FLIGHT ATTENDANTS NOT ALLOWED TO STRIKE

[eolesen]

And just what are you basing the premise that unions wish/let alone have a choice in staying under the RLA?

Recent history? Three years back, there was an effort to modify the RLA, and all of the AFL-CIO affiliated unions lobbied under the "it ain't broke" defense, at which point the effort stalled.

The other nit with moving airline workers out of the RLA is that closed-shop would go away, and workers would be able to opt-out of compulsory union membership. Today, y'all are captive dues payers. Under NRLA, the union would need to prove their worth in order to keep the dues flowing.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

:blink: gee finnie is this not excatly what your master wants them to do?

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

finman,

Are you a "FIELD" slave, or a "HOUSE" slave ???


NH/BB's

 

[jenny@nw]

I actually know precisely how your work functions; I won't bore you with why. We're basically saying the same thing here. I'm fully aware that the sum total of your duty periods (report time to release time) will likely be roughly double the credit hours you log on a trip. That's how the system was set up, and that's why the hourly pay rate is so high. In my mind, I just use a simple 50% percent conversion when comparing an FA hourly pay rate to a non-crew member pay rate. That presumes that 14 days on the road logging those 85 hours of pay is an equivelant work-life burden as working 8 to 5 for 21 days in a month. For all intents and purposes, let's assume those are equivalant. With that, a top step FA earning $38/hr right now would likely be indifferent going to an 8 to 5 job paying $19/hr. That person would make the same total monthly income.

Would it be more palatable to do all of those unpaid items if they were paid, but your pay rate was cut in half to account for the doubling of your payable hours?

Just out of curiosity, how does this $19/hr top step pay compare to CSAs or ESEs?

Well earlier you made it sound so "trivial" that they only work 80 hr a month where a regular worker works double that. Seemed like you either wanted the argument sway a certain way. You obviously knew that at some of our time -like pre departures- we are not paid or at mininum, just per diem.

Nonetheless how are you going to retain your new employees when at the base pay Burger King pays more?
Certainly with the cost of recruiting and training one would like to keep Northwest-trained employees.

Medical insurance the cheapest bad quality insurance, while new commers will have to pay an outrageous amount of money for uniforms. I don't see how anyone is going to like being a flight attendant after they find out the costs, not considering how our career lifestyle is.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Recent history? Three years back, there was an effort to modify the RLA, and all of the AFL-CIO affiliated unions lobbied under the "it ain't broke" defense, at which point the effort stalled.

The other nit with moving airline workers out of the RLA is that closed-shop would go away, and workers would be able to opt-out of compulsory union membership. Today, y'all are captive dues payers. Under NRLA, the union would need to prove their worth in order to keep the dues flowing.

Key word: modify

There was never any discussion of eliminating the RLA.

Oh and BTW the RLA does not obligate workers to closed shops.

 

[finman]

Well earlier you made it sound so "trivial" that they only work 80 hr a month where a regular worker works double that. Seemed like you either wanted the argument sway a certain way. You obviously knew that at some of our time -like pre departures- we are not paid or at mininum, just per diem.

Nonetheless how are you going to retain your new employees when at the base pay Burger King pays more?
Certainly with the cost of recruiting and training one would like to keep Northwest-trained employees.

Medical insurance the cheapest bad quality insurance, while new commers will have to pay an outrageous amount of money for uniforms. I don't see how anyone is going to like being a flight attendant after they find out the costs, not considering how our career lifestyle is.

You could very well be right. When NWA needs to go to the street for more FA's, after all of the furloughees have been recalled, I guess we'll find out if there is an adequate pool of people qualified and willing to work under the new wage and benefit structure. If there isn't, then naturally NWA will need to address those issues to attract the labor needed. Maybe they'll have them start out at step 5 or something, rather than starting at step 1.

On the career lifestyle thing, I think it's a bit of a stretch to make it sound like an FA work-life is this torturous endeavor you make it out to be. I've somewhat conceded that the FA 14 day away from home schedule with varying duty period lengths is roughly equivelant to a regular 21 day work month. I actually think that concession is being very generous on my part. I think, if asked, a vast majority of people who have family arrangements that make it possible for lengthy periods of time away from home, if given the option between being away from home 14 days vs working 21 days close to home all for the same total monthly pay, would choose the former. Maybe my assumption is wrong and most people would choose the 21 day month at home, but I know that I would choose the 14 days on the road (if I didn't have small children)

If this veers off into a discussion of how FA's have children, and that's what makes it so hard, then that is a seperate discussion entirely. You probably don't want to hear what I think about mothers choosing a career that forces them to be away from home half the month.

 

[finman]

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

finman,

Are you a "FIELD" slave, or a "HOUSE" slave ???
NH/BB's

Is that seriously all you have to add to the discussion? Have you ever had a serious civil debate with someone that disagreed with you on some fundamental issue? Are you that uncertain and unprepared to defend your beliefs that the only utterences you can hammer out on your keyboard are mindless name calling? Would you be proud having your son or wife read through this board and observe the sum total of your writings over the past year? Is that how you'd like your son to present himself to people when he is confronted with an opposing viewpoint? All serious questions you should ask yourself.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< --- Finman! Don't feel too cocky!---- It's not over yet! 😉

 

[jenny@nw]

You could very well be right. When NWA needs to go to the street for more FA's, after all of the furloughees have been recalled, I guess we'll find out if there is an adequate pool of people qualified and willing to work under the new wage and benefit structure. If there isn't, then naturally NWA will need to address those issues to attract the labor needed. Maybe they'll have them start out at step 5 or something, rather than starting at step 1.

