Your avatar suits you perfectly and exactly like management. A machine incapable of understanding the human factor, therefore when the employee machine fails to respond on managements command regardless of how badly they have been treated, abused, exploited, lied too, and threatened to death then the employee machine is simply eliminated, vanquished, disposed of as a useless drain on the business plan put together by people who don't deserve to be called human let alone managers of real people with real lives.ClueByFour said:
F/a Sick Calls And No Contacts
- Thread starter MarkMyWords
- Start date
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 1
PitBull -
Instead of ranting about management....address the issues.
Let's see. There were enough abuses of the sick policy to warrant a drastic sick penalty and change in policy and in 1 base there were Zero people fired in 2003, 5 currently on level 4 and 1 had been fired. Perhaps the policy is working then. Given enough warnings and addressing the issue directly with the employee and the threat of termination, maybe it changed the ways of the employee, versus doing nothing and allowing it to continue.
The scenario that I presented is factual and happened just as I wrote it. What would make it a poor example? It is a reality! Gimme a break!
And just what is the discipline for someone that gets 3 UTC's? Life imprisionment? 60 days jail time? Most likely it is a written warning. Would you, as an employee then either get a new pager, cell phone, or something to ensure that you didn't get another UTC? Leave it unaddressed and the problem could continue to worsen. You would have the company do what? Wait until someone had 10, 11, 12 UTC's before you stopped slapping their wrist.?
Please cut the crap and answer the questions!
Instead of ranting about management....address the issues.
Let's see. There were enough abuses of the sick policy to warrant a drastic sick penalty and change in policy and in 1 base there were Zero people fired in 2003, 5 currently on level 4 and 1 had been fired. Perhaps the policy is working then. Given enough warnings and addressing the issue directly with the employee and the threat of termination, maybe it changed the ways of the employee, versus doing nothing and allowing it to continue.
The scenario that I presented is factual and happened just as I wrote it. What would make it a poor example? It is a reality! Gimme a break!
And just what is the discipline for someone that gets 3 UTC's? Life imprisionment? 60 days jail time? Most likely it is a written warning. Would you, as an employee then either get a new pager, cell phone, or something to ensure that you didn't get another UTC? Leave it unaddressed and the problem could continue to worsen. You would have the company do what? Wait until someone had 10, 11, 12 UTC's before you stopped slapping their wrist.?
Please cut the crap and answer the questions!
exusairways
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 0
With Hurricane Isabel predicted to bear down on the East Coast, what is the current policy if one cannot commute into base/ report for reserve duty during a major weather emergency? I'm sure no one in their right mind wants to sit in one of the Northeast bases while a major hurricane plows through...
USAirBoyA330
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
The base manager can declare irregular operations and under those cases it will not reflect on the flight attendants record. But...what's written and what's executed are two totally different things. It looks like PHL/DCA/LGA and BOS better hunker down for this storm. One hurricane sweeps the East coast and knocks down 5 of 6 bases. Smart huh?
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
MMW states:
PitBull -
Instead of ranting about management....address the issues.
Mark,
Sure I will.
Mark States:
Let's see. There were enough abuses of the sick policy to warrant a drastic sick penalty and change in policy and in 1 base there were Zero people fired in 2003, 5 currently on level 4 and 1 had been fired. Perhaps the policy is working then. Given enough warnings and addressing the issue directly with the employee and the threat of termination, maybe it changed the ways of the employee, versus doing nothing and allowing it to continue.
The scenario that I presented is factual and happened just as I wrote it. What would make it a poor example? It is a reality! Gimme a break!
PB Responds:
1. First of all I cited 2002 NOT 2003. The year is not over..
2. In 2002, we had over 2,200 flight attendants. Presently have 1,100 in PIT. Last year the In-flight dept in PIT was great. Perhaps the best and most fair. Not because they got folks off, because they cared about their group and worked towards helping the f/as get on track in light of two major concessions and a drastic downsizing of the ranks in the form of layoffs and displacements. It also could be on the flip side, management's way of "luring in the group" to concede to concessions. Then Later, WHAMY!
Mark States:
And just what is the discipline for someone that gets 3 UTC's? Life imprisionment? 60 days jail time? Most likely it is a written warning. Would you, as an employee then either get a new pager, cell phone, or something to ensure that you didn't get another UTC? Leave it unaddressed and the problem could continue to worsen. You would have the company do what? Wait until someone had 10, 11, 12 UTC's before you stopped slapping their wrist.?
PB Responds:
1. There is no slapping the wriists. One infraction starts the discipline process with a verbal warning. 2 infractions steps you up on first level dependability. After that, depending on the infraction, 1 can step you up to next level. Then Final, termination.
Last month, management decided to step up the discipline process across all bases. My take is that they want to get rid of "mainline" employees that have the mainline thought process and poor morale. Doesn't matter your seniority. PIT had a 33 year f/a terminated. Nothing to do with dependability. AFA PIT is fighting for her job, much merit on this one, trust me. If we lose it under her unusual medigating circumstances, it will be real bad for U.
Nuff said. And no Board seat for you.
PitBull -
Instead of ranting about management....address the issues.
