Pittsburgh AFA informational picketing

[MarkMyWords]

This is just a question, and not meant to start an argument. Many of the policies that we have in place now are because of people that abused the past policies. It has always been my pet peeve that policies are put into place to stop the abuses, but negatively effect the "good" employees worse then the offenders.

If the company were to reverse some of the wrongs in the current policy, what could be done to stop the abuses? With the previous policy many employees were using their sick days as a way to help suppliment their income and specifically to get out of work. How do you effectively deal with the abusers without hurting the legitimate sick claims?

I don't buy into the theory that your sick time is your sick time. You earned it, there for you should be able to use it when ever you feel like it, sick or not. Those sick days are/were there in the event you became ill and needed time off of work. As everyone has said, employees coming to work sick does no one any good. But more and more employees feel that these sick days are theirs to use as supplimental vacation days, to be taken when ever the just don't feel like coming to work.

So I guess my question is, If I were Dave, and I made you "whole" in your sick policy again, how do WE address the people that are abusing the sick policy in place? How do we stop those employees that call of so they can call out of time for the holidays? That call off so they can break guarantee? That don't like their trip so they call off cause they can't trip improve? That call off cause there is a party they want to go to? That call off because they can't commute in cause their flight canceled?

I am by no means endorsing or supporting what they have done to your sick policy in any way. I am just asking if we returned you to "whole" on the sick policy, how do we stop abuse. Perhaps attacking it from a different angle would help?

 

[Slam&Click]

I know first hand, as a customer, that the US Airways flight attendants are flying sick. Not because they want to, but because of financial reasons, they must. The flight attendants are being penalized, monetarily, for their legitimate illness'.

Case in point: Ironically, I've recently received an email from a friend whom is also a flight attendant, read the following excerpt:

".......I went to work last week with a nasty head cold because I really wanted more than 71 hours of pay for the month (what a lame sick pay
policy). At the end of the second day (we finished at XXXX) I went to a doctor because my ears were getting blocked on descent and my throat was sore. XX XXXX gave me XXXXX for my head and XXXXXX for Strep..........."

Because of monthly obligations, two concessionary cuts and an additional 5% penalty my friend (and this friend is not alone, others have complained about the same thing) is being forced to fly ill. Informational picketing won't cripple this airline, stupidity, greed and poor management will! Without a mutual level of respect and trust - any relationship will founder.

US Airways is treating every employee horribly. As an air travel consumer, trust is incredibly important issue. If the employees do not trust their management, the customer can not! The translation is obvious, the current management of US Airways does not value their employee, they therefore place little value on their customers. If employees are forced to fly when they are ill (because of the implemented policy) then I am forced to choose another carrier.

No, DoItForDave, this isn't about union reps performing informational picketing, rather this is about common sense! Inhumane treatment of the employee directly correlates to the same for the consumer. This policy will not boost the ticket sales! It will, however, harm the human immune system. I choose my health, I'll choose elsewhere.

 

[PITbull]

Mark,

There will be abuse when it comes to sick in every Industry and company. The point here is that, let's face it, as a population of employees, we are getting older. We are going to get sick. The difference between the "rank and file" sick and mangement is that the front line employees are under a "magnifying glass", management is not. They don't have to use a sick day to go to their child's graduation or play off game....they just go. When their child is ill, they just take care of the child, and either come to work late or not at all.

Contrary, a front line worker does not have those options of taking the work home and such. There should be unpaid personal days, instead of utilizing sick days. For the f/as, I believe if you call in sick that month, there should NOT be a 5 hour acrual applied to you sick bank. That would accomplish what the company sought in the first place...5 hour penalty. It would equate to the same numbers in the finance dept. with regard to cost savings in that arena. That would be fair. That is what I would have done if I were in Labor Relations. That could be the policy, instead of penalizing folks in pay and preventing them from accessing their accrued bank time. I believe the company saw later on after the agreement was signed, that if they tweek it they could recieve even a BIGGER cost savings, and they took more than what was ratified.

