discrimination

[FlyingRon]

I'm not an attorney and can not offer legal advice, just my lay opinion. I'm familiar with what is going on here (got AA flight pilots and flight attendants for neighbors). What's being argued here isn't senority really. In fact, if you push this, all they'll do is allow the more senior FA's to bid for "non flights" to get the preference back the way it is intended.

The bigger question is why your union is not fighting to protect your health, given the very REAL threat (and the fact that we've had what, over a hundred of your comrades taken ill with covid)?

 

[PamA1962]

it doesn’t change the fact the union voted in favor of violating the actual language of seniority as defined by our contract and has been defined by our contract for years. The DFRs that are being filed will fined APFA in violation of fair representation and violations of contract language.

he new Federal Law/Cares Act. Supercedes (any) potential attempt to not pay workers guarentee. [ For example, Federal law supercedes, union agreements or JCBA] Only caveat wen the gov in charge prefers to dismantle regulatory protections. In add, fails to enforce rule of law. In that case?

 

[PamA1962]

I'm not an attorney and can not offer legal advice, just my lay opinion. I'm familiar with what is going on here (got AA flight pilots and flight attendants for neighbors). What's being argued here isn't senority really. In fact, if you push this, all they'll do is allow the more senior FA's to bid for "non flights" to get the preference back the way it is intended.

The bigger question is why your union is not fighting to protect your health, given the very REAL threat (and the fact that we've had what, over a hundred of your comrades taken ill with covid)?

I completely agree with you and don't understand why our union isn't not fighting back, I have sent them countless emails which have gone unanswered.

 

[Zigner]

it doesn’t change the fact the union voted in favor of violating the actual language of seniority as defined by our contract and has been defined by our contract for years. The DFRs that are being filed will fined APFA in violation of fair representation and violations of contract language.

he new Federal Law/Cares Act. Supercedes (any) potential attempt to not pay workers guarentee. [ For example, Federal law supercedes, union agreements or JCBA] Only caveat wen the gov in charge prefers to dismantle regulatory protections. In add, fails to enforce rule of law. In that case?

...
huh?

 

[FlyingRon]

You think the more senior FA's would opt to fly if given their rightful place in the bid process rather than taking the "anti-furlough" money?

To help the others here without violating any confidence Pam related in private, here's an article from one of the travel sites on the matter:

https://onemileatatime.com/american-airlines-junior-flight-attendants-fuming/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

[Zigner]

The union's great...
Until it's not.

 

[cbg]

Just for clarification:

Whatever it may or may not be as far as a violation of the union contract, this is NOT something the EEOC will address. "Seniority" is not a protected category under discrimination laws.

 

[PamA1962]

thank you that is what I wanted to know, because I have read posts and say it is, although I feel in this case because an initial contract was broken, and the bargaining was not done in good Fatih, to which the bargain was also to represent us as a while, so seniority got added into the agreement to which it clearly should not have and which we have always kept it this way for years, but now somehow it suddenly changed to only benefit a select few that were senior.. which as a whole we were not represented, including those of is with underlying health issues and other issues that are beyond heath.. I believe our BOD was discriminatory not only to me but also to others. That was what I need to hear, I appreciate you falling this thread and helping and would gladly welcome any advice or lawyers I should speak to.

 

[PamA1962]

Just for clarification:

Whatever it may or may not be as far as a violation of the union contract, this is NOT something the EEOC will address. "Seniority" is not a protected category under discrimination laws.

I am not senior and this was my whole pint as well that they feel they were represented while many of us were not and with health conditions, I have others who have emailed me and told me of their eyelash issue as well as other issues, We found it unfair that this "seniority" group that was represented would initially be awarded a guarantee of 70 hours and not have to use sick time, if they were to get sick, but then the rest of us are forced to fly 70 and forced to use or sick time and FMLA ... so it is discrimnitroy that if someone has the same issue as me they do not have to use their sick time to fly if there have a heath issue simply because the company decided this was the best option because we couldn't change a computer program? To me this is unacceptable that I should be penalized and use my sick time for same health issue as someone else.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm still not following you. Are you saying that somehow things would be different in another scheme. I doubt seriously your contract has a provision for tweaking the bid process based on your health condition. Even if they required the more senior people to bid, they'd likely be allowed to bid to not fly still keeping you high on the list.

And the problem with a CBA is that you're beholden to the collective.

 

[PamA1962]

I'm still not following you. Are you saying that somehow things would be different in another scheme. I doubt seriously your contract has a provision for tweaking the bid process based on your health condition. Even if they required the more senior people to bid, they'd likely be allowed to bid to not fly still keeping you high on the list.

And the problem with a CBA is that you're beholden to the collective.

different that I should not have to use my sick time for as same health issue that someone else has just because they are awarded a guaranteed pay of 70 hours with no trips.... that it is discriminatory, if one is not penalized then no one should have to be penalized, it is the same health issue but one is forced to use FMLA and their sick bank to keep a guaranteed pay of 70 while, the other does not have to.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

different that I should not have to use my sick time for as same health issue that someone else has just because they are awarded a guaranteed pay of 70 hours with no trips.... that it is discriminatory, if one is not penalized then no one should have to be penalized, it is the same health issue but one is forced to use FMLA and their sick bank to keep a guaranteed pay of 70 while, the other does not have to.

It is discriminatory. IT ISN'T ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION.

ETA: And it is no more discriminatory than a Senior FA getting the flight form JFK-LON and the junior getting the Mayberry to Bugtussle flight.

 

[PamA1962]

Thank you for your help, I will still be awaiting my interview with the EEOC I appreciate it greatly!

 

[FlyingRon]

FMLA is independent of whether you are using your sick leave. FMLA just guarantees you back a job after you are out for medical reasons (other than qualification). They can force you to use sick leave, deep bank, accumulated leave etc... in conjunction with it. And yes, it's bad that some people don't have to take leave because they aren't scheduled to work, but that's the way it is and always has been with the airlines and similar seniority driven organizations.

 

[eerelations]

Thank you for your help, I will still be awaiting my interview with the EEOC I appreciate it greatly!

And the EEOC will also tell you that discrimination based on seniority is not illegal.