False accusation, threat, harassment

[Hackman]

Bluster all you want to about Rule 32, but the goal isn't to fire everyone who hurts someone else's feelings. It's to make sure people aren't being targeted or harassed because of their race, sex, religion, or sexual preference. At least that's what I learned in Rule 32 class a few years back.

Threatening an employee isn't as simple "I'm going to get you" -- it's more along the lines of "if I had a gun, I'd blow your f***in Dago head off" or "Hey, faggot, I'm going to kick the sh*t out of you after work" or leaving a noose in a mechanic's locker.

And the shop steward knows that.

If he's truly an idiot, he'll do something else. Build a case. If you go for the throat now, and lose in arbitration (likely given that it's heresay), the next time the CSM does something really stupid, he'll be the one claiming harassment and false accusation...

Well Eric, maybe that was the intent of Rule 32, but it has turned into so much more of a clusterf*ck than you can imagine. HR and manAAgement use it as a tool to harrass, intimidate, write-up, and yes......even terminate anyone they wish to twist the knife into. Rule 32 costs the company much more than it saves.

Want a few real examples? Sure:

1. HR terminated two employees for using "shop talk", one permenantly. Two friends digging on each other at work, you know, guy sh*t. Well somebody didn't like the terminology, and heard the conversation in passing, was not even involved, and cried Rule 32. The employees were friends, and stated they have been digging on each other for years. Did it matter? Of course not.

2. HR terminated an employee for wearing a T-shirt with a list of the twu 2003 Industry Leading Concessions. Nothing derogatory, but some whiney POS didn't like it and cried Rule 32. Terminated for 18 months. Had to fight big gun HR with a very expensive outside attorney, who won the case hands down, even though HR lied their ass off to keep the employee out for good. Arbitrator told the company attorney to settle, yet they pressed on and wasted well over a hundred thousand dollars in the futile attempt to make the charges stick. Fu*king stupid!!!!

3. Two employees walked out for two weeks, then issued advisories and threatened by HR for having an mild arguement with their elected union officals. This is a contractually protected right, but since Rule 32 was used, nope.... no dice.

I have many more examples that were actual blatant Rule 32 violations. However, these cases went the opposite way, where no action by the company took place. Why you ask? Very simply they were members of management or "Company Suckups" of whom the company and HR wish to protect.

So ole, maybe in your former perfect AA manAAgement world Rule 32 works as you stated. However, you've not a clue how it works or doesn't work overhere. It's about as sick and twisted as a corporation could let it get. Then again, that's how they like it, right? :down:

BTW, "I'm going to get you" is a threat sir. It could be taken as a life threatening threat. Say it to a police officer the next time you get pulled over and see what happens.

 

[nbmcg01]

Well Eric, maybe that was the intent of Rule 32, but it has turned into so much more of a clusterf*ck than you can imagine. HR and manAAgement use it as a tool to harrass, intimidate, write-up, and yes......even terminate anyone they wish to twist the knife into. Rule 32 costs the company much more than it saves.

Want a few real examples? Sure:

1. HR terminated two employees for using "shop talk", one permenantly. Two friends digging on each other at work, you know, guy sh*t. Well somebody didn't like the terminology, and heard the conversation in passing, was not even involved, and cried Rule 32. The employees were friends, and stated they have been digging on each other for years. Did it matter? Of course not.

2. HR terminated an employee for wearing a T-shirt with a list of the twu 2003 Industry Leading Concessions. Nothing derogatory, but some whiney POS didn't like it and cried Rule 32. Terminated for 18 months. Had to fight big gun HR with a very expensive outside attorney, who won the case hands down, even though HR lied their ass off to keep the employee out for good. Arbitrator told the company attorney to settle, yet they pressed on and wasted well over a hundred thousand dollars in the futile attempt to make the charges stick. Fu*king stupid!!!!

3. Two employees walked out for two weeks, then issued advisories and threatened by HR for having an mild arguement with their elected union officals. This is a contractually protected right, but since Rule 32 was used, nope.... no dice.

I have many more examples that were actual blatant Rule 32 violations. However, these cases went the opposite way, where no action by the company took place. Why you ask? Very simply they were members of management or "Company Suckups" of whom the company and HR wish to protect.

