Click below to view the full version of Council 19 – Seattle’s January 2015 Newsletter!
A Message from your AFA Government Affairs Committee
Tell Congress: No Fast Track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Would you ratify a contract with your employer without knowing, other than broad generalizations, what that contract contains? No? Well that is what Congress is being asked to do with U.S. Industry.
Corporate lobbyists are urging Congress to give the White House Trade Promotion Authority (aka Fast Track) in order to rubber stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Fast Track is when the Congress cedes its Congressional obligation to review, amend and debate trade agreements.
“Fast Track” legislation is expected to come before Congress in March. AFA-CWA, working with a coalition of more than 100 organizations, is fighting back and urging Congress to oppose Fast Track. AFA and CWA have are encouraging members to call Congress starting January 27 and through the remainder of the week to tell Congress that Fast Track must be stopped.
Why Is This Important To Flight Attendants?
Fast Track Authority, if granted by the Congresses, wouldn’t simply apply to only one trade deal – it would apply to as many trade agreements as can be negotiated by this White House or the next one. The next “big’” trade deal in the pipeline is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The European Union will be pushing for access to the U.S. domestic market and an increase to the allowable foreign ownership and control of U.S. airlines. This would be devastating to U.S. aviation, our job security and aviation security.
What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
The TPP is a massive trade deal that has been mostly negotiated in secret by the U.S. and 11 other countries.
This trade deal makes it likely that service industry jobs will be eligible to outsource. TPP is specifically designed to guarantee and protect profits for corporations. If approved, corporations can sue a country if it raises its minimum wage, like Egypt did, or adopts regulations to protect the public health, like Australia.
TPP would make “Buy America” laws illegal. Right now the federal government gives preferential treatment to U.S. businesses when buying goods and services. TPP would make that practice illegal. Historically, corporations have taken advantage of any opportunity to pay foreign workers less and take advantage of local laws to cut costs.
Labor standards and working conditions overseas have a direct impact on air safety as more and more US-based airlines move their Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) work overseas.
Congress is now considering whether to allow the pending TPP trade deal – the largest in history — to be “Fast Tracked” through without the chance for them — our elected representatives to amend it.
What is Fast Track Authority?
Fast Track authority means Congress will have to vote on 2,000+ page trade deals as written with almost no debate and no ability to amend. Fast Track supersedes the typical check and balance process of our democracy. Members of Congress will be voting to give the TPP this expedited approval without having actually read the TPP agreement! They will, in effect, be voting for the trade agreement before reading it.
Who wants Fast Track?
Corporations want TPP because it puts profits over people by allowing Executives to challenge laws that may have an impact on their profits. It would facilitate the export of jobs to low wage countries.
Can Fast Track Be Stopped?
YES! We have stopped it before. In 1998, Fast Track was voted down in a bipartisan vote (171 Democrats and 71 Republicans).
Many Members of this Congress do not support Fast Track either and are standing with us to fight back. Both Democrats and Republicans have announced their opposition to the push for Fast Track authority and more are signing on every day. We can win this.
Our coalition of more than 100 groups – including workers, people of faith and community leaders and more – is working together to Stop Fast Track and the TPP.
Call Your Representatives
Call 888-966-9836
Enter your zip code, to be you will be connected with your U.S. Representative.
Sample scripts:
“As a constituent, I expect you to stand up for America and oppose Fast Track for the TPP”
OR
“As a constituent I am concerned that large scale trade agreements are being negotiated in secret. I wouldn’t vote for my employment contract without seeing the details and Congress shouldn’t either. I urge you to oppose Fast Track for the TPP.”
Do it Today
Urge Congress to oppose outsourcing. Ask for a NO vote on Fast Track.
Use Twitter to Tweet:
#BarackObama Do the math: US jobs created by trade – jobs sent overseas 4 low wages = fewer jobs for US workers. #stopfasttrack #sotu.
On Facebook change your status to encourage your friends and family join the fight:
Tell the White House and Congress to stand up for US jobs!
Large-scale trade agreements are being negotiated in secret. I wouldn’t vote for my employment contract without seeing the details and Congress shouldn’t either. Urge your representatives in Congress to oppose Fast Track for the TPP.
For more information contact your AFA-CWA Government Affairs Committee. You can find contact information at http://afaalaska.org/governmentaffairs.
Due to concerns over the impact of Winter Storm Juno, Alaska Airlines management is cancelling flights into and out of Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). AFA and management have agreed to enact the provisions of 8.S. Natural Disasters and Acts of War in order to facilitate leaving no crews on the ground as determined to be necessary. Affected crewmembers—some of whom are currently in flight—will be turned back to a Flight Attendant domicile starting as soon as this afternoon.
A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between AFA and Alaska Airlines enacting this provision may be found by clicking here.
