They're Back

[Johnny Utah]

And if DFWCC’s argument was true, then you would have seen a proportionate deterioration of industry performance matrices. Which as we all know have remained flat (on an adjusted basis) and some have even improved. So proving that it makes no sense to pay $22 for $10 worth of value.

 

[Kev3188]

Johnny Utah--

I'll try to keep in mind how overpaid you think I am while doing weight and balance, deicing, performing the security check, and making sure the luggage gets where it's supposed to be on YOUR next flight. Not to mention working all over the clock, holidays, missed family events, etc., etc. :angry:

 

[Garfield1966]

Not to mention working all over the clock, holidays, missed family events, etc., etc. :angry:

Guess you missed the part about the airline being open 24 hours a day, on holidays, and family events.


I had a flight attendant toay who did not realize that AA had the gaul to fly on her B-day.

Don't you just hate when that happens.

 

[Kev3188]

Garfield--


I knew fully well what I was getting into when I signed on (as far as being a 24/7 operation). I also think that being willing to work all hours counts for something regardless of industry. In regards to the FA you dealt with today, over here at NW, working on your B-day is paid at 2.5x. Not sure bout the FA's, but I'm sure someone here knows.....Couldn't they have trip traded?

 

[Garfield1966]

B-day here is just another day. She was on reserve this month and being flown into next month. They all know, or at least they should know that this can happen. It happens every single month.

She thought she was off but I flew her and was going to ruin her life so she lied and bombed in sick. Clear abuse of sick time if you listen to the tape but she is union. I wrote her up but not a damn thing will happen.

I have been operational my entire career with AA. Never thought of expecting something in return for what was in my job description. I hired on knowing that I would be working all hours, weekends, B-days, Xmass, New years, anniversaries, you name it. I do not expect any recognition for doing this. This is the job I signed on for and if I do not like it I can fine something else to do with in this company or else where should I choose to.

What bothers me is this entitlement mentality. I am not saying you have it, but there are far too many who do.

I come to work and do my job. I get paid for the work I perform. If AA wants to change, delete, add or anything else to my job that is their right as far as I am concerned. They own the company and there for have the right to do as they see fit with all that pertains to the company. I am an employee. I do not feel that any employee should have the right to dictate their job functions to the owner of any company.

The government has laws governing the work place. As long as the company abides by those laws, that is all that is required. If enough people do not like the job and quit the company will have to modify its policies. If enough people get together and approach the company and say "hey, we do not like this, can we change it?". That's fine. But I do not think any individual or group has the right to hold a gun to an employers head and say change your rules to our liking or we will shut you down.

I sure as hell know that if I were to start any type of company I would shut the company down before I let a union walk through the door.

 

[jimntx]

Not any more. That was then, this is now. No longer is AA willing to pay $22/hour, and no longer is everyone demanding to be paid $22/hour. Values of things change, even the value of labor. And in the airline business, the value of labor has dropped. And why shouldn't it, with tens of thousands of former airline employees on the street?

No two people value their time the same; that's why some people are willing to take less than you for their labor while others demand more than you do.

I was simply responding to the implication by another poster that it should be obvious that a mechanic is worth more than a flight service clerk. If it was in their contract to be paid $22/hr then at some point AA thought the job was worth that much--whether or not they are making that much now. Yes, the value of things, including jobs, changes over time. It's what makes home ownership a good investment--most of the time.

Just like with flight attendants. There are a LOT of people in the world who think that $44/hr (I think that is top-of-scale now) is WAY TOO MUCH for "just serving Cokes and passing out pretzels." The fact that I know that the job is much more than that is of no concern to those people. I'm talking about perception. And, yes, I am more than aware that there are a lot of people in the world who would do the job for a lot less than that. Hell, I would. I was only being paid $22.10/hr when I was furloughed, and I have interviewed for f/a jobs at other airlines that pay less than that.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

B-day here is just another day. She was on reserve this month and being flown into next month. They all know, or at least they should know that this can happen. It happens every single month.

She thought she was off but I flew her and was going to ruin her life so she lied and bombed in sick. Clear abuse of sick time if you listen to the tape but she is union. I wrote her up but not a damn thing will happen.

I have been operational my entire career with AA. Never thought of expecting something in return for what was in my job description. I hired on knowing that I would be working all hours, weekends, B-days, Xmass, New years, anniversaries, you name it. I do not expect any recognition for doing this. This is the job I signed on for and if I do not like it I can fine something else to do with in this company or else where should I choose to.

What bothers me is this entitlement mentality. I am not saying you have it, but there are far too many who do.

I come to work and do my job. I get paid for the work I perform. If AA wants to change, delete, add or anything else to my job that is their right as far as I am concerned. They own the company and there for have the right to do as they see fit with all that pertains to the company. I am an employee. I do not feel that any employee should have the right to dictate their job functions to the owner of any company.

The government has laws governing the work place. As long as the company abides by those laws, that is all that is required. If enough people do not like the job and quit the company will have to modify its policies. If enough people get together and approach the company and say "hey, we do not like this, can we change it?". That's fine. But I do not think any individual or group has the right to hold a gun to an employers head and say change your rules to our liking or we will shut you down.

