Spirit Airlines Strike Update

Screaming_Emu said:
I dunno, I know it would be a tough decision for them, but I hope the flight attendants demand the full 15 days. That was really dirty and underhanded what the company did to them and demanding the 15 days would be another amazing show of solidarity to the company.

That's what this industry needs right now, proof that workers have the cahones to stand up and not put up with this crap anymore.
Click to expand...


And what do the flight attendants gain by this?

Joe
 
Screaming_Emu said:
Basically saying "don't mess with us either"

Or at least they have leverage for some pay in lieu of notice if its not already in their contract.
Click to expand...

This comes under the "know when to hold 'em "and "know when to fold 'em" theory.

Obviously the company broke a provision in the contract. The flight attendants have every right to stay of work for 15 days. It's in the contract.

If I were in this position then I'd rather take a fine from the company and go back to work. Then I would have my regular pay and the extra fine money for going back to work early. The only question then is how much the fine should be.

Under this scenerio everyone wins and the company still pays a penalty.

Remember the flight attendants are not on strike and are not in contract negotiations. The flight attendants have absolutely nothing to gain by just staying out of work. So while it might be nice to have the personal satisfaction to stick it to the company, there is absolutley nothing to gain by doing so.

On the other hand, the pilots went on strike. When the strike was over the pilots GAINED additional permanent long term wages as well as a workable contract. The pilot strike was not about sticking it to the company. The strike was about getting adequate pay and a contract. Once the adequate pay and contract was acheived, the pilots immediately went back to work.


Joe
 
FlyChicaga said:
I am so confused. A few days ago, it seemed the pilots would have preferred to shut down the airline than cave and work for peanuts. But now, the FAs should return to work earlier than required after basically being fired? Because "they have bills to pay" and "all employees have incentive to see the financial well-being of the company?" If the financial well-being of the company was so important, then why strike and cost the company millions of dollars? Why ask for contractual gains that increase the financial burden on the company?

This all just makes little sense to me.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

I think it comes down to understanding why a fine (money) is considered a good or appropriate way to repair bonds when it comes to pitting crew against other crew during times like this...in my opinion, it seems like a slap in the face to the FA's...yet it's all "back in good faith" with some extra cash in the pocket?

i would think the AFA would want to write this down in the books when it comes to their next contract negotiations...because it's similar to the analogy of boyfriend uses girlfriend...after he uses her in whatever game he's playing, he comes back later with a diamond necklace and says "we're good now right"? however, shouldn't the girlfriend be a little more wary or cautious in that she might be used again or not take him back at all knowing that he initially intended to harmed her?

so that's how it works?

why would there be support for getting the FA's back in the cockpit sooner when their contract has specifics in regard to getting furloughed? wouldn't you want the FA's to follow their contract to the letter just as you guys do to not only show solidarity but show that they shouldn't or can't be used like that in the future? shouldn't they make some sort of stand or statement?

so the FA's are essentially saying "yea, you can poo on us when someone else's war is waged. we knew it was coming and we're ok with that as long as we get some fat bank in return"?

i understand the FA's knew this was coming....and with that, just to clarify, they didn't take this as a personal strike against them?...they, like everyone else apparently, just knew the card had to be played and all would be fine, go back to normal what not afterwards?

when i think about it though, that's exactly how a lot of business is conducted, so as long as the personal aspect is taken out of it, then it's just a business transaction. no harm no foul when business is in play.

granted, they weren't going to be able to work anyhoo... but i think it just comes down to helping everyone (including myself) understand that the FA's were ok with being a tossable piece of the puzzle (collateral damage) during someone else's war?
 
Kristie said:
...getting the FA's back in the cockpit sooner...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

2364-wink.gif
 
Kristie,

I believe it comes down to picking and choosing your battles. We can't shut down flights over every contract violation. In this case there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

The labor contracts are violated all the time. Things happen. What it comes down to is going after the important stuff.

I can't tell you how many times there have been hotel violations, shuttle van violations, immovable day off violations, work hour violations, etc. It happens. The company sometimes just gets lazy. The company sometimes is taking advantage. Sometimes employees want to be helpful to the company and in their helpfulness enable the company to violate the contract.

At some point, we all say enough is enough and we push back. But when we push back we expect something in return.

