Www.savingoursouthwest.com

We are bargaining with SWA management, not the media. See my previous point about embarassing the company.
Click to expand...

Well..I'm refreshed after a good nights sleep, and I had to comment on this statement. I disagree with that statement...I would call slipping flyers under hotel room doors, picketing the super bowl, picketing in a city you don't even serve to get "media" attention, or buying a full page ad in the USA Today very much "negotiating" with the media.

Oh, how I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during these "negotiations" . So far, in over 2 years, you guys haven't been presented with even one tentative agreement. I think the rampers were presented one...and they voted it down. Imagine...putting something out to a vote of the membership. More and more, I am beginning to think that Mr. McDaniels "negotiatings" skills is to sit stone faced at the table and refuse to consider any offers that are presented to him. Then go buy an ad in the USA Today to "shame" the company into "negotiating". Why else would he still make ground time pay an issue - two years after the contract has expired? So far, it would appear that he has succeeded in getting the company to reduce it's offer to you. Boy...he earned his paycheck there. Now what....a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal??

Gallyhag has said that the UNION wanted starting pay at $20- an hour, but the charts say that was a company proposal. If that's the case...if the company offered what the union wanted....why didn't the union present that offer to the members? Was he STILL holding out for ground time pay? I don't know....I wonder if Mr. McDaniel is one of those "one issue voters"....you know, the kind of person who would cast a vote for Hitler because he opposed abortion....nevermind what else he stood for. I wonder that because it sure LOOKS like he's "standing firm" on one issue that he will never win. And yes...I've pretty much determined that ground pay is the sticking point. Just look at the red font in the "life of a flight attendant" link on his website.
 
KC,

I think YOU are the one stuck on the ground time issue.

And furthermore, our Negotiating Team is more than Thom McDaniel and our attorney. In addition to those two, our Negotiating Team consists of an economist, our TWU International Representative, and 4 other Flight Attendants with varying areas of expertise. The attorney has no agenda, and does as directed by the Local. McDaniel is one vote on a Team of many.

Back to ground time... The statements in the media and on savingoursouthwest.com are to help educate those who have no clue about Flight Attendant issues. Our Contract is extremely difficult to understand unless you live it. An easy issue to understand is that we work and don't get paid for it, that's why you often see this in the press. We are not attempting to get paid for every minute on the clock. We want RIGS, which help compensate us for days where we are used unproductively, and which will also help compensate us for unusual days where we are significantly delayed. Although you're right, most other carriers don't pay their FA's for ground time, but MANY of them have Rigs which help compensate for this time. THAT, my friend, is what we're asking for.

Currently, we could be delayed 4 hours for bad weather and not receive an additional dime. Duty Rigs would help give us some compensation for this time. But trying to explain a Duty Rig to somebody outside the industry... well you might as well be speaking Greek.

The Company's current Duty Rig offer in their latest proposal wouldn't even kick in except in very extreme circumstances. That's why we're not going for it. No, McDaniel is not a "one-issue" voter. Perhaps you should call him and talk to him. I'm sure you'd leave the conversation with a much different opinion of him.

The Union's sticking points are as follows:

Number of years to top out - currently 17, the Company is offering us 15, but every other group in our Company has a 12-year top-out.

Increased Pay for ALL seniority levels - this one is pretty self explanatory.

Duty Rigs - These pay us for unproductive trips as well as irregular operations such as mechanical and weather delays. For the last 4 months, there has been a 3-day trip in the Houston base that pays 12.3. Duty rigs would virutually prohibit the Company from even building a trip like this, and if they did, FA's would get bumped up to the Rig Pay and not be penalized for Crew Planning's inefficiency. Additionally, they would kick in so that we would be compensated for sitting for 3 or 4 hours waiting for the weather to improve. Currently, we receive NADA.

Initial Training Pay - Our New hires go more than 2 months without a paycheck. Every other group at SWA has paid training.

I know I'm wasting my time here, because I know I'm not going to change your mind. But hopefully some of the others reading this thread will actually listen to what I'm saying rather than automatically siding with Management on this one.

Contrary to what you think, McDaniel isn't a power hungry, throw the baby out with the bathwater type of person. If you talked to him, you'd see that too.
 
swagalleyhag said:
KC,

Initial Training Pay - Our New hires go more than 2 months without a paycheck. Every other group at SWA has paid training.
Click to expand...
Minor point here...and those guys are paid a lot anyways (sarcasm font off), but doesn't SWA require a 737 type rating from their pilots before they are hired? I believe it used to be required to even interview, but I think they've loosened things a bit. Ever price a 737 type rating?