Keep in mind, those who utilize and abuse sick, don't have banked time, anyway. So, what's their penalty....nothing. But, for those who have accrued time, and get ill, they get hit hard. So, rationally thinking, who is this mangement punishing? Answer: the good employee who has much banked time cause they do not call in sick, and they happen to have a surgery or pneumonia, or auto injury, and they need their banked time. What this mangement has done with this new policy is damage and hurt the employee who rarely is ill, has collected his time, and now can't be made whole. Now we did negotiate recently personal days for the f/as (2) but they are tied to vacation usage. But still, that will help the f/a with personal emergencies, instead of using sick. But, management did not wait to see how that would work out to help decrease "lost time", they just slammed us again.

This is not only bad in the financial sense for the employee, but also, does severe damage to the employee spirit and morale. It destroys management/labor relations...this is never a good thing for the company as a whole, in the short run or long run, it will cost the company.

 

[Twicebaked]

Mr flyonthewall (management)
Let me first address the issue of portraying a negative unrest within the company. I personally hope that it will. The passengers apparently are the only way to get through to this bullheaded managment.

Second.....let's shed some light on this sick policy. We have a sick bank that we EARN and BUILD. This is the ONLY place that time should be taken out. As a now junior reserve, I BARELY EVER BREAK GUARANTEE. When I call in sick, not only do I have 3+30 hours a day taken from my sick bank (which is about $86.00 at my pay scale) to cover said sick call. In addition YOU ROB ME 5 hours (as a punishment) for taking this sick call. This equats to about $125. This is now a $211.00 sick call. This is what the passengers need to know. This is what the public needs to know. This is why there is unrest with managment and labor. We DID NOT AGREE TO THIS PUNISHMENT. We lose money to call in sick. Why have a sick bank if you are only going to dock our wages. You claim that "we have an opportunity" to make that time up.... A) not everone has that "opportunity" do to their seniority, B) WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.......THAT IS WHAT A DAMN SICK BACK IS FOR.
Now, I ask the passengers that read on these boards to realize we are not complaining/picketing for no reason. This company plays foul. I would not want to fly an airline that treats their employees this way. I personally will NEVER give revenue to US Airways if I have to purchase a ticket. You are right, impression is everything...managment, YOU are responsible for the impressions you are making with labor AND local officials at our hub/base airports.​

 

[MarkMyWords]

PitBull,

I agree there will be abuses to sick time no matter what, but there has to be a way to stop it. As Bob said, perhaps the Union and the Company could work together to solve that problem. Look outside the box for solutions that would work for both. Would your Union continue to support and defend workers that are blatantly abusing the policies? Or should we stop protecting the offenders and start defending the innocent?

As you said, we are getting older and we will get sick, but is it right for 45% of your members that are below the age of 40 to have little or no sick time? (Just a figure pulled out of thin air....not a real stat) I would almost bet that if we were to severly crack down on the abusers, both with in the company and with in the union, that you would see a dramatic change in how people use sick time. If they knew that the union would not tolerate the abuses, at the cost of all members, then wouldn''t that also put pressure on people to do the right thing?

You also brought up a point about management having more flexibility in their schdule to adjust to family demands, and you are probably right. But speaking from my experiences, the management people that I work with rarely work an 8 hour day, usually it is 9, 10, 12 hours. And they are not compensated for that additional time. Also, their jobs do not depend on maintaining the schedule integrity of the airline. An Agent or Flight Attendant can''t call in and say I will be 2 hours late today because it is my childs first day of school, but management employees also don''t have the ability to trip improve, swap, or bid different work schedules or days off to accomdate those needs. Again it is about prospective.

I agree that there should be unpaid personal days for things that come up out of the blue. But let''s say I am an agent and I call in and use a personal day, for whatever reason. There is still a negative cost to the company. If I was scheduled for 8 hours of work, and the person that covers me is on overtime, then it costs the company more. Granted it is less then if I got paid and the person working the shift got paid, but there is still more money being paid to someone esle to cover my shift. Now if you would change that around a little bit, there could be a win-win in it for both. Let''s use the same scenario as above. The person working my shift is being paid 4 hours time and a half and 4 hours double time. That equates to 14 hours of straight time. What if I have to pay back that 14 hour equivilant? Thus it is a wash to the company. You may pay that time to someone one week, but you will make that time back somewhere else.

