DL lets minor fly with no ticket alone.

[WorldTraveler]

thanks; just thought I would let you know that I really can have a canned message ready to launch just waiting for the right moment.

yeah, strategic partnerships are formed based on the ability to advance mutual agendas.... hardly a concept that Josh and I have just figured out. When others fail to deliver, new opportunities arise.

There is harmony in the message that labor can succeed in America but, well as you note, it can't get its "stuff" together so continues to slide backward.

 

[737823]

Where'd I say that? Oh, that's right- I didn't.

Stop misquoting me and/or putting words in my mouth.

Don't have time to search right now, but pretty sure you have said that much, that if the process is followed the company CAN terminate with just cause.

Josh

 

[LD3]

Does MSP have video in the gate areas?

 

[700UW]

The company can and has terminated unionized employees. If the company doesn't follow just cause the employee will be able to grieve the firing and win.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I believe WN just terminated a unionized pilot for reasons that are not publicly known so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a unionized employee can be terminated.

At the same time, there is no evidence that non-union employees are any more vulnerable to termination even if some people here want to try to convince people otherwise.

There are cameras everywhere in the developed world and certainly at the security checkpoints. You can bet your bottom dollar that the TSA has reviewed that tape and figured out how the kid managed to get thru security w/o a boarding pass check. If there aren't cameras aimed toward the boarding door of aircraft now, it is probably pretty certain that there will be before long.

Again, the theme seems to be that you had a very creative if not criminal kid who was very adept at busting thru all levels of security in a way and with a brazenness that most adults wouldn't have tried. The fact that he is a kid lowered the guard of adults that most certainly would have been more attentive to adults.

The child took away the childhood innocence from a lot of other kids.

BTW, the kid already has a rap sheet including car theft (yes, car theft for a 9 year old) and the eyes of child protective services. Mother works at MSP.
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/226834781.html

and yes there is video showing the kid boarding the aircraft.

 

[Kev3188]

The company can and has terminated unionized employees. If the company doesn't follow just cause the employee will be able to grieve the firing and win.

...An option this employee (or employees) won't have, should DL decide to get rid of them- cameras or not.

BTW, the kid already has a rap sheet including car theft (yes, car theft for a 9 year old) and the eyes of child protective services. Mother works at MSP.

Ah. So the working theme now is to dismiss this kid as a common criminal?

 

[jimntx]

Ah. So the working theme now is to dismiss this kid as a common criminal?

Kevin, this is an unfair comment. If the kid has a rap sheet, he has a rap sheet. That is a piece of information that can not be ignored. What the kid did broke the law. The fact that he has a history of breaking the law tells us something.

The fact that the mother works at MSP may be the most interesting piece of this emerging story. If it turns out to be one of those "I had no child care today; so I had to bring him with me to work" stories, it will end up hurting other single parents (assuming she is a single parent) who might need to bring a child to work for whatever reason.

 

[Kev3188]

Not unfair at all.

Instead of asking the tougher questions (why was he running? How'd he game the system? Was this a kid care issue gone wrong?) it's much easier to simply dismiss it-and him- as a criminal issue.

WT has already noted that he "may" have stiffed a restaurant, and that he has a rap sheet. It all sets up an easy story to tell, and makes us feel better while ignoring the root cause(s). That's not a slam on WT- we as a society do it all the time. He's simply presenting symptoms of a much larger problem.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you, Kev, for your words.

There may be societal issues involved but that is not likely the primary interest of DL or the aviation industry, including MSP airport. There are societal resources that should be brought to bear to address those situations.

I am certainly not hiding behind any excuses as to how this happened... but understanding the context does say that a 9 year car thief is not common.

A kid got thru security, perhaps because his mother managed to get him thru an employee entrance.... that has bad implications for airline employees who take their kids to see what mommy-daddy does at work.

A kid got onto a plane when the agent was distracted, apparently caught on video. that has implications for potential new boarding procedures and technology - perhaps as in some of the European and Asian airports - that will add cost to US airlines if they become required.


The solution is to fix the holes in the system thru which this kid was able to get onto a plane while recognizing that he isn't the norm but he also managed to find the weak links in the system.

The fact that he is a criminal makes the incident all the more disturbing in the potential that something worse could have gone wrong.

The kid and his mother apparently broke the trust of a system... the implications for the security of American aviation are real.

If you are believing there are larger issues than that, I'd like to hear them.

 

[Airlinelifer]

I believe WN just terminated a unionized pilot for reasons that are not publicly known can beso it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a unionized employee terminated.

At the same time, there is no evidence that non-union employees are any more vulnerable to termination even if some people here want to try to convince people otherwise.

There are cameras everywhere in the developed world and certainly at the security checkpoints. You can bet your bottom dollar that the TSA has reviewed that tape and figured out how the kid managed to get thru security w/o a boarding pass check. If there aren't cameras aimed toward the boarding door of aircraft now, it is probably pretty certain that there will be before long.

Again, the theme seems to be that you had a very creative if not criminal kid who was very adept at busting thru all levels of security in a way and with a brazenness that most adults wouldn't have tried. The fact that he is a kid lowered the guard of adults that most certainly would have been more attentive to adults.

