As an active WN employee, I'd say my support of your workgroup is badly damaged. Re-read "Nuts" before you re-read "The World According to Thom." Your group has hurt lots of fellow Employees and to think that "we'd stand with you" after all the media and advertising crap - painting our airline as any other, is unfortunate.arkmitch said:
Parker Suddenly Retires; Gary Kelly To Replace Him
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
Jim Parker WnFan37,wnfan37 said:
I nor any flight attendant damaged your respect of the flight attendant group only Management has, don't judge us until you check out www.savingoursouthwest.com, AND YES THAT WAS SAVINGOURSOUTHWEST.COM. Comprende? Pinche Cabreros! I didn't make you, or want you to hate flight attendants, but you've made your decision upon hear say. I've read the book "NUTS" and I say now just like I said then "Herb is a brilliant man, and Collen is a brilliant woman!", but what Jim Parker did during our negotiations was dispicable and if there is anyway our union can get it out to other departments that J.P. was less than cordial, I'll do what I can to prove it. You see, it's always easier looking IN from the OUTSIDE, than it is being on the INSIDE looking OUT. Check out the website, while I try to get my union to release the tapes of negotiations to other departments. Do you guys and girls think we(the flight attendants) would really be this hateful if we didn't have something to go on? I don't think so! Whille Jim Parker negotiated many contracts before, CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS DO NOT NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS OF UNION WORK GROUPS.PERIOD.
"Whille Jim Parker negotiated many contracts before, CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS DO NOT NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS OF UNION WORK GROUPS.PERIOD."
Okay, help me understand...why do you make that statement? You say that as though it is an indisputable fact. I'm just wondering what you're basing that statement on.
I would admit that, if things were to be done over, Parker shouldn't have intervened, but only because it took his attention away from other things within the Company. And when things didn't go well, it was easy to make him the public scapegoat. Lesson learned.
But you'd also have to admit that, even moreso than a CEO, the Chairman of the Board does not typically negotiate contracts of union work groups. So it wasn't okay for Jim to step in and negotiate, but it was okay for Herb to step in?
I'm just trying to understand, because I feel like there's some circular reasoning going on in your arguments.
So was the issue Jim's position within the Company, or the fact that it was just Jim?
Also, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Herb actually do quite a bit of negotiating during his time as CEO, particularly with our Pilot Union? Just double-checking my facts.
Okay, help me understand...why do you make that statement? You say that as though it is an indisputable fact. I'm just wondering what you're basing that statement on.
I would admit that, if things were to be done over, Parker shouldn't have intervened, but only because it took his attention away from other things within the Company. And when things didn't go well, it was easy to make him the public scapegoat. Lesson learned.
But you'd also have to admit that, even moreso than a CEO, the Chairman of the Board does not typically negotiate contracts of union work groups. So it wasn't okay for Jim to step in and negotiate, but it was okay for Herb to step in?
I'm just trying to understand, because I feel like there's some circular reasoning going on in your arguments.
So was the issue Jim's position within the Company, or the fact that it was just Jim?
Also, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Herb actually do quite a bit of negotiating during his time as CEO, particularly with our Pilot Union? Just double-checking my facts.
arkmitch said:
I'm really not sure where you got "Jim Parker" WN Fan from - it just goes to further the polarizing position and poor attitude you have. Ever think your Union is wrong? Of course not. Savoringsouthwest was designed by who? Right. Why don't you realize how much damange your group has caused and maybe chill the attitude a bit. Sounds like POS hasn't been on a recent flight with you - but, you mentioned that's "extra" and clearly above and beyond your duties. You're obviosuly on the defensive - and yes, it was your Union that posted billboards in Philly, USAToday, etc. I draw my conclusions from what both sides are saying. Wouldn't you?
Arkmitch,
I'm having a hard time with your position, and I'm a flight attendant at SWA.
You're on your 8th post, and have managed to flame/antagonize the most level headed of the posters on this board. I'm sorry to inform you the language/message your spreading represents neither the majority of your co-workers nor the Union.
One of the skills required to be a good flight attendant is to not bring extra baggage on the plane. This includes mental baggage. Good flight attendants know the difference between participating in an informational picket and POS on the plane, and NEVER the twain shall meet.
You may want to re-think your message delivery. Just my opinion.
Respectfully,
I'm having a hard time with your position, and I'm a flight attendant at SWA.
You're on your 8th post, and have managed to flame/antagonize the most level headed of the posters on this board. I'm sorry to inform you the language/message your spreading represents neither the majority of your co-workers nor the Union.