So ole, maybe in your former perfect AA manAAgement world Rule 32 works as you stated. However, you've not a clue how it works or doesn't work overhere. It's about as sick and twisted as a corporation could let it get. Then again, that's how they like it, right? :down:

BTW, "I'm going to get you" is a threat sir. It could be taken as a life threatening threat. Say it to a police officer the next time you get pulled over and see what happens.

I have never understood this "policy" of AA employees running to mangt. to tattle on every little disagreement. Where are your professional standards reps? As a former union rep, I would have handled this away from mangt. and possibly with the help of the EAP dept.

 

[Hopeful]

Threatening an employee isn't as simple "I'm going to get you" -- it's more along the lines of "if I had a gun, I'd blow your f***in Dago head off" or "Hey, faggot, I'm going to kick the sh*t out of you after work" or leaving a noose in a mechanic's locker.

Hmmmm,,,Dago, Faggot Mechanic......

Eric is there a reason for mentioning these three things? Something you want to share with the rest of us?

 

[Boomer]

I have never understood this "policy" of AA employees running to mangt. to tattle on every little disagreement. Where are your professional standards reps? As a former union rep, I would have handled this away from mangt. and possibly with the help of the EAP dept.

nbmcg01,
We asked for the creation of a Professional Stds. group in the 2001 contract, the Company and the TWU told us we would never get that option.

 

[Hackman]

I have never understood this "policy" of AA employees running to mangt. to tattle on every little disagreement. Where are your professional standards reps? As a former union rep, I would have handled this away from mangt. and possibly with the help of the EAP dept.

I totally agree, it's like grade school playground BS and the teachers pet. HR and management apply Rule 32 in very different ways, depending on who you are. It's not applied in a uniform fashion what-so-ever. If your in management or a "Company Suck*ss", you can cuss, scream, yell, threaten, intimidate, and generally be a POS and nothing will happen, no matter how many compliants are filed against you. You are generally Rule 32 immune.

Then you have the other side. Be quiet as a church mouse or ELSE.

The company seems to like this way, or they wouldn't let it go on and on.

 

[eolesen]

Hmmmm,,,Dago, Faggot Mechanic......

Eric is there a reason for mentioning these three things? Something you want to share with the rest of us?

Nope. Just three real examples where people got fired for Rule 32.

 

[Hackman]

Nope. Just three real examples where people got fired for Rule 32.

Hmmm, they must not have been in management or viewed as "unfavored" by the company.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Agreed - the csm should be terminated.

Unfortunately, lying like this about a fellow worker has all the hallmarks of aspiring management personnel. The individual in question will probably take a company job.

Does AA actually fire bad CSMs? Something like that is unheard of at US!

 

[Bagbelt]

Two csm's are necessary to initiate an accusation of being intoxicated. Since this wasn't the issue, if the first csm suspected the employee of theft, why did he not ask him to empty his pockets before saying anything? As far as I know RON cleaning is contracted out, why was the employee on the plane? That to me would be the co.'s only credible argument. As far as rule -32, everyone puts on a good show, but at the end of the day mgt. protects itself. The employee has a good case, but they may fire the both of them. That is the implied threat behind rule -32.

 

[Boomer]

The union needs to pursue for disciplinary action against the CSM and accept nothing but the CSM's firing. Intentionally accusing someone falsely of stealing should be grounds for termination.

The "He Looked Suspicious" and "I Will Get You" comments might warrant a Rule 32 investigation

Rule 32 only applies when the company wants it to.

______________________________________________________________________
___________

Human Resources is a Department of the Company structure that created it.

Human Resources is in place to secure the assets of the Corporation for the shareholders, as managed by the Board of Directors and the Management Chain-of-Command.

Human Resources is NOT the watchdog of the shareholders over the Chain-of-Command.

Unless you are very old, very crippled or other than a white male: Human Resources does not care that your life is not fair or that your Boss is uncaring, judgmental or overeaching.

Even if you are are very old, very crippled and a white male: Human Resources will often refuse to take action if such action would reasonably disrupt a Management Perogative with respect to direction of the workforce and the maintenance of discipline.

Given that theft/pilferage is a problem from Company and Customer assets: is the questioning of whether those activities occured outside the line?

 

[HARDWORKINGAIRLINEWORKER]

This sounds like something that would happen at MSP.