants and union representatives can also be contributing factors in the burn out of good supervisors? Anything progressive to say about this subject or are we just going to view this strictly through the window of the past and do a little more name calling?

Winfall, (third time)

My empirical evidence does NOT INCLUDE why a f/a decides to become a supervisor in inflight. Frankly, I don't give a damn why. In additon, my argument on the issue has nothing to do with what goes on in other airlines' inflight depts. Posing the question of whether the supervisor job should be eliminated is an assinine question to pose to me. Try staying on point!The issue has to do with providing accrual of f/a seniority while being hired as a supervisor over your peers with rights to discipline and contribute to their termination.

My evidence is a collection of data over my last FIVE YEARS including ALL MY ARGUMENTS TO SENIOR MANAGEMENT CITING THE MANY MANY MANY SUPERVISORS IN EVERY SINGLE BASE WHOSE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTRACT/OR LACK THEREOF, INCLUDING LACK OF USING GOOD JUDGEMENT was downright blatant! In fact, the senior level management of labor relations had to handle most of the issues because the supervisors lacked judgement...fair, reasonable, unbiased judgement rarely taking into account any mitigating situations that applied to the f/a in question (unless they were forced to by upper level labor relations. These supervisors were NOT PAID to do their specific management duties that included using good judgement when handling their group. Proof positive by the thousands of f/as who felt their supervisors were treating them so disrespectfully in the work place and asking for union representation for lack of trust. And that sentiment was the "CULTURE" in mangement that permeated in every group and union. It was the complaint from CWA reps, specifically IAM reps along with AFA and ALPA. So, it was not just my observations and experience. Often, the labor reps were blind copied in the emails to senior management with these complaints, and therefore, we communicated the information to one another as well as sharing the responses from management. This is the way I did business. The more folks included in the emails only validated the negative culture and draconian methods cited during the low-concessionary period in our hx where breaking employee spirit and morale made the employees more vulnerable to succumb and elevated management with kudos, promotions and bonuses. Strategy was to eliminate employees quickly. And I raised the bloody roof over it using every method I knew including media and news venues to pressure management to "back off" and put their "dogs" on a leash.

The Senior VP of Labor relations in my last two years asked me just to bring the issues to him instead of going through the supervisors or the base managers. Trust, that I had to argue my cases. The fact is that 99% of ALL the cases I handle from the local level to cross-base issues were resolved in the manner which was reasonable and fair. And I DIDN'T STOP UNTIL FAIRNESS WAS ACHIEVED, and it was necessary to bypass Inflight.

So, if you were a base manager,or a supervisor, I can understand your feelings of defense and offensiveness.

You were probably one of the knumb-skulls that I spoke about in the many e-mails I sent to senior level management regarding those supervisors who "rubber stamped" everything that came across the desk leaving the union no other choice but to file hundreds of grievances!!!!

your statement, "Is it possible that flight attendants and union representatives can also be contributing factors in the burn out of good supervisors? ", is the reason why supervisors should NOT get the priviledge of accruing f/a seniority while performing a management role. After all, you just posted that a "burn out" effect may exist in the inflight dept. The possibility exists that their lack of good, fair judgement could be because they are just too burned out.

I would venture to bet, I fried your asszz a few times in my tenure!

 

[SKY HIGH]

I would venture to bet, I fried your asszz a few times in my tenure!

sky high states: YOU JUST DID.


only stating opinions