Mark,
Sure I will.
Mark States:
Let's see. There were enough abuses of the sick policy to warrant a drastic sick penalty and change in policy and in 1 base there were Zero people fired in 2003, 5 currently on level 4 and 1 had been fired. Perhaps the policy is working then. Given enough warnings and addressing the issue directly with the employee and the threat of termination, maybe it changed the ways of the employee, versus doing nothing and allowing it to continue.
The scenario that I presented is factual and happened just as I wrote it. What would make it a poor example? It is a reality! Gimme a break!
PB Responds:
1. First of all I cited 2002 NOT 2003. The year is not over..
2. In 2002, we had over 2,200 flight attendants. Presently have 1,100 in PIT. Last year the In-flight dept in PIT was great. Perhaps the best and most fair. Not because they got folks off, because they cared about their group and worked towards helping the f/as get on track in light of two major concessions and a drastic downsizing of the ranks in the form of layoffs and displacements. It also could be on the flip side, management's way of "luring in the group" to concede to concessions. Then Later, WHAMY!
Mark States:
And just what is the discipline for someone that gets 3 UTC's? Life imprisionment? 60 days jail time? Most likely it is a written warning. Would you, as an employee then either get a new pager, cell phone, or something to ensure that you didn't get another UTC? Leave it unaddressed and the problem could continue to worsen. You would have the company do what? Wait until someone had 10, 11, 12 UTC's before you stopped slapping their wrist.?
PB Responds:
1. There is no slapping the wriists. One infraction starts the discipline process with a verbal warning. 2 infractions steps you up on first level dependability. After that, depending on the infraction, 1 can step you up to next level. Then Final, termination.
Last month, management decided to step up the discipline process across all bases. My take is that they want to get rid of "mainline" employees that have the mainline thought process and poor morale. Doesn't matter your seniority. PIT had a 33 year f/a terminated. Nothing to do with dependability. AFA PIT is fighting for her job, much merit on this one, trust me. If we lose it under her unusual medigating circumstances, it will be real bad for U.
Nuff said. And no Board seat for you.
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 1
And what about these issues posted previously?
So how many reserves do you feel we should have had in PHL?
How many Flight Attendants should we have to call to cover 3 positions? 6? 10?
How many F/A's should we have sit on reserve just being paid guarentee so that those that are senior reserve can pick an chose if/when they want to work?
If sick time abuse was not an issue, would there be a need for this idiotic sick policy?
why not address the issue of 4 sick calls, 3 UTC's and 1 who claimed to have been drinking - WHILE ON DUTY!
Have you taken me to task on one single fact in what I have written? Do you dispute that it happened as written?
The sick penalty didn't seem to have an effect on the 4 people that called in sick here did it? Funny how the UTC and dependability program had little or no effect on the fact that 3 people received UTC's isn't it?
You want to know why I have my undies in a wad over this.....well it is because I see the effects on the CUSTOMER! Remember them, the people that pay your salary. Knowing that we endured the additional cost of chartering an airplane pales in comparision to knowing that because of these peoples unwillingness to do their job, we added 3 hours of delay time to an already extensively delayed flight. There is no excuse for that when we were showing that the coverage was there and available. Should I just down play that as being no big deal? There was no lack of staffing, it was a lack of willingness to do the job on the parto fo the 8 people that refused to work.
and with your last reply, then addressing the sick and UTC issue with the employee then changes the behavior correct? Or have people learned what the limits are and push themselve right to the limit without crossing the line?
Sorry but the hand holding and coddeling days are over. There are over 5,000 flight attendants out of a job that would love to come back to work. Why should be continue to coddle and baby the ABUSERS? (and no I am not talking about being unsypathetic to the ones that may encounter problems occasionally.)
So how many reserves do you feel we should have had in PHL?
How many Flight Attendants should we have to call to cover 3 positions? 6? 10?
How many F/A's should we have sit on reserve just being paid guarentee so that those that are senior reserve can pick an chose if/when they want to work?
If sick time abuse was not an issue, would there be a need for this idiotic sick policy?
why not address the issue of 4 sick calls, 3 UTC's and 1 who claimed to have been drinking - WHILE ON DUTY!
Have you taken me to task on one single fact in what I have written? Do you dispute that it happened as written?
The sick penalty didn't seem to have an effect on the 4 people that called in sick here did it? Funny how the UTC and dependability program had little or no effect on the fact that 3 people received UTC's isn't it?
You want to know why I have my undies in a wad over this.....well it is because I see the effects on the CUSTOMER! Remember them, the people that pay your salary. Knowing that we endured the additional cost of chartering an airplane pales in comparision to knowing that because of these peoples unwillingness to do their job, we added 3 hours of delay time to an already extensively delayed flight. There is no excuse for that when we were showing that the coverage was there and available. Should I just down play that as being no big deal? There was no lack of staffing, it was a lack of willingness to do the job on the parto fo the 8 people that refused to work.
and with your last reply, then addressing the sick and UTC issue with the employee then changes the behavior correct? Or have people learned what the limits are and push themselve right to the limit without crossing the line?
