AFA Alaska Update – August 6, 2021

August 6, 2021 12:00

In This Edition

PBS Subcommittee Member Interviews
Let’s Talk About Eating Disorders

PBS Subcommittee Member Interviews

Master Executive Council (MEC)

Background

The PBS Subcommittee, part of the MEC Scheduling Committee, works with the company and the Inflight Crew Planning Department to maintain the company’s preferential bidding system (PBS) and oversee the bidding and bid award processes. The Subcommittee represents and advocates for the MEC position in matters pertaining to bidding and the preferential bidding system.

The PBS Subcommittee is currently made up of the MEC Scheduling Committee Vice Chairperson—PBS and two PBS Subcommittee Members. The MEC is seeking to fill a third PBS Subcommittee Member position at this time.

Qualifications

Robust working knowledge of hours of service, scheduling, and reserve provisions of the Flight Attendant collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Knowledge of CFRs and other regulations pertaining to flight time, duty time, and crew rest guidelines.
Ability to work remotely and attend virtual meetings as required.
Strong computer skills. Excellent working knowledge of NAVBLUE PBS, Crew Access, Google email, and Microsoft Office.
Strong written and verbal communication skills. Ability to write membership communications, respond professionally to internal and external e-mail, analyze data, and prepare reports.
Ability to meet deadlines, take ownership of issues, and follow up on assigned tasks.

Duties

Regularly communicate with and provide updates to the MEC Scheduling Chairperson on the activities of the subcommittee
In advance of the bidding period each month, communicate with the MEC Scheduling Committee Vice Chairperson—Pairing Construction to understand changes in pairings for upcoming months and how Flight Attendant bids might be affected
Keep members knowledgeable about changes to the preferential bidding system, common mistakes and errors, misunderstandings about the system, and other topics of interest through the MEC Communications Chairperson
Provide assistance to Flight Attendants through base sits, one-on-one training sessions, and telephone support during the monthly bidding window and as requested by the MEC or LECs
Communicate with the MEC Reserve Chairperson to understand the needs and challenges of Flight Attendants holding reserve schedules and provide bid assistance

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

This position is eligible for Company Business (CB) Flight Pay Loss (FPL), paid in accordance with section 27.P.1.e of the Flight Attendant CBA. Time worked is logged on a monthly basis and paid at a rate of 0.75 TFP per hour with a 5% override at “A” pay.
Time commitment is approximately 30 to 40 hours per month. Most of the workload is weighted heavily toward the first half of the calendar month during the bidding and bid awards processes. These amounts can fluctuate.
Most work for this position can be performed remotely.

Term of Appointment

This position will serve for the remaining portion of the current MEC term of office, currently scheduled to end on December 31, 2022.

Working Relationships

With The Scheduling Committee

Occasional interaction with the Local Scheduling Committee Chairpersons and Local Scheduling Committee Members.

With The Master Executive Council

This position reports to the Master Executive Council through the MEC Scheduling Committee Vice Chairperson—PBS and MEC Scheduling Committee Chairperson.

With Alaska Airlines Management

Constant interaction with inflight management, particularly the Crew Planning Analysts (John Bumanglag and Kelly Yeager) and Manager of Crew Planning (Mac Patterson).

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

The MEC will hold interviews during the September MEC meeting on Tuesday, September 14, 2021. Bid around the interview date or plan to arrange your schedule accordingly to accommodate. All interviews will be conducted by Google Meet videoconferencing.

Interested candidates should submit an expression of interest and resume online at https://forms.gle/syy62DpL96ESQazQA. The deadline for submissions is 5 PM Pacific time on Tuesday, September 7. After that time, qualified candidates will be contacted to schedule a specific interview time.

Please note that to submit an expression of interest, you must have a Google account. If you do not have a Google account, you can create one for free at https://accounts.google.com/signup.

Questions?

Please direct any questions about the position to MEC Scheduling Committee Vice Chairperson—PBS Adam Clarey at adam.clarey@afaalaska.org.

Let’s Talk About Eating Disorders

Employee Assistance Program (EAP)/Professional Standards Committee

The way we talk about eating disorders matters. Here are some facts you can use to help shape a conversation around eating disorders with family members and friends. If you or a loved one is struggling with an eating disorder, remember that your AFA EAP is a confidential resource for support, referrals and access to treatment.

Eating disorders are medical illnesses.

Genetic and environmental factors can influence eating disorders. An eating disorder is not a trend or a choice.

Eating disorders are serious and can be fatal.

