2BlacknBlue
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 47
http://www.startribune.com/business/140349533.html
Delta's use of temps worries full-timers
- Thread starter 2BlacknBlue
- Start date
File a grievance. :unsure:
2BlacknBlue
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 47
Who do I turn the grievance in to, Mrs. Direct Relationship or Mr. Open Door Policy? lol
Kev3188
Veteran
BTW, 2 of the employees quoted in that article were brought in by MSP mgmt. and "reminded" of DL's social media policy.
I Nothing like a little bit of intimidation/making examples out of dissenters to quash the rabble...
I Nothing like a little bit of intimidation/making examples out of dissenters to quash the rabble...
I was wondering about that when I saw Kip Hedges' name (former union rep) in the article.
The widget has ways of taking care of those things.
southwind
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,709
- Reaction score
- 3,928
Hmm.......noticed the only ones making an issue of this are "Former" union members who are wanting another union vote !
If Delta wanted to replace all full time employees with temps, why in the hell would they offer full time jobs to temps ?
http://www.startribune.com/business/140349533.html
"From November 2008 to the end of 2011, more than 2,700 Ready Reserves were hired full time nationwide, Durrant said. Delta hired 52 Ready Reserves into full-time jobs at MSP last year."
You guys still jonesing for a union?
If Delta wanted to replace all full time employees with temps, why in the hell would they offer full time jobs to temps ?
http://www.startribune.com/business/140349533.html
"From November 2008 to the end of 2011, more than 2,700 Ready Reserves were hired full time nationwide, Durrant said. Delta hired 52 Ready Reserves into full-time jobs at MSP last year."
You guys still jonesing for a union?
Kev3188
Veteran
The number of RR's offered FT spots pales in comparison to the number of FT people backfilled with RR's.
I realize it's easier for you to just parrot the company line, but the question you *should* be asking is why does the company finds these employees' comments to a reporter to be an issue?
I realize it's easier for you to just parrot the company line, but the question you *should* be asking is why does the company finds these employees' comments to a reporter to be an issue?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
because DL has a media policy that does not allow DL employees for WHATEVER reason to talk to the media and has had it for years.... even if it is a positive comment, DL employees have known they do not have the right to represent DL. There is a department whose job it is to do that.
There are thousands of companies who have media and social media policies.... bottom line is that employees have a defined responsibility within a company and employees are not free while earning a company paycheck or in any way representing the company to advance personal agendas.
.
as for RR to FT conversions, the legitimate question is how many FT personnel have been laid off as the company has pursued its ongoing cost-cutting agenda. It isn't surprising when companies get into financial trouble and must implement draconian measures but some believe they should not be allowed to evolve the business model while still protecting current employees.
DL's business model has long succeeded where others in the airline industry have failed because DL has a far greater ability to make ongoing changes to minimize the large scale changes that are the norm in the rest of the industry.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
because DL has a media policy that does not allow DL employees for WHATEVER reason to talk to the media and has had it for years.... even if it is a positive comment, DL employees have known they do not have the right to represent DL. There is a department whose job it is to do that.
There are thousands of companies who have media and social media policies.... bottom line is that employees have a defined responsibility within a company and employees are not free while earning a company paycheck or in any way representing the company to advance personal agendas.
Kev3188
Veteran
Where in that article do you see someone claiming to "represent" DL? They were asked some questions by the press, and answered truthfully, with their own opinions.
Your attempt to deflect is duly noted.
Short answer: More than the "zero" they claimed would occur.
Longer answer: No, the *legitimate* question is still this: why would the company feel the need to make examples out of these 2 employees? After all, it's clear that the social media policy was not violated by either of them.
What's the underlying intent there, and what's the tacit message the company is sending?
I agree 100% with you. Stop whinning and file a griev. What's so hard about that? <_< You know, you guys would have control of that issue as well as many, many others if you all would voted in a union. 😱
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
No deflection, Kev. I just am not choosing to respond to SW’s assertion that the “interview” was driven by a desire to bring the labor issue before the media in an attempt to lobby for another vote… maybe, maybe not…. It would be a leap of logic to say that, something I won’t do.
.
The fact is that DL has a media and social media policy and no one was singled out in this incident any more than other people who have spoken to the media about other issues. The right of companies to limit their employees’ speech is established under the principles of employee-agent. Employers take responsibility for the actions of their employees – just as much as AA takes responsibility for the outburst that occurred on one of their aircraft by one of their employees. Employers have the right to limit what you can say as an employee, including while in their uniform, on their property, or on their payroll. Companies build brand equity and have the right to defend how their brand is portrayed, including how the company is portrayed in crisis.
Apparently the majority of DL employees do not believe that having a company-imposed media policy is too great of a price to pay for the privilege of not having union representation, swamt.
.
Trying to reduce the discussion to a “they are picking on the union effort” misses the fact – easily defensible – that DL has invoked its media and social media policies for decades, in fact far longer than the 30 years that the ready reserve program has been in place, a fact that the MSP newspaper did note.
.
The fact is that DL has a media and social media policy and no one was singled out in this incident any more than other people who have spoken to the media about other issues. The right of companies to limit their employees’ speech is established under the principles of employee-agent. Employers take responsibility for the actions of their employees – just as much as AA takes responsibility for the outburst that occurred on one of their aircraft by one of their employees. Employers have the right to limit what you can say as an employee, including while in their uniform, on their property, or on their payroll. Companies build brand equity and have the right to defend how their brand is portrayed, including how the company is portrayed in crisis.
Apparently the majority of DL employees do not believe that having a company-imposed media policy is too great of a price to pay for the privilege of not having union representation, swamt.
.
