My opinion is to first cull the sick list. AA needs to go through all the departments and start firing those who abuse the sick list and are dead weight. AA needs to go to court in each contested case if need be.
Can't be done. The company AND the union contractually agreed to binding arbitration in any grievance/dismissal issue. Neither can go to court if they don't like the arbitrator's decision.
As Skymess pointed out, knowing that sick leave is being abused and
proving it are two different things. Proving it is also a VERY expensive proposition--the payback to getting rid of one abuser rarely covers the cost. Instead the company should go after the people who are not on the sick list, but don't fly either. Now, I'm not talking about people who need a period of time off for a sick child or parent, or an educational LOA, or the like. I mean the people who bid all the best trips then drop the trips or sell them to a trip-trade service.
The company would do better to define what constitutes a full-time job in each job category--one of the legal problems in the past has been that the courts have a hard time understanding that someone (a f/a) who is "guaranteed" 70 hours a month is a full-time employee. Then withdraw any non-contractual benefits--such as, non-rev travel benefits to anyone not flying full-time, or at least 35 hours/month. There would be some f/as who would either retire or start flying again. You would eliminate the f/as like the one I flew with a DFW once. She had 36 years at the time, and informed me that she never flew unless she wanted to get away from her husband for a few days or Nordstrom's in Seattle was having a sale. She also told me she never flew east of Dallas--only west. (No explanation was given for that particular trip bias.
)
Flight service needs to be culled as well. If you work in flight service, you are not an FA. No special assignments in flight service. It's a conflict of interest.
Again, by contract...if a f/a takes an assignment in Flight Service--management or otherwise--he/she remains on the seniority list with the right to return to flying as long as they keep their quals current and stay in the Flight Service Department.
There are often jobs that arise for temporary periods of time for special projects--helping with major manual revisions, a/c re-design, procedures studies--that it would not be economically smart for the company to hire a new employee, train them, then let them go at the end of the project. To get these jobs done, you need people who are already well-versed in not only the procedures (or whatever) but also, the current company policies regarding those procedures. Who better than a f/a to advise on on-board service/equipment/etc?
Do you think that f/as who are temporarily prevented from flying--pregnancy, surgery recuperation--should just be without an income totally until they return to flying. It is economically advantageous for the company to fill temporary jobs with these people rather than hire from the outside. The employee is being productive, the company is deriving benefit and costs are not increased.
You think that someone in order to try something different--say for instance, a Flight Service Manager--should have to burn their f/a bridges? You would never get anyone except the ones who hate flying and the customers to apply for the job. I don't know about other f/as, but I want my supervisor to not only be someone who has actually been a flight attendant, but also enjoyed it.
