Lies, Big
Fat Lies and Really Desperate Lies Uncovered – An Objective Historical Look at
Flight Attendant Pay Rates and a Million Dollar Question Answered.
The IAM campaign has already committed more
than its share of lies and spoken more than its share of untruths. IAM
campaigners aren’t interested in telling you about the contract they negotiated
for the Continental flight attendants – and maybe that’s why they removed that
“You Don’t Get What You Deserve – You Get What You Negotiate” tagline from
their campaign website shortly after my last blog. Apparently, even the IAM
staffers realize that the Continental flight attendants deserve much more than
the IAM negotiated for them in their current agreement (e.g. no credits, no
rigs, minimum layover rest that can be as low as 7:45 from release to report).
In the most recent backhanded slap to the
face of every intelligent, free-thinking flight attendant, the IAM campaign has
put out a highly dubious, highly inaccurate comparison of pay scales among
flight attendants at major airlines.
Basically, they are cherry-picking the one
part of the contract that shows the IAM negotiating skills in a rather mediocre
(as opposed to downright bad) light. They are comparing the one part of the
Continental contract that they gutted EVERY OTHER part of the contract to save.
What the IAM campaign also refuses to be honest about is that they gave away
concessions (which they will never get back) without having to. They
voluntarily negotiated away contractual protections outside of bankruptcy and
then put an inferior contract out for a vote to their membership.
IAM campaigner David Bachman has been posting
this “kind of, sort of, could possibly be true, if you jump through three hoops
in the correct order on a Tuesday after a blue moon” chart on various public
forums, and helping to spread the IAM partial truths and outright lies.
For example, David is misstating the truth
when he writes on Facebook: “We would negotiate for improvements. Who is going
to vote for less?” (Posted on
a Facebook public forum.) Well David, the United flight attendants did (twice
before bankruptcy and once in bankruptcy), the US Airways flight attendants did
(when Pat Friend forced the US Airways MEC to put a concessionary agreement out
for a membership vote and then threatened the US Airways flight attendants that
if they voted no on the contract, they were doing so with the knowledge that
their company would go out of business), and, oh yeah, the Northwest flight
attendants did. Not to mention, most recently, the American flight attendants
did. But perhaps, most relevant of all: the IAM-represented Continental flight
attendants did. And they VOTED FOR LESS OUTSIDE OF BANKRUPTCY.
Here’s another blatant falsehood David publicly spouts to advance his
personal agenda: “I am tired and tired of working over 100 hrs a month to make what I did 9
yrs ago. I will rotate, spin , swap whatever to get us back to where we were.”(Posted
on a Facebook public forum) Nine years ago, David was earning $33.38 per hour. And he was on full-month
reserve with no control whatsoever over the trips he flew or whether he even
flew at all. Nine years ago, David didn’t have the option of picking up extra
trips on his days off to supplement his income, even if he wanted to.
So we have
to ask what kind of twisted arithmetic David is using in order to claim that at
his current hourly rate of $49.96 per hour, he needs to fly MORE hours to get
to the same income that he earned at $33.38 per hour. More importantly, is this
an example of someone you want representing you at a negotiations table?
The fact is
that David has averaged 73 hours per month over the last several months, so
even his claim that he is working over 100 hours per month is a blatant lie.
Remember that number. 73 hours. It’s going to come up again later in this blog.
The really puzzling part of the IAM
comparison is that both TWU-represented Southwest flight attendants and
AFA-represented Alaska flight attendants earn more than the Continental flight
attendants in the IAM’s OWN COMPARISON - and with better work
rules/credits/rigs and rest. Yet the Delta flight attendants who are now
supporting IAM once supported AFA until they got mad at AFA and then supported
TWU until they got mad at TWU. We have to wonder if it is only a matter of time
before these same organizers get mad at IAM and once again take their marbles
and go home. And we have to also, at some point, realize that these IAM
campaigners aren’t looking out for the best interests of the Delta flight
attendants – they are simply looking for their own personal prize and will jump
from union to union to try to achieve
it, regardless of what that union has done for – or against – its own members.
The biggest, baddest lie in the IAM pay
comparison is the pay rate that they claim the Continental flight attendants
earn. The pay rate that they attribute to Continental is a blended rate that is
only in effect for hours flown over 225 in a quarter. So basically, if you fly
75 hours per month or less (or if you fly 150 hours this month and zero hours
next month) you WILL NEVER SEE the pay rate in the chart. David Bachman, at his
73 hours per month, will NEVER SEE the pay rate in the chart he is trying to
hustle upon the Delta flight attendants.
Rather than a snapshot of one moment in time
(that was very blatantly and very obviously cherry-picked), a more accurate
measure is a comparison over time. Below is a graph of top of scale pay rates
at the legacy carriers from 1990 to present.
 |
| Click on Chart to enlarge. |
METHODOLGY – The Chart Above:
-
Contains top scale pay rates from
1990 to present.
