Spirit FA's were furloughed today :(

Oh, and in response to the OP's comment about "not caring..."

So what would demonstrate "caring" to you? Keeping them on the payroll, thus bleeding money even faster that they already were, such that the company would go out of business sooner? That's "caring?"

Or is "caring" doing everything to preserve the company's viability so that the FA's have a a job to come back to?

In fact, why do you need your employer to "care" about you at all? I don't. All I need is to be paid on time, and at the agreed upon amount, so that I can "care" for myself.
 
O&M said:
I'm well aware that you are granted that right under the RLA. But you only have that right because some politicians who wanted to be re-elected bestowed it upon you. Forget the RLA for minute. I am asking what moral authority gives you the right to destroy someone else's hard-won creation?

Allow me to draw an analogy. Your neighbor pays your child to mow their lawn. After a while the child wants to be paid more to do it, but the neighbor doesn't wish to pay more. Should your child take a hammer to the lawnmower, or just find another neighbor who will pay more?
Click to expand...

Moral authority?

Boss, I don't know who you are, where you live, or what your beliefs are, but me? I live in the United States of American, and in my country, we are a lawful nation.

So with that, when we're discussing legal matters, I don't care about moral authority. The Railway Labor Act of 1926 is a federal statute that bestows upon certain workers of certain industries, certain rights and responsibilities. To do any analysis beyond that, trudging into natural law, means you have little to argue.

The law is, quite frankly, amoral.
 
O&M said:
I'm well aware that you are granted that right under the RLA. But you only have that right because some politicians who wanted to be re-elected bestowed it upon you. Forget the RLA for minute. I am asking what moral authority gives you the right to destroy someone else's hard-won creation?

Allow me to draw an analogy. Your neighbor pays your child to mow their lawn. After a while the child wants to be paid more to do it, but the neighbor doesn't wish to pay more. Should your child take a hammer to the lawnmower, or just find another neighbor who will pay more?
Click to expand...

I'm curious what your background is. The RLA has been a part of the airline industry since the 1930s. Politics was a lot different then, so I find it highly unlikely that it was because someone wanted to get re-elected. In fact, airline pilots at the time (who were being pushed into dangerous situations on a nightly basis) had to convince the government to put them under the RLA.

Your analogy is flawed, though. Taking the hammer to the lawnmower and refusing to work until pay in line with the other neighborhood lawnmowing kids are totally different. In addition, the neighbor would be the customer. In the airlines, customers don't directly set the pay for airline pilots. Management does. Now, if you were running a lawnmowing business and paying your child then decided you weren't gonna pay them as much as the guy two doors down was paying his child, then I'd say we'd be closer to the mark. As it is, I'm not sure you've got a good grasp on the situation....
 
kellwolf said:
I'm curious what your background is. The RLA has been a part of the airline industry since the 1930s. Politics was a lot different then, so I find it highly unlikely that it was because someone wanted to get re-elected. In fact, airline pilots at the time (who were being pushed into dangerous situations on a nightly basis) had to convince the government to put them under the RLA.

Your analogy is flawed, though. Taking the hammer to the lawnmower and refusing to work until pay in line with the other neighborhood lawnmowing kids are totally different. In addition, the neighbor would be the customer. In the airlines, customers don't directly set the pay for airline pilots. Management does. Now, if you were running a lawnmowing business and paying your child then decided you weren't gonna pay them as much as the guy two doors down was paying his child, then I'd say we'd be closer to the mark. As it is, I'm not sure you've got a good grasp on the situation....
Click to expand...

I think, really, that's all that needs to be said here. O&M is shooting from the hip not making any sense because he's not educated on the subject. We've all done it, but now it's time for O&M to start learning and reading rather than talky talky talky.
 
I'm ready to read and learn, but you gotta say something besides telling me that I need to read and learn.
 
jtrain609 said:
Moral authority?

Boss, I don't know who you are, where you live, or what your beliefs are, but me? I live in the United States of American, and in my country, we are a lawful nation.

So with that, when we're discussing legal matters, I don't care about moral authority. The Railway Labor Act of 1926 is a federal statute that bestows upon certain workers of certain industries, certain rights and responsibilities. To do any analysis beyond that, trudging into natural law, means you have little to argue.

The law is, quite frankly, amoral.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

And so is Bankrupcy law too.


Business is business and if you're not paying for the market rate or even asking price of the services provided then you shouldn't be receiving those services. This strike is a pure example of a free market contrary to what many 'management' types think (unlike the 3 years leading up to the strike). The pay was not enough for the services rendered so the services was suspended and the company was free to look elseware for its pilots. It couldnt find those services at the asking price (monetary and risk to others future careers) so it had to pay-guess what-the market wages. We're not slaves and we weren't put on this earth so that investors can use us to make their dreams realities.

How about look at it this way. Sure those investors deserve to see the fruits of their labor, but so should those employees who helped build that company. There is never just one person who accomplishes anything great. Just because an employee doesnt directly invest their money into the project doesnt mean they havent sacraficed time and effort to build and sustain the 'dream' of those investors. And if that company happened to fail there goes all that time and effort. And remember those workers dont share the same amount of unlimited reward.