Eating disorders often involve serious medical complications that can cause permanent damage or death. People with eating disorders also have an increased risk of dying by suicide.

Eating disorders can affect anyone.

Eating disorders do not discriminate. They affect people of all ages, races and ethnicities, and genders.

You can’t tell if someone has an eating disorder by looking at them.

People with eating disorders can be underweight, normal weight, or overweight.

Family members can be a patient’s best ally in treatment.

Eating disorders are caused by a combination of genetic, biological, behavioral, psychological, and social factors. Family members do not cause eating disorders and can be great sources of support.

It is possible to recover from an eating disorder.

Complete recovery is possible with treatment and time.

Have Questions or Need Help?

Your Local EAP Committee contact information is available at afaalaska.org/eap or you can call (949) 470-0493.

COVID-19 Vaccination Attestation Concerns

August 3, 2021 20:00

COVID-19 Vaccination Attestation Concerns

Master Executive Council (MEC), Grievance Committee

Several members have reached out to AFA regarding management’s recent email titled, “Vaccination Attestation and Masking policy changes.” Some of the questions being asked: Can management ask about our vaccination status? Is it a violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to ask about our vaccination status? What is AFA doing about it?

Can Alaska Airlines (a private employer) ask about employees’ vaccination status?

In a nutshell, yes. Given the contagiousness and deadliness of the COVID-19 virus and its more contagious Delta variant, companies have a legitimate business reason to inquire about an employee’s vaccination status. An employer can ask employees about their vaccination status and/or for proof of vaccination provided it does not make medical inquiries that could prompt discussion about disability-related information, which would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Employers have a duty of care under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to provide a safe workplace for employees. Under this duty of care an employer can ask employees about their vaccination status and/or for proof of vaccination, subject to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines. If an employee is unable or unwilling to disclose their vaccination status and/or to provide proof of vaccination, the employer is allowed to enforce workplace safety policies such as mask wearing and/or social distancing. Management has the discretion to treat such employees the same way as employees who refuse to be vaccinated on non-medical or non-religious grounds.

Identifying employees who are exempt from mask requirements while in Company buildings with tags or stickers is not a discriminatory practice under EEOC guidelines. Tags or stickers will not be actively distributed to crewmembers because mask requirement remain in place at airports and on aircraft, and there is no exemption to those requirements for crewmembers.

At this point, Alaska Airlines is not requiring proof of vaccination status, but AFA believes it would behoove one to answer honestly since it appears the Company has the legal right to request such proof. If you have concerns about disclosing your status, AFA recommends selecting the opt-out response: “I decline to answer.”

Is it a violation of HIPAA for an employer to ask employees about their vaccination status?

HIPAA applies to covered entities such as healthcare providers and the like. HIPAA does not apply to most (non-healthcare) employers, so it is not a violation for Alaska Airlines to ask its employees about their vaccination status. HIPPA is designed to keep your medical information safe from being shared with third parties. In other words, management can ask you about your vaccination status, but cannot contact your doctor or healthcare provider to ask about your status. Even so, management will safeguard the records of employee attestations by sharing the information only with Human Resources and those deemed necessary to know in limited circumstances and by storing the data in a separate location from personnel records.

What is AFA doing about it?

Management’s requirement for employees to complete a vaccination attestation is not a contractual violation under our Collective Bargaining Agreement, nor does such requirement appear to be a violation of religious freedoms, civil liberties, or any other federal laws. The “requirement” to complete the attestation is more like a strongly encouraged request because management has indicated to AFA that employees who do not fill out the form will not be disciplined at this time, so we do not anticipate any resulting disciplinary grievances. Finally, there is an opt-out response available for any who remain concerned about disclosing their vaccination status: “I decline to answer.”

AFA Alaska Update – July 30, 2021

July 30, 2021 12:00

In This Edition

Protect Our Contract – Don’t Perform Duties Belonging to Other Work Groups
Help End Human Trafficking: Take the Survey

Protect Our Contract – Don’t Perform Duties Belonging to Other Work Groups

Grievance Committee

Over the course of many decades, all of us have worked hard to improve our working conditions and strengthen our collective bargaining agreement (CBA). These improvements have been achieved through several avenues including demonstrating our solidarity during contract negotiations, lobbying management to make changes that benefit our profession, and rigorously enforcing the contractual language that we have already achieved. It is the responsibility of each of us to continue to protect and defend our contract and hold management accountable for what has been agreed upon by both our Flight Attendants and the Company.

