Mid Atlantic FA Law suit

[PITbull]

DCflyer,

I can not believe that any f/a would sign such a document.

Your attorney is absolutely correct...if anyone signs this document, he may be able to go after those participants who signed such a retainer as it is a binding contract, even if its just one or two f/as.

Isn't anyone attempting to contact these f/as and steer them away from these types of contracts?

If this suit had any merit, the attorney should take the case on a contigency basis with an intitial deposit. A RED flag goes up when I see these types of documents.

Its sad to see that even on this board, there are f/as who definitely got involved in this.

It has "SUCKER" written all over it.

 

[DCAflyer]

I am beginning to think this whole thing is bull shnick too. You would think that the lawyer or someone would contact the f/a's involved and tell us what the heck is going on. h34r: But, I guess we all will sit and wait with blinders on...I know several people who stopped sending money. It is not 100 a month..I dont know who said that but, basically it is $45 a month OR send whatever you can. Well, I can send no more..cause I need in writing an official letter from the lawyer stating what he is up to.Sorry..but I am too broke to keep funding someone elses pocket.

xoxo...

So the questions that need to be answered before people send in more money is:

(1) How many have signed and submitted retainer agreements?;

(2) Of those who have signed and submitted retainer agreements, how many are current on their monthly payments? (these two questions alone will determine the commitment people have to this lawsuit, this attorney, and this steering committee);

(3) How much of the war chest that is referred to in the retainer agreement has been used?

Tough questions! No answers!

 

[cheezlinewages]

DCflyer,

I can not believe that any f/a would sign such a document.

Your attorney is absolutely correct...if anyone signs this document, he may be able to go after those participants who signed such a retainer as it is a binding contract, even if its just one or two f/as.


If you are listed on the complaint, the lawyer will try to make you resposible for "costs and fees" even if you did not sign a retainer. The judge recieved a 28 page letter with emails from the lawyer attached, where he tried to make a FA pay costs and fees up to the date the complaint is ammended and her name removed.

On May 8, a judge ordered the attorney to ammend the complaint listing only plaintiffs who had submitted a signed retainer. Today is July 2, the ammended complaint has not been filed.

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

xoxo...

So the questions that need to be answered before people send in more money is:

(1) How many have signed and submitted retainer agreements?;

(2) Of those who have signed and submitted retainer agreements, how many are current on their monthly payments? (these two questions alone will determine the commitment people have to this lawsuit, this attorney, and this steering committee);

(3) How much of the war chest that is referred to in the retainer agreement has been used?

Tough questions! No answers!

hopefully there are answers soon - luckily i didn't sign a retainer but i had given money.. Reading the retainer, even someone that is not an attorney can see that he is after money and has no compassion for the case - on top of that he chose weak and "loose" individuals for the steering committee to "get what he wanted"so to speak - money and sex.... I say chop up the losses - its over - get on with it already - save your money and work on the real problem that caused this in the first place - THE AFA
I just hope that our leader is enjoying her new wood floors in her home - via my money - (which i found very strange when she seemed to have an endless supply of money and shortly before she was crying she couldnt afford to send her kids to soccer camp) Don't give this TWIT any more money unless you want to line the S@uts pockets people.

 

[PITbull]

no compassion for the case -

No compassion for what case? What are the merits to this law suit?

What we have here are furloughees who accepted jobs at MAA who didn't have to, were not forced to, didn't get anything special by doing so other than a job with reduced wages and off unemployment.

As what was discussed BEFORE the inception of MAA, there was no longevity for pay or vacation purposes and a flow through once "recall" commenced.

That's it.

What are the merits to this litigation and what is the bone of contintion other than emotionalism that someone got screwed. Would remianing on furlough have been better?

Then, those folks should have stayed furloughed and wait for recall to mainline.

The job offereings for MAA Division was an opportunity for those on furlough to have jobs, notified in seniority order, however, those who decided to take those jobs were f/as who were very junior and basically those from 2001 furlough. There would be no way that those f/as who took those jobs would jump seniority when recalled to mainline, while the other more senior furloughees decided that the MAA job was not for them.

Section 19 of mainline CBA still stood and still stands today! There was no intent that it would be a "gift" to jump seniority ahead of those more senior f/as on furlough who didn't take those jobs, leaving the more junior f/as on furlough to be called up to MAA and gain some advantage over them whereby breaking and violating sec. 19 of mainline CBA.