One of the skills required to be a good flight attendant is to not bring extra baggage on the plane. This includes mental baggage. Good flight attendants know the difference between participating in an informational picket and POS on the plane, and NEVER the twain shall meet.
You may want to re-think your message delivery. Just my opinion.
Respectfully,
I don't think I've read an idea as bad as that one in a long, long time.JS said:
Fortunately, I was "speaking" tounge-in-cheek...sort of.
The thought of extending the cost, wastefulness and all-around idiocy of the TSA onto the plane is frightening.
I 've never really had any problems with the TSA but I am only of many millions who have to navigate the system on a daily basis.
Adding tips to the mix just adds insult to injury. What happens if I don't feel that a tip is deserved merely for handing me a Coke? I certainly don't want to face a situation where the server is pissed at me and is friends with the "safety" guy.
Tipping wouldn't have to mandatory...just like in a restaurant....you feel like you got good service...you tip...you feel like you didn't....you don't.
Besides, what is the big deal with one person's job involving multiple tasks? Even the pilots, whose primary job is quite complicated, do have a secondary task, and that is talking to the passengers.
I think multi-tasking becomes a problem when the same person who was singing "The Barney Song" over the PA 45 minutes ago is now standing in front of you trying to brief you for a planned emergency landing. However, that is more a statement on the "Barney Song" than a flight attendants ability to multi-task...but I digress. The multiple tasks pilots are charged with are not diametrically opposed to one another....in fact when a competent flight deck officer makes contact with the passengers...it calms and reassures them.
Shall we federalize the pilots and hire a low-paid, tip-accepting public addresser so that the pilot's job will be even more narrowly defined?
The pilots are still making the PAs....but they are also becoming "federalized". The FFDO Federal Flight Deck Officer program is alive and well.
If you can't handle the safety aspects of your job at the commencement and close of a flight and the service aspect in between, you need to change careers.
The point of my original post which as obviously been completely missed is that at the root of the labor dispute between SWA and the Flight Attendant Group is a complete disconnect between how the company views the flight attendant group and how the flight attendant group views itself. One side sees service...and wants to pay accordingly the other sees saftey and wants to be paid accordingly....so I postulated that to make everybody happy you simply split the two functions of the job up. I wasn't making a statement on my ability and/or willingness to "handle" my job...just trying to point out that in this instance having an employee wear two hats can lead to problems at the bargaining table. That's all.
I am completely lost on the last part of your post. Are you really saying that the reason the company offers a lower salary than the union is because the company believes your salary should reflect that of a waitress and the union believes otherwise?
If so, how does that explain the fact that in 100% of company/union negotiations, the company ALWAYS offers less salary than the union demands? That's normal negotiations (not just company/union, but any kind of contract negotiation). It has zip to do with your job involving two tasks, which is itself not at all unusual.
If so, how does that explain the fact that in 100% of company/union negotiations, the company ALWAYS offers less salary than the union demands? That's normal negotiations (not just company/union, but any kind of contract negotiation). It has zip to do with your job involving two tasks, which is itself not at all unusual.
I am completely lost on the last part of your post.
No problem. I'll be glad to take another run at it.
Are you really saying that the reason the company offers a lower salary than the union is because the company believes your salary should reflect that of a waitress and the union believes otherwise?
In a way...yes...that is exactly what I am saying. The fact of the matter is that of our nearly 5 week training program...less than 1/3 of a day is spent on cabin service...if I remember correctly in my particularly class it was about an hour or two. We played around with the tray and practiced taking drink orders and were pretty much told that we would figure the rest of it out once we got out on the flight line. The rest of that training time was spent on First Aid, CPR, Emergency Evacutation, Security...etc in other words the "Safety" side of the job. But the funny thing is that what I spent most of my training learning is what I use the least and what I spent the least amount of time learning I use the most? Over the course of my flying career I have served enough Diet Coke to fill an Olympic size pool but I can count on one hand the number of medical emergencies I have handled in years of flying and I will likely never have to command and evacutation(thankfully) even if I stay in this line of work for many more years. That's a good thing. The fact remains...since we constantly are having the "safety" aspect of our jobs pounded into our heads...that is how we view ourselves...on the flipside since that aspect of our jobs usually goes no further than pre-flight briefings and reminders to heed the seatbelt sign...the safety function fades into the background and we begin to be looked at as more service workers than anything else and that attitude eventually shows up at the bargaining table. It's nobody's fault...it's just one of those things.
If so, how does that explain the fact that in 100% of company/union negotiations, the company ALWAYS offers less salary than the union demands?
