|
I don't know about the work slowdown, but I've noticed an increasing number of MX delays this year. I haven't kept notes, but it feels like 25% of my flights have had some sort of delay due to MX - running from 30 minutes to 2+ hours. I was chatting with a deadheading pilot and he was explaining how the cuts in mechanics has led to more reactive maintenance than pro-active, which is how he described it pre 9/11 and bankruptcy.
I like the idea of employees getting bonuses when they get recognized. When I have a good experience, I try to make it known to management, would be motivation all around to know you were helping reward someone with more than a pat on the back. |
Imagine a Winter from Circle 9 of The Inferno, Satan would be chewing on (insert name of bad CEO) and leaving his minions to rest in the CEO's body. I hope that winter 2007-2008 will not be that bad.
|
Originally Posted by MP Premier
(Post 8817858)
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? |
Another ^ for cepheid's commentary. Even customers who have a pro-union mentality or are union members themselves, will not tolerate a slowdown, whether stealth or announced. At least if there is a formal strike, or a picketing action, pro union customers can make a choice to take their business elsewhere (given some reasonable advance knowledge).
|
Originally Posted by lucky9876coins
(Post 8816963)
VERY well said, cepheid!^
I'd also like to add to cepheid's remarks with a couple more points:
|
The slowdowns are already happening due to employee anger at the company, but it is the passengers who are bearing the brunt of these actions. I agree with cepheid. Either organize a work stoppage or strike to draw attention to their cause, but do not place the customers in between their issues. United flyers then think the airline is unreliable and unfriendly, but it is really intentional disservice and cancellation of operations that is occuring.
|
I am at SNA right now, where I was on the delayed 1212 which would have caused me to miss my connection in DEN, and was rebooked on 436, which ultimately canceled. The interesting thing was that the pilots boarded the plane and within 15 minutes announced that there was an "air brake problem" and that the flight would be canceled. Normally, wouldn't there have been more mechanic review time with the possibility of fixing the plane before flying? It just seemed to have happened way too fast as far as a cancellation goes which seems a bit suspicious. I'm not saying that this is related to a work slowdown effort, but it just didn't seem right.
So, I'm zero for two today... |
Originally Posted by cepheid
(Post 8816928)
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. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:42 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.