Sorry to burst your bubble dearie, but EOLESON is Eric Oleson, and those of us who have been posting for years know that. He had numerous years at AA both as an agent and in management.
Perhaps you should actually learn who you're talking to before jumping to conclusions...
I spent 17 wonderful years at AMR, 12 years of that in management positions including analyst, programmer, and manager. I've also spent about 10 years on these forums, three of them as a moderator on PlaneBusiness before AA CrapComm and the TWU both decided that it was a threat to have me on the boards because I disagreed with management on occasion. And I still contribute frequently to PlaneBusiness and PlaneBuzz, so your comments about me being a shill are pretty damn funny.
Long time participants here know that I have little patience for people who only want to look at one side of a situation or argument, which is why continue to post here -- there are far too many people who blindly believe things they hear from the union, blogs, and overhear in shop or galley rumors. And then there's the stuff that comes from HDQ....
Somewhere in the middle is usually the truth, and you can only know where the middle is by listening or seeking out what the other side is.
If you want to take my stating what the other side of an argument is as being the same as taking that side, I could really care less.
Who you are, nobody really cares, what you are is what everyone is trying to figure out.
Long time participants here know that I have little patience for people who only want to look at one side of a situation or argument, which is why continue to post here -- there are far too many people who blindly believe things they hear from the union, blogs, and overhear in shop or galley rumors. And then there's the stuff that comes from HDQ....
Fair enough, so you admitting that you consider yourself to be "The other side". Isnt that pretty much the opposite of what you have claimed all along? First you were anonymous as "Former Moderator", now doesnt the title Moderator imply impartiality? Yet you were AA management when you used that alias, now you are Eoleson, still chanting the same rhetoric however now you imply impartiality with you declaration that you do not work for AA, we dont know who you work for yet you spend a great deal of time on behalf of AA on these boards- slight jabs at management not withstanding. Someone working for Boston consulting could easily claim they dont work for AA even if everything they do is in the interest of AA.
Well at least you finally came clean, intentionally or not, with your "other side" statement.
Because AA is self insured, I believe they are "out of pocket" for the first $250,000 of any WC claim. This is why you see so many legitimate injuries controverted. I have even seen Flight Service FSMs "suggest" that an injury be handled as a personal illness vs WC so that the f/a would have their choice of medical care. The FSM was a little embarrassed when I suggested it would be insurance fraud to report a WC injury as a personal injury. AA also has a stake in keeping down reported injuries because it affects their rates. It is much easier to harass than to correct the problems causing the injuries. A good example is the serving carts. They were designed to be used by 2 people, not one. Improper use of equip. =s more injuries.
Eric may not be tolerant of one sided arguments but when it comes to PUPOFF, he might be surprised at the number of persons having signed who are non employee stockholders, now customers, with no other ax to grind but the obscene use of employee concessions. In spite of the obvious service barriers placed limiting being able to provide advertised services, and the constant need to deal with unmet expectations from the traveling public, the employees of AA do their very best. The disappointment in AAs attempt at "participatory management", which was ruined by the greed and complete lack of comprehension of the labor relations consequences associated with the payouts, have put AA's labor relations at serious risk. No one would have been upset with reasonable payouts, but not on the backs of those providing the "shared sacrifice". My 198 shares would have been a good start..lol
This is probably one of those areas that some of us will have to agree to disagree.
Its people like Patti and her attitude that turns me off to her whole thing. She seems to think not signing, or not agreeing with her means you support management bonuses. There are lots of different way to make your feelings known and to share your dissatisfaction.
Say what you want about Eric, But He is one of the fairest and most level headed people posting here. Unlike some of the whiny children posting, he took a leap and made a change. That probably classifies him as one of the smartest people posting here.
Its people like Patti and her attitude that turns me off to her whole thing. She seems to think not signing, or not agreeing with her means you support management bonuses. There are lots of different way to make your feelings known and to share your dissatisfaction.
Say what you want about Eric, But He is one of the fairest and most level headed people posting here. Unlike some of the whiny children posting, he took a leap and made a change. That probably classifies him as one of the smartest people posting here.
Patti is passionate and on a mission. Too bad she isn't still active and in a union leadership position. I don't have the sense that she feels that not signing is comparable to supporting the bonus payments. It is just a way of calling someone on their consistent defense of those receiving the bonus payments. No one is going to agree with everything discussed on this board but that is what keep things interesting. Just don't get me started on healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare in the US....lol
The various posts on these topics give everyone a glimpse into the window of diversity. It is what it is, enjoy, don't get turned off.
Its people like Patti and her attitude that turns me off to her whole thing. She seems to think not signing, or not agreeing with her means you support management bonuses. There are lots of different way to make your feelings known and to share your dissatisfaction.
Say what you want about Eric, But He is one of the fairest and most level headed people posting here. Unlike some of the whiny children posting, he took a leap and made a change. That probably classifies him as one of the smartest people posting here.
Its people like Patti and her attitude that turns me off to her whole thing. She seems to think not signing, or not agreeing with her means you support management bonuses. There are lots of different way to make your feelings known and to share your dissatisfaction.
Mike, my question was tongue-in-cheek. Eolesen jested with Bears as to why BOS didn’t sign & I followed asking him the same. Like his, my question was rhetorical.
We respect everyone’s choice to sign or not. We've demonstrated this by maintaining a second list for those who choose not to sign but want to receive our emails. And, if you're not interested in either option, that's fine too. None of us believe exercising your choice not to sign means agreement with mgmt bonuses. Our efforts are for all, signed or not.
In response to “my whole thingâ€â€¦ Our whole thing is only for employees & retirees to get a fair shake for their labor.