Perhaps because the company sees the flight attendant group as a necessary evil. It has been discussed before but it bears repeating...unlike other workgroups...we cannot(currently) be replaced with any form of technology. Whether an SWA flight has 137 passengers onboard or only 1, it still must have 3 flight attendants in order to depart...period. Even though the odds are astronomically against us ever having to do the stuff the FAA requires us to be there to do....we still have to be there. That is not say we don't use our safety training...we do...even though evacuations etc, don't often occur, medical emergencies do...but still by and large we go to work and spend way more time serving snacks, beverages and just plain peforming PR, than anything else. In my opinion...and in the end it is nothing more than that...my opinon...in my opinon, that is a large part of why the company wants to pay less than the flight attendant group wants.
The second answer to that question is that the company has duty to the stockholders to do their best to ensure the best return on their investment. It could be said, that the less a flight attendant, or pilot or any employee makes, the more profit the company reports. Consistently high profits = happy stockholders. The company always wants to pay less...the employee nee..union always wants to be paid more....that's just the way it works. I suspect in our most recent negotiations the company's main motivation was economics. I don't think they intended to approach the table with an attitude of disdain for the flight attendant group or job...I think they are...as they have always been...watching costs and feel they have a duty to get F/A labor as affordably as possible. I still think there is tendency to focus on the service side from the company's side of the bargaining table but I don't think that was their sole motivation.
That's normal negotiations (not just company/union, but any kind of contract negotiation). It has zip to do with your job involving two tasks, which is itself not at all unusual.
To say that is to say that the people involved in negotiations..on either side... don't bring any personal thoughts, feelings, opinions, or prejudices with them to the bargaining table. I would submit that this is simply not the case. In a perfect world, professionalism would dictate that such personal feelings would not enter into the equation but alas, this is not a perfect world. And again the fact that we do two jobs while wearing a single title is not the problem...the problem is that we as flight attendants tend to look at our cabin service as an interruption of our safety duties and everyone else(our company included) tends to look at our safety duties as an interruption of our cabin service. Both viewpoints are skewed by perspective and truth lies somewhere in the middle...which could explain why most labor contracts end up in the same place...the middle....smack dab between what we feel we ought to be paid and what the company wants to pay us.
No problem. I'll be glad to take another run at it.
Are you really saying that the reason the company offers a lower salary than the union is because the company believes your salary should reflect that of a waitress and the union believes otherwise?
In a way...yes...that is exactly what I am saying. The fact of the matter is that of our nearly 5 week training program...less than 1/3 of a day is spent on cabin service...if I remember correctly in my particularly class it was about an hour or two. We played around with the tray and practiced taking drink orders and were pretty much told that we would figure the rest of it out once we got out on the flight line. The rest of that training time was spent on First Aid, CPR, Emergency Evacutation, Security...etc in other words the "Safety" side of the job. But the funny thing is that what I spent most of my training learning is what I use the least and what I spent the least amount of time learning I use the most? Over the course of my flying career I have served enough Diet Coke to fill an Olympic size pool but I can count on one hand the number of medical emergencies I have handled in years of flying and I will likely never have to command and evacutation(thankfully) even if I stay in this line of work for many more years. That's a good thing. The fact remains...since we constantly are having the "safety" aspect of our jobs pounded into our heads...that is how we view ourselves...on the flipside since that aspect of our jobs usually goes no further than pre-flight briefings and reminders to heed the seatbelt sign...the safety function fades into the background and we begin to be looked at as more service workers than anything else and that attitude eventually shows up at the bargaining table. It's nobody's fault...it's just one of those things.
If so, how does that explain the fact that in 100% of company/union negotiations, the company ALWAYS offers less salary than the union demands?
Perhaps because the company sees the flight attendant group as a necessary evil. It has been discussed before but it bears repeating...unlike other workgroups...we cannot(currently) be replaced with any form of technology. Whether an SWA flight has 137 passengers onboard or only 1, it still must have 3 flight attendants in order to depart...period. Even though the odds are astronomically against us ever having to do the stuff the FAA requires us to be there to do....we still have to be there. That is not say we don't use our safety training...we do...even though evacuations etc, don't often occur, medical emergencies do...but still by and large we go to work and spend way more time serving snacks, beverages and just plain peforming PR, than anything else. In my opinion...and in the end it is nothing more than that...my opinon...in my opinon, that is a large part of why the company wants to pay less than the flight attendant group wants.