Recently, management has made it known that they are having a particularly difficult time recruiting and retaining frontline employees in various locations throughout the route network. This includes staff who are directly employed by the company, those who are employed by subsidiaries of the company (e.g., McGee Air Services), and contract vendors who provide above- and/or below-the-wing services at various stations. The situation has caused a noticeable impact to the Company’s operations and has resulted in some on-the-ground functions being adjusted or modified due to staffing in some situations.

We all know that Alaska Airlines focuses on hiring Flight Attendants who exhibit kindness and demonstrate a willingness to help. Because these traits are such a pervasive part of our culture, it may be tempting to want to jump in and assist our coworkers from other work groups when we see that they are short staffed. Unfortunately, this causes more harm than good for several reasons.

As previously mentioned, it is up to each of us to protect the provisions of our collective bargaining agreement. Section 24.D of the CBA says in part: “A Flight Attendant will not be required to perform work normally assigned to a cleaner, provisioner, ramp or operations agent.” Just as we expect other work groups to honor our contractual language by not performing Flight Attendant duties and responsibilities, it is similarly important that we respect other work groups and their normally assigned scope of work as well. Doing so protects the security of both Flight Attendant jobs and the jobs of our coworkers in other departments.

Customer service, ramp, mechanics, pilots, fleet service, catering, and other work groups receive specific training to perform their duties that Flight Attendants do not have. We must allow our colleagues to do the work that they have been trained to do to ensure that it is done in compliance with applicable regulations and to company standards. If there are concerns with staffing in a particular department, management needs to receive the corresponding reports of flight delays, complaints from passengers, and performance audit results. These are all indicators that management uses to adjust and ensure that our colleagues in other departments have the support that they need. If this data is skewed to show that no problems exist, then no changes will made by management to ensure proper staffing and service levels.

The best way that Flight Attendants can show support for other work groups who might be experiencing short staffing is by reporting the issue to ensure that it gets attention from the right levels of management. This can be accomplished by submitting a Flight Attendant Irregularity Report (FAIR) detailing the date, flight number, and specifics of the situation (e.g., areas that were skipped/missed, etc.).

Questions?

If you have any questions, please contact your Local Grievance Committee.

Help End Human Trafficking: Take the Survey

AFA International

AFA is partnering with United Against Slavery in a global effort to end the scourge of human trafficking. As Flight Attendants and aviation’s first responders, we are uniquely positioned to identify human traffickers and assist their victims.

Human trafficking is a billion-dollar business, but Flight Attendants can be 100,000 Eyes in the Skies to recognize and report it. We can be the ones to make the difference.

Historical efforts to gather and understand information to implement effective solutions for this crime have been a challenge and success seemed unattainable. Why? They have not involved collecting the knowledge that only those on the frontlines have.

Click here to take the survey >

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

July 28, 2021 09:00

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Master Executive Council (MEC), Benefits Committee, Grievance Committee

This is the first in a series reporting on management’s opposition to various state and local laws, the latest developments to complex state law litigations related to these laws that are playing out in Washington and California, and what Flight Attendants can do about it.

Background

Management alleges that certain state and local laws do not apply to flight crew

Airlines For America (A4A) is an American trade association and lobbying group representing major North American air carriers such as Alaska Airlines. A4A and/or Alaska Airlines management has taken the position that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempts (i.e., invalidates) certain state and local laws that in its opinion overlaps with, conflicts with or complicates various benefits and provisions provided for in collective bargaining agreements negotiated with labor unions representing flight crew. Simply stated, A4A and Alaska Airlines management are making legal arguments in several jurisdictions (e.g., WA, CA, MA and NY) that specific state and local laws do not apply to Flight Attendants and pilots. However, it is notable that management has been honoring the same laws for ground employees–even if they are also covered by contracts negotiated with their respective labor unions and under the RLA.

Management believes that honoring various local laws for flight crew would ultimately lead to competitive disadvantage and tough business decisions in response

Why? Based on our interactions with management, here are some of the reasons offered by management to justify denying flight crew access to various benefits and protections provided for under what management characterizes as a “patchwork quilt” of state and local laws:

Administratively burdensome to honor because of the difficulties in tracking the sheer number of such laws and complying with their complexities.
Some laws may overlap with and/or conflict with one another and may also apply only conditionally based on the real-time location of an individual crewmember.
Significant challenges with overlaying these laws on top of the provisions of existing collective bargaining agreements (e.g., clock hours versus block hours versus TFP; meal, rest break and wage reporting requirements).
Honoring such laws for flight crew would create significant operational and financial liabilities for the Company and thereby result in untenable competitive disadvantage. This in turn could lead management to reevaluate the viability of existing crew domiciles in problematic locations and to make tough business decisions about the location of crew domiciles going forward. Management has cautioned your union leadership to beware of the potential for such unintended and undesirable consequences as these would likely be perceived by you as unacceptably disruptive and universally unpopular.

