This Is Too Funny.

[Garfield1966]

Again, I fail to see how anything I have posted on this thread or any other is even remotely in violation of the aforementioned rules. None of my statements are slanderous, and by pointing out that there are those among us that are clearly abusing the sick policy of American I showing concern for American by pointing out wasted revenue.

Hotel, you chose your profession and I chose mine. You would not want to do my job either for 160 hours each month. You do not know me nor what I am capable of. I would not be so quick to risk your house and salary on that bet. I have no interest in being away from my family and friends for days on end nor do I wish to deal with the passengers on a long term basis. I have dealt with them in short periods of time and that was enough. You and I are both easily replaceable. When the FA’s last went out on strike, there were applicants lined up around the buildings to take your place. To think that you and your 20,000 colleagues are uniquely qualified to be flight attendants is to say the least arrogant.

Straight,

Think what you will about my identity or my intentions it matters naught to me. I maintain that I have not done or said anything to harm AA. I have been very specific in pointing out who I am angry with. I have never implied or intended to besmirch an entire work force. I am doing nothing different than most of the other poster on this forum.

 

[StraaightTaalk]

Ok, Garfield/operaations...

Keep doing what you are doing...Keep trying to promote the idea among the general public that there is or will be a sick out at American Airlines...Keep telling the public that their travel plans on American Airlines might not be secure...Keep airing your personal grievances, which reflect poorly on the company...Keep it up.

You do a great disservice to the thousands of American Airlines employees, and the VAST majority of flight attendants, who endeavor to provide safe, dependable transportation to the general public...and, in so doing, you are doing a great disservice to American Airlines.

You are a disgrace. Keep it up...you are making my case for me.

Stay tuned.

 

[LiveInAHotel]

Again, I fail to see how anything I have posted on this thread or any other is even remotely in violation of the aforementioned rules.

You do not know me nor what I am capable of. I would not be so quick to risk your house and salary on that bet.

You and I are both easily replaceable. When the FA’s last went out on strike, there were applicants lined up around the buildings to take your place. To think that you and your 20,000 colleagues are uniquely qualified to be flight attendants is to say the least arrogant.

Garfield,


1. Please review AA Rules of Conduct rule #21 and #24.
a. #21- Do not make false or slanderous statements about the company, its employees, or patrons.
b. #24- Consider the welfare of the company and your fellow employees. Perform no act that is detrimental to either

2. I do know you, trust me on that! Yes, it's a safe bet.

3. You're easily replaceable. Your training is on the job. Flight Attendants are not easily replaced. The minimum amount of training to be a line Flight Attendant per the FAA is 3 weeks. Those applicants you refer to back in 93' never would have made it to the line in time. Interview, background check, drug screen and 3 weeks of training. Total time for all of that is about 4-6 weeks or longer to get someone trained as a line Flight Attendant.

A little FYI for you Garfield, when the Flight Attendants are certified like Pilots, Parachute Packers etc., It will be impossible to replace us even after the FAA minimum 3 week training requirement.

 

[Garfield1966]

When did I promote the idea of a sick out? All I said is that I did not feel there was any way the incentive of keeping the sick list below 1550 was attainable. The sick out that numerous FA’s pushed for on this forum and numerous others never materialized during Thanksgiving and I have my doubts about Christmas as well. My guess is it will continue to rise for the reasons someone else posted on here, namely the loss of holidays off for vacation due to the smaller work force.

I had not heard about the certification that you mentioned. When is that supposed to happen? Is it mandated by the FAA or is this something that was negotiated into the contract?

How I do a disservice to all the thousands of employees is still a mystery to me but I guess I’ll take your word for it.

I do have a question though. Since I am not at work, how does AA have any say in what I do on my own time? When exactly did the 1st amendment take a hit? I am voicing concerns based on facts as I see them. I can also voice concerns about the incompetence of the Federal government, about local affairs or nearly anything else I chose to. When did that become against the law? I have always been of the opinion that one learns and grows by disagreement. If everyone saw eye to eye this would be a dull world indeed.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Jesus Garfield,
You better "wake up, real quick"
Why ?

1. you live in Texass
2. your NON UNION
3 . You work for AA



4. That means-YOU DON'T HAVE ANY 1ST ADMENDMENT RIGHTS !!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[Garfield1966]

Granted, Texas is not on the list of places I'd like to live but I do not see the down side of the other 2 points.

 

[Garfield1966]

Looks like the 1550 mark has been passed already.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

" YIPPIE " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[Bob Owens]

Flight Attendants are not easily replaced. The minimum amount of training to be a line Flight Attendant per the FAA is 3 weeks. Those applicants you refer to back in 93' never would have made it to the line in time. Interview, background check, drug screen and 3 weeks of training. Total time for all of that is about 4-6 weeks or longer to get someone trained as a line Flight Attendant.

A little FYI for you Garfield, when the Flight Attendants are certified like Pilots, Parachute Packers etc., It will be impossible to replace us even after the FAA minimum 3 week training requirement.

