Contacts At Southwest

[shad boy]

Stockinluv,

I have a question for you. I am not sure but I believe you were saying you were either were a former exec or currently an exec at SouthWest. Am I correct on this.

As an exec you know how much scrutiny the public and govt. is placing on your positions (some fairly, most of it not).

If you receive a phone call from an elected official involving a personnel decision that will affect this politicians relative, would you no go to your corporate council and ask for his advice?

I am not trying to get smart but I believe this is a legit question. Since I don't know any other execs I really would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

 

[hobbes]

shad boy,

With all due respect, I'm not sure why I'm even debating with you, because seem to have your mind made up. Southwest is wrong, period, just based on what you read in a newspaper article. When somebody attempts to tell you that, indeed, another side exists to the story, you automatically attempt to discredit them.

You have an employee come on this board, and he tells of information from one of his employees who personally witnessed the event and who says that there IS more to the story. You then compare his credibility to that of the reporter? Well, if his credibility is equal to that of the reporter...what makes you so darn sure the reporter has it right? I read the article, and even the REPORTER admits that there may be more to the story than he knows.

Southwest is NOT going to divulge the findings of the investigation to a newspaper reporter. He has no right to that information, and neither does the public at large. There is the privacy of several people that has to be respected, including those that were witnesses to the event. If Southwest were to divulge that type of information to the press, I could guarantee you that virtually nobody would ever come forward to file another harassment or discrimination complaint ever again, because they wouldn't want to risk that information being made public.

Let's face it: from a public relations standpoint, Southwest was in no-win situation when this reporter decided to write his article. They can't divulge the findings of the investigation, so they can't defend their decision. And by their inability to defend themselves, they automatically are deemed guilty.

Is it that difficult to see that there may be more to the story that, for multiple reasons (some of them legal), Southwest CANNOT disclose?

And speaking of corporate counsel, I can tell you this: almost anytime somebody is fired for a non-routine offense (read: discrimination or harassment), there is usually a consultation with General Counsel. That tends to be a matter of practice, since there is so much legally at stake. So I would bet money that this VP did indeed consult General Counsel in regards to his decision. But in the end, the decision whether or not to fire still resides with the leader, as it's the leader that's in charge of administering discipline.

AAmech wrote:
"But its very doubtful it went down like that because SW management would have had no problem explaining their side of the story. Their squirming and dancing around is making this look like PC gone mad!!! "

AAmech, in that point, you're wrong. I bet even if THAT were the case, you still wouldn't see SWA disclosing the findings of their investigation to a do-gooder newspaper reporter who sounds like he's doing little more than trying to rally up support for one of his buddies who lost his job.

Hey, maybe this newpaper guy is right. It's always a possibility, I'll concede that. But it's also been my personal experience that when Southwest has to terminate somebody for this sort of thing, they make sure they've done a thorough investigation and they have their ducks in a row. I personally don't see them caving in just due to one state senator. Remember, this is the company that took the "eenie, meenie" case to court, rather than just roll over and settle like most airlines would.

 

[shad boy]

Hobbes,

I believe if you go back and read my post I said I would like to hear both sides of the story. I am not asking for SWA to disclose their whole investigation.

My main concern is not why he was fired but what involvment the Sen. had in the issue. In the story, the reporter quotes at least 3 other mechanics who were involved in a meeting with VP of maintanence that said the Sen. was calling so much it was a nuisence.

"Southwest is NOT going to divulge the findings of the investigation to a newspaper reporter. He has no right to that information, and neither does the public at large. There is the privacy of several people that has to be respected, including those that were witnesses to the event. If Southwest were to divulge that type of information to the press, I could guarantee you that virtually nobody would ever come forward to file another harassment or discrimination complaint ever again, because they wouldn't want to risk that information being made public. "

If they will not divulge the details to the press according to their own rules than why was the Sen. allowed to follow or discuss the issue?

