Anybody want to get back to this 'core' issue of the OPs post?

If you think it's bad now, just wait until Uncle Glenn accounces a merger partner. I predict the pilots will shut it down, making the summer from hell seem like a picnic.

4 UA flights this month - out of the 4, none had Ch. 9.

A frontline CSR at HNL check-in mentioned offhand to me last week that she had heard a rumor that some UA captains were refusing aircraft with any open MX items in the logbook. That was in response to my query on the reason for the delayed inbound UA73, which made our UA74 2.5 hrs. late. It was MX.

Happened this month to my parents, too, come to think of it - in DEN on a 737 segment. The plane boarded and was ready for pushback when the captain said she'd refused the plane as it was "unable to fly at nighttime." After much shuffling around, they repaired whatever it was that made the plane unable to fly at night and they were on their way several hours later on the same plane.

Anecdotally, seems to be getting worse at least. Reality is another thing altogether.

This is really pathetic. PHL-ORD-PHL yesterday/today - one segement did not have ch9, the other the volume was so low I could barely hear anything (although this could just be a issue with the equipment).

Another reason to love the unions ...

This is simply incorrect. Unless you think losing the ESOP shares was getting off fairly well. Unless you think pay cuts is getting off fairly well.

That may be the point, but I have to say that workers/unions who engage in deliberate work slowdowns (sick-outs, work-to-rule, etc.) end up doing nothing more than shooting themselves in the foot. If the point is to get customers to take their business elsewhere, they should give the customer prior notice of that fact, so that the customer can do so without being severely inconvenienced.

A strike is something very specific... it is (in an ideal world) a last resort when negotiations have reached an impasse and shows that the workers are willing to put a complete halt to service/production, possibly lose wages, etc. in order to negotiate for the terms they desire. It shows commitment and fortitude on the part of the workers where they are willing to essentially sacrifice their jobs in order to get what they feel they're entitled to. Moreover, a strike involves a complete work stoppage; customers know what to expect, they know they will be inconvenienced, and they can plan accordingly by taking their business elsewhere beforehand.

On the other hand, a work slowdown or a sick-out has a much larger negative impact on the customer, because they're not expecting it and are essentially blindsided. The customers expect business as usual and therefore do not plan in advance to take their business elsewhere. Instead, they receive deliberately poor service and, by the time they figure it out, it's too late. Moreover, because a slowdown usually does not involve the same press attention and customer communication that an organized strike involves, the customer is unaware that the slowdown is supposed to be a "message" to management... instead, they end up blaming the workers because they are the customer-facing employees. In the end, the customer who "takes his business elsewhere" because of a work slowdown is likely so angry that they'll never return, even after the work slowdown is over, and that's just as bad for the workers as it is for management.

An organized strike is much more preferable from a customer perspective because they know why it's happening and can plan for it in advance; it's also preferable from a worker perspective since it shows their resolve and has a chance of gathering sympathy from the customers. On the other hand, a work slowdown is essentially nothing more than a gigantic middle finger that's intended for management but ends up flipping off the customers instead, because the fact that work is going on at all presents the expectation of "business as usual," and when that doesn't happen, it's the customers who suffer.

What's the point? No work is better than shoddy work. Either do the job properly or go on strike; anything in between does nothing more than hurt the customers who (indirectly) pay the workers' salaries. Such juvenile tactics garner zero sympathy.

VERY well said, cepheid!^

Attitude is a two-way street.

In every organization that I've been involved with (schools, churches, companies, voluntary organizations, even local and national governments), the people at the top set the tone.

If the people at the top are dedicated to providing a superior product or service at a fair price and with a sense of courtesy and responsibility, and if they share both the rewards of success and the pain of failure with the rank-and-file, you'll have good morale and eager, competent workers.

There's a family-owned manufacturing business in my father's hometown, now owned and managed by the children of the original founder. A few years ago, when times were bad, the owners announced that instead of laying people off, they were going to cut everyone's wages 10% AND they, the owners, were going to forego their entire salaries for the following year. That kind of attitude engenders employee loyalty and support.

If the people at the top are greedy, grasping a-holes, then that attitude of "I don't care about anything but what's in it for me" filters down into the lower ranks. For example, taking big bonuses while cutting everyone else's salaries and benefits models "What's in it for me" behavior. Consciously or unconsciously, the lower-ranking employees adopt the same attitude.