BTW - the Baltimore Sun article sure seems to be focusing on the "ground time" issue. The the Sun's credit, at least they had a spokesperson from another union who said that NO FA's get paid for their ground time, but it sort of gets lost, since it's braketed by comments from Cuyler Thompson and Mr. McDaniel and Mr. McGuire.

And as I mentioned in the other thread...SWA's pay plan seems to take ground time into account far better than the other airlines. A 500 mile trip will count as 2 "trips" - even though they take just over an hour from block to block. An FA at any other airline would be paid for an hour and 15 minutes - then they're off the clock.
 
I'm trying to find in my posting where I said we wanted intial training pay just because the pilots have it... Nope, can't find that statement.... I said that EVERY OTHER GROUP AT SWA HAS IT except the Flight Attendants. Did I miss something, do employees besides pilots need 737 type ratings?

The BWI Sun and every other media publication take bits and pieces from interviews that sound most interesting. Like I've said before, people in general understand not getting paid for being at work. They latch on to that. They don't latch on to our explanations about Rigs. That's why you see that so often in the media. I doubt you are a man (I'm assuming you're a man) who doesn't blindly accept everything the media says as is. I remember reading something in another thread regarding an employee who was fired, and it seems to me that you very eloquently stated that there must be more to the story. Makes me wonder why you continue to diligently quote the press when telling ME what my Union's issues are. Interesting.

And on your topic of trip pay... you have that wrong, and I corrected you in the other thread, but for those who haven't read it... here goes:

+++++++++++++++

Geez, KC, am I going to have to start following you around from thread to thread to correct your inaccuracies???

You obviously haven't read our Contract and learned the difference between "standard" and "non-standard" trips. Pleae read directly from our Contract:

"For the purposes of pay computation, a standard trip shall be any trip for which the nonstop mileage... is 243 miles or less. A non-standard trip shall be any trip for which the nonstop mileage exceeds 243 miles."

Further...

"Flight Attendants will be paid for non-standard trips at the rate of one standard trip as set forth in paragraph 1 above, plus one-tenth (.1) trip for each forty mile increment over 243 miles..."

So in layman's terms, we are paid 1 TFP for the first 243 miles, and after that, 1 TFP for each 400 miles (rounded to the nearest tenth). There is additional compensation built in on some flights that SWA "pads" for time... during busy air traffic times, SWA adds anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes to a flight's time to help keep us on schedule. In these cases they do add a few tenths of a trip here and there to those trips. So MCI-MDW can pay differently at different times of day.

But considering that it's not during peak traffic time, MCI-MDW does NOT pay 2 trips as you claim. It is booked for 1:15, and actually pays 1.4, NOT 2.0. Since SWA rounds up to the nearest tenth, if it were paid by hours rather than mileage, this leg would pay 1.3. So the incredible amount that you mention that we've "earned" for our ground time is a whopping 6 minutes. Even if SWA didn't round to the nearest tenth, it would be 9 minutes.

Now humor me for a moment... Think back about what made SWA famous in the early days. Does "the ten minute-turn" ring a bell? And with this formula, the the 10 minutes ARE almost credited. But our turn time now is almost 30 minutes. It's a different world now, different operating practices, but we're operating under a system that was built for the 10-minute turn.

That's why we re-negotiate our Contract every few years.

I certainly hope you'll go back to every message board where you've posted this inaccuracy and correct yourself.
 
SWAGALLEYHAG-

I'm trying to find in my posting where I said we wanted intial training pay just because the pilots have it... Nope, can't find that statement.... I said that EVERY OTHER GROUP AT SWA HAS IT except the Flight Attendants.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help you out in the area of paid training. When you get hired for the position of Ramp, Operations, Provisioning, or Customer Sevice, you start the job at your work location. I believe F/As are conditionally hired. Mean they get the job when and if they pass classroom training. This may be the reason others get paid and not the F/As.
 
Very interesting reading. I knew when this thread was started that it would be a bit of a lightening rod. Looks like I was right. Just wanted to take a moment to share a few thoughts. This will be a very long post. You've been warned. If you do decide to read on, please try to finish the whole thing before posting a reply. A question you might have for me might be answered further in the body of the post.


It is obvious to anyone who peruses theses posts that there is a great deal of emotion involved on both sides of the argument.