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest because the outcomes affect our members at various airlines. However, the legal arguments themselves are generally outside of AFA’s “jurisdiction” in the sense that the Association’s sole duty is to act as the agent for members of the collective bargaining unit under the RLA and to fairly represent them. AFA neither has an obligation to directly participate in the preemption disputes nor has the resources to broadly do so, but nonetheless we have very strategically chosen to intervene in some of the preemption litigations over the past ten years. Several current and former MEC officers and chairpersons have been directly involved in a few cases as complainants, subject matter experts and/or deposed witnesses.

Recent Cases

Washington Family Care Act: Alaska Airlines v. Schurke (WA L&I)

In approximately 2012, Alaska Airlines sued the State of Washington regarding provisions of the Washington Family Care Act (WFCA), alleging that the WFCA does not apply to Washington-domiciled Flight Attendants. AFA intervened as a defendant in the suit, as this was a case of first impression, and we wanted our interests protected in an area of law not yet addressed.

The case was initially decided in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit. A panel of three justices decided in Alaska Airlines’ favor. At that point, the State of Washington and AFA requested an en banc opinion, with all justices making a decision.

In August 2018, the en banc opinion ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines then filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court did not grant the writ of certiori, which means it did not accept the case, and the 9^th Circuit ruling stands in favor of the State of Washington and AFA.

The case went back to a state administrative hearing, and the administrative law judge ruled for the State of Washington and AFA. Alaska Airlines then appealed this ruling. We are currently awaiting a ruling on the appellate case, which hopefully will be issued within the next few months. In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not honoring this law.

Washington Paid Sick Leave: A4A v. WA L&I and Joel Sacks

In early 2018, AFA demanded that Alaska Airlines comply with a new State of Washington law: Washington Paid Sick Leave (WPSL) law. Alaska’s response to AFA’s formal demand was to have A4A file suit against the State of Washington on behalf of all airlines it represents. Again, AFA was an intervenor in this lawsuit. The State of Washington and AFA won this suit in a summary judgment motion; A4A appealed the ruling.

On November 17, 2020, the parties argued in front of the US Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, and a decision was returned very recently that ruled in favor of the State of Washington and AFA. At this juncture, AFA has every reason to believe that A4A will attempt an appeal with the US Supreme Court. In the meantime, Alaska Airlines is still not complying with the law.

California overtime, meal & rest breaks, and wage statement laws: Bernstein v. Virgin America

In 2018, a California state court ruled in favor of Virgin America Flight Attendants, which resulted in an initial award of just under $78 million when factoring in legal fees and other costs. Alaska Airlines appealed this judgment, and it currently remains in the appeal process.

California wage statement laws: Gunther v. Alaska Air Group Inc.

In May 2019, a California state court ruled in favor of an Alaska Airlines Flight Attendant who brought her own wage statement non-compliance lawsuit against Alaska Air Group. The court ruled against Alaska Airlines on behalf of all California-domiciled Flight Attendants and issued an award of $25 million. Seventy-five percent of the award is to be paid to the State of California, and the remaining twenty-five percent of the award is to be paid to California-domiciled Flight Attendants with no more than $4,000 to each Flight Attendant. Alaska Airlines also appealed this judgment, and it is presently still in the appeals process.

New and Pre-Existing Laws Denied

In response to litigation of the Washington State leave laws initiated directly by Alaska Airlines management or indirectly via Airlines for America (A4A), management has simply denied flight crew access to the benefits of new laws. Management also retracted a Flight Attendant’s ability to use several state laws already existing at the time litigation was filed. One example of such retraction is the California Family School Partnership Act, which management allowed California-domiciled Flight Attendants to use for many years prior.

Next Up (in “Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 2”)

Definition of Sick Family/Sick Child
Applicable State Laws
Filing a Claim with the Appropriate Agency

Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement

June 7, 2021 09:00

Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement

Master Executive Council (MEC)

Legal Disclaimer

The following information is being provided as a courtesy to our members because enrollment in some of the Company-provided healthcare plans subject to specific provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement may have made you eligible for a class action settlement. However, AFA is neither a party to the class action nor has been involved in the settlement agreement discussions. If you have specific questions or concerns about the terms of the class action settlement, then you need to consult with the Claims Administrator or Co-Lead Counsel as described in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Settlement or with your own attorney.