On the career lifestyle thing, I think it's a bit of a stretch to make it sound like an FA work-life is this torturous endeavor you make it out to be. I've somewhat conceded that the FA 14 day away from home schedule with varying duty period lengths is roughly equivelant to a regular 21 day work month. I actually think that concession is being very generous on my part. I think, if asked, a vast majority of people who have family arrangements that make it possible for lengthy periods of time away from home, if given the option between being away from home 14 days vs working 21 days close to home all for the same total monthly pay, would choose the former. Maybe my assumption is wrong and most people would choose the 21 day month at home, but I know that I would choose the 14 days on the road (if I didn't have small children)

If this veers off into a discussion of how FA's have children, and that's what makes it so hard, then that is a seperate discussion entirely. You probably don't want to hear what I think about mothers choosing a career that forces them to be away from home half the month.

If Target pays more with better benefits, then why even do that?
Seriously, most people will quit within a month after the rose colored glasses are dropped. Now the company has spent money on training people and will not be able to retain their investment. Trained, skilled and veteran employees at one job function is unquestionably vaulable, especially when they have a working knowlege of one particular company.

Who's generous? PFAA?

No this discussion wasn't about to turn into a discussion about FEMALE flight attendants with children, rather about the lifestyle crewmembers need to sustain in order to work. Why are we going to talk about women and children now?

The service sector is known for low paying jobs forces both men and women to work to sustain a comfortable living enviroment for their families. (and I'm talking about a roof over their heads and food, not Playstation 3 and buying your teenager a car) and if one is opinionated on women working while they have children, then why praise a wage cut?

Seems to me you are all for people working for low wages and having unsupervised children run-amuck. Demise of western civilization is at hand.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Jenny I just get chills (the good kind) when you start talking about the end of the world.

Go get'em Sexy!

 

[Bear96]

Recent history? Three years back, there was an effort to modify the RLA, and all of the AFL-CIO affiliated unions lobbied under the "it ain't broke" defense, at which point the effort stalled.

You appear to be implying (and correct me if I am wrong) that there was an effort to get airlines out of the RLA.

That is incorrect. (Or please post a cite to justify that assertion.)

As someone else pointed out, there was simply discussion concerning modifying parts of the RLA -- specifically, the arbitration provisions (there was an effort led by airline management to impose some sort of winner-take-all arbitration scheme for contract negotiations, which the AFL-CIO opposed).

2003 AFA Legislative Affairs Report

The service sector is known for low paying jobs forces both men and women to work to sustain a comfortable living enviroment for their families.

Then it's an odd choice to make a career out of a service sector job if you want to raise a family comfortably.

Seems to me you are all for people working for low wages and having unsupervised children run-amuck. Demise of western civilization is at hand.

I think finman is all for simply letting market forces set wage rates without unions getting in the way -- I think you are putting words in his mouth.

 

[jenny@nw]

Then it's an odd choice to make a career out of a service sector job if you want to raise a family comfortably.
I think finman is all for simply letting market forces set wage rates without unions getting in the way -- I think you are putting words in his mouth.

Forgive me- you are right, but inference of thought leads me to this conclusion especially when "women" and children are thrown into the factor of this discussion.

Some people don't have opportunites, education, or lured into it before they had children and now find that they cannot make comprable wages elsewhere in order to sustain their families. Thus stuck in the same job without any opportunites for advancement or a career change without causing hardship on the people who are dependent on you.

The government welfare system is flawed. Once people make a certain wage they are completely cut off and they make less than what they had when they were on WIC program, ect.

 

[Bear96]

Some people don't have opportunites, education, or lured into it before they had children and now find that they cannot make comprable wages elsewhere in order to sustain their families.

Call me old fashioned, but I am a big proponent of not having children until you can afford them.

 

[Spock]

Call me old fashioned, but I am a big proponent of not having children until you can afford them.

Ditto !

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Then it's an odd choice to make a career out of a service sector job if you want to raise a family comfortably.
I think finman is all for simply letting market forces set wage rates without unions getting in the way -- I think you are putting words in his mouth.

Well Bear, next time you go shopping take a look at where almost everything is made now! CHINA! I got news for you the only jobs soon to be left in this country are going to be "service sector" jobs. Ross Perot said it best when he said: "America will soon be a nation selling each other hamburgers".

Finman is nothing but an immoral corporate goon. I hope Finman likes the taste of the soup at the homeless shelter when the US economy collaspes because it has no manufacturing base.

 

[jenny@nw]

Well Bear, next time you go shopping take a look at where almost everything is made now! CHINA! I got news for you the only jobs soon to be left in this country are going to be "service sector" jobs. Ross Perot said it best when he said: "America will soon be a nation selling each other hamburgers".

Finman is nothing but an immoral corporate goon. I hope Finman likes the taste of the soup at the homeless shelter when the US economy collaspes because it has no manufacturing base.

You are my idol!