Your analogy sucks too. Its not the kid destroying the lawnmower. Its the kid saying 'this pay is not worth my time and effort so I'm just not going to mow the lawn unless you pay x amount. You are free to hire the other neighbors kids or even do it yourself but I'm going to find something else to do.'
 
O&M said:
I'm ready to read and learn, but you gotta say something besides telling me that I need to read and learn.
Click to expand...

The books Jtrain pointed out will give you a good backing on how unions got started in the airline biz as well as the hows and whys we are under the RLA. In a deregulated world, the RLA doesn't make as much sense anymore, and it's an antiquated law. That being said, it's still the law. It's not THAT difficult to understand, but I don't know any books or websites that break it down very well other than the $70 textbook I have sitting next to me.

Essentially, job actions and protections are governed under the RLA. Mergers and seniority lists are covered under cases that have come in the past as well as the "Allegheny-Mohawk" case. That's where the "reasonable expectations" come in to play.

To continue the previous analogy, although as I stated it's flawed, Spirit pilots aren't trying to "break the lawnmower." That's the last thing they want to do since that's their means of being paid and making a living. However, they do want to be treated at least fairly and get the same pay and benefits as the rest of the guys doing the landscaping. They also can't just up and leave for another company to be paid better. Unfortunately, that's not how the airline industry is set up. You could leave, but you'll start over at the bottom with little to no seniority and less pay than you had before. If we had portable longevity (and I'll let someone ELSE explain the differences between longevity and seniority), then it would be possible to just leave for another carrier that would offer better QoL or benefits. That's a ways in the future, assuming we ever see it.
 
O&M said:
That's a very nice offer. And I would be interested in reading them. But I probably don't have the money to pay you for them.
Click to expand...

Like Train said, this is one of those things in life that IS free. :) I actually have TWO copies of Flying the Line Vol II. Picked up one copy at Goodwill before I started at the airlines, and ALPA gave me copies of Vol I and II.
 
O&M said:
Oh, and in response to the OP's comment about "not caring..."

So what would demonstrate "caring" to you? Keeping them on the payroll, thus bleeding money even faster that they already were, such that the company would go out of business sooner? That's "caring?"

Or is "caring" doing everything to preserve the company's viability so that the FA's have a a job to come back to?

In fact, why do you need your employer to "care" about you at all? I don't. All I need is to be paid on time, and at the agreed upon amount, so that I can "care" for myself.
Click to expand...
because the employer expects loyalty and for us to care about them and the health of the bottom line/business....it's a give/take situation on all sides or should it not be?

the company was essentially firing their employees when they furloughed them...how were they guaranteed any "job to come back to" once that occurred? it's playing dirty ball with your loyalty clause...

I'm in the engineering business, i've learned if you want to keep loyal employees, you need to give loyalty in return, especially if you don't want to see your employees move to new loyalty every few years...it costs a hella chunk of cash to replace workers...you've got training, new benefit costs, ramp up/ramp down time and all that garbage to deal with.... The same goes for respect, kindness, customer service, professionalism and so forth. If the company doesn't give a hoot about its employees, what should they give them in return? for most, just pay alone is not enough because most companies can't pay you cash at the price of your "worth" which is why most employees receive benefits that become a part of the monetary financials that sum up your "worth" cost...

You start losing loyalty about the same time you start feeling less "valued" by the company..value is measured by the quantity and quality of items offered by the company *for your benefit* that sum up to a full amount of "worth".

so all you need is to be paid on time? that's it...you don't need anything but that...i find that a little more than a bit hard to believe unless you're being paid WELL more than your worth (which is also a bit hard to believe in this economy).
 
Interesting. Apparently your definition of loyalty means that employees should be free to walk off the job, but the company has an obligation to keep employees on the job.
 
troll?

obvious_troll.preview.jpg
 
O&M said:
Interesting. Apparently your definition of loyalty means that employees should be free to walk off the job, but the company has an obligation to keep employees on the job.
Click to expand...

Oh, and AGAIN, you must not understand the legal rights and responsibilities that are ascribed to both parties when working under the Railway Labor Act.

Until you understand this, your points are meaningless.
 
O&M said:
Interesting. Apparently your definition of loyalty means that employees should be free to walk off the job, but the company has an obligation to keep employees on the job.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Take my job of example. I'm very proud of my work ethic, BUT treat me like I'm dirt and don't matter, and that starts to erode pretty quickly. There's more to an employer-employee relationship than just a paycheck.
 
kellwolf said:
Not at all. Take my job of example. I'm very proud of my work ethic, BUT treat me like I'm dirt and don't matter, and that starts to erode pretty quickly. There's more to an employer-employee relationship than just a paycheck.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat: People do what they do because it makes them feel important.

How hard to these companies expect us to work if they make it clear that we're unimportant?
 
jtrain609 said:
Moral authority?

Boss, I don't know who you are, where you live, or what your beliefs are, but me? I live in the United States of American, and in my country, we are a lawful nation.

So with that, when we're discussing legal matters, I don't care about moral authority. The Railway Labor Act of 1926 is a federal statute that bestows upon certain workers of certain industries, certain rights and responsibilities. To do any analysis beyond that, trudging into natural law, means you have little to argue.

The law is, quite frankly, amoral.
Click to expand...

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaamn. This boys been gettin his edumacation on. I feel a little dumber thanks to your intellectual comment. Lol. Can I borrow that line at the next jc?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top