Unpaid days for crews would work differently, because the issue of overtime isn''t there, but make it that the time has to be made up somewhere. Especially if it is an unpaid personal day. Would this then reduce their gurantee by the number of hours of the trip? I like the idea of not accruing additional time in the month that you use time, it does seem to have the same 5 hour penalty applied, but where do you realize that "savings". The way the company is doing it now, the savings are immediate, versus saving on future sick calls. But is still seems to me that no matter how you slice it, there is a win-win there.

Ultimately, I would love to see a sick policy that eliminates the abusers and rewards the "good" employees. Offer and incentive program like CO has. You would also have to clearly define what an abuser was. I had a good friend that had Lupas and because of her medical needs, had a very poor attendance record because of the number of occurences she had. To me, she is not an abuser. She has a real medical problem that would debilitate her to the point that she couldn''t come to work. allow for that in the new policy. But I also know of a co-worker that also had a medical issue that would occasionally effect her ability to work. Unfortunately she would use this medical problem to call off and go to the Kaufmann''s one day sale or to Wheeling Downs cause her husband was off work that day. That is the kind of abuse you would have to find a way to fight. There are no easy answers here at all. But I would love to see the employee groups sit down with the company and address the problem company wide. Make all the employees whole when it comes to sick time, allow of unpaid days and time to be repaid, make an incentive program that rewards employees for doing their best and get rid of the dead weight that doesn''t want to work. The F/A sick policy is not fair by any means and definitly needs to be addressed. I just don''t agree with the picketing part of how you are trying to get your message across. But that is me.

 

[diogenes]

I know for a fact that fleet and customer service has progressive discipline vis a vis attendance. It doesn''t matter if you have a doctor''s note or not - each absence is an occurrence. Enough absences lead to termination.

Here''s the rub. Most managers have ''pets.'' The pet, with his/her head securely up the boss''s butt, eventually abuses the attendance policy. The boss looks the other way.

Then the boss wants to go right by the book, or even get a little ahead of the book, when someone not in favor hits the policy limits. This is usually someone on the boss''s list. Somehow, there is a high frequency of folks that get hauled in on these deals that have a habit of speaking and thinking for themselves.

That''s where I come in. We get to have a little chat about the consistent application of an agreed upon policy, and is there an element of harrassment? You get the picture.

It''d also amaze you how often the company drops the ball, administratively, on these deals. And since the company wants to be so chickens**t with us, you better believe I serve it right back up to them on these deals.

 

[Twicebaked]

----------------
On 6/8/2003 10:55:03 AM MarkMyWords wrote:

This is just a question, and not meant to start an argument. Many of the policies that we have in place now are because of people that abused the past policies. It has always been my pet peeve that policies are put into place to stop the abuses, but negatively effect the "good" employees worse then the offenders.

If the company were to reverse some of the wrongs in the current policy, what could be done to stop the abuses? With the previous policy many employees were using their sick days as a way to help suppliment their income and specifically to get out of work. How do you effectively deal with the abusers without hurting the legitimate sick claims?

I don''t buy into the theory that your sick time is your sick time. You earned it, there for you should be able to use it when ever you feel like it, sick or not. Those sick days are/were there in the event you became ill and needed time off of work. As everyone has said, employees coming to work sick does no one any good. But more and more employees feel that these sick days are theirs to use as supplimental vacation days, to be taken when ever the just don''t feel like coming to work.

So I guess my question is, If I were Dave, and I made you "whole" in your sick policy again, how do WE address the people that are abusing the sick policy in place? How do we stop those employees that call of so they can call out of time for the holidays? That call off so they can break guarantee? That don''t like their trip so they call off cause they can''t trip improve? That call off cause there is a party they want to go to? That call off because they can''t commute in cause their flight canceled?

I am by no means endorsing or supporting what they have done to your sick policy in any way. I am just asking if we returned you to "whole" on the sick policy, how do we stop abuse. Perhaps attacking it from a different angle would help?

-----------
Markmywords,

That is your problem. If you are managment, that is what you get paid the bigs bucks for. Yes, I am sure that some do abuse the system. In coporate America, not everyone is sick when they use their sick calls. This sick policy is unfair and you know it. If there are people using it for something other than it''s purpose, it is YOUR job to figure out a way to stop it. Punishing the whole group is not the answer. If I were managment, and thank God I am not (you guys are SOOOOO HATED) I would implement the previous sick policy ASAP and sit down with these Labor Groups. You guys keep digging that trench between labor and yourselves deeper and deeper. So, you guys made a mistake. We would respect you more to ADMIT it and fix it than to keep blaming everyone else. Afterall, managment is only human...I think?