Sorry but the hand holding and coddeling days are over. There are over 5,000 flight attendants out of a job that would love to come back to work. Why should be continue to coddle and baby the ABUSERS? (and no I am not talking about being unsypathetic to the ones that may encounter problems occasionally.)
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Mark,
Are you trying to continue to piss me off?
You think I have no life that I need to sit on this board all night on Sunday and answer your questions? What would you and I gain? Can I change your mind? And then could YOU change policy? Or lighten up a bit on our people? All the employees? I hear IAM is being slaughtered now by heavy handed management that want to start to set examples before a job action starts. Its a little late for examples when folks are so "indifferent" now (which is much worse than anger) that it really doesn't matter. Do you think management is trying to teach us a lesson as f/as? PIT had a f/a that is so depressed, can't come to work and get on a plane, and has nothing to do with any 9/11 event. She has great anxiety once on the plane she has to go into the bathroom to often time settle herself down and catch her breath. She was to sse a psychiatrist on Friday. Said she thinks it would be better for her to get terminated than quit so she can at least collect unemployment. She said that she is going to file BK. I am trying to work with her and inflight knows nothing about this. She has been able to manage without infracting. She is very ill. YOu understand what I am saying?
Yea Mark, and can see the tear in your eye now. No need to respond to the above. Just giving you examples of what I know.
I will answer you cause God (you) only knows what you would be like if I didn't:
Mark States:
And what about these issues posted previously?
So how many reserves do you feel we should have had in PHL?
PB Responds:
Well how many f/as are in that base? If there are 2,400, Reserve Dom and ITD should be approx 500-600 with the new reserve system. To state what is necessary now is pretty "moot" as we have 1 month left with this old system.
How many Flight Attendants should we have to call to cover 3 positions? 6? 10?
PB responds:
As many reserves that you have to cover the operation. We have a contract, within there is safe guards for the operation. That is why you have a crew sched. department whose purpose is to cover trips. We had a reserve system that was once very fexible, and folks stayed here because of that flexibility. Otherwise what would be the attraction for a f/a job? The Wholly owns have a 42% turnover rate. FACT! Less flexibility. That is why we are union and great at negotiations. WE have never stuck the airline, and we made plenty of cash in the late 90s for U.
How many F/A's should we have sit on reserve just being paid guarentee so that those that are senior reserve can pick an chose if/when they want to work?
PB Responds:
40%. Just like we had. In our contract the operation got protected because even with the ability to pass, the company had the ability to go in Inverse senority and ASSIGN the trip. Coverage was not a problem, accept during the holidays, xmas and thanksgiving. As par in every airline If sick time abuse was not an issue.
Would there be a need for an idiotic sick policy?
[/b][/u]PB Responds:
There is no need for the sick idiotic policy that even you admit. We gave a savings to the company with a 5 hour penalty for a sick call and management STOLE more than the f/as agreed to. Period. We gave the cost savings to the company. Fols get sick. That is an inevidable, unavidable fact of human nature. Whether physically or emotionally, it all is sickeness. No matter even if you had no sick bank or sick time allowed. Employees will get sick. That is why there is a federal law called FMLA to prevent employers from terminating employees for illness.
why not address the issue of 4 sick calls, 3 UTC's and 1 who claimed to have been drinking - WHILE ON DUTY!
PB Responds:
I will "off the cuff" answer as I would have to get the real story and facts from the local President of PHL. Without knowing the facts, other than you as mangement cites, Middle of the night call out will be difficult to cover at best. Most folks anywhere are not accustomed to be called out after 10 pm. and most go to sleep. How rested are they if the call out is for a 5 a.m. check in? You have to get up at least at 3 a.m. YOu have to shower, get in the car, drive, park go through security and get into the briefing room 90 minutes before departure. The 3 UTC depends if you are talking about a 2 hour drive or by plane commute? That would be a discipline, and the one that admited to drinking (and if on duty) would be terminated and there is no further discussion on that f/a. She is off the property. Period.
Have you taken me to task on one single fact in what I have written? Do you dispute that it happened as written?
PB responds:
Absolutely, I take you to task.
What facts? Because YOU present an issue, does not make it a fact. Currently, it represents a to me only a hypothetical and an exaggeration at best. I will find out tomorrow.
The sick penalty didn't seem to have an effect on the 4 people that called in sick here did it? Funny how the UTC and dependability program had little or no effect on the fact that 3 people received UTC's isn't it?
PB Responds:
Shame on you, Mark. Does sick have no effect on these 4? what are you saying or implying...that no matter if they are sick, they should come to work ill? That is what you are implying AND WHY WE LEAFLETED THE SICK POLICY AND WILL CONTINUE THIS AFTER THE IAM SITUATION IS RESOLVED.
You want to know why I have my undies in a wad over this.....well it is because I see the effects on the CUSTOMER! Remember them, the people that pay your salary. Knowing that we endured the additional cost of chartering an airplane pales in comparision to knowing that because of these peoples unwillingness to do their job, we added 3 hours of delay time to an already extensively delayed flight. There is no excuse for that when we were showing that the coverage was there and available. Should I just down play that as being no big deal? There was no lack of staffing, it was a lack of willingness to do the job on the parto fo the 8 people that refused to work.
