Oops...stuck mic houston center

I'm with you there, Mike. He was disciplined, he got the sensitivity training, so I think Southwest management handled it perfectly. Termination would be far too severe, as would new company policies.
 
Fair enough Spira, but in no jurisdiction I'm familiar with is having an unpopular opinion illegal. The problem with this whole issue is that many people are placing absolute blanket judgments down on this guy when we know next to nothing about him. As far as the F/O, how do we know the First Secretary wasn't the one who started the damn conversation in the first place and said worse? Too many assumptions based on very little commentary. A few stupid words and suddenly we know everything we need to know about this guy. FACT: Humans often say things they don't mean in response to certain stimulus. I'm not advocating what he said, or approving it. I am pointing out to all of you that this guy, in this particular incident DID NOT in fact insult anyone with harmful intent. Now, if this is the kind of thing he spouts off in the crew room in ear shot of everyone present, then "off with his head". But until someone can show me evidence he ever at any point in his life expressed his opinions openly and directly to people to intentionally insult them and hurt their sensibilities and make them feel discriminated against YOU ALL HAVE NO CASE!
 
MikeD said:
As long as he's not offending anyone in his own cockpit, who cares what he says. So he has an opinion, whether we agree with it or not, he has a right to it. It was just his bad luck that the transmitter was keyed.

Again, lets not all act high and mighty and "shocked" that these cockpit topics of conversation occur daily in many cockpits in the National Airspace System.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Hell, I have that same convo with myself just walking to starbucks in the morning let alone in any type of aviation cockpit!
 
Doug Taylor said:
It's a tightrope. Talk about what you want to talk about but a lot of corporations are exceptionally protective of their brands.

Spark up the beer bong and going dwarf-tossing on your off days is fully acceptable.

Doing the same and wearing a Continental Airlines shirt is something else.
Click to expand...

I bet that you would get a raise from your carrier if you did these activities wearing a CAL shirt...them being competitors and all.
 
MQAAord said:
Disclaimer: I haven't read through all 5 pages of this thread so pardon me if this has been brought up already but...

Doesn't SWA have a "sterile cockpit" rule? No personal chatter below 10,000 (or something similar)? If this had happened at AMR the pilot would be the hotseat for violation of sterile cockpit as well as creating a hostile work environment. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however a rant like that has no place in the cockpit as the other pilot is a captive audience. There's no escape for the other guy, he HAS to sit there, and do you think that other pilot may be inclined to just quietly sit there and try to ignore it if he disagrees instead of getting into a discussion along those lines? Creating even more of a distracted atmosphere? If the pilot had said the exact same things at a restaurant or bar on the overnight, that's a WHOLE different scenario. No sterile cockpit, no captive audience (the other person is free to leave), and they're not on duty at all.

So, opinion, yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily free to just spout off and say whatever we want whenever we want. It's called using discretion, and a rant like that just doesn't need to be verbally expressed at that particular moment in time.
Click to expand...

THIS. I tell people one of the best things about this job is that you can turn the volume down if your coworker starts blabbing along like an idiot. I don't know how many political rants/pyramid schemes I have tactfully bowed out of by turning the volume of the other guy down and nodding every 30 seconds. Just as on JC, people who rant about things, mostly do it just to hear themselves talk. There are only a few times that I've said something like "ok, politics aren't exactly my cup of tea". And that's only when we've been kind of busy and the other guy kept rambling on. As someone with a thick skin, its a lot easier to just do whatever it takes to get though the trip than say anything. Unless safety is at risk of course.
 
MikeD said:
In this case though, the only difference is that the guy got caught due to it going out over the air. For anyone that wants this guy fried, all thats going to cause management to do is work to require people to report anything and everything they deem offensive for the appropriate disciplinary action. And to insure that crews are complying, CVR audits will occur, and anyone who doesn't report a situation is just as guilty as the person who committed the crime, and both will be disciplined; in this case the FO too.

Thats where frying this guy will lead. Should he get away scott free? No. He got bit by bad luck and, well, life's a bitch sometimes and not fair. It appears SWA provided punishment to their satisfaction and the situation is past. That should be all that matters. We just go down a slippery slope if we start this direction it appears some are headed down.
Click to expand...

Agree. Termination would be overkill for this, I don't think the guy should be fired for it.
 
staplegun said:
Ha! I got you beat!

When I was a new-hire at Southernjets I had just left USAir after spending 3 years there. On my first revenue Southernjets flight as a B-727 Second-Officer I made the top of cruise PA and said "USAir" every time I should have said "Southernjets." I heard the A-line clumping up the aisle and knocking on the cockpit door - "Did you just say USAir Flt XXX?"

