On Wednesday August 28, United Airlines’ flight attendants voted overwhelmingly to strike, with 99.99% of votes in favor of industrial action. This is the first time flight attendants at the airline have authorized a strike since the 2005 bankruptcy negotiations.
The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) organized a system-wide “Day of Action” to announce the results of the vote live. It was read out simultaneously on nearly 20 picket lines at airports across the country. According to AFA-CWA, the backdrop was purposefully chosen to demonstrate that United flight attendants are “ready to do whatever it takes to get an industry-leading contract”.
The decision to announce the vote at the picket line along with the proximity to Labor Day weekend sent a very clear message to United Airlines management and the public; give flight attendants what they want or be prepared for disruption. To hammer this point home, President of the United chapter Ken Diaz said, “We are the face of United Airlines and planes don’t take off without us. As Labor Day travel begins, United management is reminded what’s at stake if we don’t get this done”.
It is clear that Diaz is using scaremongering tactics to imply that United flight attendants could suddenly strike during a public holiday when many people are traveling and just three days after the strike authorization. It’s also misleading because Diaz is suggesting that AFA-CWA can decide when and if United flight attendants strike without any prior warning or involvement of other bodies.
In truth, there are several steps before United flight attendants are authorized to strike under the Railway Labor Act. Before this is a reality, the National Mediation Board (NMB), an independent agency that oversees negotiations between labor and management, needs to decide that the negotiations have reached an “impasse” and release both parties into a 30-day “cooling off period”. Only after this period has lapsed, would United flight attendants be able to strike. However, it’s still not a foregone conclusion with the White House reserving the ability to intervene and avert the strike.
This begs the question, why would AFA-CWA even bother organizing a strike authorization vote if it means so little? This is because the leadership uses the ballot as a bargaining tool rather than believing it's a pathway to strike. Aviation commentators describe the vote as a procedural step or pageantry that is required before a deal is reached. Indeed, Matt Klint, author of the blog ‘Live and Let’s Fly’ said that “many issues have already been agreed on”, adding that “they are talking and there is no impasse”.
This theory is supported by the patterns of negotiations at American, Alaska, and Southwest airlines where the unions have authorized strikes and gone on to secure tentative agreements (TAs) without ever needing to stage a walkout. While the United chapter of AFA-CWA is following the same rulebook as American and Alaska airlines, it’s not too late for them to learn some lessons from the other negotiations. If they don’t, United flight attendants will fall victim to endless negotiations on stagnant pay that only result in disappointing new contracts.
Similar to what we have seen at Alaska and American, boarding pay has been a massive bone of contention in the negotiations at United Airlines. As those in the industry will know, the norm has always been that flight attendants do not get paid until the aircraft doors are closed. However, this all changed when Delta Air Lines decided to unilaterally introduce boarding pay for all its flight attendants in April 2022 and did so without the need for endless negotiations since the airline is non-unionized.
The United chapter at AFA-CWA is desperate to follow Delta and secure a boarding pay agreement on behalf of its members. But how far is the union willing to go for this perk and would it accept lower hourly wage increases in exchange for boarding pay? If so, then it needs to start communicating this likelihood with members ahead of a deal being reached. Otherwise, it will experience the same situation as flight attendants at American Airlines, where the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) were reluctant to warn them that boarding pay would come at the cost of lower hourly increases, resulting in many American flight attendants speaking out against the prospective deal.
Another warning for the United chapter is the risk of making outlandish promises while a deal is still being negotiated. The Master Executive Council (MEC) and Negotiating Committee at Alaska Airlines were not transparent about what they could achieve with their new contract, which led to flight attendants being outraged by the terms and rejecting the deal outright. APFA made the same mistake, promising wage increases of 33% and only achieving half of that in the new TA.
While the United chapter is following the path well-trodden by unions at American and Alaska Airlines, there is hope that it will not fall into the same trap. To do this, they should avoid making empty promises, over-posturing, and poorly communicating the downside of collective bargaining. Failure to do this will result in United flight attendants rejecting the deal when they cast their ballot and negotiations starting from square one. Only time will tell if the union heeds this warning.
Comments