Also I did not as you say did not attempt to discredit someone. Stockinluv said don't believe everything you read. I read just what he did from the post. I said the information was no better or worse than the reporters.
You obviously work for the company and I commend you on defending them. But do you also not see the conflicts in this case? Sen. West is not under any legal obligation to not discuss the case. Why won't he talk? All I am asking for is someone to explain to me why he can be allowed to influence the case but no one else.

 

[KCFlyer]

I had lunch today with some LUV folks and the topic was discussed. After talking with them, I'm pretty sure that there really is more to the story than what the reporter wrote. And I'll be the first to admit that my earlier post was an emotional response rather than a thought out reply.

As I considered it more, it occured to me that about the only thing a company....any company...will divulge about a former employee is the date they started and the date they left the company. That's about ALL you're going to get. So...if a reporter calls about an employee that has been terminated, about all they are going to hear, at best, is "yes, he is no longer employed here". So...is that 'the other side of the story'? I don't think so.

It's kind of a "Catch-22" for both parties...if LUV doesn't say anything, their silence implies guilt. On the other hand, if they talk, they could be liable for a pretty substantial penalty. But....as long as LUV remains silent, the only side talking is most likely going to paint him as being a victim. And someone who has been terminated in these days of "wrongful termination" lawsuits really might not WANT the employers findings to make it's way out to the public. Throw the issue of union protection into the mix and the less that is said the better.

So I guess LUV is damned if they do (they could be sued for divulging privleged information), and they are damned if they don't (silence implies guilt). Jury's still out on this one folks.

 

[shad boy]

KC,

I do to believe there is more to the story.

I do not blame any company for not divulging information in todays market. You are only opening up yourself to lawsuits.

But do you not agree that the Sen. involvment may be grounds for an even larger lawsuit if he was kept apprised or influenced the decision?

 

[hobbes]

Shad boy,

I sincerely apologize if I misinterpretted your post. However, I think you are making the assumption (as is the reporter) that the Senator did indeed have a bearing on whether or not this employee got fired.

I'm not so sure he did, nor do I see definite evidence of that. I think it's just an assumption on the reporter's part. I seriously doubt that Southwest even disclosed the findings of the investigation to the Senator, and as I recall, nowhere in that article does it say they did. Rather, those mechanics say that the Senator was calling so much as to be a nuisance. Perhaps the reason he kept calling was because he kept trying to get information, and the company wasn't budging. And as I pointed out, in my experience, Southwest is not the type of company to roll over for any politician.

Now, do I personally think it was an abuse of this Senator to be calling Southwest as he did? Well, let's just say that it's not something I would have done. But then again, if I were a reporter, I wouldn't have been writing a story with that obvious of slant, either.

And you're right...the Senator isn't under legal obligation to not talk, so why won't he? Well, here's just my guess: maybe he DOESN'T have any information on the investigation to talk about. It seems to me that a guy this has no problem speaking his mind, so if he's refusing to talk to the press, maybe it's for a good reason?

This is all just theory on my part. I would just say this: the reporter makes a LOT of assumptions in that article, namely that the Senator influenced the decision to fire this employee. But let me ask you this: If the company was so swayed by the Senator's calls, why didn't they fire him immediately after the Senator called the first time? The fact that the Senator called several times seems to be more proof than anything that the company wasn't particularly scared of this Senator.

Does that make sense?

 

[shad boy]

Hobbes,

No apology needed.

You may be dead on about the Senator.

I sincerely hope they did not listen to him.

Now if the VP of Maintenance never did discuss the issue with Sen. Royce then that vp would have no legal obligation NOT to discuss what was said to the senator each time he called.

We can debate semantics all day and it is kind of fun but come on after Watergate/IranContra/Bayof pigs/ and on and on and on, do you in your heart of hearts believe the senator kept calling, if the VP told him each time "I cannot discuss this with you, good day sir".

I am the last person whoever looks for conspiracy and with many of the things I mentioned I used to think it was all media hype. However the older I get and the more things that come to light years later that sometimes prove it was not all media hype, I start to get suspicious.