KC, ELP, and others, I can identify with some of your frustration with how TWU 556 has handled the more public part of the "Contract 2002" campaign. That is not to say that I feel it is a mistake to "take it to the streets" I don't. However, I do think that it is important to stick to facts, carefully choose your target audience, and beware of crossing lines. I was not aware that literature was being slipped under the doors of hotel guests. Leafleting at an NFL game is one thing, football fans can just keep walking if they don't want the info. However, "spamming" hotel guests, in my opinion is crossing a line. It is obvious that in your case it not only failed to produce the desired result but in fact accomplished the opposite. Further, I can understand why one on the outside might think it odd that the TWU NT has not brought some proposals to the membership. Let me try to clarify. First, it is importan to point out that the NT was elected by the membership. While Thom McDaniel as President of the local serves as head of the team, as swagalleyhag pointed out, he(Thom) is just one member of the negotiating team. The rest of the team members made the membership aware of their platforms, campaigned and were elected to the negotiating team by a popular vote of the membership. Once the NT was in place an extensive survey of the membership was undertaken. Another extensive, phone survey has been conducted within the past few weeks to guage the thoughts and feelings of the membership. I took the phone survey and was impressed with the detail the questions went into. It was very obvious to me that at least the intent was to make sure the NT was continuing to press for issues that I, as a rank and file member am concerned with. We were asked very specific questions about what was important to us in these negotiations. The idea was to find out what was important to the rank and file to help the NT prioritize agenda items while at the bargaining table. Essentially, they were asking us for their marching orders.
Now, the results of the survey taken before negotiations began were not by any means unanimous on any agenda item. But, the results did give a clear "mandate" on issues that were important to the membership. In other words, while we are not all in lock-step we are pretty darn close. The issues that the NT currently remains "stuck" on are the issues that we told them were important to us. We understand that negotiating means give and take but again, to really have an intelligent discussion on this issue you must understand that right or wrong the flight attendants at this airline feel that they have done nothing but give for years and we are now attempting to play "catch up". Beyond just the dollars and cents of the pay scale we are asking the company to treat our workgroup the same way they treat the other groups.
Please, please, please remeber we are talking about people here so you have to move beyond just the facts and figures. I have said it before but the point seems to be glossed over so I will repeat myself. The flight attendants at this airline do not feel respected. This contract has become the embodiment of the frustration the flight attendant group feels over how we perceive we are treated. Now, I am sure pages could be written about how in fact we are very well treated and respected and that this is all in our heads but that does not change the fact that perception is reality and that perception is what is driving the membership side of this "argument". Until that perception is acknowledged and addressed we will remain at a stalemate. You have to understand what is like working here...consider. We are constantly being told how successful and financially sound Southwest is...constantly. Glowing newspaper and magazine articles are reprinted and distrubuted to all employees, airplanes are devoted to the company's accomplishments(Triple Crown). It was only a matter of time before this and other unions came to the table with their hands out. But for us at least, once we got to the table, the story changed. All of the talk of prosperity and success vanished and suddenly the sky was falling. The NT hired experts to study SWA's financials and the conclusions they came to was that the raises and work rule changes the membership via the NT was asking for would in fact allow SWA to maintain their low-cost advantage and simultaneously allow the flight attendant group to enjoy an improved standard of living. Pay rates aside there are other issues on the table. Step compression. As it has been pointed out before, the other unions at SWA reach the top of their payscale in 12 years. The company has offered us 15. The NT, through the survey process has been told NOT to TA any proposal that does not contain a 12 year top out. Ground Time is another issue that keeps coming up on this forum and also should be addressed. Try as I might, I cannot understand the mentality behind thinking it is unreasonable to be paid for all work done in the service of this company. My full trip rate? Not necessarily, in fact if my trip rate were high enough, one could say that not paying me for ground time would serve as an incentive for me to work that much harder to get the aircraft off the gate. That would be fine if it were completely within the flight attendants control as to when we push from the gate, sadly, it is not. I believe that it has already been noted that in cases of irregular ops where we are boarded and parked at the gate, sometimes for hours, I as a flight attendant am working tending to passengers, answering questions and just basically meeting the FAA requirement that F/As be on board while pax are on the aircraft. Under the current contract in that situation, I am only making my $2 per diem. This must change. Now, if we push from the gate and sit on the runway, overschedule/overfly kicks in and I am compensated, but in irregular ops situations when we are stuck at the gate I get screwed on pay while I am taking care of you, the passenger. Don't think I should get paid in those situations? Fine. But, as we sit on the tarmac in PHX in mid July, don't ask for a glass of water on infomatiion about your connecting flight or a pillow so you can get some shut eye....I'm off the clock. Getting back to standard run of the mill groundtime. Now, if SWA did not expect me to do much during turns I could let it go. But, the amount of "off the clock" work that I am expected to do continues to go up. Crossing seatbelts and picking up the occasional peanut wrapper or newspaper is one thing..."tidying" a trashed airplane after a full transcon is quite another. Don't assume that like me, the NT is willing to let ground time pay go if other terms of the contract are met. Also, there is middle ground. Duty Rigs and or a second tier ground time pay rate that lets the company keep costs low and simultaneously acknowledges that flight attendants do indeed work while the plane is parked at the gate could very quickly settle this issue. Beyond that this could simply be an issue that the NT is hanging onto so they look magnaimous when they "give in" and let in go in exchange for something from the company.