Class Action Settlement is Legitimate

Many Flight Attendants have received notice via USPS or email about a class action settlement involving the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) companies, including Premera Blue Cross. For reasons unknown, the delivery of the notices has been all over the map in terms of timing, and many Flight Attendants have reported that they have not received any notice whatsoever. Regardless, these notices are legitimate, and you may be eligible for a settlement payment pursuant to this cause of action if you enrolled in the Company-funded traditional or high-deductible PPO healthcare plans administered by Premera Blue Cross during the eligibility period (see “Settlement Details” below).

Alaskasworld Notice Posted

AFA requested that management post a notice to employees on Alaskasworld (AW), and management agreed to do so. See AW “For your information: Blue Cross Blue Shield notices” (May 27, 2021) for the article (AAG SSO required).

Settlement Details

Website: http://www.BCBSsettlement.com
Alaska Airlines employees would potentially belong to the “self-funded employees” category under “self-funded accounts”
Self-funded net settlement fund: 6.5% of the estimated $1.9 billion “net settlement fund” = ~$120 million.
Self-funded eligibility period: September 1, 2015 – October 16, 2020
Default payment option for employees is a portion of total administrative fees paid during the eligibility period: 18% for “single coverage” (employee only) and 25% for “family coverage (employee + spouse or employee + family), with the remainder going to the employer. In our opinion, this is a favorable calculation relative to the proportion of our contribution rate compared to the Company’s actual cost for healthcare.
Opt-out or objection deadline is July 28, 2021
You must submit a claim in order to be eligible to receive a payment.
Claim deadline is November 5, 2021
Minimum payment is $5

Minimum Payment

In our estimation, the minimum payment of $5 is likely to exclude any Alaska employees from receiving a payout under this settlement. However, there really is no way to know for certain. We are recommending that all eligible Flight Attendants who are interested in participating in the terms of the settlement should submit a claim by November 5, 2021.

Premera Blue Cross Third Party Administrative (TPA) Fees

This information is not necessary to know in order to submit a claim. However, some Flight Attendants have expressed an interest in potentially submitting for an alternative payment option instead of the default 18% for single coverage and 25% for family coverage. Some of those Flight Attendants have inquired about the third party administrative (TPA) fee paid to Premera Blue Cross by the Company for each enrolled employee on a monthly basis during the eligibility period.

Please refer to the emailed version of this communication for the TPA fees paid per employee (enrolled) per month (PEPM).

Questions?

Website: www.BCBSsettlement.com
Email: info@BCBSsettlement.com
Call: (888) 681-1142
Write to: Blue Cross Blue Shield Settlement c/o JND Legal Administration, PO Box 91390, Seattle, WA 98111

If you have questions specifically for AFA, contact your LEC president.

In This Edition

PBS Subcommittee Member Interviews

Background

Qualifications

Duties

Time Commitment and Flight Pay Loss Reimbursement

Term of Appointment

Working Relationships

Expressing Interest and Interview Scheduling

Questions?

Let’s Talk About Eating Disorders

Have Questions or Need Help?

COVID-19 Vaccination Attestation Concerns

Can Alaska Airlines (a private employer) ask about employees’ vaccination status?

Is it a violation of HIPAA for an employer to ask employees about their vaccination status?

What is AFA doing about it?

In This Edition

Protect Our Contract – Don’t Perform Duties Belonging to Other Work Groups

Questions?

Help End Human Trafficking: Take the Survey

Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 1

Background

Management alleges that certain state and local laws do not apply to flight crew

Management believes that honoring various local laws for flight crew would ultimately lead to competitive disadvantage and tough business decisions in response

AFA is closely following the preemption litigations with great interest

Recent Cases

Washington Family Care Act: Alaska Airlines v. Schurke (WA L&I)

Washington Paid Sick Leave: A4A v. WA L&I and Joel Sacks

California overtime, meal & rest breaks, and wage statement laws: Bernstein v. Virgin America

California wage statement laws: Gunther v. Alaska Air Group Inc.

New and Pre-Existing Laws Denied

Next Up (in “Management vs. State and Local Laws – Part 2”)

Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement

Legal Disclaimer

Class Action Settlement is Legitimate

Alaskasworld Notice Posted

Settlement Details

Minimum Payment

Premera Blue Cross Third Party Administrative (TPA) Fees

Questions?

Recent Posts

Local Councils

Master Executive Council

Negotiations

Contract

Committees

News By Month

News By Category

Want To Stay In The Loop?

Connect With AFA