Nice to hear that kind of sentiment. Where was it last April?

Hey dont forget that mechanics are certified too. If I recall its 2000 hours of training (roughly the equivelent of a Batchelors- without as much homework) to get the A&P plus whatever the maintenance program for the carrier is. Typically at AA 40 to 80hrs Gen Fam, 40 hrs Avionics for each fleet type.

Dont get too cocky though, while everyone is important, no one is irreplaceble. I would not count too much on certification for job security, sure it will help but it wont change things all that much when it comes strike time. You guys did not need certificates back in 93, solidarity provided all that was needed and you had it! With us, the company could rewrite their manuals to allow for un-certificated mechanics to do the work and let an A&P sign for it. All of Aircraft maint mgmt are A&Ps. I'm sure that the FAA will allow one certified FA to supervise a crew of "trained" F/As. While you would have many arguements against that-such as if the certified one became incapacitated, the fact that crises' have to be dealt with without notice, etc, they will likely fall back on the fact that the airlines operated for over 50 years without certificated flight attendants. Good luck with your struggle and I applaud your efforts to elevate your profession.

 

[Bob Owens]

When did I promote the idea of a sick out? All I said is that I did not feel there was any way the incentive of keeping the sick list below 1550 was attainable. The sick out that numerous FA’s pushed for on this forum and numerous others never materialized during Thanksgiving and I have my doubts about Christmas as well. My guess is it will continue to rise for the reasons someone else posted on here, namely the loss of holidays off for vacation due to the smaller work force.

I had not heard about the certification that you mentioned. When is that supposed to happen? Is it mandated by the FAA or is this something that was negotiated into the contract?

How I do a disservice to all the thousands of employees is still a mystery to me but I guess I’ll take your word for it.

I do have a question though. Since I am not at work, how does AA have any say in what I do on my own time? When exactly did the 1st amendment take a hit? I am voicing concerns based on facts as I see them. I can also voice concerns about the incompetence of the Federal government, about local affairs or nearly anything else I chose to. When did that become against the law? I have always been of the opinion that one learns and grows by disagreement. If everyone saw eye to eye this would be a dull world indeed.

Unless you have a contract that states otherwise you are an "Employee at Will".

You have the right to quit, they have the right to fire you. Thats pretty much it, along with certain protections against discrimination based on race, creed, sex, age, sexual preferences.

The company can fire you even if what you say is lawful.

First amendment only deals with your rights with respect to the government. Even then you are more limited than you have been led to believe.

 

[Garfield1966]

No, I am under no illusion about the “freedomsâ€￾ we enjoy under the US government. They seem to exist on the surface only in too many cases.

The reference in my post was more tongue and cheek than anything else. I was not aware about being an employee at will. It does not surprise me. It does surprise me a bit that you are implying that they could come after me for what I am posting on a public message board. I would think that somehow, somewhere that would be protected. Given the assault on civil rights by AG I would not hold my breath. Anyone have a file I can borrow?

 

[flydcoop]

Looks like the 1550 mark has been passed already.

Hey Garfield,

Really, was the goal AA set attainable? This was doomed from the start.

You have to really read the fine print on which Removal codes apply and which don't. It personally gave me a headache on the 4m. It seems like smoke-and-mirrors to me.

If the company was really serious about "curing" the holiday flu, I suggest bringing back "Perfect Attendance" passes. On the line, many (myself included) said, "Hmm...I no longer have an incentive for coming to work when I feel a bit rundown (and now we no longer have the layovers to rest and recover), I have all this sick time... why not?

Perfect attendance may cost administrative-wise but these passholders don't go unless the space is available. Also, the routes they are typically used for waste more food than I care to mention.

I lost my perfect attendance when I got blocked ears on X-Mas day 2000, mid-sequence (an IOD, I might add). I used to make more of an effort to fight the pain, no more. With 12+hr days and minimum layovers, I get rundown and exhausted enough when I am healthy. I work in a giant petri-dish with virally infected masses. I take vitamins, drink OJ and water and wash my hands constantly. I am not on an attendance advisory and I fully plan to fly my sequence on X-Mas Eve/X-Mas day though if it gets monkeyed with, I may be open to suggestion.

In spite of this company and the RLA, I do what I am supposed to do.

Coop

 

[Garfield1966]

No Fly, I do not think it was attainable. That is why I named the thread the way I did. I also do no not believe that bringing back Passes or anything else for that matter will solve the problem either. The sick list, at least for the FA side has always gone through the roof for the holidays. I think someone else on this thread hit on a very obvious point. Those who do not have an attendance problem will not have one and do not need a bribe in order to show up for work like they should in the first place. Those who abuse the sick policy will do so regardless. In my eyes the only cure is disciplinary action. If people start loosing their jobs for abusing the sick policy, then people will realize that there is a risk attached. And again, before Curve talker and the rest jump all over me, it is a small number in comparison to the whole that I am referring to how ever this year it is growing. We are already over 1500 and yet we have about 5K few FA’s on the pay roll. We are hearing that people who lost VC during the holidays will be bombing in sick and so forth and so on.