Did anyone bother to lend the knucklehead attorney sec. 19 of mainline that speaks to furloughs? MAA f/as were always, always considered furloughed on mainline. The status remained "furloughed" if you were pulled up on the roster. It never said "MAA" on the mainline roster. It remained "furlough".

 

[DCAflyer]

DCflyer,

I can not believe that any f/a would sign such a document.

Your attorney is absolutely correct...if anyone signs this document, he may be able to go after those participants who signed such a retainer as it is a binding contract, even if its just one or two f/as.

Isn't anyone attempting to contact these f/as and steer them away from these types of contracts?

If this suit had any merit, the attorney should take the case on a contigency basis with an intitial deposit. A RED flag goes up when I see these types of documents.

Its sad to see that even on this board, there are f/as who definitely got involved in this.

It has "SUCKER" written all over it.

PitBull,

When the idea was initially tossed around, which was when the pilots were getting ready to file their suit, there was a wind tunnel of momentum. We were trying to block the sale of our aircraft and our routes to Republic. We were tired of mainline flying being outsourced and quite frankly we were tired of the Boeing/Airbus Division flight attendants turning a blind eye to what was happening. MidAtlantic was a promise made for a soft landing, and that so-called soft landing was being practically given away so that the post-merger golden parachutes could be funded. We tried, probably beyond hope, to educate the senior flight attendants that their flying is being outsourced. Hell, PitBull, we were flying 1,500+ mile flights, almost four hours. That's mainline flying and now, with the sale to Republic it was being outsourced. Nobody seemed to care what we were saying. Nobody seemed to care that once those flights are gone, they ain't comin' back. So the attempt was to do whatever we could to stop the sale The plan was to drop a lawsuit on the company in the hopes that they would realize we weren't going to take this lying down, that we will fight, and perhaps they would just drop the Republic deal. But the palace people don't care how many jobs are lost or how many houses are foreclosed or how many soup lines are lengthened; they cared only about their exit bonuses.

There were a few people who seemed to be motivated by money, but the vast majority of MAA flight attendants just wanted to take a stand and tell the company that enough is enough and if they were going to sell off our aircraft and routes, they would have a fight on their hands.

Well, the suit didn't get filed until well after most of the aircraft and the sim had gone over to Republic. The whole mosaic of the endeavor changed from halting the sale to extracting money. I said in the very beginning if even one aircraft goes to Republic, it's all over.

The MAA flight attendants were told by the steering committee chairperson and the committee, several times, that if they didn't sign and return the retainer agreement, they would not be named as plaintiffs. Well, lo and behold, dozens of people it seems, were unwittingly named to make it appear that there was much more participation than was actually the case. The chairperson had been going around telling people that their monthly payments are going down because the participation is growing. That seems now not to have happened. She was absolutely unrelenting in approaching people whereever and whenever, telling them lies, suggesting that the attorney would get involved over rejected unemployment claims... whatever she thought it took to get people to send money and sign retainers, she would say or do.

Five people have left the steering committee because of the chairperson. I had discussions with a couple of them, friends of mine who are honest, well-intentioned, intelligent people. The stories they gave of life on the steering committee were outrageous. They were trying to stop her from saying things that weren't true or making promises that she could not deliver. For instance, she got people to continue to send in money by giving them false hope that the payments would soon go down based on the chart in the retainer agreement. However, she counted in the numbers people who had only once given money before the Republic sale went through, when people had not yet been told there were going to be monthly payments. When these former committee members protested, she defended her actions by saying that people are short on money and need hope that the payments will go down. Well, they may be short on money, but giving them false hope is an outrage.

So there was an all-out battle on the committee because the chairperson wanted to write in a message to everybody that payments are going down. Again, three of the five members protested saying that if payments go down, there has to me a committee decision to do so. They refused to approve the message that she wanted to send out. So in the midst of the disagreement, she and her one allie at the time were cought red-handed trying to send out the unapproved message in an underhanded manner.

This led to those two members leaving the committee and writing a well-written, poised letter to the participants explaining in general terms why they withdrew. This was met with an e-mail to everyone from the leader of the pilots group (who those two departing members had tried for more than a week to contact in the hopes of helping resolve the conflict) basically saying that they were wrong and don't know what they are doing. The attorney even wrote a message to everyone saying that the two departing members were "naive" for thinking that the steering committee should be run in a democratic fashion. How the hell do you facilitate a steering committee if not democratically?