I'm being told that this was worked out with the F/A's. Since this affected those F/A's then I would hope they got something in return.

Keep in mind that we all do want the companies to remain in business and we want to continue working at those companies. There is no need to put undue stress on the system when nothing can be gained from that stress.

It is our job as professional airline folks, to know when and where to pick our battles.

Joe
 
JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Kristie,

I believe it comes down to picking and choosing your battles. We can't shut down flights over every contract violation. In this case there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

The labor contracts are violated all the time. Things happen. What it comes down to is going after the important stuff.

I can't tell you how many times there have been hotel violations, shuttle van violations, immovable day off violations, work hour violations, etc. It happens. The company sometimes just gets lazy. The company sometimes is taking advantage. Sometimes employees want to be helpful to the company and in their helpfulness enable the company to violate the contract.

At some point, we all say enough is enough and we push back. But when we push back we expect something in return.

I'm being told that this was worked out with the F/A's. Since this affected those F/A's then I would hope they got something in return.

Keep in mind that we all do want the companies to remain in business and we want to continue working at those companies. There is no need to put undue stress on the system when nothing can be gained from that stress.

It is our job as professional airline folks, to know when and where to pick our battles.

Joe
Click to expand...

If this was the other way around and the F/A's where the one's that struck and the pilots got furloughed because of it we would be hearing a different tune. Just sayin'
 
JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Kristie,

I believe it comes down to picking and choosing your battles. We can't shut down flights over every contract violation. In this case there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

...


Keep in mind that we all do want the companies to remain in business and we want to continue working at those companies. There is no need to put undue stress on the system when nothing can be gained from that stress.

It is our job as professional airline folks, to know when and where to pick our battles.

Joe
Click to expand...

I wish more people understood this concept. You ALWAYS have to keep the big picture in mind. Sometimes people get so locked up into 'screw the company' thinking that they forget WHY they're doing so in the first place. The end goal is not to screw the company. The goal is to make things better for yourselves. Sometimes it takes screwing the company to get to your goal, other times screwing the company is counter productive.

Here's a Trueism that can be applied to practically any aspect of your life:
Know your Goal. Periodically cross check your actions against your goal to verify that you're heading in the right direction.
 
JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Kristie,

I believe it comes down to picking and choosing your battles. We can't shut down flights over every contract violation.


Joe
Click to expand...

While I fully agree with your sentiment above (granted I'm picking this one portion out of what you wrote, but its a good summary of the rest of your thoughts), in this case the airline is already shut down for all intents and purposes, a little more of a delay (or not) is now in the hands of the FA. Contract allows "up to XX days" for answer and return from a formal furlough. If it were me, I know I'd be pretty pissed at the company for what they did and how they treated me, as Kristie described. But ultimately, I guess the FAs will have to determine whats in their best interests as a group.
 
The airline is not shut down. They flew a limited schedule yesterday and it's a full schedule today. DH is on his way to FLL and then SJU as I write this. So FA's must have reported to work.
 
Which is exactly the problem now. The airline WAS shut down. The FAs had the power to keep it that way for up to two more weeks since the company continued to be jackarses by trying to play slick with the FAs. That would have been a battle worth fighting. They decided to go to work though, so that opportunity is now gone making this a moot point.
 
And the end result of the FA's keeping the airline shut down for two weeks would be?

Tell me what the FA's gain?

Tell me what the FA's lose?
 
JOEFRIDAY2 said:
Kristie,

I believe it comes down to picking and choosing your battles. We can't shut down flights over every contract violation. In this case there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

The labor contracts are violated all the time. Things happen. What it comes down to is going after the important stuff.

I can't tell you how many times there have been hotel violations, shuttle van violations, immovable day off violations, work hour violations, etc. It happens. The company sometimes just gets lazy. The company sometimes is taking advantage. Sometimes employees want to be helpful to the company and in their helpfulness enable the company to violate the contract.

At some point, we all say enough is enough and we push back. But when we push back we expect something in return.

I'm being told that this was worked out with the F/A's. Since this affected those F/A's then I would hope they got something in return.

Keep in mind that we all do want the companies to remain in business and we want to continue working at those companies. There is no need to put undue stress on the system when nothing can be gained from that stress.

