Sorry Lear, but that's screwed up!
You'd be screaming bloody murder if a former ramper who became pilot kept his ramp hire date seniority on the pilot side. The RSW crews have to give up thier seniority to move departments, and are hot to be behind people of their junior in department from AT. All of which were not IAM until this deal was announced.
You talk of how you see things and the injustices that burden your mind. Just remember the majority of the grunts that really make an airline move have a new chip on their sholder, and you crying about how you were made to work in what most would call a better situation and your brotheren that want to be at SWA will bear the brunt of that ill will.
Might not be right, but it's the way it is.
LGU
I have no clue what you're trying to say in this post, but let me clear something up since you missed it on first read of my earlier post.
I do NOT believe it's right that a part-timer OR someone from a different department carry their FULL longevity into the seniority integration. Here's my quote on it from earlier since you missed it:
Well, that means you assume that I think the Southwest CSA's got screwed. I don't.
Do I believe a part-timer should get the same seniority as a full-time employee? Of course not, but that's the fallout from the internal IAM policy.
Do I believe someone who transferred from one ground position to another ground position should retain their full date-of-hire seniority? No, but that would go back to a RELATIVE seniority argument, which is what you're saying should have been taken into account here.
That's what I said.
So, again, those of you who don't like this pure Date-of-Hire solution because of the mentioned issues seem to be talking about a RELATIVE SENIORITY argument, whereby someone would take their position IN THEIR EXISTING WORK GROUP and apply it to seniority integration. Not taking their FULL longevity with the company, but rather their seniority in their existing position.
However, as I mentioned before, since there was no way in their union's merger policy to "split the baby", they had to go with Date of Hire and, from the outside looking in, while there may be a FEW, ISOLATED cases whereby someone part-time or a transferee might gain some extra seniority, by far I believe Date of Hire to be the most fair for pretty much EVERY employee group.
If we don't agree? That's fine, but don't put words in my mouth. Do I care if the CSA's don't like it? No, not really. No one really seems to care if WE don't like it. Lots of people telling us to "shut up and color".
Again, we can agree to disagree, but I'm just glad SOMEONE got a fair shake in this deal. Got a taste of the fallout today from the MCO gate agents, and have to agree with one of my AAI coworkers, it's funny how they didn't "get it" when WE were going through this, but now they feel what we feel, and the GO can't throw them a bone to "ease their pain" because, as we've been told, that just wouldn't be fair.
Fun times by all.
Again, it's too bad we couldn't just go the way of DAL/NWA, you don't see THEM fuming at each other this far past the integration...