In solidarity,
Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt
21.R. Quarterly Productivity Premium
A Flight Attendant will receive a Quarterly Productivity Premium (QPP) if Worked TFP during a calendar quarter exceeds the TFP equivalent of the Flight Attendant’s combined monthly PBS bid award in that calendar quarter.
What is Worked TFP?
Worked TFP is all paid TFP excluding vacation/PTO and sick leave. Worked TFP includes (but is not limited to) regular TFP, Sit Pay, 4 trip minimum, ground delay, stranded pay, pre-boarding, pay protection, jury duty, deadhead, surface deadhead, Recurrent Training, Company business, Union business, et cetera.
Do I have to achieve my PBS bid award every month in order to be eligible for the QPP?
No. The QPP is based on exceeding the PBS monthly bid award combined over the three months in the calendar quarter.
Example:
January 2015 – 80 TFP
February 2015 – 80 TFP
March 2015 – 80 TFP
In order to achieve the QPP for Q1 2015, you must fly 240.1 TFP anytime during Q1. You could fly 100 TFP in January, 100 TFP in February and 40.1 TFP in March or any combination thereof. As just a few examples, Sit Pay, Recurrent Training, ground delay pay, boarding pay are all “bonuses” above one’s bid award that will help you achieve the QPP.
How does vacation/PTO affect the QPP?
Vacation/PTO is included in the PBS bid award, so it counts towards “setting the bar” for the QPP. However, Worked TFP does not include vacation/PTO, so vacation/PTO does not count towards “meeting the bar” for QPP.
Example:
January 2015 – 80 TFP (28 TFP vacation, 52 TFP flying)
February 2015 – 80 TFP
March 2015 – 80 TFP
If you just fly your line and have one sit over 2 hours sometime in Q1 (52 TFP + 80 TFP + 80 TFP + 1 TFP = 213 TFP), you will not achieve the QPP. The “bar” is set at 240 TFP but you have only flown 212 TFP plus the 1 TFP Sit Pay = 213 TFP. You must fly at least 240.1 TFP in Q1 to achieve QPP. Although you do not have to fly over your vacation, you do have to fly the equivalent of any vacation/PTO and sick time at some point in the quarter, plus exceed the quarterly bid award by 0.1 TFP.
Quarterly Productivity Premium video
Flight Attendant Health Study
Dear Seattle Flight Attendants,
On February 6th -8th Dr. Sara Gale and Dr. Eileen McNeely of the Harvard School of Public Health will be visiting Sea-Tac Airport. They are visiting our base to recruit for a new Flight Attendant Health Study. They will be on the concourse and have informational materials in our ready room for your convenience. You may see Sara and Eileen in the concourse throughout their stay and they invite Flight Attendants to engage in discussions regarding the health study and participation. If you would like additional information please visit their website at www.fahealth.org.
What is the definition of a Jet Bridge Trade?
A Jet Bridge Trade is a trade between Flight Attendants at the same domicile. Flight Attendants may trade or give away a sequence or a portion of a sequence at any station. The trade or giveaway may occur no earlier than three hours prior to departure from domestic and international flights, but no later than the commencement of boarding. SIPs are not considered a Jet Bridge Trade. See Section 5 Definitions and Section 12 Exchange of Sequences paragraph C.7.
If Flight Attendants are Jet Bridge trading how low can either FA waive their Domicile Rest (rest between sequences)?
Either Flight Attendant may contractually waive their rest down to nine hours release to report. In order to comply with CFR rest requirements, rest may be subsequently scheduled or operationally reduced to eight hours. See Section 8 Hours of Service paragraph M and the Addendum to Section 8 #13.
Why can FAs not waive their own rest down to eight hours between sequences?
14 CFR 91.1062 requires that Flight Attendants be scheduled with nine hours of rest in order to have no other scheduling restrictions for the following duty period.
If I Jet Bridge Trade, then add the portion of the Jet Bridge Trade to another sequence is that considered a Base Turn?
Yes, if the Jet Bridge Trade attaches flying on the last day of a sequence or portion of a sequence to flying on the first day of another sequence already on one’s line and combines them into the same duty period. There must be no less than one hour forty-five minutes (1:45) block to block between the last flight of the first sequence and the first flight of the second sequence. If a Jet Bridge Trade is made after the completion of a sequence and there is no additional scheduling obligation on one’s line, then it is not considered a Base Turn and only Jet Bridge Trading rules apply.
What is the maximum Base Turn duty period?
The Base Turn duty period cannot exceed fourteen hours per CFRs. See Section 8 Hours of Service paragraph T.
Why would a Jet Bridge Trade not be approved?
The trade or give-away will be granted unless doing so would cause an illegality (CFR) or delay in boarding. If the Jet Bridge Trade request is made less than one hour prior to departure, trades will be processed only if Crew Scheduling has the capacity to handle the request. The Jet Bridge Trade must be made with less than three hours to departure of the outbound flight.