I knew right then and there that something was wrong with this whole thing. I knew that the chairperson was a disaster waiting to happen. Now that seems to be coming to light!

 

[PITbull]

DCflyer,

I understand what the MAA thinking was. What I don't understand is where the language to call f/as from mainline the: Boeing/Airbus Division flight attendants. What is that? Who thought that up? Where is it written that mainline f/as are Boeing/Airbus f/as?

MAA was not the EMB Division. Where that language came from, I have no idea. And to be quite frank, I was the LECP for the startup of the MAA Division (first 7 months), and on the negotiating committee up until July of 2003 as well. So, calling MAA f/as anything other than MAA f/a is mistake #1. They are not the EMB-170 f/as even though that is what they had initially flown. They flew those kinds of a/c because that was all that was purchased at that time for the Division. The plan for the early discussions and before the startup is that MAA would have 50 and 70 seater EMB a/c and the 190's if ordered would come to mainline. That discussion was from summer 2002 Concession #1.

The sell of the a/c is something that was not in control of the employees either mainline or MAA. We were in BK. If we had that much control of events as employees, do you think we would let our pensions get dumped, or wages and benefits get decimated. For concession #1, that first $1 billion $$ from labor was to qualify for an ATSB loan to Buy those damn Emb-170 a/c. Company had complete control of all the employees and the CBAs once they had the bankruptcy trump card. The furloughs that occured in Nov-Dec of 2001 occured BEFORE concessions and BEFORE any BK. The furloughs were created directly as a response to 9/11.After concession #1, the VF program saved the f/as from any invol. furloughing up to this present day.

There is just no logical reason why f/as or the pilots would think or have any inclination that they could prevent a sell of the a/c to Republic while in BK. Company could have sold every route, airplane, the entire franchise if the judge and creditors saw fit. Managmement could not control those outcomes.

 

[DCAflyer]

DCflyer,

I understand what the MAA thinking was. What I don't understand is where the language to call f/as from mainline the: Boeing/Airbus Division flight attendants. What is that? Who thought that up? Where is it written that mainline f/as are Boeing/Airbus f/as?

MAA was not the EMB Division. Where that language came from, I have no idea. And to be quite frank, I was the LECP for the startup of the MAA Division, and on the negotiating committee as well. So, calling MAA f/as or the employees the EMB-170 is mistake #1. The plan for the early discussions and before the startup is that MAA would have 50 and 70 seater EMB a/c and the 190's if ordered would come to mainline. That discussion was from summer 2002 Concession #1 not as a response to concession #1.

The sell of the a/c is something that was not in control of the employees either mainline or MAA. We were in BK. If we had that much control of events as employees, do you think we would let our pensions get dumped, or wages and benefits get decimated. For concession #1, that first $1 billion $$ from labor was to qualify for an ATSB loan to Buy those damn Emb-170 a/c. Company had complete control of all the employees and the CBAs once they had the bankruptcy trump card. The furloughs that occured in Nov-Dec of 2001 occured BEFORE and concessions and BEFORE any BK. The furloughs were created directly as a response to 9/11.After concession #1, the VF program saved the f/as from any invol. furloughing up to this present day.

There is just no logical reason why f/as or the pilots would think or have any inclination that they could prevent a sell of the a/c to Republic while in BK. Company could have sold every route, airplane, the entire franchise if the judge and creditors saw fit. Managmement could not control those outcomes.

It was the company that coined the term "embraer division." They did that because the FAA did not recognize MidAtlantic. FWIU, the FAA wouldn't allow the transfer of the Potomac Air certificate to MAA, therefore the company was forced to use the mainline certificate to operate the now-fictitious MAA-division aircraft. MAA flight attendants were US Airways flight attendants as far as the FAA was concerned. We were mainline certified. Our instructors were mainline flight attendants and rather than "new hire" training, we technically went through recurrent training when hired by MAA. ATC did not refer to the Embraer aircraft as a seperate entity... the controllers would call "US Air 2321" not "MidAtlantic 2321". I was even told that the FAA had an issue with the words "operated by MidAtlantic Airways" at the 1L door but before they could do anything about it, the Republic sale went through.

