SWA will not cut pay to increase profits

[Flying Photog]

Other grievances now in arbitration deal with the meanings of "all", "immediately" and "total".

How are those terms confusing?

All - completely inclusive, without exception
Immediately - starting right now, without delay
Total - See "all"

I hear this g-word every day and I'm curious as to how seriously they're really taken. I recently heard one where someone filed a grievance because their Sup didn't say "Good Morning."

If people don't like their jobs, they can find something else to do. Over 200,000 people apply to work for Southwest every year - and they would all be happy to get the starting pay rate.

 

[swflyer]

How are those terms confusing?

All - completely inclusive, without exception
Immediately - starting right now, without delay
Total - See "all"

Photog, funny you should ask. 😀

Ironically, it is current Inflight and Scheduling Management that are confused as to their meaning, and that's why there's a grievance about Scheduling behavior currently before an arbiter.

It's disingenuous to compare a supposed grievance about a lost greeting to serious ones about contract interpretation. <_<

I LUV my Job and Company, and enjoy the privilege of volunteering extra time to support and fete Co-workers from All Departments. At the same time, I've also been a Base Rep, Shop Steward and Board of Adjustment player. At SWA, all are examples of Servant Leadership.

I'm also glad that we're big enough to disagree, and work out our differences through the contractually prescribed process. The same accountability that's expected of our Employees is also to be expected of members of Management. The "G" word is only a part of this process, and "D" position is one of those issues.

IMHO

 

[brown]

How are those terms confusing?

All - completely inclusive, without exception
Immediately - starting right now, without delay
Total - See "all"

I hear this g-word every day and I'm curious as to how seriously they're really taken. I recently heard one where someone filed a grievance because their Sup didn't say "Good Morning."

If people don't like their jobs, they can find something else to do. Over 200,000 people apply to work for Southwest every year - and they would all be happy to get the starting pay rate.

WAY to much KOOL-AID <_<

 

[orangeman]

Orangeman, you're clueless.

1) SWA OWNS the 4th seat. They can do with it what they want. Your assertions re CBA violations are utter nonsense.

2) The only folks who should have any fear re this issue are those few SWA FAs who are too lazy to do the the jobs they are well compensated to do. You sound like you fall into that category.

Rhino,
Yes, WN owns the J/S. Yet, and I choose not to post here, Our CBA is very specific about which Inflight employees can be scheduled to be a working "D" F/A on any given flight. It "IS" contractual!!! If you can decide what "category" I fall into w/out knowing me and my 17 years and countless commendations; then you need your own Vegas show!!! You do not know me and should not speak as if you know mine or my coworkers's situation!

But hey, I'm sure it is fun to read by other members and or lurkers!

 

[ramper_in_las]

Here is an article on the TWU 556 grievance...

Union protest goes video
By TREBOR BANSTETTER
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Southwest Airlines flight attendants are blasting an airline practice that they say results in a "fake flight attendant" on many flights.

In typical Southwest fashion, attendants have harnessed their sense of humor to criticize the new policy, filming a music video with a jazz singer crooning the Cole Porter song It's De Lovely, but with new lyrics that complain "this is not our company at its best, this is not the culture of Herb's Southwest."

Southwest typically assigns three attendants to each flight, each assigned to "A" "B" or "C" positions depending on their responsibilities. A fourth position, dubbed the "D" attendant, has traditionally been assigned to trainees to gain in-flight experience, according to officials with the Transport Workers Union, which represents Southwest attendants.

But in recent months, the airline has begun assigning supervisors and managers to the "D" position -- a move that union officials say violates their contract, creates safety problems and confuses customers.

"A supervisor is not a flight attendant," said Thom McDaniel, president of TWU Local 556, in a recent interview. "Our members are very upset about this, it feels like fake flight attendants are being put in there to spy on them."

The union has filed a grievance over the issue, McDaniel said, and debuted the music video, titled Not D-LUVly, Wednesday on its Internet site.

"We're doing this Southwest style, having some fun with the letter D," he said.

An airline spokeswoman declined to comment on the dispute.

Southwest is renowned for its friendly labor relations. But attendants have been the exception in recent years, with a bitter contract dispute that dragged on for four years and helped push then-CEO Jim Parker into retirement.

A new contract was finally completed in 2004 with hefty raises. Since then, executives have worked to repair relations with attendants, and union leaders have generally had positive things to say about Gary Kelly, who replaced Parker.

But McDaniel said the latest brouhaha risks raising attendants' ire once again. That could be a serious issue for Southwest, whose friendly flight attendants are a linchpin of its famously good customer service.

Online: For Not D-LUVly lyrics and to see the video, visit startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/.
Trebor Banstetter, 817-390-7064
tbanstetter@star-telegram.com

 

[jimntx]

Whether they are a help or a hindrance, a contract violation is a contract violation. Period. Full stop. End of discussion. If the company expects the flight attendants to adhere to the contract, the company must adhere to it as well.

There is a precedent in labor law called "Shop Practice." If the union allows the company to repeatedly violate the CBA, then it becomes shop practice, and it becomes a tacit modification of the CBA. In effect, it nullifies that part of the contract. At best, it is a dangerous practice for a union, because you can not predict whether or not a court or arbitrator not only nullifies that part of the contract, but also anything related to it in the CBA.

There is also a possible FAR violation if the Inflight Leader is not qualified as a flight attendant and is performing safety-related, FAA-required duties--such as arming/disarming doors.

 

[wnramper]

i think you'll see that the co's negotiators will want to cut pay or atleast mantain our current pay scales while increasing our insurance costs. with the rx team and the rash of grievances filed systemwide for stupid contract violations like ops sups scheduled to work ramp jobs! with that said we deserve a raise. not just because of inflation but because we working harder and with less people than before and keeping this company profitable.

 

[ramper_in_las]

i think you'll see that the co's negotiators will want to cut pay or atleast mantain our current pay scales while increasing our insurance costs. with the rx team and the rash of grievances filed systemwide for stupid contract violations like ops sups scheduled to work ramp jobs! with that said we deserve a raise. not just because of inflation but because we working harder and with less people than before and keeping this company profitable.

Wow ops sups, that is crazy!!! What station is doing this? I agree with you about working harder lets hops we can keep a strong unity next year during our negotiations. TWU555 speaks for me!!!

 

[wnramper]

Wow ops sups, that is crazy!!! What station is doing this? I agree with you about working harder lets hops we can keep a strong unity next year during our negotiations. TWU555 speaks for me!!!

several stations on the east coast have had it happen but none like what i heard last. a certain station in florida with under 15 flights and a new station manager had 1 op sup scheduled to work t-point . another day an ops sup covered for a ramp sup and worked 8 hours on the ramp even pushing planes.

 

[ramper_in_las]

several stations on the east coast have had it happen but none like what i heard last. a certain station in florida with under 15 flights and a new station manager had 1 op sup scheduled to work t-point . another day an ops sup covered for a ramp sup and worked 8 hours on the ramp even pushing planes.

technically per our contract they can do ramp jobs if the OT book was exhausted. If not I hope someone is filing a grievance!!!