 

[Twicebaked]

----------------
On 6/8/2003 12:44:01 PM MarkMyWords wrote:

You also brought up a point about management having more flexibility in their schdule to adjust to family demands, and you are probably right. But speaking from my experiences, the management people that I work with rarely work an 8 hour day, usually it is 9, 10, 12 hours. And they are not compensated for that additional time.... An Agent or Flight Attendant can't call in and say I will be 2 hours late today because it is my childs first day of school, but management employees also don't have the ability to trip improve, swap, or bid different work schedules or days off to accomdate those needs.
--------
Markmywords,
You are going against your own words. Flight Attendants work up to 15 HOURS in any given day. We aren't compensated for that either. When we are boarding passengers an hour before our trip starts and a half of an hour before every leg, we are not being compensated. WE ARE AWAY FROM HOME FOR UP TO 90 HOURS IN A ROW. Therefore, sometimes using a sick call for a different reason may be NECESSARY!! At least you can go to your childs play, game, or whatever afterwork. We have to go sit in a hotel room. You can make a doctor's appointment knowing you are done at 7 p.m. on Thursday. HEY, I am off so I will make an appointment......guess what I just got quick called for a four day trip. I really need to go to the doctor. What other choice do I have? My mother is sick with the flu, she can't keep my child overnight now. What will I do with her?
See my point? Flight Attendants don't have the "perk" of flexability that you think they do.

 

[PITbull]

Mark,

I hate picketing. There is 100 different things I would rather being doing with my time then standing for 7 hours handing leaflets to our customers and complaining to them how draconian our mangement policies are and why. Its shameful to me to have to express to our customers what "hell" we are going through with the manner in which this mangement chooses to address problems. But, it is the only way to pressure mangement IMO. These are NOT the kind of Labor Relations managers that care to show some respect to labor or labor leaders and come to some kind of a "balance" with these policies. This is business and where a dollar can be saved in their minds eye, they will smash and clobber the employee into submission...until the employee gets too sick to come to work (which means eventual termination) or the employee gets lucky enough to find other work in this kind of soft economy and get the hell out of this airline. Generally, we are good people that regard our work and are dedicated, Why? Because a job should generate enough of an income to support you and/or your families respectably. Simple "give and take" concept.

I personally would be very interested to sit down with Labor relations to work out an equitable deal that is fair to BOTH the company and the employee.
We ar always willing to discuss these issues. I Don't Believe Dave knows exactly what is going on with his Labor Relations Dept. Everything is run by finance...every single dept. Too many chiefs looking to justify their jobs, and not enough Indians...blantantly obvious when you have pasgrs complaining about lack of agents being available to take calls for reservations and sell our airline.

This mangement is too focused on cost reductions. We are at the bare bones as far as Labor...need to focus on Senior Execs perks, pay, compensation, comp. time, and exactly what do they do in this so callled 10 -12 hour work day. What? It takes Labor Relations 3 weeks to make a decision when a problem arises. Literally, that effects many many f/as lives. Half of these managers are on vacation...what the hell is a vacation?

IMO, this new mangement hates their labor groups, they disrespect their labor...would a manger be willing to lose 1/2 month's pay for a sick call? I think not, they would come to work sick. Keep in mind, flight crews are exposed to all kinds of bacteria in an enclosed tube. How fresh do you think the air is when your air packs are not in full use to save fuel?

Remeber Mark, everything start little...picketing will get BIG. PHL was on CNN that night. We are restricted on how many f/as we can have on the ticketing level, but on JUNE 12, its going to be unblievable. Now, is the time to be concerned as management. We mean business here as employees. If management is not willing to be fair...WE WILL FORCE FAIRNESS!

This is just a wake up call....next time management will be "SLAMMED".This managment has a deplorable relations with their employees and specifically the flight attendant group. I believe mangement is going to need some "outside" help to even attempt to build some trust. You can not build relatikonships by always threatening your employees with their lives.


Kapish...and, I love ya,

 

[MarkMyWords]

----------------
On 6/8/2003 1238 PM Twicebaked wrote:

Markmywords,

That is your problem. If you are managment, that is what you get paid the bigs bucks for.

