Skywest Flight Attendant Lawsuit
 

Skywest Flight Attendant Lawsuit | Unpaid Wages | ClassAction.org

The brief itself is at http://www.classaction.org/media/pdf...-v-skywest.pdf

So supposedly this suit is right now awaiting the Judge ruling on Skywest's request for dismissal - I don't know when that will happen, or which way the ruling will go. If it's not dismissed, then it will proceed to a full suit.

I've gotta say, the same things apply to us pilots - we get paid for block time, but we have duties before/after flights that are required per the FAR's and we do NOT get paid for those.

Thoughts?

Are the flight attendants at skywest unionized?

Also, this isn't exactly new news, if I recall this is about a year old now. Has something significant changed since? Is the judges ruling on dismissal immanent?

Even if they win it isn't going to turn out how they are dreaming about.
I wouldn't say retention is on the list of priorities for skyw FA's

What does that even mean? Can you explain your point of view a little better?

While I understand that labor groups can negotiate their rights to overtime and other labor laws, I've never understood how SkyWest can get away with it, given that no legal CBA exists with any of its labor groups. As hourly workers, we should be paid for all duty time, including overtime.

They churn through FA's.

Most attendants haven't done their ho(m)ework and then they turn aound and want to get paid. Please

If you took two seconds to read the first sentence you would know they were former FAs and a win would be good for the, since it would likely be in the form of back pay.

Collective bargaining per se does not require a union. A "legal CBA" is one that holds up in court, has nothing to with a union.

But lack of a union makes it easier for a subset of the labor group to challenge the validity of the "arrangement". Easier, but no slam dunk. They have to claim that their interests were not adequately represented, ie that the "representative group" which "negotiated" the contract is controlled by the company.

Pathetic. Suing an employer for paying you according to the work rules you agreed to work under when you took the job? Simply and utterly pathetic.

Kind of like pilots who spend tens of thousands of dollars then ***** and moan when their crappy regional pays them $18,000 a year.

(by the way, weak attempt at humor with the "ho(m)ework" comment.)

Not sure how long the plaintiffs have worked there, but the rules have changed over time.

Their argument is probably something along the lines of the "contract" was "negotiated" by a "representative" group which was organized and funded by the company, and therefore may not actually have the employees best interests at heart.

You can in theory make the same argument about SAPA, but I tend to think it's probably much more valid regarding the FA group.

Not really, if those work rules were against federal and state laws, the employer should be forced to pay up.

The RLA which helped thousands of flight crews through the years is now being turned on us and helping management.

The RLA was an adjustment to rules enacted a couple of centuries back to keep labor from shutting down the key national infrastructure.

The previous rules were rationalized by national security/national interest, but twisted to the benefit of management. The RLA was a slight improvement on a bad thing which has it roots in the 1800's, well before airplanes existed.

The only reason unions don't try to abolish or amend RLA as it applies to airlines is because it's a big can of worms that everyone is afraid to open. You never know what sort of BS rules the airline coalition lobbyists might be able to buy off of congress. It could easily end up worse than it is now.

Is that a good reason to live with it? I don't know. Do you feel lucky, son?

Management should be careful not to disgruntle the F/As, lest there be an outbreak of slide-blowing and door-jumping. :p

That is interesting.....

Without any kind of CBA, I bet Skywest loses this one. Not sure what the damage will be, but it is pretty hard to require employees to do anything without every minute being paid.

I know FA's have it way worse, but do you not think the above is a perfect description of SAPA? Every pay package we have it is the sell job of "this is the best we can get" and "who knows what will happen if we vote this down" There is no negotiation on our part. It is more like accepting what the company is willing to give.

The theory of not having a union is that we can work together and share in the companies success without being obligated to align with a national organization that may not have the companies best interests in mind. The reality is that the company can just make changes to our "contract" without a pilot wide vote simply by getting SAPA to buy off on it. Block vs credit, EFB changes, allowing new hires to vote ect.... It would be interesting to see what happens with this. If a judge does side with the FA's, it pretty much will blow away any company rhetoric that the pilots have a true contract.

If this gets legs and goes the distance, more than a few retired SKYW pilots will jump on the band wagon and pile on. The potential is very large, will be interesting. SKYW is unique in as much it's one of the few non-collectively bargained airlines out there. With 40+ years of union free operations, might backfire on them.

Management> Err.. SAPA, we need an emergency meeting, how do you feel about organizing?

That's the big conceptual failure most people have. It IS collectively bargained, union or not has nothing to do with it.

If you can prove that the bargaining agency (SIA) either was controlled by the company for it's own benefit to the detriment of the members, or that SIA failed to adequately represent certain members then you might have a case. Unions can (and do) get sued for the same sort of failings.

Proving in court that SIA is a company vehicle would by no means establish the same determination for SAPA although it might hint at the possibility.

To a degree. The pilot group is significantly stronger willed than the FA's, and is less tolerant of that sort of manipulation.

If some FA's win, that will NOT automatically spell doom for SAPA. Not by a long shot.

IMO the FA's, being weaker, have a stronger case.

Sorry,
Collective Bargaining is clearly defined by the NMB and several other government agencies. SAPA/SIA is funded by the company, for the company, and benefits the company. The legality of company funded unions was decided decades ago, and found to be illegal, in 1935.
"They were outlawed in the United States by the 1935 National Labor Relations Act §8(a)(2), due to their use as agents for interference with independent unions. Company unions persist in many countries, particularly with authoritarian governments."
But whatever you do, don't let the law get in the way of your opinion....