IAM Stepping Up campaign
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
yoyodyne
Veteran
Kev3188 said:
Kev,
I will grant you that, without seeing the actual language on the write up I can only guess. Perhaps it was costumers in the picture, perhaps it was brand perception (since that is such a subjective matter). Again, I could only guess, but I would be willing to bet that had those pictures not involved branding/uniforms/location, this would be a non-issue, and said F/A would be write-up free. Is it wrong, yes, if the write up was of retaliatory nature. The more reason to be vigilant.
As to the fact that "similar" pictures are all over the internet, again, that is very subjective. I'm going to exaggerate the following example, for demonstrative purposes only. Porn is readily available on the internet, however, we do not post it here (exemptions to the rule might only be the US twitter feed when replying to costumer complaints) because it is not appropriate.
What bothers me about 700 is the way that he tries to manipulate facts to fit the narrative, or his point of view. It totally reminds me of climate change denialists, whom try to make the allusion of a debate where there is none. If 97% of scientific consensus states that man made emissions are changing the climate, it is a fact, just because 3% disagree, its not grounds for debate, its grounds for ignorance. Another good example are the moron ammosexuals that believe that their 2nd amendment rights trump my 1st amendment right to live. you just can't make this stuff up.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2,196
A union is not responsible for someone's personal behavior, they are responsible to negotiate and administer the CBA and represent the member.
He did this at his house in uniform and posted it on the web, how was the union responsible for his behavior outside of work?
He did this at his house in uniform and posted it on the web, how was the union responsible for his behavior outside of work?
southwind
Veteran
- Jan 22, 2008
- 7,709
- 3,928
Duckin' and Dodgin'!700UW said:
Something pushed this guy to say what not only he but I'm sure hundreds of others felt.
Why did they feel this way to begin with, if a "UNION" had their back?
Apparently they were losing something, that the union they have been paying off for years, couldn't keep for them!
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2,198
You truly are uneducated and have no idea what unions are about and what they do.
If you believe what you say, then you are truly a lost cause who is the poster child for ignorance.
I am not ducking nor dodging anything.
I clearly explained it to you, not my fault you dont have the brain power to comprehend it.
If you believe what you say, then you are truly a lost cause who is the poster child for ignorance.
I am not ducking nor dodging anything.
I clearly explained it to you, not my fault you dont have the brain power to comprehend it.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
I have to ask this.. if he was at home, why would he be in uniform other than just got home or about to leave for work and if it had been say a day he was off or swapped off how could he be fired given it was done in his own home. I understand everything else
yoyo as for your quest I think its because he probably felt that AA did not need CH11 other than to decimate their work force and to get sh!tter contracts just my own honest take and im sure he probably seen quite of bit of damage or heard about it from other co workers etc im sure most of the employees in the airline would think similar but would not go the extent he did but in all reality he probably should of gotten help before that's just my honest opin
yoyo as for your quest I think its because he probably felt that AA did not need CH11 other than to decimate their work force and to get sh!tter contracts just my own honest take and im sure he probably seen quite of bit of damage or heard about it from other co workers etc im sure most of the employees in the airline would think similar but would not go the extent he did but in all reality he probably should of gotten help before that's just my honest opin
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #2,200
You can be terminated for violating the Posted Rules of Conduct, and I would say AA had policy that he violated.
You can be terminated for offenses that you dont do while at work.
Didnt the PHL ramp guys who got into a fight off of US property get terminated?
Yes they did.
You can be terminated for offenses that you dont do while at work.
Didnt the PHL ramp guys who got into a fight off of US property get terminated?
Yes they did.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
yes thanks
Kev3188
Veteran
yoyodyne said:
That's just it; all the other pictures I've been referring to show employees doing visibility events. IOW, the subject matter is the exact same. Not similar, identical.
In all of these cases, the participants met the covenants of our employer's advocacy policy (non work area, non work time, etc.), so in of itself, the subject matter isn't violation-worthy.
At the same time, those posting the pictures have had no issues, so why now?
That's one issue at play here.
I still contend that the idea was to regain control of the conversation, but the disturbing second part here is how what someone says on an FB page that the company states is an open forum results in discipline in the workplace. Don't get me wrong- the company can moderate their FB page however they wish, just like any other page admin does. But that cross pollination is absolutely something we should all be vigilant about.
And the brighter of light shone on it, the better.
Kev3188
Veteran
When people are that upset it's usually because they still give a f**k.southwind said:
I understand that critical thinking isn't your strong suit, but try and take the long view here...
yoyodyne
Veteran
Kev,
I can't say yay or nay, if the pictures are identical, then I would consult the labor board for discrimination (unless you reside in teahadistan). That kaka is not tolerated in the state I live in. However, if the other pictures had similar themes, say minus uniform/location/customers, etc, then maybe the company had a right.
Why only castigate one out of many (while I'm sure that they are very unhappy that many F/A post, they probably singled out the one that crossed the threshold of our social media policy, again - time to be vigilant), as you state, it does more harm than good. Without knowing the specifics of the write up, we can only speculate.
Aaaaaand he makes my point...
Kev3188 said:
I can't say yay or nay, if the pictures are identical, then I would consult the labor board for discrimination (unless you reside in teahadistan). That kaka is not tolerated in the state I live in. However, if the other pictures had similar themes, say minus uniform/location/customers, etc, then maybe the company had a right.
Why only castigate one out of many (while I'm sure that they are very unhappy that many F/A post, they probably singled out the one that crossed the threshold of our social media policy, again - time to be vigilant), as you state, it does more harm than good. Without knowing the specifics of the write up, we can only speculate.
700UW said:
Aaaaaand he makes my point...
yoyodyne
Veteran
robbedagain said:
Robbed,
Then he should have focused his anger better. The executives for AA simply did what they can get away with. You know who is at fault? US, as in we the people, who keep electing dirtbag politicians that make laws that enable companies to bend you over. The electorate is so easily duped with non-issues, that get everyone frothing at the mouth (welfare/immigration/patriotism), while they (usually the republicants) pass laws that defy anatomy in the sense that they bend us over to angles never intended by nature...
- Status
