NJW,
1. Thank you for taking the time to make detailed and meaningful posts to this board. I don't always agree with you on substance, but I can easily see that you put real thought into your statements and beliefs, and that is appreciated. ...
Thanks for the gracious words, Rotello. I don't expect FI members to always agree with me, but I think respectful debate of the issues is always possible so I try to post accordingly and I've learned a lot from those, like yourself, who reciprocate in kind.
2. The thing is, Rigger's posts (as you quoted in your reply) don't ACTUALLY point to a lack of fair treatment. They are statements about his FEELINGS and OPINIONS, not about poor treatment by CS. Aside from the late Friday notice that furloughs were coming (which I acknowledge was lame), nothing that you or Rigger posted has anything to do with the actual quality of treatment. ...
I beg to differ.. The letter Rigger received was too ambiguous. He compared how CS did explaining everything and they fell short of the mark set by his previous employer when he was last furloughed. Unnecessary confusion makes a painful situation even more difficult.
If you want to say the Shares has not treated the furloughed pilots 'very fairly', I have to ask you to point to specific actions on the part of the company that lead to that conclusion.
And I have to ask you...
to understand that everything is relative. I used the qualifier "very" to suggest that Shares could have done better. If they had done badly, I'd have said they were being unfair. That said, I've been pointing to information and the lack thereof: Considering how stressed a furloughed pilot would be, prompt, clear communication should be a top priority. Instead, Shares cut off their log-in and email and, according to Rigger, no one has been assigned to speak for the furloughed pilots.
At this point, I am not aware of any unfair treatment....
With all due respect, you haven't been furloughed, have you? So you're not in the position to accurately describe how well, or not, CS is doing handling the situation, right? That is to say, your mileage may be different.
What I have seen, for example, is my point #3 from my earlier post (that you did not address in your response)
Only because I was trying to keep my post from getting too long...damned if you do, damned if you don't...
, which highlighted some very GOOD treatment for a furloughee at any employer - 2 months of severance pay.
Yes, I was aware of that. Sorry I didn't give CS due credit. My thoughts are that it's average to above average for the frac industry. Flex pilots got money, too-- for COBRA--but only 2 yrs for recall. As far as GOOD goes, I'd give that grade to NJ who offered those at risk a much better deal. A NJ pilot and family could count on (guaranteed in binding language)the option of taking a 3 yr LOA with benefits, including health care, and a thousand dollars a month.
Until I see actual evidence of unfair treatment, I stand by my opinion ...
I don't mind further explaining my own. To me fairness is based on equality. CS pilots do essentially the same job as NJ pilots, but if both were about to be furloughed, I find it ironic that the NJ pilot/family would still keep (for 3yrs) an important QOL benefit (health care) that a CS pilot never had to begin with. That doesn't strike me as fair for CS pilots. Health care is considered a staple of professional compensation and for NJ to include it in LOAs just underscores that fact. CS pilots should get it, too. That vast QOL improvements have come to me while I worked there.... That we are not perfect, but that the company makes a serious effort to be reasonable and fair and to correct defects in policy and procedure when they are made aware of them. ...
Agreed, which is why it's also frustrating to some in a "close, but no cigar" kind of way. CS management and pilots seem to have a good relationship that would be enhanced by spelling out their respective rights and responsibilities.
Don't get me wrong. I have every respect and admiration for NJASAP, IBT 1108 and organized labor in general - often times union representation is a necessity in this business.
Not to mention a great "insurance policy" if things do go wrong or if management changes. I am also aware that those organizations are 99% responsible for 99% of the improvements I've witnessed here at CS. Frankly, I love those guys.
It's to your credit that you acknowledge what others don't. Thanks for being fair and generous with your compliments. But I'm also happy that I haven't had to be a member to realize those gains.
Why is that? Wanting to get a lot but pay only a little...:erm: I'm open to having that opinion changed, but it will be changed by one thing and ont thing only: the actions of my employer, not the 'what ifs'.
Do you skip home and auto insurance, too...
I'm confident I can identify the actions that would lead me to desire union representation to protect my interests, and I will seek it if necessary.
For your sake, I hope that day never comes too late, unfortunately, life is full of people wishing they would have done something sooner. But until I (or my brother and sister pilots) have ACTUALLY been treated poorly I see no reason to waste the effort and money on such an endeavor.
rotello
very fairly. 