.
PB REsponds:
If you want me to ever take you seriously when you talk about customer care, please tell me what you propose to do with the management that allows the bag situation in PHL and all the cancellations we had specifically the 85 that one weekend in August? It start from the TOP and works its way down? What corrective major was taken? ANY? Please don't sit there and tell me that the 8 f/as are the usual cause of customer disappointment. Please don't go there with me. Let the customer decide who is responsible for poor quality of service. YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE. This is fact. Stop blaming the employees. It is easy cause you have the ability to terminate us. Mangement gets to keep their jobs by blaming the rank and file, and making us the "heavy" to the customer.
Poor excuse for you to imply this.
and with your last reply, then addressing the sick and UTC issue with the employee then changes the behavior correct? Or have people learned what the limits are and push themselve right to the limit without crossing the line?
PB REsponds:
I don't need to say this again but I will. The box is not only shrunk but we as f/as get fit inside. The expectations are "unrealistic". YOu have set us up to fail.
And that is the saddest part of all of this. Employees who have sacrificed, still suffer, will eventually get terminated in the futre, because mangement has set up the employees to fail.
Sorry but the hand holding and coddeling days are over. There are over 5,000 flight attendants out of a job that would love to come back to work. Why should be continue to coddle and baby the ABUSERS? (and no I am not talking about being unsypathetic to the ones that may encounter problems occasionally.)
PB Responds:
Hand holding? Coddling? Who are you talking about? I thought the majority are excellent . Who do you think you have left on this property....the abuser? They have been long gone Mark. Who you have left are the loyalists? YOu are so blind sitting at your desk, you can't even see this.
Those 5,000 f/as who are gone may never come back here. When some do, they won't believe the "unrealistic" expectation management has of this group, and all groups.
We don't ask for your sympathy, Mark, we ask that we are all treated with respect and work together as a team. I axpect that from mangement. WE do our jobs, you do yours and inspire us to be the best. Are you capable of this?
Are you trying to continue to piss me off?
You think I have no life that I need to sit on this board all night on Sunday and answer your questions? What would you and I gain? Can I change your mind? And then could YOU change policy? Or lighten up a bit on our people? All the employees? I hear IAM is being slaughtered now by heavy handed management that want to start to set examples before a job action starts. Its a little late for examples when folks are so "indifferent" now (which is much worse than anger) that it really doesn't matter. Do you think management is trying to teach us a lesson as f/as? PIT had a f/a that is so depressed, can't come to work and get on a plane, and has nothing to do with any 9/11 event. She has great anxiety once on the plane she has to go into the bathroom to often time settle herself down and catch her breath. She was to sse a psychiatrist on Friday. Said she thinks it would be better for her to get terminated than quit so she can at least collect unemployment. She said that she is going to file BK. I am trying to work with her and inflight knows nothing about this. She has been able to manage without infracting. She is very ill. YOu understand what I am saying?
Yea Mark, and can see the tear in your eye now. No need to respond to the above. Just giving you examples of what I know.
I will answer you cause God (you) only knows what you would be like if I didn't:
Mark States:
And what about these issues posted previously?
So how many reserves do you feel we should have had in PHL?
PB Responds:
Well how many f/as are in that base? If there are 2,400, Reserve Dom and ITD should be approx 500-600 with the new reserve system. To state what is necessary now is pretty "moot" as we have 1 month left with this old system.
How many Flight Attendants should we have to call to cover 3 positions? 6? 10?
PB responds:
As many reserves that you have to cover the operation. We have a contract, within there is safe guards for the operation. That is why you have a crew sched. department whose purpose is to cover trips. We had a reserve system that was once very fexible, and folks stayed here because of that flexibility. Otherwise what would be the attraction for a f/a job? The Wholly owns have a 42% turnover rate. FACT! Less flexibility. That is why we are union and great at negotiations. WE have never stuck the airline, and we made plenty of cash in the late 90s for U.
How many F/A's should we have sit on reserve just being paid guarentee so that those that are senior reserve can pick an chose if/when they want to work?
PB Responds:
40%. Just like we had. In our contract the operation got protected because even with the ability to pass, the company had the ability to go in Inverse senority and ASSIGN the trip. Coverage was not a problem, accept during the holidays, xmas and thanksgiving. As par in every airline If sick time abuse was not an issue.
Would there be a need for an idiotic sick policy?
[/b][/u]PB Responds:
There is no need for the sick idiotic policy that even you admit. We gave a savings to the company with a 5 hour penalty for a sick call and management STOLE more than the f/as agreed to. Period. We gave the cost savings to the company. Fols get sick. That is an inevidable, unavidable fact of human nature. Whether physically or emotionally, it all is sickeness. No matter even if you had no sick bank or sick time allowed. Employees will get sick. That is why there is a federal law called FMLA to prevent employers from terminating employees for illness.
why not address the issue of 4 sick calls, 3 UTC's and 1 who claimed to have been drinking - WHILE ON DUTY!