Whoops!

I had to get on the PA and 'splain myself...

The Captain & F/O laughed at me...



Kevin
Click to expand...

Last fall i gave my entire takeoff briefing to JFK tower. Ended with "any questions?" He had a few.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
Fair enough Spira, but in no jurisdiction I'm familiar with is having an unpopular opinion illegal. The problem with this whole issue is that many people are placing absolute blanket judgments down on this guy when we know next to nothing about him. As far as the F/O, how do we know the First Secretary wasn't the one who started the damn conversation in the first place and said worse? Too many assumptions based on very little commentary. A few stupid words and suddenly we know everything we need to know about this guy. FACT: Humans often say things they don't mean in response to certain stimulus. I'm not advocating what he said, or approving it. I am pointing out to all of you that this guy, in this particular incident DID NOT in fact insult anyone with harmful intent. Now, if this is the kind of thing he spouts off in the crew room in ear shot of everyone present, then "off with his head". But until someone can show me evidence he ever at any point in his life expressed his opinions openly and directly to people to intentionally insult them and hurt their sensibilities and make them feel discriminated against YOU ALL HAVE NO CASE!
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal, nobody is claiming it is illegal. It is also not illegal for SWA to discipline this guy. Personally, I have more respect for the guys who display their bigotry openly. There is nothing worse than someone who will be polite in front of someone and then when they leave and me and him are alone he thinks I am one of the "good ole boys" for some reason and tells me what he really thinks. I don't want to hear that and find it funny it is only done in "private." The type of person who glances left and right before saying an ethnic or sexist slur. These are the worst kind of bigots, those that simultaneously are clever enough to realize that being honest about their opinions in the marketplace of ideas would get them shunned but still can't shut up about it.

I also agree that this one incident, in of itself, shouldn't be grounds for termination, and he wasn't fired. But honestly, who really believes that this is some kind of isolated incident? This is super hyperbole but it's like trying to get Al Capone a light sentence because it is his first conviction for tax evasion. I would be interested to see if SWA has a "no fly" list where FOs can list captains they wish to avoid, and if so how many guys this guy had already driven off. I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a guy who has to spend a month long bid with this jerk.
 
HRDiva said:
Excuse me? I'm nobody?

I'm claiming it's illegal. That's why he was suspended.
Click to expand...
Well, you would know more about the subject than I would... but you would have to enlighten me on why the conduct was illegal. I'm not being snarky at all, I am curious.
 
I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I've read enough to wonder: If this conversation took place in a cubicle instead of a cockpit, would the outcome be any different?

Everywhere I've worked, I've had to comply with corporate ethical standards. I have to sign to agree with them as part of my on-boarding.

Further, at everyone of my employers, be they the military or a large corporation or a startup, I was told that to have no expectation of privacy on my corporate phone, my corporate computer, or in my corporate cubicle/office. My mere presence or use of those items constituted consent to the policy.

Heck, I was on a corporate telecon about two hours ago, and the first thing it told me was "Your participation in this telecon might be recorded. If you do not consent to being recorded, please hang up now."

And sometimes corporations can go to extremes. For example, one of my employers, a large defense contractor, established a rule that we were not to discuss proprietary information in rental cars on business trips. Why? Because of the fears that someone could turn on the OnStar and hear the conversation, and corporate secrets could be accidentally disclosed. It sounds draconian, and I'm sure people ignored it, but that was the rule and if you were caught violating it, you could be fired. And the reason it was put into place was probably because some idiot did it and now the corporation has to go make an official policy covering it.

There's a major IT company out there who demands that their employees do not engage in social media, even on their personal devices on personal time. Why, you might ask? Because one of their employees got on his cell phone and tweeted "I'm at the secret backup data center" - with his geographical locator activated on his cell phone. Suddenly, everyone in the tweetverse knows the location of the corporation's undisclosed backup location. And I know for a fact that they actively monitor Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other places to ensure their employee's compliance.

So, yes, it's within the rights of a corporation to enforce their employees speech while on the premises or engaged in company business.

In a cockpit or in a cubicle, it doesn't really matter. If someone overhears it and is offended, the corporation is involved, because it can constitute a "hostile workplace." Thus, the corporations have to take these actions to protect themselves.

As for me, when I'm in the office, I always conduct myself as though Big Brother is listening. Because sometimes, they might just be in the cube next door.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Well, you would know more about the subject than I would... but you would have to enlighten me on why the conduct was illegal. I'm not being snarky at all, I am curious.
Click to expand...