To their credit, most observers support a "fair" raise. Let's spend awhile talking about why fair or even "fair+" is in order. Remember 9/11? I do. I remember that in the days immediately following 9/11, I was expected to remove and inspect each and every seat bottom cushion onboard the aircraft, in addition to my regular pre-flight duties before the first flight of the day. This is no small feat. The seat bottom cushions are held in place by some pretty serious velcro to keep you from sliding off the frame when the thrust revesers kick in. These seat bottom inspections have since been delegated to another workgroup but hopefully, you get the point. 9/11 changed my job description for the worse. Though we are no longer required to perform the seat bottom inspections, we are still required to do a thorough security sweep before the first flight of the day. Recently the TSA has required that I "sign off" on this inspection and the form is filed with the flight papers. If contraband is later found on a plane that I inspected, I can be held responsible. Additionally, I now have to keep in mind that every passenger on board my aircraft could have ill intentions. I have to look into the face of each and every passenger as they board and to try assess each passengers level of risk. The TSA is supposed to be watching out for us, but the self-same TSA allowed a college kid to hid box cutters in our lavatories. I am not placing my personal safety solely in the hands of the TSA. Should a hi-jacking take place the only thing I know for sure is that if the passengers don't intervene, I and my fellow cabin crewmembers are on our own. The pilots(as they should be) will be safely ensonced behind an impenetrable, reinforced cockpit door that cost more than the average American made last year. It the #$@% hits the fan in the cabin and joe passenger doesn't jump in, I am all that is standing between you the unthinkable. Poorly trained or not, the responsibility rests with me and my cabin crew and believe it or not we take the job seriously. We have the zip-tie handcuffs, just in case. We do our best to hold to cabin security procedures while also keeping you the passenger at ease, fed and watered. It is tough to get a service out on a 40 minute flight when you have to keep stopping to explain why folks can't hold a meet and greet in front of the cockpit door while you wait for the lav to free up. Then of course there is IFE. SWA has thus far chosen to eschew PTVs, drop down LCD screens or even the most basic audio channels. Why? When you, the customer ask, their reply is that it would raise costs. When I, the flight attendant ask, their reply is the "I" as a flight attendant am the inflight entertainment. On top of everything else I am expected to do in a typical day. SWA expects me to enterain you. Not simply serve, protect, and care for you. SWA thinks it is part of my job to put on a floor show. If SWA does in fact opt for actual IFE, this bullet point in my job description will fade into the background. However, with every pretty new 737 that rolls of the assembly line without IFE, the cost of a retro-fit goes up and the chance of the happen arguably lessens. I was hired with the understanding that I was welcome to show some "Spirit" at work if the mood struck but that it was not an obligation. However, as the LCC model has evolved, and the new kids on the block have raised the bar, more emphasis has been placed on moving inflight service from a smile, a coke, and CPR if you need it to a full fledged entertainment experience. This simply adds another layer of responsibility to an already tough job. Ever seen those little children traveling alone? We call them "unaccompanied minors" or UMs. Nowadays in the age of divorce I am sure you can imagine it is necessary for parents to use this service more and more, this in addition to kids going to visit friends out of state and to see Grandma in Tucson. Wanna know what the limit is on the number of UMs that SWA will take on a single flight? ....Give up?....Okay I'll tell you...there is no limit. SWA will take as many UMs on a flight as show up. I myself have had as many as 12, yes 12 on single flight. Two full rows of children between the ages of 5 and 11, yes we take 5 year olds. Nevermind the other 36 people in my section that I was responsible for, I had 12 of someone else's children to care for. Don't get me wrong, I am glad to do it, but UMs when they are well behaved are labor intensive. When they are not well behaved it is chaos. I cannot discipline the child...that is not my place. But I am responsible for keeping them safe while they are in my cabin. I have responsiblity but no authority. The only extra pay, I receive is the extra $2 TFP, I recieve for flying "A" position. That's fine but I say either put a cap on the number of UMs I can be given or thrown in a few extra bucks per trip when the number exceeds a certain threshold. At the beginning and end of the school year when the "custody-swaps" are taking place, the UM situation gets completely out of hand. Beyond the nuts and bolts of what we actually do on a daily basis, think for a moment about the "intangible" impact wages canhave on your workforce. Let's start at the bottom of the seniority list and work our way up. In a business like this, where Customer Service is where you hang your hat, you need to be able to attract "talent". While there is an ample supply of people in the workforce who meet the basic "on-paper" requirements for this job, attracting people who you actually want to seal into a metal tube with your precious customers is a whole other story. At the moment, the majors are in crisis, layoffs abound and there is a dearth of qualified applicants. Right now, laid off inflight personnel who don't want to change careers will take any job at any rate just to say in the industry, especially if the company is stable. However, what happens if and when the industry cycles upward again and the other majors start hiring. A percentage of certain type of person is attracted to the SWA style of flying but, the vast majority of flight attendant "wannabes" are dreaming of Paris and 747-400s not Lubbock and 737-500s. Now we all know that it takes years of seniority to get the good trips with one of the big six but that does not keep qualified candidates from consistently choosing the other majors over SWA or simply biding their time at SWA until the majors come knocking. Again, right now the scales are tipped in SWA's favor, but that can and will change. You buy cheap, you get cheap. You have to be willing to pay a decent starting wage if you want to attract talent. Especially, if you expect that same talent to provide a little IFE. At the middle of the payscale you need to keep the "middling" flight attendants that have developed their skills and can really keep the customers coming back from moving on to other careers or carriers. Don't underestimate the difference