ONE Flight Attendant was quoted with respect to the atmosphere of working on a plane, commenting that "It's Hell".
Interesting article and topics, but you're worse than a British Tabloid with your choice of title for this thread.
It constantly amazes me how the uneducated and impulsive get quoted and then it is deemed as gospel.
I can guarantee you that any FA who says working for WestJet (or AC for that matter) is 'Hell" has NEVER, EVER had a real job in aviation (or any other industry for that matter) to compare to. I look at this as a comment on our society today - so many entitled individuals out there who expect big money for no output or sacrifice!!!!!
Guess I am just getting old and jaded......
Uh, how is WestJet management any different? I imagine their main concern is making money too.But in an email sent to employees last month, company president and CEO Gregg Saretsky spoke out against union drives, claiming unions were misleading employees and only concerned about making money.
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
- Location: Negative sequencial vortex
Well, for a start, I would say that WestJet management is different from union management because they manage a "company". It's quite natural to assume they are concerned about making money. That's hardly noteworthy.AWOS wrote:Uh, how is WestJet management any different? I imagine their main concern is making money too.But in an email sent to employees last month, company president and CEO Gregg Saretsky spoke out against union drives, claiming unions were misleading employees and only concerned about making money.
Unions, on the other hand, claim to exist to "protect" workers. However, the more members they can recruit, the more money they can make too. Maybe if they were aggressive enough, they could recruit dues-paying members who don't really need protection- they would make more money that way. This seems cynical to some people, therefore they feel that some unions are more concerned with making money than "protecting" anyone. I guess if a union was recruiting my employees under such circumstances, I would feel compelled to point it out.
I guess this seems fishy to some people.
Then quit, if it's that bad. There are choices in life.
Unions threaten to withhold labour if demands are not met. This is considered acceptable.goingnowherefast wrote:Unions create the ability for employees to organize themselves and collectively work towards improving wages and working conditions. That naturally takes money, that is collected with union dues.
Yet when (rarely) a company locks workers out, and threatens to close a plant if demands are not met, due to industry changes, they are publicly demonized for it.
Isn't it the same thing? Negotiation through pressure? Just curious.
And yet if the result of the strike/lockout is a mediated/arbitrated agreement that produces no gains or worse, produces a lesser agreement, then the members go back to work. They don't quit, as you suggest. It's more likely it's herd mentality.goingnowherefast wrote:By the time things get to a strike or lockout, it's gotten pretty bad, a last ditch effort before quitting. It's basically saying you don't hold much value to the job under the current/proposed conditions.
Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
Add context and background.
Report typos and logical fallacies.
Respect copyright - link to articles.
Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.
Use oppressive/offensive language.
Libel or defame.
Bully or troll.
Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.
Based on their policy stance, I don't think they spent a lot of time looking to balance the article.