FA Mikey said:
Many people are legitimately ill, and some are not. That's how it goes here and every other place of business that chooses to stay open for Christmas.
Yes, Mikey, and the only point made at the start of this thread was that the "some who are not really sick" but seem well enough to go non-revving around the system while on sick leave should have to pay for breaking the rules.
I think you can agree that people who don't show up to work in our profession have a different effect than in others.
If a number of cashiers at Safeway call in sick over a holiday, the result will be that either management types will have to operate the registers, or you might have to stand in line a little (or a lot) longer and you're ice cream will melt, or both.
If a number of flight attendants decide that "it's not fair that I have to work the holidays; so, I'll just call in sick", flights get cancelled meaning a lot of other people don't get paid or don't get to THEIR Christmas destination. OR, (and this is the one that chaps my butt) a number of people who are supposed to be your colleagues, friends, and fellow union members, are forced to work on that holiday when they could have been at home with their families on ready reserve. I don't mind covering for someone who is truly sick (in fact, on reserve I would rather fly than sit at home), but why should I have to work simply because you don't want to?
I realize that you are probably senior enough that you don't have to serve reserve. But, one of the things that I have noticed about APFA members is that if it doesn't affect them personally they see no need to be concerned about it at all. (And, I'm not saying that this is true in your case, but if the shoe fits...) This is not unionism. This sort of attitude will jump up and bite these people in the behind one day. Look at what's happening at United with the retiree medical benefits. There is some indication that the AFA knew all along that the company was planning to renege on contributions to the retiree plan, but they kept quiet because it didn't affect the still working flight attendants.
Either a union is for and supports ALL its members or it becomes ripe for a representation election at some point. And, support does not mean protecting the jobs of lazy, selfish flight attendants who don't want the job enough to show up when they're supposed to.
And, as far as your comment that that is just the way of the world for companies that are open on holidays...No. In most businesses, the people who call in sick every holiday are FIRED. People who are regularly absent with a "stomach virus" on Fridays and Mondays are FIRED. People who consistently show up late to work are FIRED. I'm not advocating mass flight attendant firings, but if the facts are that you called in sick and then went non-revving to visit family or to a vacation destination, whether on a holiday or not, you do not deserve to be a flight attendant.
Some flight attendants at AA seem to have lost sight of the fact that actions have consequences, and if you break the rules you deserve to pay whatever price has been set for the infraction. AFTER you break the rules is the wrong time to say that termination is too harsh a punishment. I learned in training that non-revving while on the sick list is a termination offense. Now, if I didn't like that, I had a choice not to take the job.
Look at it from a safety standpoint. You are knocked out in an emergency landing. The Captain orders an evacuation because the a/c is on fire. The rule is that flight attendants do not exit the plane until they are sure that they have done all they can to remove all passengers and crew from the a/c. Do you want to trust your survival to someone who has so little regard for his/her fellow flight attendants that they have called in sick every Christmas for the past 3 years just because they wanted the time off and couldn't hold it?