a few years seniority can have on your inflight experience as a customer. The basic learning curve is pretty steep...you learn how to get the drinks out and remember you evac and CPR drills. But, with time you begin to really learn the job. Over the years you learn a thing or two. How to cut off a guy who is about to have one too many and make him think it was his idea. We know that a free cocktail won't break the bank and might bring you back in the end. Some, especially FAA rules cannot be broken but company policies can be bent. A more veteran crewmember knows when to pick their battles while the newbies tend to be a tad more high strung. On top of that there is the fact that experience makes the more seasoned flight attendant better equipped to handle the myriad of situations that can occur in mid-flight. We've been there, we've done that and we know what to do. That is the situation I am in. I have been around for 8 years now, 6 of them with Inflight Service. I am fully vested and if I am unhappy with this contract I can and likely will, give my 2 weeks notice, take my profit-sharing and hit the bricks. That or, right when I have actually gotten good at my job, I will transfer and go do something else because I have to fly too much and spend too much time away from home to make a decent living. It may very well be that SWA really only wanted us to do this for a few years and then move on, but nobody told us that. So we have homes and families and bills and obligations and we have to keep working more and more to maintain a basic standard of living. Now SWA does not owe me a certain standard of living, I made the choice to work here, knowing full well how much I would be paid. But, the fact is the people do have an expectation of being able to maintain a certain standard of living and that expectation fuels their discontent with the wages SWA pays. 401k and profit sharing are interesting but more so to the pilot and mechanic group who make "good money" as it is and can give a little in hard pay in exchange for other bennies and still live pretty well. The same could even be said for much of ground ops who make decent wages and can easily work 40+ hours per week and still see their kids at night. We as crewmembers know that travel comes with the job. We understand that there will be times that we just can't be at home, but the amount of time we have to be away from seems to keep creeping up as our trips become less productive. That is where the middle of the seniority list is coming from. They want to be able to bring home say for instances... 40 grand without flying 160 TFP per month. Again, I freely admit that within the economic framework that SWA exists within that simply may not be possible but my hope is to make people understand where the flight attendants who just can't seem to let this go are coming from. In our minds our ability to adequately care for our families is at stake. Can you imagine for a moment that such a mindset could ellicit an emotional reaction from someone? We know that is SWA goes away, so do our jobs but, the membership is of the opinion that SWA has the money to "do right by" their flight attendants and they just don't want to spend it. At the top of the pay scale there is a desire to see some kind of monetary reward for remaining loyal to the company. In lieu of a pension, you need to make a pretty decent amount of money if a 401k is your main retirement vehicle. Especially if your intent is to maintain a decent standard of living and contribute a healthy percentage to your 401k. Profit-sharing and stock options are fine but still relatively volatile. 9/11 proved that hanging your retirement hopes on airline stock is risky business to say the least. Also, you have to remember the lack of monetary savvy some flight attendants might have especially when compared to the pilot group. Pilots and mechanics are numbers and nuts and bolts types of people by nature. Flight Attendants, not so much. That is not to say that there are not plenty of flight attendants that "get it" about profit sharing and stock options. However, by and large, we are living paycheck to paycheck. 401k and profitsharing are not going to help me pay my rent. Hard pay raises will. The NT understands that about the membership and is wisely focused on hard pay first and "perk" pay second. We, as a group tend to think much more "short term" than say the pilot group. That is why step compression to a 12 year top out is so important.
Enough numbers for now let's talk about Jim Parker for a bit. Jim's only fault is that he is not Herb. It starts and ends there. Since the beginning some have wondered aloud what would happen when Herb stepped away from the helm. To a certain extent, those who wondered now have their answere. Herb is lovable, affable, and endearing. Jim Parker is not. Jim Parker knows airlines. He does not know people. Unfortunately, noone has figured out how to run an airline without people so therein lies Jim's problem. Herb made his vision, our vision. We were willing to do more with less because we felt that we were part of something larger than ourselves. We were working for a cause. SWA worked hard, played harder and what the company could not pay in dollars and cents, they made up for in "luv". Just being part of the storied Southwest Culture made you feel privilged to work here. When I started here in 1996 that Culture was still thriving, now it is on life support. I was recently thumbing through "Nuts" and it struck me how at it's core this company is very different from the one the Friebergs wrote about in their now famous book. Sadly, SWA is now just another Fortune 500 Company. What is now playing out at the bargaining table between SWA and the flight attendant group is both sides coming to grips with that reality. Where Jim is failing is to sell the flight attendant group on the currency of SWA culture instead of cold hard cash. Someone said that Jim is "not going anywhere". I agree. Our bottom line bears out the fact that he has earned his place at the helm. But, if this thing were settled tomorrow his relationship with his flight attendants will still be severely damaged. In recent weeks, middle and senior management has really started playing hardball with the membership. For instance, 3 day suspensions have been handed out to flight attendants who wore unauthorized union pins while in uniform at picketing events. Fair is fair, the U plays hardball by picketing, the company plays hardball by issuing suspensions. But the suspensions just come across to the membership as mean spirited and petty. Some of the more vocal union members have seen a spike in the number of times they are selected for "random" drug testing. Inflight supervisors have been coming aboard the aircraft during turnarounds in an attempt to "sell" members on the company's proposal. I understand that if we are going to push, the company has a right to push back but the membership is angry and that anger is focused on Jim Parker. Not fair, but the price you pay for being the boss.