So in the company's attempt to keep us separate, to pay us less, they had to come up with something that the FAA would accept, and the Embraer Division was what they came up with. They pretty much only used it when dealing with the FAA or documents the FAA had to approve. It was in the manuals... clarification, the mainline manuals. So once the "Embraer Division" term began being tossed around with regularity, some MAA people started saying "Boeing/Airbus Division" when referring to what most people consider mainline.

If you don't believe MidAtlantic flight attendants were mainline, just ask the FAA!

 

[PITbull]

The MAA Division concept and intent was for the f/as and pilots and any groud personnel either brought back from furlough or hired off the street was to fly regional a/c. The Emb. was the first small regional jets to be purchased. This concept went as far back as Gangwal. He wanted to replace the turbo propeller planes to small regional jets. I was angry at the entire concept way back in summer of 2002 when Jerry Glass ketp coming in our negotiations saying that they needed to have an smaller LCC carrier within a carrier. Same as Ted with United and DL with Song. These were all divisions and employees who flew these a/c were paid much less than their mainline.

Its concept was to cut labor cost to compete nose to nose with the smaller upstart LCC carriers like JetBlue and yes, even LUV's $299 round trip fares. So all of labor got screwed from this so called concept of regional flying and a LCC carrier within a carrier. I do believe the company was going full speed ahead with MAA, the glitch is that MAA because of the decrease in seat capacity and short range flying increased our overall CASMS. The second attempt to decrease USAirways overall CASMS occured in concession #2 and #3. The RJ factor just went against our endeavor as labor to give the company what it sought and that was OVERALL lower CASMS.

As long as MAA flew under USAirways, it defeated that entire concept, and mainline ended up paying for a lost cause. And I am talking billions spent on the backs of labor to keep the airline going, attempt to lower casms and MAA bringing up those casms because of the short range flying and decrease seat capacy.

The business plan was doomed, company needed to merge to survive, and MAA needed to be dumped.

With regard to FAA and MAA being under one fying certificate. What dictates separate flying, separate work rules, separate wages, benefits ect...is contracts; not FAA.

MAA were not active mainline f/as. MAA had American Eagle workrules, benefits and wages through 2011. The only thing that the MAA negotiating committee was responsible to do was discuss "flow through". However, in the process of negotiating flow through, we were able to convince Bruce Ashby (who was President at the time for that Division) was some tweeks in work rules.

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

DCflyer,

I understand what the MAA thinking was. What I don't understand is where the language to call f/as from mainline the: Boeing/Airbus Division flight attendants. What is that? Who thought that up? Where is it written that mainline f/as are Boeing/Airbus f/as?

MAA was not the EMB Division. Where that language came from, I have no idea. And to be quite frank, I was the LECP for the startup of the MAA Division (first 7 months), and on the negotiating committee up until July of 2003 as well. So, calling MAA f/as anything other than MAA f/a is mistake #1. They are not the EMB-170 f/as even though that is what they had initially flown. They flew those kinds of a/c because that was all that was purchased at that time for the Division. The plan for the early discussions and before the startup is that MAA would have 50 and 70 seater EMB a/c and the 190's if ordered would come to mainline. That discussion was from summer 2002 Concession #1.

The sell of the a/c is something that was not in control of the employees either mainline or MAA. We were in BK. If we had that much control of events as employees, do you think we would let our pensions get dumped, or wages and benefits get decimated. For concession #1, that first $1 billion $$ from labor was to qualify for an ATSB loan to Buy those damn Emb-170 a/c. Company had complete control of all the employees and the CBAs once they had the bankruptcy trump card. The furloughs that occured in Nov-Dec of 2001 occured BEFORE concessions and BEFORE any BK. The furloughs were created directly as a response to 9/11.After concession #1, the VF program saved the f/as from any invol. furloughing up to this present day.

There is just no logical reason why f/as or the pilots would think or have any inclination that they could prevent a sell of the a/c to Republic while in BK. Company could have sold every route, airplane, the entire franchise if the judge and creditors saw fit. Managmement could not control those outcomes.