The child took away the childhood innocence from a lot of other kids.

BTW, the kid already has a rap sheet including car theft (yes, car theft for a 9 year old) and the eyes of child protective services. Mother works at MSP.
http://www.startribu.../226834781.html

and yes there is video showing the kid boarding the aircraft.

"it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a union employee can be terminated" Your post about a unionized employee and being terminated are hopefully an attempt at sarcasm. FYI, union and non union employees get fired every single day. When the yearly IAM seniority list was sent to every station, the last page was reserved for those that were terminated. It would list their name, station, position and reason for being terminated. Attendance, fighting, stealing, drug trafficking, sexual harrasment, lying during a Q & A (disciplanary investigation) were among the reasons for dismissal. If the termination was unwarranted, the union would follow the steps to dispute the termination and get the employee back to work with backpay.

While others were beyond help.

PS Is Delta's policy of indefinite suspension something you supported?

 

[Kev3188]

+1. I'd also add that those people all had the right of due process, the right to face their accusers, present witnesses on their behalf, and have either a union rep or other coworker in the room w/them at all times.

None of which is available to us now as at will employees.

Oh yeah, at DL it's also an unpaid indefinite suspension...

 

[WorldTraveler]

lifer,
I am not sure I see anything sarcastic about what I have written because we agree that union or non-union status makes no difference given that there are "bad apples" in any company and it isn't worth the company or the union's effort to not deal with those problems when they have the potential to hurt everyone else involved.

While DL might technically allow unpaid suspension, I want you to tell me how many people are really subjected to it for grounds that a union could win if it took the case.
The cases I have heard that involved lengthy unpaid suspension are precisely the types of cases that you cite above as ones that unions couldn't win and really don't want to touch.

If you can give us a real-life example (obviously anonymously) of a case that differed, I'd like to hear it.

Kev,
I'm not interested in getting into another heated and lengthy debate and we have discussed the subject before but DL does have a peer appeal process.

And, again, if DL employees really believed that they were being short-changed because of DL's employee policies, they should vote a union in. They obviously don't see DL's policies as a threat or there aren't enough of them that are willing to seek representation to make it happen.

And there are certainly some things that a union might do differently - and perhaps better - than DL's policies - but you can't choose to be represented on just a few issues. You either are represented for all issues or not at all. For the vast majority of employees, DL's higher pay rates and often better leave policies (remember that we have determined that PPT really can be added time off for employees who have limited use of sick time) are more important than a few policy changes that will affect at best a very small portion of the employee population.

 

[Kev3188]

While DL might technically allow unpaid suspension, I want you to tell me how many people are really subjected to it for grounds that a union could win if it took the case.

*All* suspensions are unpaid. Whether or not the case is "winnable" is a separate issue. Even if a person is wrongly accused and returned to work, DL does not reimburse them.

I'm not interested in getting into another heated and lengthy debate and we have discussed the subject before but DL does have a peer appeal process.

...And the company also still has the ultimate authority in making a decision- up to/including overriding the panel's decision.

It's a farce, and one designed explicitly to delude people into a false sense of empowerment.

And there are certainly some things that a union might do differently - and perhaps better - than DL's policies - but you can't choose to be represented on just a few issues.

You can if the "issues" are overarching themes like equality, fairness, & consistent application of policy/procedure.

You either are represented for all issues or not at all. For the vast majority of employees, DL's higher pay rates and often better leave policies (remember that we have determined that PPT really can be added time off for employees who have limited use of sick time) are more important than a few policy changes that will affect at best a very small portion of the employee population.

You imply that by being represented people would lose those things. Status quo is the starting point. Besides, in my experience, the things (or what would become articles) that resonate most with workers here are non-economic issues.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You imply that by being represented people would lose those things. Status quo is the starting point. Besides, in my experience, the things (or what would become articles) that resonate most with workers here are non-economic issues.

well, duh, DL employees shun representation because they WOULD lose something.... if DL employees believed that calling in a union was all gain, they would have done it a long time ago.

You continue to push the "it's about non-economic issues" to try to make a case for representation that overlooks the largest and most obvious parts of the employment package.

If DL non-pilot employees (in general terms) thought they would gain something more than what they have with representation, they would ditch the decades-long relationship they have had with management. But they not only consistently but overwhelmingly have rejected any changes and have not chosen to install labor unions which have been ineffective at increasing pay and benefit or job security above DL employee levels on a long-term basis.

 

[Kev3188]

well, duh, DL employees shun representation because they WOULD lose something.... if DL employees believed that calling in a union was all gain, they would have done it a long time ago.

Besides the vaunted "direct relationship" what do you think people would lose?

Are you implying that the company would negotiate in bad faith? That they would somehow "punish" (my term) employees for choosing to be represented?

The truth is, DL is very good at using the Fear of Loss tactic with its employees. It's an almost constant theme in their messaging, and arguably the largest hurdle activists face. The fact that you buy into it several years after leaving the firm is testament to its effectiveness...