If Flight Attendants complete a Jet Bridge Trade who will receive the hotel?
The inbound FA will keep the hotel, unless otherwise mutually agreed between the Flight Attendants completing the Jet Bridge Trade. Crew Scheduling and management will not get involved in disputes over hotel accommodations affected by Jet Bridge Trades.
When does the inbound FA’s per diem end and the outbound FA’s per diem begin pursuant to a Jet Bridge Trade in which a sequence is split?
The inbound FA’s per diem will start at the beginning of her/his sequence and end forty-five minutes prior to the departure of the outbound flight given away in the Jet Bridge Trade.
The outbound FA’s per diem will begin forty-five minutes prior to the departure of the outbound flight picked up in the Jet Bridge Trade and the per diem will end at release of the sequence.
Weekly Implementation meeting
AFA has established a weekly Implementation meeting with management to review, track and clarify issues related to implementation of the new c0ntract. The first meeting occurred yesterday—Tuesday, January 20, 2015. It was a very productive introductory meeting and AFA is pleased to report that overall everything appears to be on track with the timelines set forth in the Implementation Schedule.
TFP Calculators are not accurate
It seems all of the TFP calculators are not accurate at this time. AFA and management continue to work with the Information Technology (IT) department to resolve the discrepancies.
When will a final version of the new contract be published?
The Negotiating Committee is working very hard to get the document finalized for publication. Just developing the index is a very time consuming task all by itself. Keep in mind that not only is AFA involved in this process, but also so is management.
AFA and management have agreed to meet for three and a half days during the first week of February. We will be meeting outside of Seattle in order to minimize distractions and focus on the task. Once we are closer to finalizing the document then AFA will provide an estimate for the published contract.
In the meantime, you may access an electronic version of the TA2 document here.
Rumor patrol: “secret section” of the contract
AFA is aware of rumors that a new “secret section” of the contract is being written for the purposes of inclusion in the final document. This rumor is absolutely false. Be assured there are no new contract sections pending or being considered.
New Contract Q&A and email address
Have questions about the new contract? Contact your respective Local Executive Council (LEC) officers or you can email the Negotiating Committee at contract@afaalaska.org. We have added a section to the AFA Alaska website called “Contract Q&A” at http://afaalaska.org/contract/qa. Going forward any posts related to provisions in the new contract will be located here for easy access. Be looking for our first article about Jet Bridge Trades in the very near future!
* * *
In solidarity,
Your Contract Committee—MEC President Jeffrey Peterson, Kristy Stratton, Lisa Pinkston, Jake Jones, Christina Frees and AFA Senior Staff Negotiator Paula Mastrangelo
The Master Executive Council (MEC) will be conducting interviews for the AFA Scheduling committee chairperson at the AFA MEC office on February 10-11, 2015. The AFA MEC office is located in suite 280 of the Alaska Airlines Flight Operations and Training Center in Seattle, WA. This is a new position created under 27.P.2 of the 2014-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Potential applicants will find the following information helpful in determining interest and suitability:
Scheduling Committee Chairperson
Applicants should submit a declaration of interest and a resume to MEC Secretary Treasurer Yvette Gesch at yvette.gesch@afaalaska.org, who will contact you to schedule interviews. Applications will be accepted through January 31st.
In solidarity,
Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt
Friday’s communication misstated an important fact
Soon after sending the “Payroll Error Results in a Signing Bonus of $3000 for Steps 15 and 16” communication on Friday, the Master Executive Council (MEC) became aware that the post misstated an important fact. The communication indicated that flight attendants do not have the right to file an individual contractual grievance. That statement is incorrect.
An individual flight attendant may file a contractual grievance on her/his own behalf
Under Section 19 of the contract, an individual flight attendant may file a contractual grievance on her/his own behalf. However, the MEC is the only appropriate legal body to file a contractual grievance on behalf of all Flight Attendants. When an individual contractual grievance is filed, AFA is not legally obligated to represent the flight attendant with respect to that grievance. In other words a flight attendant can file an individual grievance but only on her/his own behalf—not on behalf of a group of flight attendants. S/he would then be responsible for taking the grievance through the contractual steps.
An individual contractual grievance must be filed within 30 business days of the infraction in accordance with Section 19.B of the contract. Additional questions regarding filing can be directed to MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl at jennifer.wisemaccoll@afaalaska.org.
It is important all flight attendants understand their contractual rights
The MEC understands there is a difference of opinion regarding the appropriate remedy to the overpayment of the signing bonus. Regardless of our differences, it is important that all Flight Attendants have a clear understanding of their contractual rights.
AFA apologizes for the error and any confusion it may have caused.
