Master Executive Council (MEC)
- Alaska Airlines management held a series of webcast sessions for Flight Attendants to discuss possible impacts of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Bernstein v. Virgin America case.
- AFA believes that management’s intent of the sessions was to motivate Flight Attendants to pressure lawmakers to pass laws that exempt the airline industry from applying worker-friendly state and local labor laws to flight crew.
- At the same time, AFA is willing to work with the industry, other labor unions, and additional stakeholders to address the challenges presented by California meal & rest break laws through legislative clarification and/or alternate solutions.
AFA Alaska has a very different perspective than that being offered by management
Alaska Airlines management hosted a morning and afternoon webcast session yesterday for the Inflight division about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision on Bernstein v. Virgin America, and AFA Alaska leadership participated in both sessions. The webcasts mainly focused on the implications of the ruling for California meal and rest break laws and management’s plans to comply with the law. Not surprisingly, AFA has a very different perspective than that being offered by management.
Why such dire warnings about potential base downsizing or closures?
In our opinion, it is extremely premature and unnecessarily anxiety-provoking of management to suggest that downsizing or closing California domiciles is anything but a worst-case scenario. The reality is that it’s anyone’s guess what actual compliance with the law will look like at this juncture, so why would management “go there” with such dire warnings about potential base downsizing or closures in California? Or to even go so far as to suggest that this may happen in Washington and/or Oregon in the future?
Management’s ulterior motives – and why AFA opposes these efforts
Management is citing transparency about the growing challenges of operating an airline in certain localities as “the” reason. Coincidentally, those same localities have very worker-friendly labor laws on the books. Although management’s desire for transparency may indeed be a factor, the MEC believes there is also an underlying ulterior motive: to motivate you – especially CA-, OR-, and WA-based FAs – to pressure your legislators to pass laws that completely exempt airlines from applying state and/or local laws to flight crew. Management was certainly keen to encourage Flight Attendants to lobby their legislators accordingly during yesterday’s webcasts!
From our point of view, if Alaska Airlines and the other Airlines for America (A4A) management groups had their way, then only federal laws and collective bargaining agreements would apply to flight crew. Although we acknowledge that management has some legitimate concerns, those concerns do not justify sweeping general exemptions from all state and local laws for all airline flight crew. Consequently, AFA will continue to oppose management’s efforts to categorically undermine worker’s rights laws in this regard.
Where AFA and management are potentially aligned
However, AFA is not opposed to the airline industry seeking reasonable and specific waivers or variances to California meal & rest break laws where applicable. AFA has also previously signaled our willingness to work with the airline industry and other labor stakeholders on potential legislative clarifications and/or fixes to problematic provisions in the California meal & rest break laws. AFA remains willing to do so.
Labor and management have a mutual interest in maintaining a heathy airline industry and to not unnecessarily disrupt the lives of our flight crews. By working together, we are confident that all parties can achieve a mutually agreeable path forward.
The MEC will communicate more details in Part 2 next week.
