AA/APFA Attendance Agreement

[Garfield1966]

garfield, In all fairness though you get part of the day off with your family. Crew members are many times gone before and return after the holiday.

Actually no. I am here in Texas and my family is in a different state over 2,000 miles away. I do not get to spend the day with them. We have the holiday when I have time off.

That is not the point. The point is I knew going onto this job that vacations, days off... etc were all bid by seniority. I knew it could be along time before I could get it off. It is not like you became a FA and all of a sudden they said ... "oh, guess what we are going to do...."

It was known going in. There were no surprises, if someone did not like the idea, then they could get a different job.

 

[operaations]

Actually no. I am here in Texas and my family is in a different state over 2,000 miles away. I do not get to spend the day with them. We have the holiday when I have time off.

That is not the point. The point is I knew going onto this job that vacations, days off... etc were all bid by seniority. I knew it could be along time before I could get it off. It is not like you became a FA and all of a sudden they said ... "oh, guess what we are going to do...."

It was known going in. There were no surprises, if someone did not like the idea, then they could get a different job.

I tell my self every year not to comment on this topic, becasue nothing will change. We will still have the people who think they are entitled to have the holidays off even if it means calling in sick when not sick. It does not matter what they said in an interview about working nights weekends and holidays. You say what the employer wants to hear get the job and than do as you feel.

It is like a drug I am here once again posting about the sick abuse when nothing will ever change. At least not until management finds a sick policy that works and Unions stop fighting for the people that abuse.

 

[jimntx]

It is like a drug I am here once again posting about the sick abuse when nothing will ever change. At least not until management finds a sick policy that works and Unions stop fighting for the people that abuse.

There is no sick policy that "works" in any company--if you mean people would stop abusing the use of sick leave. The key is management has to be willing to fire people who abuse the policy and stick to their guns. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. At Texaco, those of us like you who were on salary did not have sick leave per se. We were simply told, "if you are sick, do not come to work and give it to your co-workers." However, if you were always sick on holidays (if you were scheduled to work), or you had "stomach flu" frequently on Mondays and Fridays, the company would make you available to the wider job market without thinking twice about it. And, they would dare you to fight your termination, because they would have your absences and your "pattern of behavior" very carefully documented along with the counseling sessions that your supervisor was required to have with you when your "pattern" first became apparent.

The union does not have unlimited financial resources. If the company is willing to fight the union on these issues, the union will realign its priorities to protecting the jobs of people who have been unfairly treated by the company and situations where the contract has been violated--not the people who have no business being on airplanes or who do not deserve to keep their jobs.

I wonder if the company has ever done a cost-benefit study of fighting for the termination of abusers vs. allowing them to continue their behavior and causing problems for their co-workers.

 

[operaations]

There is no sick policy that "works" in any company--if you mean people would stop abusing the use of sick leave. The key is management has to be willing to fire people who abuse the policy and stick to their guns. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. At Texaco, those of us like you who were on salary did not have sick leave per se. We were simply told, "if you are sick, do not come to work and give it to your co-workers." However, if you were always sick on holidays (if you were scheduled to work), or you had "stomach flu" frequently on Mondays and Fridays, the company would make you available to the wider job market without thinking twice about it. And, they would dare you to fight your termination, because they would have your absences and your "pattern of behavior" very carefully documented along with the counseling sessions that your supervisor was required to have with you when your "pattern" first became apparent.

The union does not have unlimited financial resources. If the company is willing to fight the union on these issues, the union will realign its priorities to protecting the jobs of people who have been unfairly treated by the company and situations where the contract has been violated--not the people who have no business being on airplanes or who do not deserve to keep their jobs.

I wonder if the company has ever done a cost-benefit study of fighting for the termination of abusers vs. allowing them to continue their behavior and causing problems for their co-workers.


well said ...the company needs to have the nerve and balls to document and go aftger the abusers. If they dont it will never end

 

[eolesen]

There is no sick policy that "works" in any company--if you mean people would stop abusing the use of sick leave.

There is one policy I've seen that works --- eliminating sick and vacation as separate entitlements, and combining them under "paid time off".

Essentially, with PTO (and no, I'm not referring to the scab) you start out with three or four weeks of paid time off, increasing by X weeks based on years of service.

If you're sick a lot, the tradeoff is that you don't get as much paid time off for vacations. Sucks to be you if that happens, but in the end, the company is expecting you to actually perform 47 or 48 weeks of work.

Most of the policies I've looked at allow employees to bank time for use in an extended illness, and the language defining what qualifies as an extended illness protects against someone gaming the system a lot better than the AA policies ever did.

 

[Bob Owens]

With that kind of attitude I find it hard that you could be charitable to anyone at anytime.

