During the recent FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 hearings before the House Subcommittee on Aviation, Patricia Friend, International President of the Association of Flight Attendants, testified that various airline policies essentially forced flight attendants with flu-like symptoms to work.
As the Swine Flu (H1N1) was spreading and newspapers were filled with stories about a possible pandemic, many airlines were strictly enforcing their sick-leave policies. Even flight attendants “with fevers above 100.4 degrees, cough, sore throat, body aches, headaches, chills or fatigue” were in some cases expected to report for duty in order to avoid “negative consequences” of draconian company dependability policies.
Friend also testified that during the H1N1 crisis, pregnant or immune compromised flight attendants had few provisions allowing them to reschedule work in outbreak zones or countries. The efforts made by different airlines ranged from allowing pregnant flight attends to reschedule flights to allowing no changes at all.
These airline rules regulating sick leave at airlines are significantly different between major U.S. airlines and in the case of a possible pandemic, the flight attendant union feels that the government should have uniform standards to deal with public health emergencies.
Back during the SARS crisis of early 2003, the situation was the same and the concerns were similar. However, with the end of the public health scare, the airlines returned to their Balkanized approach to sanitation and sick leave while the FAA and Congress evidently forgot about the issue.
Friend, in her testimony, said, “In far too many cases, airline management appears less concerned with minimizing the risk of exposure to potentially dangerous illnesses than in minimizing the perception and appearance of a possible threat to health.”
Basic health steps need to be clearly spelled out by the FAA for similar future events.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Charlie … Do you just not like the airlines? Could you find a story anywhere where you don’t knock the airlines? How about some journalism and get a quote from the airlines on why the policies exist?
I worked in the management of a Unionized company (hint: your and I are going to own a majority share before too long). I saw these types of policies enacted because people just didn’t show up for work. They would then show up with a doctor’s note from a local clinic known for writing a cannot work note for a stubbed toe. It got bad enough that the union agreed to an attendance plan.
If the union wants different work rules, that’s what contract negoiation is for. You know the periodic thing where the union and management sit down and work out a deal that both find agreeable. We really don’t need the government stepping in again.
On May 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am John
If the union wants different work rules, that’s what contract negoiation is for. You know the periodic thing where the union and management sit down and work out a deal that both find agreeable. We really don’t need the government stepping in again.
==========================================================
WHAT!!! How many times do these negotiations drag on for years and years past the amendable date? Why do you think this industry is riddled with labor disputes? I say, step in, government, stop those multi-million dollar bonuses for management.
Most companies allow flight attendants TWO SICK CALLS per year. Yet, they’re in close contact, in a confined space with hundreds and hundreds of passengers per week. Can you imagine watching television and an outbreak (illness) happens in a city where you’ve scheduled yourself a month in advance?
Care to use ONE of your sick calls? How about a maintenance issue with an aircraft? Remember the grounding of the DC-10 in 78? Would YOU want to fly it UNTIL they decide to ground it and that’s even if they do?
Flight Attendants are supposed to be concerned with SAFETY. Unfortunately, for management, at times OUR safety is our number one priority!
Where have you been, Frank? About time you chimed in on something. I’ll second that. Two sick calls a year is ridiculous. I don’t know what kind of sick leave FAs get, but I always get into a debate about what’s the use in having sick leave if you’re not allowed to use it. If you hire the right employees in the first place, they won’t abuse their sick leave. If they are abusing their sick leave, then you haven’t hired the right people.
@Frank
Since negotiation is a two way street, I guess added sick days are not that important to FAs. If it was, they would give up something else to get additional ones.
On May 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm John said @Frank
Since negotiation is a two way street, I guess added sick days are not that important to FAs. If it was, they would give up something else to get additional ones.
===========================================================
Typical MANAGEMENT style answer. John. So, they keep sick days competitive with other carriers, they offer something else of lesser value, but is more important to the (F/A) membership.
On May 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am Carlo said . If you hire the right employees in the first place, they won’t abuse their sick leave. If they are abusing their sick leave, then you haven’t hired the right people.
==========================================================
Frank <—–has called in sick, three times in the past ten years.
No one’s forcing FA’s to work under those rules… enough of them obviously think it’s worth it, or there’d be a huge shortage. Airlines are certainly not the only companies that are stingy about sick leave – they’re not even the worst. None of this needs to be a government issue.