Let's take a look into the future. In my opinion this could end in one of three ways. One way is that neither side budges and the union/company opts for self-help. Either the flight attendants strike or the company locks us out. Either way is breathtakingly expensive for SWA. I would bet my life on the fact that there is already a crash course training cirriculum written and a plan to get replacement workers in the air in record time. It is definitely doable but getting 7,000+ flight attendants in the air simultaneously is no small feat. SWA is fiercely protective of it's public image and being percieved as having fired 20 percent of it's workforce will turn into a media circus. But SWA has tons of cash, and even more credit and could very well decide that getting 7,000 flight attendants on the payroll at starting wages could be worth the trouble. Additionally, Jim Parker would have shown the rest of the Unions at SWA that he is indeed a force to be reckoned with.
In another scenario, the union, fearing insufficient support for a strike "caves" and accepts an offer that the membership is unhappy with but passes by a close margin. The membership fractures, morale suffers and in 4 years we start the whole thing all over again. Option three is that the company and the union NT find common ground and everybody wins. I actually think we are much closer to this happening than many think. I think what one side or the other needs is a way to save face. This has escalated to the point where both sides have too much to lose by appearing to have "caved" to the other's demands. What is most important is that the flight attendant group come away feeling like the company has some regard for what we do. Like I said before. If you buy cheap. You get cheap. People have a tendency to "live down" to expectations. I can tell you that if we feel that a subpar contract has been shoved down our throats, it will eventually show up in the cabin. Close your eyes and picture the kind of apathetic disconnected service some of the other carriers provide. That is the direction SWA is headed in if this thing turns out badly. Those of us who really do care and try our best to give 110% may move on to other endeavors. Those who stay behind will just be marking time. The days of going above and beyond and giving positively outrageous service will be long gone. One of the few things that sets SWA apart will disappear. I will wind this thing up by once again pointing out that this is not just about ground time or payscales, that real people and lives and emotions are involved. Feel free to disagree with TWU 556 in general or their methodology in these negotiations in particular but understand that maybe, just maybe those of us on the inside have a bigger picture than casual observers. It may seem that the TWU NT is keeping us in the dark but the consensus among the more senior flight attendants is that this is the most membership driven contract campaign in decades. We are deluged with information from the union and the NT is very accessible and accountable to the membership. Rather than taking jabs at the union, if you really want answers, get in touch with them there is a contact us link on the savingoursouthwest web page. I personally would not mind my union dues being spent if it helps dispel rumors. Further, when you communicate with us about the contract try to take a moment and imagine how you would react if complete strangers felt compelled to tell you what you should consider a fair wage. I understand that we have dragged this thing into the public forum but saying "Hey 20 bucks an hour sounds good to me you guys should take it" when you don't know the totality of the contract comes across as arrogant, condescending and offensive. All we hear when people say that to is is "You're too stupid to know what is good for you and I'm terrified my ticket price will go up." Likewise, no matter how it is phrased continually telling us that if we make too much money the company will go broke just falls on deaf ears. We hear it all day at work and we agree with the concept but we don't feel that what our union is asking for is unreasonable. Remember that for most of you, once this is over you get to go back to your lives. For the flight attendants this isour lives. Like I said before, tons of info has been dumped on us and if anyone would like to see it, send me a PM and I will try to work something out. I am not that good with computers but I have hard copies, a flat bed scanner and ADOBE Acrobat Reader. I have never created a PDF file in mylife but I am willing to try. Of course, there is always snail mail.
 