Garfield is just stating a fact. During the Holidays the sick list jumps through the roof. No one knows whos is actually sick or who is not sick. It is just frustrating trying to help put a full compliment of F?A on a flight and going out short because a shortage of flight attendants. If that shortage is due to not recalling or to unexplained rise in sick calls I dont know But it is frustrating on all ends.

Why should you be fustrated? You should be glad that anybody shows up. Sure we all knew we would be working holidays when we started this job but in exchange we were well paid for those holidays and had a lot of other perks that are long gone. Now they want us to work for half pay on the holiday and take a financial hit. If you call in sick on a holiday you get eight hours pay to stay home like everyone else, if you go in and work the eight hours you only get 4 hours more pay. Its unrealistic for the company to expect the same dedication when they have changed the deal. I hope every FA out there calls in sick on the holiday then there is no chance that the company will try and force OT since there wouldnt be any flights.

There is one policy I've seen that works --- eliminating sick and vacation as separate entitlements, and combining them under "paid time off".

Essentially, with PTO (and no, I'm not referring to the scab) you start out with three or four weeks of paid time off, increasing by X weeks based on years of service.

If you're sick a lot, the tradeoff is that you don't get as much paid time off for vacations. Sucks to be you if that happens, but in the end, the company is expecting you to actually perform 47 or 48 weeks of work.

Most of the policies I've looked at allow employees to bank time for use in an extended illness, and the language defining what qualifies as an extended illness protects against someone gaming the system a lot better than the AA policies ever did.

Starting off with three or four weeks off? Wow, then we would be like most other workers in this country that start with two weeks plus 10 holidays (in other words 20 paid days off or 4 weeks). At AA you start with one week, 5 whole days after the first year, then they actually complain when workers call in sick!!

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Why should you be fustrated? You should be glad that anybody shows up. Sure we all knew we would be working holidays when we started this job but in exchange we were well paid for those holidays and had a lot of other perks that are long gone. Now they want us to work for half pay on the holiday and take a financial hit. If you call in sick on a holiday you get eight hours pay to stay home like everyone else, if you go in and work the eight hours you only get 4 hours more pay. Its unrealistic for the company to expect the same dedication when they have changed the deal. I hope every FA out there calls in sick on the holiday then there is no chance that the company will try and force OT since there wouldnt be any flights.

Ditto

😉

 

[FA Mikey]

Why should you be fustrated? You should be glad that anybody shows up. Sure we all knew we would be working holidays when we started this job but in exchange we were well paid for those holidays and had a lot of other perks that are long gone. Now they want us to work for half pay on the holiday and take a financial hit. If you call in sick on a holiday you get eight hours pay to stay home like everyone else, if you go in and work the eight hours you only get 4 hours more pay. Its unrealistic for the company to expect the same dedication when they have changed the deal. I hope every FA out there calls in sick on the holiday then there is no chance that the company will try and force OT since there wouldnt be any flights.

Maybe the case for FSC, but the FA's didnt ever get double time for holidays. They didnt lose anything there. Its unrealistic that everyone will call in sick, so it will be the case of the same people working covering short staffed for the ones who think they are entitled.

 

[Garfield1966]

I don’t know about the other work groups but I was working for Crew Skd when profit sharing checks were still being given out and they FA sick list still toped 10% every year.

Like Mike said, those who show up have to cover for the same POS slackers every year. I have to reassign people who are on a 2 day to a 3 or 4 day so some POS slacker can stay home like they do every year. I go home after 8 hours. Does not matter to me if I cover 1 flight or 30. I am guessing it does matter to Mike, Jim and the rest of the folks who show up.

 

[jimntx]

There is one policy I've seen that works --- eliminating sick and vacation as separate entitlements, and combining them under "paid time off".

Essentially, with PTO (and no, I'm not referring to the scab) you start out with three or four weeks of paid time off, increasing by X weeks based on years of service.

Unfortunately, could not be implemented with f/as because both vacation and sick leave are contractual issues. The company can not unilaterally change these.

Why should you be fustrated? You should be glad that anybody shows up. Sure we all knew we would be working holidays when we started this job but in exchange we were well paid for those holidays and had a lot of other perks that are long gone. Its unrealistic for the company to expect the same dedication when they have changed the deal. I hope every FA out there calls in sick on the holiday then there is no chance that the company will try and force OT since there wouldnt be any flights.

Excuse me, but the current vacation schedule was "negotiated" by the vaunted APFA and the RPA was approved by a majority of those f/as who bothered to vote. And, since the RPA passed, the f/as can be expected to abide by it. The company didn't change anything that the f/as didn't vote for.

Starting off with three or four weeks off? Wow, then we would be like most other workers in this country that start with two weeks plus 10 holidays (in other words 20 paid days off or 4 weeks). At AA you start with one week, 5 whole days after the first year, then they actually complain when workers call in sick!!

