Indefinite suspension Pitbull??!! No way!! Terminations for the f/as all around. It is only fair. If you spend my money to bring those people back I will be absolutely furious. I am sick and tired of the union getting people who break the rules their jobs back. Sure I feel bad for them but they knew the rules. They broke the FARs and deserve to be out on the street. Period. I only hope the pilots' jobs are not in jeopardy as a result of this. (I know I said this didn't belong on a public forum but I just read PITBull's post and couldn't help myself.)
Can Someone Please Verify This For Me?
- Thread starter Colby
- Start date
Hold your horses folks! Cool your jets! Chill, Chill!
Any employee who is subject to discipline by the company is entitled to representation and due process. If our union is derelict in this duty, management has the opportunity to set precedent for running roughshod over due process in other cases which are not deserving of termination. That is the primary principle involved in making sure these folks have union representation.
Another principle involved is that those of us here on this bulletin board certainly do not know all aspects of the story. Perhaps someone posting here has done so with first hand knowledge, but even so, there is a principle of operating on an "innocent until proven guilty" basis.
I was once a union steward in a workplace where I was placed in the position of defending a complete jerk of an employee. If management had followed the rules and done their homework, there would have been nothing I could have done to defend this guy's job. He was insubordinate and verbally abusive and threatening to everyone around him. I could have thought of a dozen things he could have been fired for via the discipline process.
But management was lazy and gutless and attempted to skirt the discipline process by laying off his position while making plans to create a new position with exactly the same duties. If I had allowed this to go forward, management would have created a precedent for skirting the discipline process with a "RIF" or "Reduction in Force" as we called it. I defended the guy on that basis, not because I thought he was a worthy employee, but because of the precedent it would set for management abuse if I did not defend him.
Something to think about before you denounce the union as an institution that just defends "bad" employees. It's just not that simple.
In solidarity,
Airlineorphan
Any employee who is subject to discipline by the company is entitled to representation and due process. If our union is derelict in this duty, management has the opportunity to set precedent for running roughshod over due process in other cases which are not deserving of termination. That is the primary principle involved in making sure these folks have union representation.
Another principle involved is that those of us here on this bulletin board certainly do not know all aspects of the story. Perhaps someone posting here has done so with first hand knowledge, but even so, there is a principle of operating on an "innocent until proven guilty" basis.
I was once a union steward in a workplace where I was placed in the position of defending a complete jerk of an employee. If management had followed the rules and done their homework, there would have been nothing I could have done to defend this guy's job. He was insubordinate and verbally abusive and threatening to everyone around him. I could have thought of a dozen things he could have been fired for via the discipline process.
But management was lazy and gutless and attempted to skirt the discipline process by laying off his position while making plans to create a new position with exactly the same duties. If I had allowed this to go forward, management would have created a precedent for skirting the discipline process with a "RIF" or "Reduction in Force" as we called it. I defended the guy on that basis, not because I thought he was a worthy employee, but because of the precedent it would set for management abuse if I did not defend him.
Something to think about before you denounce the union as an institution that just defends "bad" employees. It's just not that simple.
In solidarity,
Airlineorphan
FlyingHippie
Senior
- Jan 27, 2003
- 283
- 0
This whole thing is unfortunate. How many lives have been ruined because of this? The one thing we employees have control of is how we treat one another. Siegel, Glass and the gang can never take that away from us. Look back in the good old days I've done things I wouldn't do today. My wife worked with a flight attendant that fell asleep on the jumpseat on a red-eye. She felt bad for the girl. Come to find out the girl routinely fell asleep in the jumpseat. Eventually, this girl was fired but got her job back when she went crying racism to large minority organization that has two A's and ends with a P. Was that fair? No. Life isn't fair. This is what happens when you have a rat and stupid people on the same plane.
ClueByFour
Veteran
Why refer to the only individual in this whole thing who apparently had any cajones or ethics as the "rat?"FlyingHippie said:
I am not so sure I agree with the group who do not think the union should represent the crew. In almost every accident/incident involves some sort of FAR voilation. While the crew really screwed up and showed bad judgement, that is one of the things your union dues are for. They certainly have not done a great with the contract. Just a thought.
Adding to 'orphan's thoughts, a union can get the ass sued off them if they fail in their 'duty of fair representation.'
I've had a hand in saving a few jerks' jobs, and as airlineorphan says, if management had their act together, I'd have no ground to stand on.
I think we'll all agree we don't want union reps picking and choosing who they'll represent and how vigorous that representation will be. A VERY slippery slope.