I did in my previous post: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended (ADEAAA).

Creating a hostile working environment based on discrimination under these acts is illegal. Furthermore, creating a retaliatory hostile working environment is also illegal. People can't be afraid of reporting or exercising their rights.

So, the CA rants and rants. The FO has to put up with it in fear for his job if he doesn't. That's a retaliatory hostile working environment.

Now, should the FO have reported this to HR immediately? Yes. Was that done? I don't know.
 
HRDiva said:
I did in my previous post: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended (ADEAAA).

Creating a hostile working environment based on discrimination under these acts is illegal. Furthermore, creating a retaliatory hostile working environment is also illegal. People can't be afraid of reporting or exercising their rights.

So, the CA rants and rants. The FO has to put up with it in fear for his job if he doesn't. That's a retaliatory hostile working environment.

Now, should the FO have reported this to HR immediately? Yes. Was that done? I don't know.
Click to expand...

Is there ever discipline administered to someone who witnesses such acts and doesn't report the behavior to HR? Would they become something akin to an accessory at that point? Thanks in advance for your answer.
 
Mike Lewis said:
I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I've read enough to wonder: If this conversation took place in a cubicle instead of a cockpit, would the outcome be any different?

Everywhere I've worked, I've had to comply with corporate ethical standards. I have to sign to agree with them as part of my on-boarding.

Further, at everyone of my employers, be they the military or a large corporation or a startup, I was told that to have no expectation of privacy on my corporate phone, my corporate computer, or in my corporate cubicle/office. My mere presence or use of those items constituted consent to the policy.

Heck, I was on a corporate telecon about two hours ago, and the first thing it told me was "Your participation in this telecon might be recorded. If you do not consent to being recorded, please hang up now."

And sometimes corporations can go to extremes. For example, one of my employers, a large defense contractor, established a rule that we were not to discuss proprietary information in rental cars on business trips. Why? Because of the fears that someone could turn on the OnStar and hear the conversation, and corporate secrets could be accidentally disclosed. It sounds draconian, and I'm sure people ignored it, but that was the rule and if you were caught violating it, you could be fired. And the reason it was put into place was probably because some idiot did it and now the corporation has to go make an official policy covering it.

There's a major IT company out there who demands that their employees do not engage in social media, even on their personal devices on personal time. Why, you might ask? Because one of their employees got on his cell phone and tweeted "I'm at the secret backup data center" - with his geographical locator activated on his cell phone. Suddenly, everyone in the tweetverse knows the location of the corporation's undisclosed backup location. And I know for a fact that they actively monitor Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other places to ensure their employee's compliance.

So, yes, it's within the rights of a corporation to enforce their employees speech while on the premises or engaged in company business.

In a cockpit or in a cubicle, it doesn't really matter. If someone overhears it and is offended, the corporation is involved, because it can constitute a "hostile workplace." Thus, the corporations have to take these actions to protect themselves.

As for me, when I'm in the office, I always conduct myself as though Big Brother is listening. Because sometimes, they might just be in the cube next door.
Click to expand...

Nicely thought out post..it could be compelling the way you put it if in fact it was possible to separate this type of individual incident from the bigger picture. And unfortunately, we can't afford that price. This is where it always starts. One tiny little insignificant incident with reactions that can be justified (there have been some good arguments here) and even considered to be rational. But what such an above position fails to take into account is it's precedent setting nature and how such a thing on a much larger scale can be perverted into true, very real and detrimental attacks on our basic freedoms. This issue simply cannot be lanced out from the bigger issues. If we could say with certainty than accepting these kind of corporate "rights" to this degree will never have any influence over government, law, constitutional rights etc. if allowed to spiral out of control then sure, I'll bite, discipline the guy for a poorly timed verbalized private opinion. But in reality, we can't accept that with any level of certainty.

We should not accept this level of scrutiny over our lives..even at work, under any circumstances for any reason. We are opening the door to far greater restrictions. Restrictions that even the proponents of proverbially "burning this guy alive" will not find pleasant in the long run. We are talking about the restriction of thought and ideals for the sake of corporate image. I'm flabbergasted that some of you can't see the bigger ramifications of accepting this type of thing as justifiable. Last night I went to bed knowing full well I was born into a free county. After reading some of these posts I will go to bed tonight with serious doubts that I will die in one.