PB Responds:
I will "off the cuff" answer as I would have to get the real story and facts from the local President of PHL. Without knowing the facts, other than you as mangement cites, Middle of the night call out will be difficult to cover at best. Most folks anywhere are not accustomed to be called out after 10 pm. and most go to sleep. How rested are they if the call out is for a 5 a.m. check in? You have to get up at least at 3 a.m. YOu have to shower, get in the car, drive, park go through security and get into the briefing room 90 minutes before departure. The 3 UTC depends if you are talking about a 2 hour drive or by plane commute? That would be a discipline, and the one that admited to drinking (and if on duty) would be terminated and there is no further discussion on that f/a. She is off the property. Period.
Have you taken me to task on one single fact in what I have written? Do you dispute that it happened as written?
PB responds:
Absolutely, I take you to task.
What facts? Because YOU present an issue, does not make it a fact. Currently, it represents a to me only a hypothetical and an exaggeration at best. I will find out tomorrow.
The sick penalty didn't seem to have an effect on the 4 people that called in sick here did it? Funny how the UTC and dependability program had little or no effect on the fact that 3 people received UTC's isn't it?
PB Responds:
Shame on you, Mark. Does sick have no effect on these 4? what are you saying or implying...that no matter if they are sick, they should come to work ill? That is what you are implying AND WHY WE LEAFLETED THE SICK POLICY AND WILL CONTINUE THIS AFTER THE IAM SITUATION IS RESOLVED.
You want to know why I have my undies in a wad over this.....well it is because I see the effects on the CUSTOMER! Remember them, the people that pay your salary. Knowing that we endured the additional cost of chartering an airplane pales in comparision to knowing that because of these peoples unwillingness to do their job, we added 3 hours of delay time to an already extensively delayed flight. There is no excuse for that when we were showing that the coverage was there and available. Should I just down play that as being no big deal? There was no lack of staffing, it was a lack of willingness to do the job on the parto fo the 8 people that refused to work.
.
PB REsponds:
If you want me to ever take you seriously when you talk about customer care, please tell me what you propose to do with the management that allows the bag situation in PHL and all the cancellations we had specifically the 85 that one weekend in August? It start from the TOP and works its way down? What corrective major was taken? ANY? Please don't sit there and tell me that the 8 f/as are the usual cause of customer disappointment. Please don't go there with me. Let the customer decide who is responsible for poor quality of service. YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COVERAGE. This is fact. Stop blaming the employees. It is easy cause you have the ability to terminate us. Mangement gets to keep their jobs by blaming the rank and file, and making us the "heavy" to the customer.
Poor excuse for you to imply this.
and with your last reply, then addressing the sick and UTC issue with the employee then changes the behavior correct? Or have people learned what the limits are and push themselve right to the limit without crossing the line?
PB REsponds:
I don't need to say this again but I will. The box is not only shrunk but we as f/as get fit inside. The expectations are "unrealistic". YOu have set us up to fail.
And that is the saddest part of all of this. Employees who have sacrificed, still suffer, will eventually get terminated in the futre, because mangement has set up the employees to fail.
Sorry but the hand holding and coddeling days are over. There are over 5,000 flight attendants out of a job that would love to come back to work. Why should be continue to coddle and baby the ABUSERS? (and no I am not talking about being unsypathetic to the ones that may encounter problems occasionally.)
PB Responds:
Hand holding? Coddling? Who are you talking about? I thought the majority are excellent . Who do you think you have left on this property....the abuser? They have been long gone Mark. Who you have left are the loyalists? YOu are so blind sitting at your desk, you can't even see this.
Those 5,000 f/as who are gone may never come back here. When some do, they won't believe the "unrealistic" expectation management has of this group, and all groups.
We don't ask for your sympathy, Mark, we ask that we are all treated with respect and work together as a team. I axpect that from mangement. WE do our jobs, you do yours and inspire us to be the best. Are you capable of this?
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Really?cavalier said:
I used to be a group lead of a group of people. Last year, my department was outsourced, I was forced to lay off more than half the employees in the group, and was demoted in rank and title as a result. I have never been put in a position professionally that screwed with my mind until having to lay people off. Don't assume that you know about my feelings on "the human factor."
PITBull--
When I was the head of the aforementioned department, someone was always on call. That person was responsible for handling issues that impacted more profit in ONE DAY that U has earned in any of the past 5 years. When you were on-call, you made sure that you were reachable. If your cell phone did not work, you phoned operations and left a landline number. I personally was responsible for any failures on the part of the on-call person (eg, the ultimate on-call). When I went on vacation I had to be reachable. I'm probably one of the few people who actually activated the Airphone at my seat, and have actually had to take calls on the plane coming to/from vacation. Did this suck? Yep. However, it was part of my job. Ergo, I did it. If I did not want to do it, I'd have left and found something else to do.
My point with this is that if you commute, you are responsible to be available in-base. If you carry a phone, you should ensure that it works if you are on-call. Failure to do so is direlection of your job, pure and simple.
You have argued that sitting on reserve for years and years was not an expectation of the career and the like. That's fine, but if it turns out that sitting on reserve and ensuring that you are available is what the career has become, it's incumbent upon the individual to ensure that happens. If you can't or won't, it's time to find another career.