In any discipline or termination, if the company has dotted the i's and crossed the t's, a union has very limited room to manuvuer.
I've had a hand in saving a few jerks' jobs, and as airlineorphan says, if management had their act together, I'd have no ground to stand on.
I think we'll all agree we don't want union reps picking and choosing who they'll represent and how vigorous that representation will be. A VERY slippery slope.
In any discipline or termination, if the company has dotted the i's and crossed the t's, a union has very limited room to manuvuer.
I am not even shocked that this happened. I am furloughed and before i left this was going on. I never had it on my flight ..but, I can remember a f/a at one time telling me about something similar. I would have told them to go back to the gate..PERIOD!!!! The non rev should have demanded to go back. She/he was stupid!!! Everyone on that flight that new about it was stupid. I understand the union has to fight for there jobs back..but..I am glad I am furloughed and not paying dues..because I would be very pissed off :angry: If I had to pay my dues for those stupid f/a's to get their jobs back. That B f/a should have called the captain and refused to go on any further. It just all seems very crazy. Weather the B f/a is a well liked person or not is not the issue. He did the right thing. I do not understand why he is labeled a "snitch" now. I am appauled at some of you on this message board, because I read all the posts and there were a few that were upset that he told. Well, yes you can have your opionion..but, if you new a passenger was breaking a FAR would you just stand there and say"oh, well" " what no-one knows won't hurt" No, you would not do that(at least I hope you would not) see, this also leads to other issues with some of our f/a's...If they are doing this...hmmmmmmmmm then I just wonder what else is going on ??????? :unsure:
PITbull
Veteran
We enforce ALL FARs.
The issue above is that this one needs to be enforced as well, no doubt. However, the penalty is not to warrant termination for the deed, IMO.
Just as the individual who smokes in the Lav can receive a penalty of up to $2,000. It doesn't warrant a "life sentence" in prison.
You guys kill me. As soon as you see that an FAR has been breached, you immediately perceive that to mean "maximum penalty" of death by firing squad.
It doesn't work like this. All FARs are to be enforced, with no exceptions for anyone. No deed goes "unpunished" and no one is advocating no discipline. Their are penalties and consequences for breaking FARs..however, termination for the above citation should not warrant expulsion.
The union will protect these individuals and attempt in every way to lessen the severity of penalty. Period.
The issue above is that this one needs to be enforced as well, no doubt. However, the penalty is not to warrant termination for the deed, IMO.
Just as the individual who smokes in the Lav can receive a penalty of up to $2,000. It doesn't warrant a "life sentence" in prison.
You guys kill me. As soon as you see that an FAR has been breached, you immediately perceive that to mean "maximum penalty" of death by firing squad.
It doesn't work like this. All FARs are to be enforced, with no exceptions for anyone. No deed goes "unpunished" and no one is advocating no discipline. Their are penalties and consequences for breaking FARs..however, termination for the above citation should not warrant expulsion.
The union will protect these individuals and attempt in every way to lessen the severity of penalty. Period.
ClueByFour
Veteran
To compare this to a passenger smoking in a lav is apples to oranges. A passenger's primary job responsibility is not to ensure flight safety. It's no secret that the FA's job is in fact to ensure the safety of the aircraft and passengers.
Wanton disrespect for that duty deserves termination.
I stipulate that the union has a duty of fair representation. I would submit that a position that willfully violating safety related FARs not warranting termination degrades the professionalism of the modern FA, and therefore sets the group as a whole back the next time contracts are negotiated. If the FA position is ever going to require a license, this won't help that cause one bit.
Wanton disrespect for that duty deserves termination.
I stipulate that the union has a duty of fair representation. I would submit that a position that willfully violating safety related FARs not warranting termination degrades the professionalism of the modern FA, and therefore sets the group as a whole back the next time contracts are negotiated. If the FA position is ever going to require a license, this won't help that cause one bit.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
Many times people may not be aware of the FAR's that they are breaking. I am quite sure they knew this was breaking one. They should know better and need to lead by example. Unfortunatley, they have become the 'example".
Sorry Pitbull...
The Jury has spoken...the verdict is guilty...sentenced to life outside of US Airways with no possibility of parole.
Sorry Pitbull...
The Jury has spoken...the verdict is guilty...sentenced to life outside of US Airways with no possibility of parole.
PITbull
Veteran
Oh please Clue,
You can do better than that. There are police officers, when off duty, speed down the road greater than the speed limit. Or get pulled over for a DUI, and get a suspension. NOT terminated. Happened last year to a police officer in my area.