The second answer to that question is that the company has duty to the stockholders to do their best to ensure the best return on their investment. It could be said, that the less a flight attendant, or pilot or any employee makes, the more profit the company reports. Consistently high profits = happy stockholders. The company always wants to pay less...the employee nee..union always wants to be paid more....that's just the way it works. I suspect in our most recent negotiations the company's main motivation was economics. I don't think they intended to approach the table with an attitude of disdain for the flight attendant group or job...I think they are...as they have always been...watching costs and feel they have a duty to get F/A labor as affordably as possible. I still think there is tendency to focus on the service side from the company's side of the bargaining table but I don't think that was their sole motivation.
That's normal negotiations (not just company/union, but any kind of contract negotiation). It has zip to do with your job involving two tasks, which is itself not at all unusual.
To say that is to say that the people involved in negotiations..on either side... don't bring any personal thoughts, feelings, opinions, or prejudices with them to the bargaining table. I would submit that this is simply not the case. In a perfect world, professionalism would dictate that such personal feelings would not enter into the equation but alas, this is not a perfect world. And again the fact that we do two jobs while wearing a single title is not the problem...the problem is that we as flight attendants tend to look at our cabin service as an interruption of our safety duties and everyone else(our company included) tends to look at our safety duties as an interruption of our cabin service. Both viewpoints are skewed by perspective and truth lies somewhere in the middle...which could explain why most labor contracts end up in the same place...the middle....smack dab between what we feel we ought to be paid and what the company wants to pay us.
Then how do you explain why the company offers less and the union demands more pay for baggage handlers? They don't have two "conflicting" tasks, yet the negotiations are exactly the same -- low, high, and you meet in the middle.
You are harping on a non-issue with the training. Everyone learns things they rarely or never use. I know how to compute the surface area of a sphere, but you know how many times I've used it in my job? Zero! I guess that means I'm underpaid.
You are harping on a non-issue with the training. Everyone learns things they rarely or never use. I know how to compute the surface area of a sphere, but you know how many times I've used it in my job? Zero! I guess that means I'm underpaid.
Then how do you explain why the company offers less and the union demands more pay for baggage handlers?
Because in general, the people who actually do a job tend think they ought to be paid more...based on their experience actually doing said job day in and day out. The baggage handler comes to the table looking for compensation for the days he or she is out there in the cold and rain and snow and sleet loading bags and dumping lavs...they bring that experience to the table and ask for wages accordingly... management on the other side of the table might look at that same workgroup and think of them sitting in the breakroom between flights watching TV...and that impacts how they negotiate.
They don't have two "conflicting" tasks, yet the negotiations are exactly the same -- low, high, and you meet in the middle.
They don't have two conflicting tasks but they are often two perceptions of the degree of difficulty that is required to perform the job they do. The same can be said of ticket agents reservationists, pilots, and stock clerks. That goes to the heart of many labor difficulties...people often balk at being told by those who don't actually dotheir jobs what they ought to be paid for said job. Management who has a fiscal/fiduciary duty and often a lack of actual frontline experience will always want to pay less and labor who typically wants to be paid based on their worst work day, not their best always wants more.
You are harping on a non-issue with the training.
I simply used an example to make a point, that is hardly "harping".
Everyone learns things they rarely or never use.
Rarely is one thing, almost never is quite another. If you had to get together every flight attendant in the history of modern commercial aviation who has ever had to actually command an evacuation...it would not require a very large venue. Gratefully, it just does not happen that often. That doesn't mean we should not even bother learning the evac drills in the first place since the odds are way in our favor...as I said before though aircraft incidents/accidents are rare, medical emergencies are not and lives are saved everyday by competent cabin crews.
I know how to compute the surface area of a sphere, but you know how many times I've used it in my job? Zero! I guess that means I'm underpaid.
If your boss makes you learn that formula, review that formula and even repeatedly requires you to prove that you can do the computation...then yes...he oughta pay you for it...even if you never ever have to compute the surface of a sphere. But ultimately, whether or not you are underpaid, overpaid, or not paid at all is between you and your boss and is none of my business.
Because in general, the people who actually do a job tend think they ought to be paid more...based on their experience actually doing said job day in and day out. The baggage handler comes to the table looking for compensation for the days he or she is out there in the cold and rain and snow and sleet loading bags and dumping lavs...they bring that experience to the table and ask for wages accordingly... management on the other side of the table might look at that same workgroup and think of them sitting in the breakroom between flights watching TV...and that impacts how they negotiate.
They don't have two "conflicting" tasks, yet the negotiations are exactly the same -- low, high, and you meet in the middle.
