Originally Posted by GoAmtrak

even if he did it in a dramatic, illogical, and passenger-unfriendly way

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

Yeah, this makes no sense unless it's part of a repeated pattern and he finally took a stand on it.

Originally Posted by demkr

+1

Originally Posted by GoAmtrak

You're missing the contractual obligation part. The pilot may have been childish for demanding that the contract be precisely met. But he and ALPA could and would absolutely sue for breach of contract and wrongful termination.

Originally Posted by CollegeFlyer

Fine, so if UA's caterers caused UA to breach the pilot's contract by not providing the bread and dessert portion of the pilot's meal (entree only), then the pilot would be within his rights to sue UA, demanding a refund of the portion of his pay that was deducted for the meal, or the cost of whatever he had to buy in the terminal as a replacement, and whatever penalties are specified in the contract.

But delaying an entire flight, effectively using hundreds of passengers as hostages to make a point (and potentially causing them to miss connections, important meetings, or getting home in time to pick their kids up from school, etc.) was irresponsible and immature.

As far as contracts go, there's breach, and there's breach. If UA had breached the pilot's contract by refusing to give him his paycheck last week, and I would think it was justified for the pilot to simply refuse to fly. But seriously, refusing to fly because two side dishes were accidentally left off of the dinner tray?

Originally Posted by fastair

In a publicly traded company, it is the shareholder that can lobby the BoD with much more weight than the customers. Of course if the shareholders are loseing $$ becuase the company is not keeping the customers happy, then the shareholders would change their plans. The company does respond to customers, as we have all seen changes in responce to massive customer outcry, so to say their input is not listened to is an extreme. For example, did the public cut my spay in chap 11? Not a chance, the courts ordered the $$ to be spent on shareholders and creditors...the way it always happens in bancruptcy. When UA emerged from chap 11, did they take the profit in the 1st year and give back ANY of the wages (money form the customers, in your view)? No, they kept wages the same, and rewarded the shareholders with a divident, that 6 months later ammounted to, if I recall over 20% of the market value of the company. I doubt that was a direct "customer--> shareholder transaction" rather a customer--> ual corp transaction, that UAL corp (at that time, UAUA) choose to give to the stocjholders, not the employees, nor to the other people that UA had defaulted on under court protection.

One can try to say you pay my salary, but that is just a nice catch phrase, even if you don't like the "laundering" concept, in reality, it is much closer to the truth that to say that a customer pays it. I think I might try to tell the next police officer that I pay his salary when I get pulled over and see how far it goes.

Businesses run and their income comes from customers. Customers do not pay the employees, they are paid by the company. Many things the company does to generate money to pay my salary are in direct conflict with a customers desires. Their inout on how things are run, and how they fund things are determined not by popular vote of the customers, but by the business plan of the company and their management.

A direct increase in customer spend does not corelate to an increase in employee salary, nor does a money loseing 1/4 due to customer drop off directly impact my pay. Customers pay the corporation, the corporation in turn decides what it wants done with that money. I get paid, not on a comission, but on a negotiated contract that pays me the same per hour, no matter how many customers I serve. IMHO, UA does not want a direct customer-employee payment method, as that would motivate an employee to bend rules (in much the way a skycap will, for a big tip, try to aviod forcing you to pay excess charges for your overweight bag) in favor of the customer, at the corporations loss (and employee's gain.)

The company might even try to make such a corelation between customer's payment and my paycheck, but my contract states something completely different, and it is upheld by federal law, which supercedes bumper sticker motivational concepts.

Just to be clear, I work for a corporation, who sells a product to the public. That company intern, works for me, as I happen to be a shareholder. My company, as it's primary subsiduary, directs me to serve the customer under the companies rules, which are set forth, not by customers, but by teh officers, who are appointed by the BoD, who are appointed by the shareholder. Nowhere in that CoC is a customer, other than a purchaser of a good., which is delievered in accordance with the companies guidelines, and some of those guidelines include nbenefits for the employees, and in the pilot's case, a meal within certain pre-determined parameters.

I enjoy helping the customers to the best of my ability within the guidelines set forth my my employeer, United Airlines, but make no mistake, it is the company that I work for, the company's rules I follow (and intern they must as well follow the rules,) and the company that pays my checks.

Originally Posted by fastair

Unions didn't invent contract law. Imagine an "at will" empolyee who forgot to do his job (i.e. deliver the proper product) who could be fired instantly for that, or better yet, could be fired without any reason at all. Seems to me, a set of binding rules and reasons to be terminated are far better than no reason needed at all.

Originally Posted by travel.flier

I don't see anything wrong w/that. I'm an at will employee, and if I screw up, my employer should be able to fire me w/o having to figure out what the law says blah blah....they can just let me go.

Originally Posted by fastair

Trickle down effect. Depending on how far you want to go removed from my hourly wage negotiated by my union and agreed to by my company, you partially fund the accounts that pay my salary, but have no say into my pay, now whose money goes to me and how much of it. In turn, freight forwarders also pay some of it and I have nothing to do with freight. The USPS pays some...again, I ahve nothing to do with that. Where did the USPS, the freight forwarders and you get your $$ from that you pay to UA? Since you want to go up the trickle down ladder a few steps, why does the buck magically stop with you? As long as we have gone numerous rungs from the direct source of the payroll account to you, let's go further, and say your employeer, their customers, their employeers...all the way to the US mint and those that determine fiscal policy.

Again, it is a nice concept to think that somehow, you pay me directly, but I am not in a "tip" profession. I never have received $$ from a customer (although I have been offered many times) and stuck it in my pocket. One cannot argue the trickle down effect and then stop it only when the ladder reaches you, if you wish to go to 2ndary and tertiary sources, by the same logic, one must go to quaternary and even furthur. I am not a waiter, a fast food delivery guy, or someone on comission. I receive an hourly rate. Just as a pilot gets paid the same if his plane has 1 passenger on it or 300 (for the same aircraft type and block to block time.) That alone should go to show, that my pay (as well as a pilot's, who of course is what the thread is about) salary is not paid by a customer. If that were so, then the full planes should pay the pilot more, and the less full (or got forbid, ferrying an empty plane) would pay him little to no money, which just isn't how it works.
Literal factual arguements work well with me, conceptual motivational speak that has far less impact on the reality of how I get paid, and where the direct funds come from has much more of an impact on me. Both mine, as well as the pilot's contract spell out pay rules. Nowhere in them is anything at all to do with getting paid by the end consumer.

One of the reasons corporations actualy LIKE unions is that it provides them a predictable cost model of labor costs. Regardless of company performance, the labor cost is pretty much already known and determined by the company in advance. The company could do great, but the labor costs are relativly fixed. The concept of the end consumer paying those costs directly does not work as well in such a model, as that would make labor a much more variable cost. Bean counters don't like variable costs in large corporations when they can eliminate the variablility with long term contracts amking them fixed.

Originally Posted by travel.flier

I don't see anything wrong w/that. I'm an at will employee, and if I screw up, my employer should be able to fire me w/o having to figure out what the law says blah blah....they can just let me go. I don't want additional legal protections - I want to have my job because I earned it the hard way, not because I'm entitled to it with some law that protects me. That would extremely inefficient for businesses.

Originally Posted by ORD-LIH

You still need cause to fire an at will employee. Not trying to negate your point but it's a common misconception that at will employees can be fired "at will". They can't and they often sue when they are.