Looks like some of the employees are start to write letters to the editor.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/8093994.htm
---
Our flight attendants are some of the finest, most professional and hardest-working in the industry. They do a lot of extra work without pay that other airline flight attendants wouldn't do, such as cleaning the aircraft between flights.
---
 
john398 Posted on Mar 3 2004, 09:43 AM
Looks like some of the employees are start to write letters to the editor.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/8093994.htm
---
Our flight attendants are some of the finest, most professional and hardest-working in the industry. They do a lot of extra work without pay that other airline flight attendants wouldn't do, such as cleaning the aircraft between flights.
Click to expand...


That's not true. We clean between flights on some of the domestic trips too over here at United. We, obviously, don't clean after flights like Tokyo but we do get the pleasure to do it on some domestic. And we don't get paid for it either. :( I hate cleaning the airplane.




"Ladies and Gentlemen, as part of United's recycling efforts we'd like to ask that you please hand us any magazines or newspapers you no longer need." (cuz we'd like to grab a bite between flights ;) )
 
I had what I thought was a well thought out response, but my fat fingers hit a key combination that erased it. Maybe it was not meant to be. But a quick summary or what it was:

1. Respect cannot be interpreted as "Re$pect". There is far more than money involved in it - but it will all boil down to money.

2. The memebership is not 100% behind the efforts of the union. This could be the death knell to "esprit" among the FA group - especially if it results in "self help" and a strike. Scabs aren't apparently well liked...even ones who crossed because they found $0.00 a month a lot harder to live on than $1,600 per month.

3. The unions "public education" efforts are out of order. You can't approve of your union "educating" the public via the media, then #### because some members of the public aren't smpathetic to the cause. You want to look at the % of raises the other groups got...also take a look at the "public education" steps they took...pretty much info pickets at the airport. Certainly not USA Today advertisements.

This is my last post on this topic. Y'all might think I don't give a rat's ass about you. You couldn't be more wrong. I want you to get a 'fair' contract. I don't want to see you drive a wedge between your coworkers (FA and others). It would be a shame if you really became "just like any other company".
 
1. Respect cannot be interpreted as "Re$pect". There is far more than money involved in it - but it will all boil down to money.

Please, please hear me when I say that with my co-workers money and respect have become interchangeable. I work with the people day in and day out. I read the passionate posts from them on our private message boards.

2. The memebership is not 100% behind the efforts of the union. This could be the death knell to "esprit" among the FA group - especially if it results in "self help" and a strike. Scabs aren't apparently well liked...even ones who crossed because they found $0.00 a month a lot harder to live on than $1,600 per month.

Absolutely correct. The union does not have 100% support from the rank and file. There is a certain percentage who came to the job with an inherently anti-union bias and have had to tolerate being a union member because the job requires it. There is a separate contingent that is (rightly)terrified of a strike and will vote yes to anything to keep that from happening. There is also a faction that just does not like making waves and just wants things to go back to the way they were. Based on my purely speculative, absolutely unscientific, anecdotal evidence I would say all of those folks together make up about 25% of the membership. That is a big number but that still means that 75% are behind the union. That does not mean that the entire 75% fully supports the union, many of us have points of disagreement with the NT, but thus far, they have retained our trust and appear to be acting in our best interest so we give them the benefit of the doubt and continue to support them. Scabs are a whole other topic. I have met members who have said they would cross a picket line. I don't think they have any idea what their lives would be like if and when those who did not cross the line came back to work. Judging by how we treat people who don't pay up when they put $$ on a give-away trip, I can only imagine who we would treat scabs.