It is our job as professional airline folks, to know when and where to pick our battles.

Joe
Click to expand...
gotcha! Thanks for the clarification :)
 
The end result is sticking it to the company just a little more for all they have already put their employees through over the past 14 years or so. You can't put a dollar amount on what that's worth and the company can obviously afford it.

What they gain is more leverage when they get to the bargaining table. The company sees that they will not be able to just walk right over them like they mistakenly thought they could do with the pilot group. Maybe they are more willing to negotiate fairly, maybe not.

What they lose is the opportunity to get a little extra money on overtime as they were already pay protected for the month. If there's more to it I'm not aware.

So if I was an FA my butt would remain sitting at home. I heard what their AFA rep had to say on Wednesday. Seems the good move would be to stay home and follow the contract to the letter. More chance to help their cause as a whole. Once that first couple of flights went out there's no point though; you've just become Don(na) Quijote.
 
I'm in an interesting position as I am a member of senior management (not at an airline) married to an ALPA pilot who just risked everything.

I could not disagree with your analysis more.

The contract says the FA's have time to review the recall and then time to show. Or, they can just show. That's the key--the contract doesn't require them to stay out.

Set your site on your prize and go after that. Doing it this way is just shooting yourself in your foot.

I believe in being militant when you have a battle you can win. When Ben sent out the notice that we would not get paid, I sent him a copy of the wage complaint I filed with the state of NJ--I could do that because his email was meant to intimidate us but was a violation of New Jersey law. He was following the advice of his high priced Washington, DC lawyers who forgot that there are state laws. Our pay arrived the next day. So, we all got paid. Believe me, threatening to not pay the pilots was a powerful intimidation measure--create pressure at home to go to work.

Again, you have to pick your battles. Shutting the company down for two more weeks would destroy it. That's why we knew we had to shut it down completely to force the company to the table to negotiate quickly. I backed my husband 100% on this.
 
I never did hear one way or the other what the FA reps had to say about it at the end after the TA was announced. I drew my conclusion based on what I knew/heard at the time. You seem to have a little more and/or perhaps better info about it than I do. Fair enough, I defer.
 
HRDiva said:
I believe in being militant when you have a battle you can win. When Ben sent out the notice that we would not get paid, I sent him a copy of the wage complaint I filed with the state of NJ--I could do that because his email was meant to intimidate us but was a violation of New Jersey law. He was following the advice of his high priced Washington, DC lawyers who forgot that there are state laws. Our pay arrived the next day. So, we all got paid. Believe me, threatening to not pay the pilots was a powerful intimidation measure--create pressure at home to go to work.
Click to expand...

The depths of slimeball tactics that the management there delved into is disgusting. At the same time, I can see why the FAs would want to stick it to people like this. Management started the battle against the FAs......attempting to "kill the hostage" if you will, by furloughing them. I could see them being pissed at that treatment.

HRDiva said:
Again, you have to pick your battles. Shutting the company down for two more weeks would destroy it. That's why we knew we had to shut it down completely to force the company to the table to negotiate quickly. I backed my husband 100% on this.
Click to expand...

I agree. And thats for the FAs to determine how they want to go about it, as the proverbial ball is in their court now. None of which would've happened had there not been a furlough of them by management. The end of the pilot/management strife would've been the end. Now, another cog had been thrown into the situation. Whatever the FAs decide to do, so long as it's within the contract (return ASAP, return nearer to the contract limit), its entirely up to them and they should expect backing for whatever decision they make.
 
HRDiva said:
I believe in being militant when you have a battle you can win. When Ben sent out the notice that we would not get paid, I sent him a copy of the wage complaint I filed with the state of NJ--I could do that because his email was meant to intimidate us but was a violation of New Jersey law. He was following the advice of his high priced Washington, DC lawyers who forgot that there are state laws. Our pay arrived the next day. So, we all got paid. Believe me, threatening to not pay the pilots was a powerful intimidation measure--create pressure at home to go to work.

Again, you have to pick your battles. Shutting the company down for two more weeks would destroy it. That's why we knew we had to shut it down completely to force the company to the table to negotiate quickly. I backed my husband 100% on this.
Click to expand...

He's a lucky gentleman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top