Sunday, December 27, 2015

Punishment inconsistent with wrongdoings

A few crew email me that their services were terminated because they posted their uniform,name tags etc in the social media.
It is not my business to interfere in the matter but I think their "crimes" were not consistent with the punishment. These crew are young and social media is a way of life which they probably can't live without.
But getting them a sack just because they posted something about the airline in their FB, Instagram, blogs etc is not fair. They did not badmouth the airline. On the other hand crew found guilty of molest or rape or shoplifting etc also faced the same punishment (sack). Posting in social media is a lesser "crime" as compared to the other crimes that I've mentioned.
We hope management will reconsider giving these crew a second chance.


Anonymous said...

all these dos and donts are clearly stated in the cabin crew manual. Those who choose to go ahead and post in the name of 'fun' and 'keeping up with times' need not be shown any mercy. They deserve the boot.

The Same Person said...


Maybe I can humbly share how I think about this matter? I'm sure youll have have better knowledge about this since you're an exp CC/ CCE ;)

Ultimately, it is about the company's image. The way SQ portrays itself on social media is so impt to them that they didnt even allow BT to put the pic of the Singapore Girls during SG50 NDP on his blog header -__-

All those theft/ pilferage/ rape cases can still be hushed up within the group of people involved. As such, it can be negotiated and covered up, just slap a final warning, and/or deferment or forfeiture. V easy to sweep under the carpet and hope for it to be forgotten...

However, it's a big matter when it's on the social media because of the branding image / reputation of the company. Plus there are screenshots and what not. When it's raised up to CI level, mgmt needs to take action. If nothing is done, the whistleblower will go complain on nil follow-up. Lagi worse when the complaint is from the own staff, because they will accuse the dept of favourtism, coverup, unfairness etc for not taking action.

Sadly some people in SQ are political. It's about sabotaging / reporting one another. :(

Staff who kena CI must also know that it is an opportunity for them mgmt to target crew who have poor MC records and those who are selective of their flights - eg: don't do turnaround, CPT and JNB flights.

As Bohtong had shared before, joining SIASU is just like buying insurance. If kena DI or CI, at least Alan and team will fight for you to avoid the T.

(I'm acquainted with certain people who had been with SIA long enough and heard these. I'm guessing there may be a certain amount of truth though it may not be 100% accurate)

That being said, Blessed Christmas to Sir BT :)

Anonymous said...

Those idiots who kena sacked or CI due to posting on social media should quickly share their happiness on getting the boot. Instead what do they do? Quickly delete those accounts. So much about sharing with their friends er. Lol. 1 GS call R Y is a good eg.

SNY said...

Policies such as zero tolerance for posting on social media and molest, pilferage are
all decided by 1 person.

That 1 person says so, it will be so.
The rest of the CCE, managers have nothing else to counter.
( if they did wimper ... its useless anyway )
and so, the policy is written in stone.

Find, locate, identify that person ( SIASU knows but they are not telling either )
and you will have clarity in finding solutions.

Policies are devised by one person's view, of the world... that view is not always correct.
Worse still, is the people who have to translate that policy into a mechanism that can be applied to the real world. That usually is even worse than the policy itself.

With half baked managers assigning these tasks to equally half baked CCEs..the result is:

"Thou shall not steal, touch, post anything about the company"

Not much thought went into it right?

Anonymous said...

What do you think about this Dayre user missy_potts blogging extensively on SQ?