Trying to reduce the discussion to a “they are picking on the union effort” misses the fact – easily defensible – that DL has invoked its media and social media policies for decades, in fact far longer than the 30 years that the ready reserve program has been in place, a fact that the MSP newspaper did note.
Kev3188
Veteran
I am constantly amazed-and disappointed- at how willingly you abdicate your ability to critically think in order to keep pushing the "Delta uber alles" narrative.
You continue to miss the point. No, it's not about union vs. non; that's simply as far as SW's intellectual capacity can take him. The more crucial issue lies in the company's reaction to employees speaking with a reporter. Why are they so afraid of speaking truth to power? What was the underlying intent in bringing these employees in to "remind" them of the policies?
*That's* where the whole truth lies...
You continue to miss the point. No, it's not about union vs. non; that's simply as far as SW's intellectual capacity can take him. The more crucial issue lies in the company's reaction to employees speaking with a reporter. Why are they so afraid of speaking truth to power? What was the underlying intent in bringing these employees in to "remind" them of the policies?
*That's* where the whole truth lies...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
I'm sorry that you are disappointed... but perhaps you would not be as disappointed if you could accept that other people haven't checked their brains or their ability to critically think just because they have figured out how to live and win within established structures.
.
The issue IS - plain and simple - that DL has had both a ready reserve system and a media policy that dates back to when you were a young lad - or BEFORE - and there are plenty of DL people who have figured out how to achieve what they want by working within those realities.
.
There have indeed been DL people at one time or another who managed to forget about the media policy and share their thoughts on one topic or another when DL has explicitly said that only Corporate Communications and authorized executives are permitted to speak to the media and DL has spoken out just as firmly in situations that had nothing to do with issues like labor that matter to you. Other employers have done the same thing on issues which matter to them.
.
DL along with many other companies have policies over employee communications and they have the legally protected right to enforce those policies.
.
There is nothing sinister about the fact that they don't allow employees to make unauthorized statements to the media - and they aren't hiding anything.
If you or others want the freedom to speak, do it as a private citizen apart from your connection to any organization. There would have been no case if the newspaper had quoted Mr. XYZ, resident of townsville, MN and maybe former labor leader (if he is) or labor educator (if he is) express his concern about the reduced number of full-time jobs even at Delta Air Lines in MSP. (even if everyone knows that he is a DL employee but one who did not happen to speak in that capacity)
.
However the article got started (did the employees call the newspaper wanting to tell them about information the newspaper wouldn't have otherwise known or did they just happen to be around and make themselves available when reporters started asking questions?), those employees were in the midst of a discussion with the press they should not have been in given DL's media policy which makes no distinction about the subjects involved. Given that most US media these days ask for written authorization to quote and/or photograph you - there was plenty of opportunity to back out if they found out they were talking w/ a reporter who was going to write a story in which their names might appear.
.
I understand the frustration you and others have with the way the DL-NW merger has worked out for labor but that doesn't change the fact that those who want to continue to draw a paycheck from DL have to be willing to play by DL's rules. . There is no head-checking involved in understanding the world in which any of us lives in or in figuring out how to survive and thrive in a world that isn't necessarily everything any of us want it to be.
.
No, it's not Delta uber alles. It simply is that DL is succeeding at what it does in an industry where success is fleeting and not terribly common. It doesn't need to adjust what it does in order to satisfy a dissonant minority. Realistically, it won't.
.
The issue IS - plain and simple - that DL has had both a ready reserve system and a media policy that dates back to when you were a young lad - or BEFORE - and there are plenty of DL people who have figured out how to achieve what they want by working within those realities.
.
There have indeed been DL people at one time or another who managed to forget about the media policy and share their thoughts on one topic or another when DL has explicitly said that only Corporate Communications and authorized executives are permitted to speak to the media and DL has spoken out just as firmly in situations that had nothing to do with issues like labor that matter to you. Other employers have done the same thing on issues which matter to them.
.
DL along with many other companies have policies over employee communications and they have the legally protected right to enforce those policies.
.
There is nothing sinister about the fact that they don't allow employees to make unauthorized statements to the media - and they aren't hiding anything.
If you or others want the freedom to speak, do it as a private citizen apart from your connection to any organization. There would have been no case if the newspaper had quoted Mr. XYZ, resident of townsville, MN and maybe former labor leader (if he is) or labor educator (if he is) express his concern about the reduced number of full-time jobs even at Delta Air Lines in MSP. (even if everyone knows that he is a DL employee but one who did not happen to speak in that capacity)
.
However the article got started (did the employees call the newspaper wanting to tell them about information the newspaper wouldn't have otherwise known or did they just happen to be around and make themselves available when reporters started asking questions?), those employees were in the midst of a discussion with the press they should not have been in given DL's media policy which makes no distinction about the subjects involved. Given that most US media these days ask for written authorization to quote and/or photograph you - there was plenty of opportunity to back out if they found out they were talking w/ a reporter who was going to write a story in which their names might appear.
.
I understand the frustration you and others have with the way the DL-NW merger has worked out for labor but that doesn't change the fact that those who want to continue to draw a paycheck from DL have to be willing to play by DL's rules. . There is no head-checking involved in understanding the world in which any of us lives in or in figuring out how to survive and thrive in a world that isn't necessarily everything any of us want it to be.
.
No, it's not Delta uber alles. It simply is that DL is succeeding at what it does in an industry where success is fleeting and not terribly common. It doesn't need to adjust what it does in order to satisfy a dissonant minority. Realistically, it won't.
Kev3188
Veteran
You are advocating a system of servility. If that's the life you choose to live, have at it.
P.S. You've been gone from the company for awhile now; it's okay to be the first one to stop clapping once in awhile.
P.S. You've been gone from the company for awhile now; it's okay to be the first one to stop clapping once in awhile.
Similar threads