Get up to speed PitBull - this directly involves your decisions - There was no talk of prevntion on sale of the a/c during bk it was after. First off - the MEC basically didn't have to allow this division to be formed. The company threatened liquidation and you all buckled. I will tell you that every mainline flight attendant that i talked to and that is many of them - they didn't even know what MDA was. They thought it was the same as mesa, chq. etc... Our powerful leaders failed to point everyone to the truth of what was being done. Let me just tell you when i went to MDA training at CLT I trained on the 319,320,321,737,757,767 and then the 170 - I was then handed a mainline manual - I then questioned what the hell is going on? Oh this is a division of mainline they say... Nobody ever said that people at MDA should jump ahead of other furlughees - i don't know who said that but people didn't think that. Basically all of the planes were on the mainline certificate and it was not a seperate company like intended.. Yes we accepted the terms that were handed to us until recall to mainline however those terms didn't pan out.. It turned out to be there was no seperate operating cert. and so MDA became a division of mainline. Obviously, things went badly wrong and you are partially responsible - otherwise i wouldnt be training on widebodies the same time i do an express jet... Of course you lost your pensions and that is sad - but i really dont feel that bad for you... It has happened to alot of people.. Dont put all your change in one pocket - dont you guys know anything - if you get robbed and they take your wallet but you have removed your cards and put them in jeans when your purse is gone you still have your cards - obviously we didnt have any forward looking people, it was quite obvious this would happen... So when f/a's tell me oh well my pension is gone I just look at them and say, I am sorry, are you going to cry now? Because you could be much worse off and not have a job, so shut it... Once again it is ME ME ME ME!!!! i would bet you have some money stashed somewhere pitbull, or at least you should after all those years in the AFA office... I bet you have a fat house too...

 

[PITbull]

Hey beauty,

Your post is as funny as your pursuit of a law suit. I am partially responsible for WHAT, pray tell, your accepting a low paid, horrible position at MAA???? The sell of MAA? The concept of MAA? What do you think, LABOR THOUGHT THIS SHITT UP???? And what, Labor was eager beavers to pay for all this shittt for MAA???? Your hallucinating, my friend. Seek help!

I don't care what a/c you were trained on, mainline f/as were NOT trained, nor did they open any doors to Emb-170.

If the company was trying to tip toe around the FAA, than that is between they and the FAA, and if the FAA wants to cite the company, I hope they do for billions!

The issue is this. You were on furlough, and you remain on furlough until recalled to mainline. If you are angry about that, well so are we. Angry about the whole damn 4 years we did nothing but pay for all the mistakes of managment and their recycled business plan! Me personally, I waited for one failed membership vote so I could STRIKE their AZZES, but no such failed tentative came. So, I left the damn industry I had been in for 25 years and made room for your sorry-butt!

The wages became too low for my family's survival and I was not willing to live in a commune to support myself on these wages. I didn't have a NEED to stay strapped to a job that a managment neither appreciates loyal customer service nor respects the work done or the workforce.

You can keep marching to that beat , I am concerned about the rest of the f/as who get trapped into such nonsense with these types of frivolous litigations.

 

[DCAflyer]

But remember, the E-170 is not a regional jet. It is a small, mid-range jet. That's why it was so enticing for the company... it was win-win on all fronts. It was small enough get the pilots to agree to the separate division or "airline within an airline" as you put it (even though MAA was never an airline, it was a division). It had enough range to fly from Philly to Houston, which meant that the company could retire 737s and replace them with E-170s on the thinner routes, E-190s and the moderate routes and Airbusses on the heavier routes. It was roomy and comfortable enough, with full-sized bins, that the vast majority of our customers could stand in the cabin unhindered. It was light enough to save a small fortune on fuel.

As for whether or not MAA flight attendants were active mainline, I think you are feeding into the fiction that was MidAtlantic. The FAA said we were US Airways flight attendants. My certificate says US Airways. My training was by US Airways trainers. My badge says US Airways... it also has the MidAtlantic logo, but PSA, Allegheny, and Piedmont don't say US Airways, IIRC. My 401(k) plan is the US Airways 401(k) plan.... they won't let us take out money we put in while at MidAtlantic, because it's in the US Airways 401(k) account. The only way they'll let us roll it over is if we formally resign from US Airways. You see, we were US Airways when that was the most cheap and convenient thing for the company, and we were MidAtlantic when the company felt that things needed to be done through the back door, and we were the Embraer Division when dealing with the FAA. I guess on these points, though, we'll just have to agree to disagree... except that I would add that if we were not mainline, why did AFA worm its way in, before the first MAA flight attendant stepped on the property? If we were a separate airline, we should have a vote and FAA should have had to be certified by the flight attendants. We were never given that opportunity. So are you saying that one airline can decide for another what union, if any, they have to join? You see, it's all yet another gray area!

