The United front counter agent had a choice – and she chose to argue because she was angry about the rules and was not sensitive to her customers who are human beings. (I am certain United would have recompensed her for the hour that goes with her untaken break.) The time she spent arguing with the consumer was unacceptable. In that period of time she could have made things happen for this distressed couple.

I am also certain thet the intent of the “lawyers” was to insure that United employees get a break to refresh themselves for dealing with consumers – NOT to discourage imminently appropriate customer service! Many lawyers are despicable in their motivations, however, not all of them are! (I am NOT an attorney.)

The real reason for the United employee’s anger could actually transcend the issue clearly exemplified. While the upper management earns many thousands and tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands more than the front line employees, the airlines first recourse to “save money” is to lay off a few thousand “regular” employees. When was the last time a useless Sr. VP was let go so that 100 to 200 others could keep their modestly paying jobs? God forbid!!

Still does not justify what happened. It’s Horse Manure.
(They should have asked what other airlines had flights soon….to Portland.)

Certainly spent a lot of time “Blaming” someone here. This country used to be about the sensitivity and “can do” attitude. Sure has changed – and I’m not an old coot!

Unions and labor laws have basically neutered the ability of companies to recognize and promote exceptional workers.

The agent who walked away to take their break may have worked in similar situations and may have known that if they didn’t step away knowone would step in to give them a break.

The airlines don’t alway’s properly staff and this creates a very tire some strain on the individual when their are delays and oversold flights and there is no properly scheduled breaks for the employee’s.

This individual may have had medical reason’s for stepping away, they may have had a need to take care of an urgent physical need.

The Airlines a famous for these types of senario’s .

And then again maybe this employee was tired of being taken advantage of by the employer.

Reading the article you link to, I notice that, according to the delayed passenger, the ticketing agent offered immediately to get a supervisor. Could the supervisor have taken care of the ticketing? Yes, and ultimately the supervisor issued the tickets.

I also note that the delayed passenger stated plainly “I argued with this woman for a good 10 minutes”

IOW, it seems very likely she would have been back from her break in time had the passenger not been arguing with the agent whether she could take a break.

The upshot of the story – the parties arrived (via United by the way) in time to share the mother’s dying moments. Why were they flying in the first place? To do just what they were able to do.

Union or not (I’m not) what people do by ‘working on the sly’ is make their co-workers look bad by cheating.

By the way, studies tend to show that not taking a lunch in the middle (thereabouts) of the day impacts most workers’ productivity dramatically and negatively.

The law generally has some flexibility. But when you are sued it doesn’t matter whether you are compliant – it’s whether you can prove you are. Making exceptions and allowing flexibility inhibits your ability to prove compliance.