I sure as hell know that if I were to start any type of company I would shut the company down before I let a union walk through the door.

garfield("the Movie")

("Open mouth, insert foot")

Question !!

How do you "KNOW", that (after talking to you about the birthday scenario), that she WAS "NOT" sick ?????????????

Did you "take her temperature" ????????????



NH/BB's/Retired !!!

 

[Garfield1966]

You mean aside from the fact that she called in sick with the Thanksgiving flue and the X-mass flu and the New Years flu? I have been dealing with customers and FA*s long enough to have a pretty good idea when someone is trying to feed me a line of crap. She stated that she was off the next day. We had a discussion for a few min on how this month always takes priority of the subsequent month and that if you are sitting reserve, you can be flown into the next month over hard days off, over another sequence ... etc. After explaining all this she came to the realization that she was indeed legal to take the trip I was assigning her and decided that since there are no repercussions for her actions that she was going to bomb in sick.

Any other questions?

 

[goingboeing]

Typical AA management attitude. They give you x amount of sick time each year and then act like you committed a crime for taking it. It is so bad that some of my co-workers have been counseled for using too much sick time and they were in the hospital recovering from surgery.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Typical union mentality, they give it to me so I am going to take it. Do you teach your kids this stuff? I guess it is all right for your kids to do the same. Too many of you have what is called "I don't feel like going to work today, so I am going to call in sick" attitude. Finally the company is not taking it anymore.

 

[ArtTang]

Garfield 1966 writes:

I sure as hell know that if I were to start any type of company I would shut the company down before I let a union walk through the door.

Art responds:

Garfield 1966, You paint a very broad stroke against unions but you must admit that unions have accomplished much good over the decades as wel. I am not looking to get into a philosophical battle over the pros and cons of unionism, but I would like to proffer one small example of how I thank God my workgroup is unionized. Before I do so, let me tell you that I agree wholeheartedly that it is frustrating and a shame that union dollars are too often spent defending blatant thieves and slackers, but it is the union's legal (i.e.: fiduciary) responsibility to protect the interest of all its members. If the union did not defend every member, including the slackers and thieves, it would find itself in court fighting lawsuits. If the company has a solid case against an employee accused of theft or other such activity, the case should stick. The flight attendant you are referring to in the above post will be investigated pursuant to your write-up and if your accusations bear out, she will be disciplined accordingly. Having said that, let me tell you a story about how the union saved my butt from AA's shady dealings. It is a bit long, but if you read through it, you will see why I still value unionism.

Back in the dark ages, I was heading to the plane from operations in RDU. It was raining hard and we had to climb stairs to gain access to the terminal as the elevator was broken. As I was climbing the stairs with my bags, I slipped and broke my left ankle. I had three witnesses. I was removed from the trip to Paris that evening and allowed to "D-2" home (I was a commuter at the time and I did not realize my ankle was broken; I thought I had badly twisted it so I decided to fly home to BNA where I immediately sought medical attention at Vanderbilt Hospital; yes, it was a long and miserable flight). Brief, AA denied me the injury on duty because the company claimed "I was not performing any flight duties at the time of injury." Even though I was signed in for the trip, in full uniform, walking from operations (where we are required to check our mail and manual revisions before all flights) to the departure gate, the company still argued that I was on my own time!

The company drained my sick bank and I began receiving voided checks. In the interval, I filed a grievance through the union. I lost the case on the local base level (surprise), so the grievance went all the way to system level. I had to fly to Dallas and literally sit on trial with two company reps, two union reps, and an arbitrator. My supervisor lied through her teeth and claimed I NEVER tried to call her about the incident. Fortunately, I had the long distance phone records of the various calls I made to her office. Brief, because of my union's tenacity, I won the grievance and the company had to reinstate my sick time and cut some checks to me. Sadly, I had been a very positive and pro-company employee up to that point, but after the grievance I realized what kind of company AA is. The honeymoon was over! The American (as in United States) way is: Employees may be screwed over in order to save a buck. Period. Furthermore, do you think the company reprimanded or terminated the supervisor who lied through her teeth? Hell no! She's still employed at AA.

So the sword cuts both ways. You can bash unions all you want, but they serve a good purpose as well. My story is not unique so please don't tell me it is exceptional because the company normally acts in a scrupulous manner. I have been flying a long time and I've heard some outrageous stories over the years of abuse at the hands of the company. The union, with all its warts, still serves a purpose. Now, I cannot and will not defend my union over the 'restructuring' debacle, but for purposes of base grievances and such, I'll take it any day over the tyranny of management.

Respectfully,
Art Tang

 

[Garfield1966]

Art,

I do agree with some of what you are saying. Back in the old day when this country was younger, unions where very much needed. They helped get rid of child labor, brought wages up to a reasonable level and helped provide some protection from companies who are ruthless.

I do not double the unions help in your situation. How ever, just to play devils advocate how many times do you think an employee has tried to pull one over and done so successfully with the aid of the union?

What I take issue with is your statement that the union has to take the side of the bad as well as the good. While I do not doubt the truth of that statement (I do not know how your by laws read) it is not right.