If you job is to be available to work, the be available to work. It is simple. What about the individual who said they had been drinking? How many breaks are they going to get?
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Clue,
I will give you a short answer as you are not a U employee, and see matters that are inherent of our group from and "outsider" persepctive. You think you have a grasp of what it all entails, but I can tell you from my perspective...you obviously do not. I have a sister who is a VP of a call center of 500 folks and is responsible for that call center 24/7 no matter where she is. First, the one f/a who admitted drinking IS GONE! There is no sencond chance and perhaps will be grieved on the local level, but will be screened for arbitration.
The rest of your post, is again from your perspective which I know so well from our past exhanges.
YOU, my friend" are of the mind and heart of "survival of the fittest" and I am "my brothers keeper". You and I will never have a meeting of the minds, but yet we balance each other out, and make the world go round.
So, have a nice night.
I will give you a short answer as you are not a U employee, and see matters that are inherent of our group from and "outsider" persepctive. You think you have a grasp of what it all entails, but I can tell you from my perspective...you obviously do not. I have a sister who is a VP of a call center of 500 folks and is responsible for that call center 24/7 no matter where she is. First, the one f/a who admitted drinking IS GONE! There is no sencond chance and perhaps will be grieved on the local level, but will be screened for arbitration.
The rest of your post, is again from your perspective which I know so well from our past exhanges.
YOU, my friend" are of the mind and heart of "survival of the fittest" and I am "my brothers keeper". You and I will never have a meeting of the minds, but yet we balance each other out, and make the world go round.
So, have a nice night.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Bob,
Those folks you speak, are gone! They have been gone. They are now at the core of the best. And they are breaking their spirits right and left. I defend those I know are the best and those that are left are the ones.
I will not back off, and will not get off anything. MMW challenges me and I defend my position and actions. Liike or or lump it. AFA knows how to defend their people. That is why you have a union vs. none. WE give everyone their day to defend themselves. If the case has no merit, they are gone. If it has merit, we win.
Those folks you speak, are gone! They have been gone. They are now at the core of the best. And they are breaking their spirits right and left. I defend those I know are the best and those that are left are the ones.
I will not back off, and will not get off anything. MMW challenges me and I defend my position and actions. Liike or or lump it. AFA knows how to defend their people. That is why you have a union vs. none. WE give everyone their day to defend themselves. If the case has no merit, they are gone. If it has merit, we win.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
It's not about survival of the fittest. At least in this particular instance, it does not _seem_ that way.PITbull said:
It's about personal responsibility.
That said, I think our difference is more along these lines:
I (believe it or not) once carried a UFCW card. At that time, I decided two things:
1. I am willing to go without any protection for mistakes or mishaps I may make, even thru no fault of my own. But,
2. I am willing to do so in order to be rewarded for the fruits of my own labor, not time-in-place (seniority), not nepotism, not classification, etc.
Further, I can tell you that #1 has hurt on a few occasions. But, that's what comes with a large degree of personal responsibility.
I guess, the biggest thing I see from an "outsider" perspective is that you guys (AFA) are going to have to spend valuable resources fighting management on issues like sick time, and then get a draconian response from management (right or wrong) over the actions of a few bad apples. These reactions from management will drastically impact the quality of life of the entire membership. I think that the union's time is better spent going to bat on other, more important items.
I think Bob is right on the money--if all the LEC presidents could somehow produce a list of who they consider to be bad apples, I think you would find that it is very, very close to what management comes up with. (these people who abuse the system, BTW, do not deserve to be protected by their brother's/sister's keeper).
I realize that it'll never happen (duty of fair representation and all that). But it would be an interesting exercise.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Clue states: I realize that it'll never happen (duty of fair representation and all that). But it would be an interesting exercise.
PITbull Responds:
That is the point. It is the duty of union leaders to protect jobs of its members. If their are some who just don't cut it, they still get represented. That is the purpose of the "pulling" of the dues dollars together to negotiate and defend conract language and protect jobs, give the employee a voice in the work place. No other purpose for unions.
I expect my union to represent my interest. If I habitually screw up on the job, then I eventually lose the job, no matter what union is on the property. We all have responsibilities to our employer and ourselves and strive to do the best job we can.
It has always been that way here at U, and WE as the rank and filer folks have built a great franchise.
Unfortunately, we have a mangement team that can not only NOT operate an airline but can't respect employees enough to recognize the importance of rebuilding employee morale or recognize that the employees are the very foundation of the company and have a direct effect on the bottom line. Can you replace us all? Perhaps, U wll attempt this very soon.
In life, I don't care what you do, where you go, and what you achieve, there is a human factor in business, and no business, or government can ignore this element and survive as an entity without fostering the human spirit and providing hope for the future.
PITbull Responds:
That is the point. It is the duty of union leaders to protect jobs of its members. If their are some who just don't cut it, they still get represented. That is the purpose of the "pulling" of the dues dollars together to negotiate and defend conract language and protect jobs, give the employee a voice in the work place. No other purpose for unions.