Actually, among f/as those of us with less than 5 years get 9 days vacation which is 1 day less than we got before the RPA. Where do you get this one week stuff? Beside that, when you are hired at AA they go over the benefits on your first day on the job. If your group gets 5 days vacation and you took the job anyway that does NOT entitle you to then call in sick to stretch your time off.

 

[nbmcg01]

Unfortunately, could not be implemented with f/as because both vacation and sick leave are contractual issues. The company can not unilaterally change these.
Excuse me, but the current vacation schedule was "negotiated" by the vaunted APFA and the RPA was approved by a majority of those f/as who bothered to vote. And, since the RPA passed, the f/as can be expected to abide by it. The company didn't change anything that the f/as didn't vote for.

Actually, among f/as those of us with less than 5 years get 9 days vacation which is 1 day less than we got before the RPA. Where do you get this one week stuff? Beside that, when you are hired at AA they go over the benefits on your first day on the job. If your group gets 5 days vacation and you took the job anyway that does NOT entitle you to then call in sick to stretch your time off.

Point of order...The f/as didn't vote yes on the RPA. The Co and JW agreed to reopen the voting after a clear NO vote and only allowed yes votes in the extended vote. Things that make you go hummmmmmm.

 

[jimntx]

Point of order...The f/as didn't vote yes on the RPA. The Co and JW agreed to reopen the voting after a clear NO vote and only allowed yes votes in the extended vote. Things that make you go hummmmmmm.

However, no court has ever said that what was done was wrong. So, the vote stands. I know the history. I was there, too. And, I voted NO and didn't change it.

The reality is I ended up with a paycut followed 3 months later by a 17-month furlough. And, people I respect highly are still on furlough. Is that what I wanted? Well, no. But then, I have to deal with things as they are, not as I would wish them to be.

And, whether or not the vote was legal still does not give any f/a the "right" to call in sick when they are not sick and create situations where their co-workers get reassigned and miss their own time at home with their families. It's selfish and incredibly childish.

By the way, as near as I can tell, the final decision on the FMLA Presidential grievance was pretty much a "shock and awe" win for the company. There were a couple of minor concessions to the APFA, but over all and for the future, the company was found to be in the right. So, if you were thinking of asking your Doctor to write a note that you can't fly because you chipped the polish on your new manicure, I would think twice about that.

 

[operaations]

Point of order...The f/as didn't vote yes on the RPA. The Co and JW agreed to reopen the voting after a clear NO vote and only allowed yes votes in the extended vote. Things that make you go hummmmmmm.

just curious....when a group democratically elects a person to the position of Union President doesnt that mean that put their trust in him to make decisions for what is right for the Flight Attendant work group.

Or did you not vote in JW?

 

[jimntx]

just curious....when a group democratically elects a person to the position of Union President doesnt that mean that put their trust in him to make decisions for what is right for the Flight Attendant work group.

Or did you not vote in JW?

Oh, me, me!!! Let me answer, teacher...

NBMCG01 was formerly a TW f/a. She did not get a vote on JW. He was elected in 2001(?). And, no the union president is not free to do whatever he "thinks" is right for the f/a group. He can propose. He can negotiate with the company. He can advocate for a particular outcome.

But...when it comes to contractual issues, the president can not make any final decisions that are binding on the entire f/a corps. The f/as must vote on any new contract or modification to the existing contract. That's why when the negotiation team comes to agreement, it is called a TA (tentative agreement).

That is also why I advisedly used the phrase, "the f/as who bothered to vote." JW was elected by a majority of those who voted, but IIRC less than half of the almost 24,000 (at that time) AA f/as even voted. If you will remember, the election that JW won that N got to vote in was overturned by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Participatory democracy is not the strong suit of the average AA f/a. They don't involve themselves in union elections. They do, however, reserve the right to b*tch about the results. Hey, now that I think about it...they're just average Americans. 😛

 

[nbmcg01]

Oh, me, me!!! Let me answer, teacher...

NBMCG01 was formerly a TW f/a. She did not get a vote on JW. He was elected in 2001(?). And, no the union president is not free to do whatever he "thinks" is right for the f/a group. He can propose. He can negotiate with the company. He can advocate for a particular outcome.

But...when it comes to contractual issues, the president can not make any final decisions that are binding on the entire f/a corps. The f/as must vote on any new contract or modification to the existing contract. That's why when the negotiation team comes to agreement, it is called a TA (tentative agreement).

That is also why I advisedly used the phrase, "the f/as who bothered to vote." JW was elected by a majority of those who voted, but IIRC less than half of the almost 24,000 (at that time) AA f/as even voted. If you will remember, the election that JW won that N got to vote in was overturned by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Participatory democracy is not the strong suit of the average AA f/a. They don't involve themselves in union elections. They do, however, reserve the right to b*tch about the results. Hey, now that I think about it...they're just average Americans. 😛

Yeah, what he said.....