whitekeys

I noticed a change to the FDA policy through a revised Q&A on the form that deals with eligibility for the housing allowance with a revision date of Feb 1, 2019. The company now states, “If, immediately prior to establishing your primary residence in the FDA, you resided in a state that prohibits discrimination in employment based on marital status, your spouse is not required to also establish his or her primary residence with you in the FDA.” It also states, “If, immediately prior to establishing your primary residence in the FDA, you resided in a state that prohibits discrimination in employment based on marital status or parenthood, your dependent children are not required to also establish their primary residence with you in the FDA.”

These recent changes must have some connection to the ongoing litigation in Alaska related to the Hong Kong terminations. Alaska prohibits marital status discrimination as well as 19 other states. I’ve heard rumors the company has claimed that the policy really changed as early as 2017, albeit secretly.

Since 2017, pilots may have bid on FDA assignments under the assumption that the old rules were still in effect. Some may have elected to forgo an FDA assignment based on false information provided by the company. Others may have made family relocation decisions based on the same false information. Families may have unnecessarily remained in an FDA. This seems ripe for a grievance of some sort that among other things would award any pilot that might have bid an FDA assignment, but for the discriminatory relocation policy, the pay of that position. For those with families in an FDA it is a mess.

Of course the revised company policy does not address the issue of why pilots from states that protect against marital status discrimination are the only ones now apparently protected. It is officially against FedEx corporate policy to discriminate based on marital status regardless of any other factor.

Management has some explaining to do.

max8222

How come I am not surprised that we have not heard from the union on this or the company. I always wondered how the company was getting away with discrimination against married pilots at FDA’s. Finally some legal entity ruled against the companies bully lawyers.

Wonder if it was the fired pilot from Alaska that pressed to test and won. I see a lot of dollars in his future.

TonyC

Not exactly a "press to test" (more like the fight of his life), and I don't think it can be called a complete win yet (he's still fired, so far), but he's had the courage and persistence to fight and keep fighting, and a lot of us owe him a great debt.

His fight isn't over yet. He deserves to win, and that should include big, big dollars.






.

MEMA300

what I’ve gathered from this. Our CBA doesn’t even meet the low bar set by some states labor laws? Is that correct?

whitekeys

The labor agreements (CBA & LOA) not only fail to meet almost half the states’ statutory protections, they have so far failed to meet the company’s own specific pledges about being non-discriminatory. Those pledges are legally binding. The labor agreements are supposed to conform to such corporate policy. The historical and ongoing disregard for protecting employees based on their marital status, strongly suggests that management and the lawyers knew they were violating the law and company policy all along. Now they finally give tacit recognition to the fact the policy was discriminatory. If it wasn’t, why would there be any reason to change it? What will they do moving forward? How will our company remedy that historical and ongoing harm? This situation underscores management’s lack of credibility.

ALPA needs to take stock of its tenuous position on this issue and hold the company to full account on the historical discrimination. Our union needs to ensure any pilot harmed from the discrimination can find a fair and just remedy from the company. That can mean a lot of things ranging from immediate FDA family relocations back to the U.S., to compensation for any pilot who might have bid an FDA assignment but for the company policy in force at the time of bid. Just remedy also would involve the terminated pilots.

I can’t wait to hear how the company explains this. Calibrate your BS-meters everyone.

whitekeys

FedEx’s most recent communique on the FDA housing allowance changes is vague and misleading. The company still does not specify when the decision to change the policy was made nor when it was implemented. A secret policy change isn’t really a policy change at all. Apparently FedEx quietly made a deal with Alaska back in 2017 where they verbally assured the Human Rights Commission that they were no longer enforcing the housing allowance policy. In exchange for that non-binding assurance the Commission reportedly agreed not to hold them accountable. That may explain why the issue is still open in the AK courts despite the company suggestion that the matter is finally closed.


If FedEx failed to inform ALPA or the pilots of a claimed policy change for that long, it is a matter that needs to be grieved before moving forward with any negotiations on defining what (non-discriminatory) objective measures would be appropriate to determine a pilot’s eligibility for the housing allowance. I would say that a so-called “days test” or any such rule that would restrict a pilot’s off-duty choices should be rejected by ALPA. How about pilots just provide the company a current copy of their rental agreement? That alone should suffice.


FedEx still comically asserts that they don’t think the old rule was unlawfully discriminatory. They have known all along that it was. The only reason for not admitting the obvious is that it would make individual civil rights lawsuits even simpler. The company lawyers must be very conscious of their vulnerability. I have no doubt FedEx purposefully delayed informing ALPA and the crewforce of the housing allowance policy change in order to protect their position in the ongoing legal challenges. Their apology for that is disingenuous.


Given the company’s dishonesty on this issue, it is ironic that they saw fit to remind pilots that “honesty is the best policy.” FedEx management and lawyers would be well served to follow their own advice.

USMCFDX

Also why should one set of pilots live under a different rule just because they live in a different state from a different set of pilots?

Our union failed at this from the onset. Bid a FDA here is your money, show up for your trips, done.

whitekeys

Good point and well stated.


New rules: AK, CA, CT, DE, FL, HI, IL, IN, MD, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OR, ND, VA, WA, WN.


Old rules: Everyone else.


I'm wondering if the this mess may force our company to scrap the FDA concept and go back to staffing all such international operations by SIBA. If that's what happens and it's more costly, they should know who to blame.

Adlerdriver

So, I have to live in one of the specified States in order to avoid being discriminated against by my current employer?
But, they can continue their policy of discrimination if I don't.

USMCFDX

I will have to double check but I saw that Indiana did not have a law against family discrimination and thus was still under the old rules.

Here is a link from Jetflyers - can not verify the authenticity.
https://www.workplacefairness.org/ma...VeI8NUiPvFUxoM