This is paraphrased but Benjamin Franklin was believed to have once stated: "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither." I think that quote can translate well in to this situation just fine...I am deeply ashamed and even more concerned for the future of this nation after reading this thread than I was previously...We have so many significant challenges as a nation in front of us to overcome: war, terrorism, environmental devastation, economic disaster, insurmountable debt, health care crisis, energy crisis and the list goes on and on and on.. Real issues that can, and will profoundly effect the lives of every man woman and child in not only this nation, but the entire world, and we are charging into battle with our sabers held high for what, to kill one moron that hates "gays...." when in fact we have no evidence telling us he ever actually caused harm to one? Where is this going to stop? What are the limits of control we are willing to accept by our corporate overlords? When will money finally be replaced with ration and logic as the primary driving force of this world? Refusal to accept this type of thing as the norm is where we will start to reverse a disturbing trend. If we fail now, and allow this to spiral out of control which it already is well on its way to, we will all get EXACTLY what we paid for....

What a great day for America....What a great day for humanity...:clap::clap::clap: Good job guys..Way to go! Pat yourselves on the back..I'm sure if you shared some of your thoughts and opinions expressed here with your respective CEO's you'll get a gold star next to your name for the day....And tomorrow they will still be trying to figure out how to pay you less and charge you more for everything from TV's to tangerines.
 
If it was a supervisor, then yes they would be disciplined. They are part of the management team and need to report incidents. Not reporting is tacit approval of the illegal behavior.

If it were an employee, then they could argue that they were not offended; thus there was no hostile working environment.

BUT, if the company has a POLICY and TRAINS on that policy and DOCUMENTS that they trained on that policy, then they can hold anyone ACCOUNTABLE for not adhering to the POLICY.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
Nicely thought out post..it could be compelling the way you put it if in fact it was possible to separate this type of individual incident from the bigger picture. And unfortunately, we can't afford that price. This is where it always starts. One tiny little insignificant incident with reactions that can be justified (there have been some good arguments here) and even considered to be rational. But what such an above position fails to take into account is it's precedent setting nature and how such a thing on a much larger scale can be perverted into true, very real and detrimental attacks on our basic freedoms. This issue simply cannot be lanced out from the bigger issues. If we could say with certainty than accepting these kind of corporate "rights" to this degree will never have any influence over government, law, constitutional rights etc. if allowed to spiral out of control then sure, I'll bite, discipline the guy for a poorly timed verbalized private opinion. But in reality, we can't accept that with any level of certainty.

We should not accept this level of scrutiny over our lives..even at work, under any circumstances for any reason. We are opening the door to far greater restrictions. Restrictions that even the proponents of proverbially "burning this guy alive" will not find pleasant in the long run. We are talking about the restriction of thought and ideals for the sake of corporate image. I'm flabbergasted that some of you can't see the bigger ramifications of accepting this type of thing as justifiable. Last night I went to bed knowing full well I was born into a free county. After reading some of these posts I will go to bed tonight with serious doubts that I will die in one.

This is paraphrased but Benjamin Franklin was believed to have once stated: "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither." I think that quote can translate well in to this situation just fine...I am deeply ashamed and even more concerned for the future of this nation after reading this thread than I was previously...We have so many significant challenges as a nation in front of us to overcome: war, terrorism, environmental devastation, economic disaster, insurmountable debt, health care crisis, energy crisis and the list goes on and on and on.. Real issues that can, and will profoundly effect the lives of every man woman and child in not only this nation, but the entire world, and we are charging into battle with our sabers held high for what, to kill one moron that hates "gays...." when in fact we have no evidence telling us he ever actually caused harm to one? Where is this going to stop? What are the limits of control we are willing to accept by our corporate overlords? When will money finally be replaced with ration and logic as the primary driving force of this world? Refusal to accept this type of thing as the norm is where we will start to reverse a disturbing trend. If we fail now, and allow this to spiral out of control which it already is well on its way to, we will all get EXACTLY what we paid for....

What a great day for America....What a great day for humanity...:clap::clap::clap: Good job guys..Way to go! Pat yourselves on the back..I'm sure if you shared some of your thoughts and opinions expressed here with your respective CEO's you'll get a gold star next to your name for the day....And tomorrow they will still be trying to figure out how to pay you less and charge you more for everything from TV's to tangerines.
Click to expand...

holy crazy!
 
HRDiva said:
BUT, if the company has a POLICY and TRAINS on that policy and DOCUMENTS that they trained on that policy, then they can hold anyone ACCOUNTABLE for not adhering to the POLICY.
Click to expand...

Am surprised companies haven't been working then to be able to "ops check" CVRs for compliance, safety related or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top