I expect my union to represent my interest. If I habitually screw up on the job, then I eventually lose the job, no matter what union is on the property. We all have responsibilities to our employer and ourselves and strive to do the best job we can.
It has always been that way here at U, and WE as the rank and filer folks have built a great franchise.
Unfortunately, we have a mangement team that can not only NOT operate an airline but can't respect employees enough to recognize the importance of rebuilding employee morale or recognize that the employees are the very foundation of the company and have a direct effect on the bottom line. Can you replace us all? Perhaps, U wll attempt this very soon.
In life, I don't care what you do, where you go, and what you achieve, there is a human factor in business, and no business, or government can ignore this element and survive as an entity without fostering the human spirit and providing hope for the future.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Bob,
What do you base your facts on when you cite employees continue to beat the system and are dead wood? We are talking here about changed policy that is NOW effecting the entire f/as group. Would you as a customer know better than me as an employee? These are not subtle, insedious changes and policies.
Those who are cited today are brand new infracters. Folks who have never had a discipline and all of a sudden are poping up. Those who have many years here. Not just talking about a reserve issue with reserves....they are under the gun in a different way with different sets of rules.
We the employees live in a drastically different work environment, with many obstacles and with more to hurdle than we ever did before with this job. You can't tell me things are the same. They HAVE changed and continue to change creating much anxiety that is NOT the healthy kind.
I am not going to sit on these boards and keep beating a dead horse. You can conceptualize only what your own experience was. That very well is true, perhaps outside U, and I am sure you had experienced this. But I speak from "front hand" knowledge. I know who is showing up now that have never had problems before with merely intermittent infractions in their career . Bob, you would have to come and walk my walk, to understand it. I am not here to convince you or any customer. The majority of employees of U who are Labor understand my argument.
We are not babies, we are living this nightmare. I can tell you the surface problem, but you can't help us on that level. That is our issue to take to task.
What do you base your facts on when you cite employees continue to beat the system and are dead wood? We are talking here about changed policy that is NOW effecting the entire f/as group. Would you as a customer know better than me as an employee? These are not subtle, insedious changes and policies.
Those who are cited today are brand new infracters. Folks who have never had a discipline and all of a sudden are poping up. Those who have many years here. Not just talking about a reserve issue with reserves....they are under the gun in a different way with different sets of rules.
We the employees live in a drastically different work environment, with many obstacles and with more to hurdle than we ever did before with this job. You can't tell me things are the same. They HAVE changed and continue to change creating much anxiety that is NOT the healthy kind.
I am not going to sit on these boards and keep beating a dead horse. You can conceptualize only what your own experience was. That very well is true, perhaps outside U, and I am sure you had experienced this. But I speak from "front hand" knowledge. I know who is showing up now that have never had problems before with merely intermittent infractions in their career . Bob, you would have to come and walk my walk, to understand it. I am not here to convince you or any customer. The majority of employees of U who are Labor understand my argument.
We are not babies, we are living this nightmare. I can tell you the surface problem, but you can't help us on that level. That is our issue to take to task.
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 1
Oy! does our insurnace cover Carple Tunnel!
While my example may not be the norm, things of this nature due happen every day. Does it happen to 99% of the flights or employees? No. It is a small percantage, as Bob said. You are fighting so hard to protect the worst of the employees.
Clue is exactly right. If I have 10 people that are available, then staffing was't the issue. In your world I should have 20 people to cover the need for 8. That isn't right. If these 4 individuals were really sick, why didn't they call scheduling earlier in the day? why would they wait until they were assigned the trip? I find it hard to believe that 4 people caught the polyester flu all within an hour of being assigned a trip.
You asked if I am trying to piss you off. My answer is YES! 260 customers were pissed off waiting that additional 3 hours for a crew to get there. Good employees are pissed off because eveyrthing they do is scrutinized as suspect because we continue to protect that 1%. The agents were pissed off because they had to stand there and take the verbal abuse of 260 unhappy people 6 hours because the people on call didn't want to show up for work! F/A's that are to be furloughed soon are pissed off because they want to work and can't because we are going to protect the jobs of someone that DOESN't want to work! So YES Pitbull, I want you to get pissed off too and stop protecting the people that ABUSE THE SYSTEM!
I do feel for the person that you refered to in your example, the one that is so depressed that she can't fly. How does she factor into this example? Was she one of the 4 people that called off sick? Was she one of the 3 UTC (Unable to Contact or No Contacts)? You can pull all the sob stories that you want out of a hat and it doesn't change the situation on the FCO flight. If this person has a medical/psychological problem and can't come to work, so be it. If she has discussed this with her supervisor and base manager, and there were no prior issues of dependability then she did the right thing. If she is an employee with a great track record for the last 35 years, then hopefully they will work with her to find a solution to the problem. She is not the example of the person I am refering to. I am talking about the habitual abuser of the system, not the exception.
You talk about the flexibility of your work schedule, which is true. your work scheudleused to be very flexible. But guess what? People learned how to take that flexibility and abuse it for their own good. So the system went from allowing flexibilibty to becoming a burden. It gave people more ways and excuses to get out of working and missed the primary employee responsibility.....to come to work!