Do newspapers try to sell with controversy? OF COURSE.

But what I can't ever seem to remember is which weeks are leftwing and which weeks are rightwing conspiricys?

Thanks, it was fun.

Man my spelling is terrible today. I had to edit some horrible spreeelling.

 

[hobbes]

"but come on after Watergate/IranContra/Bayof pigs/ and on and on and on, do you in your heart of hearts believe the senator kept calling, if the VP told him each time "I cannot discuss this with you, good day sir"."

Well, I've met Sokol more than once, and I've found him to be a pretty stand-up guy. I can honestly picturing him saying, "Thanks for your concern, but this matter is in investigation right now, and I can't divulge any information."

Remember, it took almost a month for them to fire this guy. That tells me they did some pretty in-depth investigation. It also tells me that they weren't letting the Senator scare them into making a knee-jerk reaction (unlike the reporter implies).

So yeah...in my heart of hearts, I believe that it's entirely likely that the VP divulged no information to the good Senator. I may be wrong. They may have perhaps shared some information AFTER the investigation was over, but while they were still in the phases of it? I doubt it. That would only give the Senator more fuel for the fire, would it not?

Again, this is strictly theory on my part, but let's admit when you look at the facts, you could argue it either way. I've worked for some "zero tolerance, zero common sense, morality-Nazi" companies. In my personal experience, Southwest isn't one of them. They look at all the factors. Perhaps that's why I am admittedly loyal to them and willing to consider that this story isn't the entire truth.

What is it Dennis Miller once said? Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[shad boy]

Well I sure hope they did not share info after the fact. That too would be a violation.

I am sure we have all had instances where we did something we thought was right and later it turned out to be wrong. If you do that then all I am asking is to own up to that mistake.

Did West make a threat? I seriously doubt it was verbal, but I am sure Mr. Sokol did not get to his position by being unaware of political realities in this state. I am sure he was extremely aware of who Sen. West is. Would you want to be the VP who got on the bad side of Sen. West? Hell I am scared he will find out who I am because we all know in todays society being branded a racist is worse than being branded a killer.

I love reading and seeing shows that discuss the backroom dealings that always went on in politics many years ago. Do I believe it still goes on? OH YEAH.

 

[mga707]

As usual there is more to than that. the individual involved was drunk and used a more vulgar word than what was posted. Also did not try to make things right, as was a member of the Southwest Airlines management. Don't believe everything you read

So what did he allegedly say? Quit tiptoeing around it and specify!
IMHO nothing he could have said should've cost him his job. Words are only words.
Also, your third sentence makes no sense as written. It seems to be missing a word or two. Who is the member of management? Please clarify.

 

[hobbes]

shad boy,

Actually, what I meant by information after the fact was more along the lines of, "Thanks for your concern. We completed the investigation, and the information gathered substantiated the allegations. We have disciplined the employee in question."

And if you think about it, that's not much more than they told the newspaper, was it?

And yeah, I think backroom dealings go on in politics as well. I believe they politely refer to it as "logrolling." But in this case, if Southwest were to engage in shady dealings, they were very likely to have it come back to them in the form of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Which is why I would personally suspect they watched their P's and Q's pretty closely on this one. (what does that phrase mean, anyway?)

Wow...all this speculation...I might start becoming a news anchor!

 

[mweiss]

...watched their P's and Q's pretty closely on this one. (what does that phrase mean, anyway?)

Since you asked...

The phrase originally was "mind your Ps and Qs," shorthand for "Pay attention to your pints and quarts." This advice was given to sailors on shore leave, telling them not to consume too much alcohol while ashore.

 

[stockinluv]

the individual who was fired (i'm not going to say his name here ) was also a member of the southwest airlines management Team and is a leader

 

[orangeman]

Hopefully his union can help him get his job back. But really, the only way to get thru to these companies is thru lawsuits hitting them HARD in the wallet! Otherwise their behavior will just never change. :down:

AAmech,
The Union can't help him as he was a supervisor!