But make no mistake, the MidAtlantic concept was nothing more than pure, unadulterated union busting.

 

[donttouchthebeauty]

Hey beauty,

Your post is as funny as your pursuit of a law suit. I am partially responsible for WHAT, pray tell, your accepting a low paid, horrible position at MAA???? The sell of MAA? The concept of MAA? What do you think, LABOR THOUGHT THIS SHITT UP???? And what, Labor was eager beavers to pay for all this shittt for MAA???? Your hallucinating, my friend. Seek help!

Just from your post I know you are definitely clue-less!

I don't care what a/c you were trained on, mainline f/as were NOT trained, nor did they open any doors to Emb-170.

If the company was trying to tip toe around the FAA, than that is between they and the FAA, and if the FAA wants to cite the company, I hope they do for billions!

The issue is this. You were on furlough, and you remain on furlough until recalled to mainline. If you are angry about that, well so are we. Angry about the whole damn 4 years.

As far as me personally, I sought to get out of the f/a business! The wages became too low. I didn't have a NEED to stay stapped to a job that a managment neither appreciates loyal customer service nor respects the work done.

You can keep marching to that beat , I am concerned about the rest of the f/as who get trapped into such nonsense with these types of frivolous litigations.

yes of course - I actually didn't mind furlough, I made much more money, and it allowed me to network for later on down the road. When the company was trying to tip-toe around the FAA it should have been questioned and it wasn't... I could give 2 shiaatttss less about MDA and what a joke it was - live and learn - HMMMM not really, i don't do this job for the money.... I just think that it is funny that the work rules and and the vote to pass the acceptance of a division (supposedly unkown at the time) was passed... Unfortunately, your telling me i am clueless has zero affect on me, And once again I am not pursuing a lawsuit, it is not worth it to me, I keep up to date on it since i did contribute money at the start... No doubt the dealings were shady, and some people don't want the truth to come out, Unfortunately, the people that voted to do this - caused a big uproar when it was sold, but they really don't care b/c they still have their jobs in the end... That is the problem. But that is the way the much of the world works. The reason you become involved is the way you "steered" your puppet, riggle... Glad its over for me.... Sorry you dont like me accusing you of being involved and somewhat responsible for things that happen, however your hands and decisions were in the dealings somewhat if not directly - indirectly..... And this is just my own hallucinating opinion of course -

 

[PITbull]

DCflyer,

You are correct again...we will have to agree that we disagree. AFA didn't work itself in...the company was using our furloughees and they had first priority to these jobs vs. hiring off the street. If the f/as on furlough wanted a different union, they could have solicited another union to come in. Keep in mind, that in order to start with no union there had to be hiring from the furloughees and off the street, according to a hiring process done by the company. Believe me, the company wanted to hire off the street. And if MAA would have been around for years, eventually, the company would have had to hire off the street to fill the positions of this growing division. They may have enventually decided to sell it off. The fear that many of us had on mainline and the pilots as well is that the company could have started to convert much of the domestic flying over to MAA. Eventually the furlough list would have gotten bigger and mainline could have been separated just to handle international flying. That was our fear of the entire concept from the get-go. And we believe that the company may have been heading in that direction. The bad part for the company is that they couldn't operate the airline and most of the decisions were controled by the creditors.

Like I said...I was accused many times by management and AFA that I wouldn't be happy unless their was a strike on the property...if I would have had the support of the f/as...your damn straight that I would have taken us to the strike zone. But there was not enough support from the membership to HALT everything and go on strike risking a judge imposed contract.

Many of these f/as who are junior on this board would have been singing a different tune if they had 15-20-30 years in the company. Losing a pension and those penison credits is a big deal, huge. Hard for the likes of Beauty boy to comprehend it. I venture to say that if you are still flying in 20 years, you better hope you have some funds in your 401K, otherwise you'll be flying with a walker before you can retire from this job..that's if the company and junior f/as don't make it so bad for you that it pushes you to jump ship; like they try to do with senior folks today.

 

[careerfurloughee]

i don't do this job for the money....

Unfortunately, your telling me i am clueless has zero affect on me,

Beauty,

If the first sentence is true the second is obvious. I think clueless would fit.