3. The unions "public education" efforts are out of order. You can't approve of your union "educating" the public via the media, then #### because some members of the public aren't smpathetic to the cause. You want to look at the % of raises the other groups got...also take a look at the "public education" steps they took...pretty much info pickets at the airport. Certainly not USA Today advertisements.

Again, I go back and forth on this issue. I do feel that there is a time and a place for getting the public involved. If we start serious contemplating a strike that is something the flying public needs to know.

This is my last post on this topic. Y'all might think I don't give a rat's ass about you. You couldn't be more wrong. I want you to get a 'fair' contract.

I respect your right so "sit this one out". Please don't take this post as an attempt to "bait" you back onto this thread. I just wanted to reply to some of your thoughts in public for the benefit of others. I, personally don't think for a moment that you "don't give a rat's ass about us". I have been posting on this board and A.net for a few months now and nothing I have read from you would lead me to feel that way.

I don't want to see you drive a wedge between your coworkers (FA and others). It would be a shame if you really became "just like any other company".

There is always going to be a bit of a divide between inflight and the rest of the company because quite frankly they think we are spoiled. Because we do so much of our jobs outside of the view of 'non-passengers' our co-workers tend to think that all we do is pass out cokes and lay around the pool at posh hotels. There was a divide between us before the contract talks started, it will still be there once it is over. As far as SWA becoming just like every other company....it has already happened. Contract disagreements aside, we have simply become too big to foster the kind of atmosphere and culture that used to make us unique. There will always be remnants, glimmers, and bits and pieces of the old SWA around but I am afraid the glory days are long gone. In days past we used to hire for attitude and train for skill. Now we are just looking for warm bodies. Shame really, we had a great thing going here. It truly is heartbreaking to watch it die.
 
KCFlyer said:
galleyhag...another thing that causes a little "disdain" with me is that I do believe that union politics is taking the front seat in your negotiations....Take a look at the mechanics board....look at how the TWU is taking some awful hits from the AMFA supporters. Is it true that since your mechanics voted in the AMFA that your union refuses to recognize them? Could that be in "retaliation" for what happened over at AA? I mean the mechanics voted out the Teamsters, not the TWU...why would your union not recognize them - even if they ARE fighting a battle against the same AMFA over at American?

I'm sorry....I think that the TWU is using you guys as pawns...trying to "show the world" that the TWU isn't a "company union". And in doing so, I honestly believe that they are doing a real disservice to their members at Southwest. That's too bad, because I DO think you folks at Southwest are the best in the business. But I think you guys are the "left flank" in a bigger battle that the TWU is fighting.
Click to expand...
KC, I couldn't read the rest of the posts on this thread, got tired of the, blah, blah, blah, but the reason TWU and ALL the other unions refuse to recognize AMFA is because AMFA isn't a member of the AFL/CIO.

Now its the actual unions that are doing this, not necessarily the members.
 
I have an idea for SWA. Give all of the Employees higher wages.. ok. Cool?

Cut out profit sharing, dollar for dollar 401k match, free travel, cheap health benefits.

And then we can wonder if tomorrow we'll have a job...

Sound good?
 
WNjetdoc said:
KCFlyer said:
galleyhag...another thing that causes a little "disdain" with me is that I do believe that union politics is taking the front seat in your negotiations....Take a look at the mechanics board....look at how the TWU is taking some awful hits from the AMFA supporters. Is it true that since your mechanics voted in the AMFA that your union refuses to recognize them? Could that be in "retaliation" for what happened over at AA? I mean the mechanics voted out the Teamsters, not the TWU...why would your union not recognize them - even if they ARE fighting a battle against the same AMFA over at American?

I'm sorry....I think that the TWU is using you guys as pawns...trying to "show the world" that the TWU isn't a "company union". And in doing so, I honestly believe that they are doing a real disservice to their members at Southwest. That's too bad, because I DO think you folks at Southwest are the best in the business. But I think you guys are the "left flank" in a bigger battle that the TWU is fighting.
Click to expand...
KC, I couldn't read the rest of the posts on this thread, got tired of the, blah, blah, blah, but the reason TWU and ALL the other unions refuse to recognize AMFA is because AMFA isn't a member of the AFL/CIO.

Now its the actual unions that are doing this, not necessarily the members.
Click to expand...
And is the SWAPA part of the AFL-CIO?
 
SWAPA is not part of the AFL-CIO. SWAPA leadership also voted to allow the Mechanics Union to remain part of the Coalition of Southwest Unions (I believe that is what they are called) as they were before they joined the AMFA. Unfortuneately they were outvoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top