We were talking at work the other day who people in senior management would sooner take their rotten idea to the grave than to admit that they screwed up or to accept an idea from a subordinate that would make them look bad. The unions should not be trying to defend the slackers in our midst. That FA in all likelihood will never even know about my write up. I have examples of FA’s who have called in sick every single holiday since they have been hired with AA. I have seen TM’s removed for obvious and documented violations (calls are recorded).

One other question (and this is not to cause an argument) but do you think if there was more trust between management and labor that a union would have been needed to resolve your case? Do you think if the unions started to clean house on their end getting rid of those who we all know should be gone and management did the same perhaps we could trust each other to do the right thing?

I do not necessarily hate unions. Unfortunately my out look has been jaded because of where I work. I see abuses far worse than what I described above and nothing gets done because I run across the same FA’s on a regular basis doing the same damn things over and over again with virtually no repercussions. The FA’s who were canned for non reving while on the sick list are all back and the worst offender went right back on the sick list his first trip back. The excuse we hear was that they were brought back because the terminations only took place in one work group.

I am frustrated. I am stuck in the middle of all this crap and have no say in the out come. I have to deal with the inadequacy and cowardess of both the unions and management and their inability to do the right thing.

 

[woztwa]

Not to mention working all over the clock, holidays, missed family events, etc., etc. :angry:

Guess you missed the part about the airline being open 24 hours a day, on holidays, and family events.


I had a flight attendant toay who did not realize that AA had the gaul to fly on her B-day.

Don't you just hate when that happens.

Years ago, mechanic was "lamenting" over the loss of his "paid-day-off-birthday"
with the new contract......
My answer, "Why the hell should the company be grateful the day YOU were born?"
He had to laugh, too.

 

[jimntx]

What I take issue with is your statement that the union has to take the side of the bad as well as the good. While I do not doubt the truth of that statement (I do not know how your by laws read) it is not right.
{snip} The unions should not be trying to defend the slackers in our midst. That FA in all likelihood will never even know about my write up. I have examples of FA’s who have called in sick every single holiday since they have been hired with AA. I have seen TM’s removed for obvious and documented violations (calls are recorded).


One other question (and this is not to cause an argument) but do you think if there was more trust between management and labor that a union would have been needed to resolve your case? Do you think if the unions started to clean house on their end getting rid of those who we all know should be gone and management did the same perhaps we could trust each other to do the right thing?

I do not necessarily hate unions. Unfortunately my out look has been jaded because of where I work. I see abuses far worse than what I described above and nothing gets done because I run across the same FA’s on a regular basis doing the same damn things over and over again with virtually no repercussions. The FA’s who were canned for non reving while on the sick list are all back and the worst offender went right back on the sick list his first trip back. The excuse we hear was that they were brought back because the terminations only took place in one work group.

I am frustrated. I am stuck in the middle of all this crap and have no say in the out come. I have to deal with the inadequacy and cowardess of both the unions and management and their inability to do the right thing.

Garfield,
It's not a question of union by-laws; it's a question of Federal law. Under the Federal labor laws there is a well-established concept called Duty of Fair Representation (DFR). A union can be sued for damages in Federal court if it fails to provide the same level of representation to ALL its members.

IMHO, the problem with the slackers such as the case you were relating is that the company does not do its job of careful documentation which will stand up to scrutiny. Trust me, if you dot the i's and cross the t's, you can make a termination stick even of represented employees. This is particularly true in the case of a pattern of behavior--such as always calling in sick at Christmas. There are a lot of Flight Service Managers who are too lazy to do the job correctly.

In the case of carefully documented malfeasance by a flight attendant, I know of at least one base chair who will tell the flight attendant that unless they are contrite and are willing to change their behavior, there's not much the union can do to defend them. This base chair tells them, "I'm not doing you, the company, or the union any favors if I indicate to you in any way that your behavior is acceptable. What are you willing to do to prove that you will change? What can I offer the company as an alternative to you being terminated?"

Terminations of flight attendants occur all the time. And, in the cases where the company has done a proper job of documentation AND enforced a policy evenly, the terminations stick.

 

[orwell]

The value of each of these things is determined by what someone is willing to pay for that thing. If AA is/has been/used to be willing to pay $22/hr top of scale for an FSC, then that is what an FSC job is worth. It doesn't matter whether you think an FSC is as important as a mechanic, or flight attendant, or pilot.

A Jaguar--particularly the new model I want--is not intrinsically worth $80,000. But, there are a lot of people in the world willing to pay $80,000 for that model. Therefore, that model is worth $80,000.

So, if AA is suddenly - say, when concessions are needed - "willing" to pay less for a particular job function, I guess it then stands to reason, per your argument, that the value of said job function is indeed worth the new, lower figure? I mean, your formula must work both ways?

Somehow, I doubt many will agree it does, though.

The truth is, there is in fact a "real" value to any job. If a person is producing less/goods services than what they're being paid, and this is widespread across a company, the company will in fact lose money. In some jobs it's easy to calculate it, with others it's not.

Everyone, of course, probably thinks they are worth more than they're being paid. In a capitalist society in which consumers drive sucess and failure, that actually has to be true in order to turn a profit.