* * *
In solidarity,
Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt; MEC Grievance Chairperson Jennifer Wise MacColl; and AFA Senior Staff Attorney Kimberley Chaput
Contractual grievance requested
Recently a group of flight attendants sent a formal request to the Master Executive Council (MEC) seeking to file a contractual grievance. This is concerning the Company’s unintentional overpayment of the TA2 signing bonus to approximately 200 flight attendants. The request was filed in a timely manner but there seemed to be some confusion regarding the actual process., so here is a quick reminder.
Individual flight attendants can file disciplinary grievances. Contractual grievances, however, may only be filed by AFA. It may be done on a domicile basis for individual flight attendants or for issues affecting a specific base. However, we typically file a grievance on the MEC level because the contract covers all flight attendants even when the particular incident affects only one flight attendant. Individual flight attendants or groups of flight attendants do not have the legal or contractual right to do so. [Note: Disregard struck text as this information is in error. See Important Correction to “Payroll Error Results in a Signing Bonus of $3000 for Steps 15 and 16” for more information.]
Now the MEC would like to explain our decision whether or not to file the grievance as requested and to make sure you understand the dispute, the context in which it arose and our legal analysis.
Background
Management committed to pay every flight attendant a signing bonus upon ratification of TA2. Probationary flight attendants would receive $500 upon completion of probation; flight attendants who had completed probation and up to 17 years of “occupational service” (i.e. as an Alaska Airlines flight attendant) would receive $2,000; and flight attendants who had completed 17 or more years of occupational service would receive $3,000.
Under our old contract, the top of scale was Step 17 at the completion of 17 years of occupational service. TA2 reduced the top of scale to the completion of fifteen years of occupational service (Step 15). When payroll began processing the signing bonuses, they realized some flight attendants who were at Step 15 or 16 actually had at least seventeen years of occupational service and should therefore receive the $3,000. (This unusual situation arose because these flight attendants were not credited with the 480 TFP per year required under the old contract to advance to the next pay step. TA2 eliminated that requirement.)
In attempting to fix that problem, payroll inadvertently paid an additional $1000 signing bonus to not only the “480 hold-up” flight attendants but also to approximately 200 flight attendants, all of those at Step 15 and 16. When management discovered the error, they contacted AFA—on Christmas Eve. AFA fully expected management to initiate an overpayment correction. However, management was concerned that not only was it Christmas Eve but the 200 or so flight attendants might have already spent the money and could have believed that they were entitled to it.
In discussing the issue further, AFA and management came to the conclusion that letting these flight attendants keep the money was consistent with earlier discussions between the MEC and management in regards to the signing bonus. You see, at one point AFA sought to have the $3000 signing bonus paid to all new top of scale flight attendants (i.e. Step 15 and above), but we were unsuccessful in our request. After some consideration, AFA and management orally agreed the Company would not seek to recover the additional $1,000 from these approximately 200 flight attendants on a non-precedential basis.
Subsequent to that conversation, Vice President of Inflight Services Andy Schneider sent two different emails to the approximately 200 affected flight attendants. Andy informed them they could keep the $1000 overpayment/signing bonus. The details of those emails eventually found their way to social media and other public forums. This prompted concerns from some of the other flight attendants, who learned of it second-hand and out of context, which has led to the situation we face today.
MEC Decision
After consulting with both AFA Legal and our Collective Bargaining departments, the MEC is disinclined to file a contractual grievance over this issue. Here is why:
- TA2 clearly states that only flight attendants with 17 or more years of service will receive a $3,000 signing bonus. If we filed a grievance, management would grant it. But instead of awarding every other flight attendant an additional $1,000, management would likely then attempt to take the extra $1,000 back from the 200 affected flight attendants. We could continue the case to arbitration, but we believe that the arbitrator would enforce the Contract and side with management. Arbitrators routinely enforce clear and unambiguous language, and the law allows employers to recoup money erroneously paid to employees.
- Additionally, AFA’s oral agreement to allow the 200 flight attendants to keep the $1,000 is binding. We cannot legitimately file a grievance to rescind our own agreement. We would likely lose that case, along with our integrity. When management makes an agreement, we expect them to uphold it. In turn, they can and should expect the same from us.
- This is a tough case for the union because it necessarily pits members against members, with the leadership in the middle. We tried to do the right thing by the 200 flight attendants. Whether that was the right decision has certainly proved to be subject to debate. However, that decision was made, and we are standing by it.
Summary
The MEC recognizes timely communication was lacking and a full explanation of the circumstances would have been desirable. The MEC has learned a valuable lesson here and we will redouble our efforts to maintain open and forthright communications. If you have any additional questions or concerns, contact your Local Executive Council (LEC) president.
In solidarity,
Your MEC—Jeffrey Peterson, Brian Palmer, Yvette Gesch, Becky Strachan, Laura Masserant, Cathy Gwynn, Sandra Morrow and Stephen Couckuyt
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- …
- 231
- Next Page »