Again, not management here.

Yes, I am sure that some do abuse the system. In coporate America, not everyone is sick when they use their sick calls. This sick policy is unfair and you know it.

I think I said that in a follow-up post...I know it isn't fair.

If there are people using it for something other than it's purpose, it is YOUR job to figure out a way to stop it.

This I don't agree with. If it is was only Managements job to find a way to stop it, then you got what you asked for. Management came up with that on their own. Ask PitBull, she had no say in that what so ever. Collectively the union and the company should have come up with a policy that address the concerns of both the company and the employee.


Punishing the whole group is not the answer.

I have been saying that all along. They are punishing everyone, not just the abusers!

If I were managment, and thank God I am not (you guys are SOOOOO HATED) I would implement the previous sick policy ASAP and sit down with these Labor Groups. You guys keep digging that trench between labor and yourselves deeper and deeper. So, you guys made a mistake. We would respect you more to ADMIT it and fix it than to keep blaming everyone else. Afterall, managment is only human...I think?

----------------​

Please, before you go off 1/2 c*cked, please read my post thoroughly. I agree the policy is unfair and needs to be changed.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

I will answer your thread.

No. The f/as did not sign on to a job that has working conditions along with the hours, understaffed, and very little compensation when they got hired.

No way.

Drastic times, called for drastic measures, and under threat of BK and liquidation, employees would have given up their first born.
It's unfair to say, we signed on to this. The person above IS a teacher. He is also one of U's best employees. His record of work is phenominal.

He is seeing this job now in another light, so are many. Goes with the territory where their are "union busters" on our property. They have arrived, and are in our mists.

 

[MarkMyWords]

 ​

Again, I do not think the new policy is fair.  I think it needs to be reevaluated and changed with input from the employee groups.  An equitable solution has to be found.



Moderator: what happened to the rest of my response? There was nothing in there that was objectionable!

 

[MarkMyWords]

Pity,

I understand your level of frustration on this point. Labor relations in concesionary periods are horrible to say the least. No one likes giving up anything with out some return, and yes, we have all given until it hurts and then some.

2 questions, 1) Is Jerry talking to you at all about this sick policy issue? 2) Is there a less public way to get their attention and bring them to the table to talk?

I do agree that all of the senior managers attention is focused on cost cutting, our survival depends on that. I know that the employees are not that only area that is being clobbered to reduce costs, but we are the biggest pinata ( and there is nothing left ). I don''t think that MGMT hates their employees or disrespects them. I just think we are in a fight for our life and things have become very a matter of fact. There is no time to tip-toe around and play nice. But that also doesn''t mean that we close the doors to two way communication.

If the company is not in talks with you over the issue of your sick policy, and refuses to schedule meetings to discuss it, then you have my full support for your efforts. I do wish there was a less public way to get their attention, and if those avenues have been exhausted, then you are doing what you feel is necessary. If this is the first step in trying to get their attention, then I think it is wrong and other, less public avenues, should have been attempted first.

 

[pitguy]

With the current policy in Maintenance if one is late or sick for a total of nine times in a four year period they can be terminated. So much for any of our unhealthy or older workers.


---Do you feel the love here yet?

 

[PITbull]

Mark,

Mangement (Jerry and gang) sat with AFA in March. AFA tried to convey to them our understanding of the sick penalty language and that the f/as ratified a 5 hour penalty only. They thought about it, came back to us with more dialogue. We expressed to them that what they are implementing (because we are "option" flyers) will translate into a more severe pay penalty then the agreed 5 hours, as the language "mirrors" ALPAs and they are NOT option flyers. The more they saw this, the more they did not want to give it up, or move off of it. They are well aware of the intent of the languge, but they saw more of an opportunity to take more of a cost savings from the f/a and implemented it anyway. They told us..."just grieve it". In the meantime, f/as are defaulting on their financial obligations why we go through the long, drawn out process of a grievance. Highly unfair and costly to a union that is "broke".

So,leafleting is the chosen venue.

Would we be willing to sit with Management again, and in private, with no public audience? You bet. We are not unreasonable people. We strive for "balance". Picketing could stop, they have to ask and be reasonable.

Management has got to stop being so greedy, and looking to turn a profit now... onthe backs of sick employees, no less..

Out right shamefulness.