 

[ArtTang]

Bob Owens writes:

Unless you have a contract that states otherwise you are an "Employee at Will".

You have the right to quit, they have the right to fire you. Thats pretty much it, along with certain protections against discrimination based on race, creed, sex, age, sexual preferences.

The company can fire you even if what you say is lawful.


Art writes:

With all due respect to Bob Owens and to clarify this matter so readers do not labor under the misconception that federal law provides protection for sexual 'orientation': there is zero federal protection for job termination for sexual orientation. Some companies, such as AA, now have non-discrimination clauses in their by-laws that include sexual orientation. However, there is no law that protects gays (unless it is a rare local ordinance) against job termination or denial of housing, etc... Indeed, AA reluctantly amended its by-laws to include such protections and benefits to its gay and lesbian employees (i.e., domestic partner benefits) ONLY after the city of San Francisco threatened the airlines with denial of access to airport facilities for failing to comply with the city's local ordinance. You may recall the fact that the ATA headed a lawsuit against the city of SFO to fight the local ordinance resulting in a battle the airlines ultimately abandoned. At some point in the fray, AA realized it was swimming up stream and began to offer equal benefits and job protection to its gay employees.
I realize that Bob Owens did not state per se that the federal government provides such benefits, but I believe one might misconstrue this fact when reading his excellent post.

Peace,
Art Tang

 

[WingNaPrayer]

there is zero federal protection for job termination for sexual orientation.

Sorry Art, I have to disagree . . .

U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20036-4505


U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL SECURES CORRECTIVE AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN CASE OF FEDERAL JOB APPLICANT DENIED JOB BECAUSE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 6/20/03
CONTACT: KAREN DALHEIM
(202) 653-7984

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) today announced that -- on the basis of the results of an OSC investigation -- the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed to provide backpay to a job applicant who was denied a federal position because of his homosexuality. IRS also agreed, at OSC’s request, to suspend the discriminating supervisor for 45 days, without pay, and to detail the individual to a non-supervisory position for one year.

The job applicant, a GS-12 computer specialist, applied for a GS-13 computer specialist position with the IRS in 2000. The individuals who interviewed him recommended that he be hired. The applicant, however, never heard back from the IRS. He assumed that he had not been selected.

In September 2001, the applicant was contacted by one of the individuals who had interviewed him. That individual told the applicant that he had recommended to his supervisor, the hiring official, that the applicant be hired. According to the individual, the supervisor responded that she had a “good friend†who had worked at a federal agency where the applicant formerly worked and that she would ask for a reference. Later, when this individual asked about the status of the application, the supervisor replied that the IRS would not hire him because of his homosexuality, referring to that sexual orientation in a derogatory manner.

Thereafter, the applicant filed a complaint with OSC, alleging that the IRS had discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation when it refused to hire him. After an investigation, OSC concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the IRS supervisor who had refused to hire the complainant had violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302( B )(10). That provision makes it a “prohibited personnel practice†to discriminate against a federal employee or job applicant on the basis of off-duty conduct that does not affect job performance, including sexual orientation.

Upon being advised of OSC’s findings, the IRS promptly agreed to offer the complainant the job he had been denied, as well as backpay. The complainant declined the job offer, but accepted a monetary settlement. The IRS also agreed to discipline and detail the supervisor who had rejected the complainant’s application. The supervisor agreed not to challenge those actions.

OSC thanked the IRS for its cooperation in resolving the case, and noted that discrimination based upon sexual orientation, or any other factor that has no bearing on an employee’s ability to do the job, is irreconcilable with the fundamental principles that underlie the merit-based civil service, and should not be tolerated.

OSC is an independent federal agency that investigates and prosecutes complaints alleging the commission of a prohibited personnel practice. In cases where an OSC investigation reveals reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice has been committed and an agency declines to voluntarily provide corrective and/or disciplinary action, OSC will prosecute the case before the Merit Systems Protection Board. In many cases, such as this one, OSC obtains corrective and disciplinary action through negotiations with the employing agency.
***** ***** ***** *****

As you can see, 5 U.S.C. § 2302( B )(10) extends federal protections based on sexual orientation. While this case is the reverse of your example (i.e., refusal to hire due to sexual orientation) the same rules will apply if one is fired for no other reason than sexual orientation.

The federal government took itself out of the bedrooms of american citizens years ago. Now, the only ones who seem to care about what goes on in the bedrooms of it's citizens are a few of the (bigoted) states and, thanks to the supreme court, even those nasty state politicians are being handily delivered their come-uppances!

We are all one people. It's a damn shame when the government has to legislate that. Humanity can be short-lived but bigotry seems to be forever. I thank pious men in robes for that.