-
Lists base pay rates for an
apples to apples comparison. This does not include items such as blended pay,
quarterly overtime, etc.
-
Includes all airlines listed in
the American Airlines “Last and Best Final Offer”, which is the only contractual
language that exists which defines the peer group (Continental, Delta, United
and US Airways) for comparison purposes. No other airline flight attendant
contract language currently exists which defines what the peer group is for
comparison purposes. The American flight attendants will measure this peer
group in three years to make sure that their pay will be brought up to the
“Industry Average Comparable Pay Rate” for the fourth year of their contract.
For complete text, see Attachment B (page 11) of the PDF here: http://www.apfa.org/images/LBFO/lbfo_19jul12_updated_7_27_12.pdf.
-
NOTES
-
The race to the bottom started in
2002, when AFA allowed concessions for US Airways flight attendants: http://www.labornet.org/news/0203/skyway.htm. This started the pressure on other carriers to match US Airways’
reduced labor costs.
-
United was the next airline to
extract concessions from its employees. AFA-represented flight attendants gave
concessions twice before the company entered bankruptcy and a third time in
bankruptcy. (Remember a couple of years ago when the current IAM supporters
were trying to sell us AFA as the flight attendant savior? Did they miss the
history? Are they missing important history now?) With two major carriers
reducing labor costs substantially, the pressure on the remaining legacy
carriers increased significantly.
-
At the end of 2004, Continental
Airlines management approached employee groups for concessions outside of
bankruptcy. The IAM-represented Continental flight attendants eventually agreed
to increased productivity in exchange for keeping their hourly rate. They gave
away all trip credits and rigs, extended their duty days, eliminated crew meals
on domestic flights, and initially were paid half their hourly rate for
deadheading. Layover and at-base rest provisions were significantly reduced (to
a minimum of 7:45 release to report in some cases). United Airlines management
later offered this same agreement to the AFA-represented flight attendants at
United. According to United Senior Vice President for Labor Relations, Doug
McKeen, “The reason Continental can afford to pay these rates is that
Continental currently enjoys significant advantages over United in the areas of
work rules and benefit costs.” AFA – United rejected the IAM – Continental
contract (http://www.unitedafa.org/news/details.aspx?id=5487) and settled for a top pay rate of $43.73 per hour (they had
asked for $64.00) in order to pay to keep their credits, rigs and longer rest
provisions.
The big
dilemma facing the United and Continental flight attendants in their current
protracted contract negotiations is whether they want to maintain the $52.53
that the Continental flight attendants currently earn (with no
credits/rigs/crew meals/etc.) or whether they are willing to reduce their
hourly rate by $8.00 to buy back some of the credits/rigs/rest provisions that
the United flight attendants currently enjoy.
-
In September, 2005 Delta Air
Lines and Northwest Airlines each filed for bankruptcy protection. For the
first time in history, Northwest flight attendant pay had finally reached parity
with Delta flight attendant pay, but the NWA cuts were slightly larger than the
Delta cuts, with a much more gradual subsequent rise in pay restoration. As the
chart shows, the NWA AFA-negotiated pay rate was flat after emerging from
bankruptcy, while the Delta rate increased quickly and significantly.
The Million Dollar Question and David’s Dilemma
Good financial analysts and investment experts
will tell you that the best measure of a company’s performance is to track it
over an extended period of time. Taking a snapshot of a moment in time, or even
comparing one year’s performance isn’t an accurate indicator of a company’s
true long term record. So with that in mind, let’s look at the total earnings
for flight attendants at legacy carriers from 1990 through the end of 2013. The
chart below shows what a flight attendant at each of the legacy airlines would
have earned at the top of the pay scale, flying 75 hours per month for each
month since 1990.
 |
| Click on Chart to enlarge. |
Given the fact that a Delta
flight attendant in this scenario would have earned almost $100,000 more than
an IAM-Continental flight attendant, we have to wonder what is behind David’s
funky math. We know why IAM would try to confuse the facts: millions of dollars
in potential dues money, but what does David have to gain by misstating the
truth? Why is he so willing to pass around a pay comparison chart that shows an
IAM pay rate that David himself will never see at his 73 hours per month
average? Why is David trying to represent that he is currently flying 100 hours
per month? Why is he so willing to sell out his fellow flight attendants and
what does he stand to gain from doing so? And since he very clearly isn’t
watching out for the best interests of the Delta flight attendants now, why
should we believe that he will do so in any type of honest, transparent,
competant manner if we elect him to some type of union position? What exactly
is he angling for?
Ask the hard questions and
verify before you sign a card that will bring our progress to a stop.
Sign a card: an inferior contract could
happen to you too . . . but only after a protracted, angst-ridden,
anger-inducing, stagnated period of laboratory conditions.
Sincerely,
Jose Arturo Ibarra