They don't have two conflicting tasks but they are often two perceptions of the degree of difficulty that is required to perform the job they do. The same can be said of ticket agents reservationists, pilots, and stock clerks. That goes to the heart of many labor difficulties...people often balk at being told by those who don't actually dotheir jobs what they ought to be paid for said job. Management who has a fiscal/fiduciary duty and often a lack of actual frontline experience will always want to pay less and labor who typically wants to be paid based on their worst work day, not their best always wants more.
You are harping on a non-issue with the training.
I simply used an example to make a point, that is hardly "harping".
Everyone learns things they rarely or never use.
Rarely is one thing, almost never is quite another. If you had to get together every flight attendant in the history of modern commercial aviation who has ever had to actually command an evacuation...it would not require a very large venue. Gratefully, it just does not happen that often. That doesn't mean we should not even bother learning the evac drills in the first place since the odds are way in our favor...as I said before though aircraft incidents/accidents are rare, medical emergencies are not and lives are saved everyday by competent cabin crews.
I know how to compute the surface area of a sphere, but you know how many times I've used it in my job? Zero! I guess that means I'm underpaid.
If your boss makes you learn that formula, review that formula and even repeatedly requires you to prove that you can do the computation...then yes...he oughta pay you for it...even if you never ever have to compute the surface of a sphere. But ultimately, whether or not you are underpaid, overpaid, or not paid at all is between you and your boss and is none of my business.
I don't think you understand the whole idea of negotiation. One side (the one paying) wants to pay less, while the other side (the side being paid) wants to be paid more. It's just business. It happens with real estate, baseball salaries, city bus purchases, anything.
It's worse -- my boss never made me learn that formula (my eighth grade teacher did), never made me review it, and never required me to prove that I know it. I must be more underpaid than I thought.
It's worse -- my boss never made me learn that formula (my eighth grade teacher did), never made me review it, and never required me to prove that I know it. I must be more underpaid than I thought.
I don't think you understand the whole idea of negotiation. One side (the one paying) wants to pay less, while the other side (the side being paid) wants to be paid more. It's just business. It happens with real estate, baseball salaries, city bus purchases, anything.
I have never actually sat at a bargaining table, but I do have a pretty good grasp of the concept of negotiations...I have lived the concept for the past 2 years as a rank a file member of a union embroiled in protacted contract talks. This Friday at 6PM will have the results of the vote and hopefully this will all be over...until 2007.
I understand management...any management wanting to pay less and labor...any labor group wanting to make more is as fundemental an element as earth, wind, fire, or water. Management is beholden to the bottomline just a union leadership is beholden to the membership. What I was attempting to explore is the reasons why each side of the argument feels as they do and bargains accordingly...that's all.
I have never actually sat at a bargaining table, but I do have a pretty good grasp of the concept of negotiations...I have lived the concept for the past 2 years as a rank a file member of a union embroiled in protacted contract talks. This Friday at 6PM will have the results of the vote and hopefully this will all be over...until 2007.
I understand management...any management wanting to pay less and labor...any labor group wanting to make more is as fundemental an element as earth, wind, fire, or water. Management is beholden to the bottomline just a union leadership is beholden to the membership. What I was attempting to explore is the reasons why each side of the argument feels as they do and bargains accordingly...that's all.
I doubt anyone will need to be "rescued" next time around. Contract 2002 was a complete overhaul, Contract 2007 will simply be a tune-up. Even those who are unhappy with the current offer will grudgingly admit that overall, what is on the table is a huge step forward. I'll be surprised if the next contract takes more than a few months to settle. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. We don't yet have the current TA ratified.KCFlyer said:
KC, I'm with SWAFA30. This contract corrects a lot of longstanding ills. It lends itself to being updated by 'extension' rather than the complete rehab our current offer lent itself to. Hopefully, it'll pass muster and this will be over for the next four years.
You brought up the "evil" again, and we've hashed this out many, many times over many, many topics. One thing I'd like to suggest is that maybe Mr. Parker wore this title easily, and had he not, the Union wouldn't have been so successful. "If the shoe fits...." "it takes two to tango....." 😉
Gary Kelly is well liked by all employees, trusted by them and the market, and has demonstrated a better grasp of the Culture of Southwest Airlines. I'm looking forward to his tenure as CEO of Our Company.
You brought up the "evil" again, and we've hashed this out many, many times over many, many topics. One thing I'd like to suggest is that maybe Mr. Parker wore this title easily, and had he not, the Union wouldn't have been so successful. "If the shoe fits...." "it takes two to tango....." 😉
Gary Kelly is well liked by all employees, trusted by them and the market, and has demonstrated a better grasp of the Culture of Southwest Airlines. I'm looking forward to his tenure as CEO of Our Company.
Similar threads