No matter what profession you are in, folks can use poor judgement at times, doesn't necessarily mean no discipline, but doesn't mean throwing the book at them either.Not every breach of ANY law, deserves MAX penalty of death. You are saying that we deserve "special" discipline because we enforce the FARs. More so than just a Pax. I don't agree with you. Plus, you don't know ALL the details, and I'm not saying on these boards.
Twice baked,
Whose the jury????????
Please don't go there with me. Has nothing to do with duty of representation. It is what the union believes is the right course of action to take.
You can do better than that. There are police officers, when off duty, speed down the road greater than the speed limit. Or get pulled over for a DUI, and get a suspension. NOT terminated. Happened last year to a police officer in my area.
No matter what profession you are in, folks can use poor judgement at times, doesn't necessarily mean no discipline, but doesn't mean throwing the book at them either.Not every breach of ANY law, deserves MAX penalty of death. You are saying that we deserve "special" discipline because we enforce the FARs. More so than just a Pax. I don't agree with you. Plus, you don't know ALL the details, and I'm not saying on these boards.
Twice baked,
Whose the jury????????
Please don't go there with me. Has nothing to do with duty of representation. It is what the union believes is the right course of action to take.
PITbull
Veteran
Bob,
Fibbing??????
If someone was hurt, the answer is no. Again, folks on here don't know the whole truth, but can't wait to pass on "sentence".
Same as the cop. If his DUI resulted in vehiculer homicide, he would be fired and in prison.
Fibbing??????
If someone was hurt, the answer is no. Again, folks on here don't know the whole truth, but can't wait to pass on "sentence".
Same as the cop. If his DUI resulted in vehiculer homicide, he would be fired and in prison.
ClueByFour
Veteran
I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and I am basing my judgement on what I read here.
That said, to defend this type of action still does not do a darned thing to advance the profession. It also sends a message to the traveling public about the AFA's stance on safety--see my example about hitting the lav on climbout above.
Look at some of the public polling numbers regarding the FOP, and you will see why defending stupid actions garners ill will. Further, where I used to live (just over the Butler county border in the mecca of suburban hell) something like this actually happened, and yes, I supported dismissal of the law enforcement personnel who broke the law.
Of course, there is a broader question here, and that's one of judgement. Knowing what I know about the situation, which may or may not be the entire story, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable as a passenger entrusting my safety to anybody in the crew but the guy who actually came forward. Let's face it--any of non-A FAs could have notified the cockpit crew and put a stop to it at any time before the push (since it's not like the door gets shut without an accurate count, last I was told).
That said, to defend this type of action still does not do a darned thing to advance the profession. It also sends a message to the traveling public about the AFA's stance on safety--see my example about hitting the lav on climbout above.
Look at some of the public polling numbers regarding the FOP, and you will see why defending stupid actions garners ill will. Further, where I used to live (just over the Butler county border in the mecca of suburban hell) something like this actually happened, and yes, I supported dismissal of the law enforcement personnel who broke the law.
Of course, there is a broader question here, and that's one of judgement. Knowing what I know about the situation, which may or may not be the entire story, I don't know that I'd feel comfortable as a passenger entrusting my safety to anybody in the crew but the guy who actually came forward. Let's face it--any of non-A FAs could have notified the cockpit crew and put a stop to it at any time before the push (since it's not like the door gets shut without an accurate count, last I was told).
PITbull
Veteran
Clue,
Before you start spounting about FAA requiring an exact count before door closure, please pull the reg.
We do agree on one thing, you do not know the entire story.
Before you start spounting about FAA requiring an exact count before door closure, please pull the reg.
We do agree on one thing, you do not know the entire story.
I've read the above posts with a great deal of dismay, as many of the flight attendants on this crew are personal/professional friends of mine, with whom I've had the good fortune of flying with over the years, and from whom I've learned a tremendous amount in providing superior passenger service, compliance with FARs, and crew resource management.
Although the appropriate discipline for the infraction is at contention, and the circumstances of the flight are not particularly accurate as posted on this forum, please keep in mind that these flight attendants have years of exemplary service to US Airways and the customers that we serve. This was most definitely a "worst case scenario" in terms of poor judgement at the time a critical decision needed to be made. A "human" error made under a very unusual and stressful moment and set of circumstances.
Although the appropriate discipline for the infraction is at contention, and the circumstances of the flight are not particularly accurate as posted on this forum, please keep in mind that these flight attendants have years of exemplary service to US Airways and the customers that we serve. This was most definitely a "worst case scenario" in terms of poor judgement at the time a critical decision needed to be made. A "human" error made under a very unusual and stressful moment and set of circumstances.