I agree with you fully. With a strike, the customer knows exactly what to expect, but bad service and irregular operations are the wrong method of expressing anger at the management: customers should never be the subject of employees wrath.

Pay cuts compared to loss of pensions... I agree with ksandness, there has been more you first than us together attitude.

I also agree with cepheid that this kind of action will not benefit their cause.

To stay on topic, I can't remember when CH 9 was turned off. I have had it for all of my mainline flights in the recent past, including last week. Been on UX a lot though.

I second that - great way to explain it.

Cephid's post should be copied (perhaps with or without attribution) and carried by FT'ers and MP members and shown to any and all folks who start giving attitude or do work slowdown antics. Great Post!

The flying public puts up with it but if the unions really want some type of influence through customers, then they need to educate us (if we're willing to listen) about their plight in a way that encourages us to voice our opinion or change our habits about using UAL.

I think UAL management could better handle thier relations with the employees by positive reinforcement through revenue sharing and extra compensation when an employee is identified via GTEM or email/letter from a satisfied customer. DO it, even if it isn't in the contract, because its the right thing to do.

It seems like it should be so easy to do so, but why doesn't management see that? That's what puzzles me, unless they are so insulated dealing with "higher order" issues like mergers, aircraft purchase, fuel issues.

Maybe we should advocate that if they hired a "Customer Service Czar" to better address our needs and keep us customers happy, maybe they could do the same for their employees. I for one would love to see the synergies and potential if all (or most) of the employees felt they were getting a fair shake for their work and pulling all at the same time.

Wouldn't that be something?

Regards,

Bart

Exactly!! I believe they think by inconveniencing us, we will "complain" to UA and vote our dollars/revenue somewhere else....not that it's the best to handle this situation but I get it somewhat.....


great post - cepheid!!!!

Thanks, I appreciate it. I do accept donations.

Seriously, people really need to think these things through thoroughly (the 5 THs? ). A strike accomplishes something in an organized manner; a slowdown accomplishes nothing but chaos and anger. It takes some balls to strike and take that risk. It takes nothing more than juvenile passive-aggression to implement a work slowdown and/or sick-out. One is potentially admirable (or at the very least, understandable). The other is, at best, annoying, and at worst, despicable.

Since exiting bankruptcy almost two years ago UA has paid down debt and grown their cash on hand to $5 Billion dollars. How is that "little extra cash"?


That is nice union propaganda but that is all it is. Of course they have to negotiate when times are good and when times are bad. Are they upset that they have to do one of the few jobs asked of them by the rank and file, actually look out for their interests? Give me a break. All levels of the company feel pain during the hard times and all levels want to get some of the rewards in good times.

Please don't forget the $2 billion dollars that has been distributed to UA employees since exiting bankruptcy, nor the $100 million in profit sharing that will be distributed in the first quarter of 2008, nor the $15 million that was distributed this year, nor the quarterly success sharing checks that are distributed every 90 days, nor the pay raises they have received since exiting bankruptcy.

The union contracts become amendable at the end of 2009, negotiations in the airline industry typically start AFTER the amendable date. So the time to voice displeasure is when it might make a difference, sometime in 2010. But I think the unions are afraid to wait as the economy may not be in good shape then.


Everyone lost money in the ESOP except the FA's.
Everyone took paycuts.
Everyone lost some of their benefits or pay more for them.

I think we have a simple dichotomy here. Americans all like to think of each other as equal but at the same time we all want to make more money than our co-workers. The world is not a fair place.

Senior management makes more money than pilots
Pilots make more money than mechanics
Mechanics make more money than FA's
Flight attendants make more money than many of the salaried employees and gate agents

Thats just the way it is. Each level has their own market reality they work in and each level has a different set of skills. Some are protected by being Federally licensed (pilots and mechanics who are harder to replace) some are not (such as FA's, no matter how much they want you to think they are "safety professionals, the FAA does not see them that way, not enough to certificate them).


The better the company does, the better the service provided, the more money they make and the more money available for employees. When that system breaks down everyone loses. It is interesting that union employees love to tout that THEY are the reason for all that is good, but that management is responsible for all that is bad. Sorry folks, its a two way street.