40% reserve! Woman, put the crack pipe down, you've had enough. Those days are over. The obecjtive is to try and maximize employee usefullness. We don't want 10-15% of the reserves sitting there just making guarantee so you can have all the flexibility that you want in your schedule as a block holder. At this point there should be few, if any, that don't breatk guarantee. Employees are not productive if they just sit there sucking up a minimum wage paycheck and benies!
When I refered to the 4 flight attendants that called in sick and the sick penalty not having an effect on them, what I was talking about is that it didn't stop them from calling in sick did it? If they were truely sick, then they should have called off earlier in the day and taken off active status. Why wait until you are asigned a trip? Once again i would wager that you would be hard pressed to prove that even 1 of the 4 were actually sick.
You also talked about the PHL bag deal and the crew cancellations in July and August. I was equally as critical on upper management for those issues. I spoke ont his very forum how I felt that Al should be shown the door for his inability to recognize the customer issues and take a pro-active stance with the issues.
Bottomline in the whole issue: We had adaquate coverage. We need to hold people accountable for their actions and stop protecting the 1% that make it rough on everyone. Getting tough and consistent with the attendance policy and dependability issues will help to shake out those that want to work from those that do not. If you are an employee that finds your self in a challenging period in your life, you should have nothing to fear. If you are an employee that ignores teh warnings and continues to call off sick, doesn't anwswer your pages/cell phone, commutes in and doesn't plan for irregularities, then you better start worrying.
This situation was a disgrace and to defend it is ridiculous.
While my example may not be the norm, things of this nature due happen every day. Does it happen to 99% of the flights or employees? No. It is a small percantage, as Bob said. You are fighting so hard to protect the worst of the employees.
Clue is exactly right. If I have 10 people that are available, then staffing was't the issue. In your world I should have 20 people to cover the need for 8. That isn't right. If these 4 individuals were really sick, why didn't they call scheduling earlier in the day? why would they wait until they were assigned the trip? I find it hard to believe that 4 people caught the polyester flu all within an hour of being assigned a trip.
You asked if I am trying to piss you off. My answer is YES! 260 customers were pissed off waiting that additional 3 hours for a crew to get there. Good employees are pissed off because eveyrthing they do is scrutinized as suspect because we continue to protect that 1%. The agents were pissed off because they had to stand there and take the verbal abuse of 260 unhappy people 6 hours because the people on call didn't want to show up for work! F/A's that are to be furloughed soon are pissed off because they want to work and can't because we are going to protect the jobs of someone that DOESN't want to work! So YES Pitbull, I want you to get pissed off too and stop protecting the people that ABUSE THE SYSTEM!
I do feel for the person that you refered to in your example, the one that is so depressed that she can't fly. How does she factor into this example? Was she one of the 4 people that called off sick? Was she one of the 3 UTC (Unable to Contact or No Contacts)? You can pull all the sob stories that you want out of a hat and it doesn't change the situation on the FCO flight. If this person has a medical/psychological problem and can't come to work, so be it. If she has discussed this with her supervisor and base manager, and there were no prior issues of dependability then she did the right thing. If she is an employee with a great track record for the last 35 years, then hopefully they will work with her to find a solution to the problem. She is not the example of the person I am refering to. I am talking about the habitual abuser of the system, not the exception.
You talk about the flexibility of your work schedule, which is true. your work scheudleused to be very flexible. But guess what? People learned how to take that flexibility and abuse it for their own good. So the system went from allowing flexibilibty to becoming a burden. It gave people more ways and excuses to get out of working and missed the primary employee responsibility.....to come to work!
40% reserve! Woman, put the crack pipe down, you've had enough. Those days are over. The obecjtive is to try and maximize employee usefullness. We don't want 10-15% of the reserves sitting there just making guarantee so you can have all the flexibility that you want in your schedule as a block holder. At this point there should be few, if any, that don't breatk guarantee. Employees are not productive if they just sit there sucking up a minimum wage paycheck and benies!
When I refered to the 4 flight attendants that called in sick and the sick penalty not having an effect on them, what I was talking about is that it didn't stop them from calling in sick did it? If they were truely sick, then they should have called off earlier in the day and taken off active status. Why wait until you are asigned a trip? Once again i would wager that you would be hard pressed to prove that even 1 of the 4 were actually sick.
You also talked about the PHL bag deal and the crew cancellations in July and August. I was equally as critical on upper management for those issues. I spoke ont his very forum how I felt that Al should be shown the door for his inability to recognize the customer issues and take a pro-active stance with the issues.
Bottomline in the whole issue: We had adaquate coverage. We need to hold people accountable for their actions and stop protecting the 1% that make it rough on everyone. Getting tough and consistent with the attendance policy and dependability issues will help to shake out those that want to work from those that do not. If you are an employee that finds your self in a challenging period in your life, you should have nothing to fear. If you are an employee that ignores teh warnings and continues to call off sick, doesn't anwswer your pages/cell phone, commutes in and doesn't plan for irregularities, then you better start worrying.
This situation was a disgrace and to defend it is ridiculous.
