This is something where there is no excuse but greed.
The wages of flight attendants are a drop in the ocean compared to everything else for operating a plane.
As usual, they attack the ones who can’t fight back.
HOWEVER: Since we’re living in Shitworld where we love rewarding greed and sucking off our oppressors, this could easily result in higher profits for airlines. What they will try to do is pay flight attendants while planes aren’t flying, but then charge customers significantly more and argue that it’s to pay the flight attendants while pocketing the excess.
Canadians just won their negotiations, so not surprising here. Canadians won by outplaying the Canadian carrier though, so not the same strategy.
Wait… They don’t get paid for work when not flying? Wtf
Well, they’re flight attendants, not rolling attendants, or sitting at the parking spot attendants. It’s all in the job description.
Uneducated take
Sounds sarcastic to me
If you have to be somewhere sometime for your job you should be getting paid, we need better unions
Yup. You should be paid from the moment you’re required to arrive until the moment you’re allowed to leave. That includes
- Getting changed into uniform, if there’s a reason the uniform couldn’t have been worn in (e.g. special safety gear, full body character costumes)
- Any security or bag checks
- Turning on computers
My boss at my first job tried to tell me that i needed to be in and logged into my terminal by my shift start time
These terminals were like 15 years old, booted over the network and took at least 5 minutes to log in if they weren’t turned off the night before. 8-10 mins if i had to turn it on as well.
I told him to do one.
Also if i was 1 min late for work they would dock 15 mins of pay and still expected me to work the remaining 14 mins unpaid, on minimum wage.
My fiances POW (a care home) does this too to this day
Carers should unionise, it’s a highly exploitative sector
Carers should unionise, it’s a highly exploitative sector
Many care workers (in the US, at least) are unionized, through SEIU. Perhaps your fiance could reach out to them for help organizing their workplace.
The commute. Make employers pay an extra 2 hours a day and they’ll be a lot more willing to let us work from home.
Of course, not all jobs can be done remotely, but this would free up traffic and improve the commute of those that have to work in-person.
We just need a better government at this point.
Both sides need to stop going to bat for the people keeping them down.
wtf?
“We can fly upwards of 15 hours in a day and only get paid for three and a half. Our flight attendants don’t make a living wage,” said Becky Black, a flight attendant for nearly 22 years at PSA Airlines, which operates flights for American Airlines. “We have a flight attendant who lives in a homeless shelter. We have flight attendants that are living in crew rooms. We have flight attendants who are 30 years old and have to move back in with their parents because they can’t afford to live with this job.
capitalism. the problem is fucking capitalism.
🌏🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀 always fucking has been.
That’s wrong. You can be on duty 15 hours a day and only get paid 3.5 hours. She misspoke or the press got it wrong.
Unfortunately this is true (assuming the PSA block minimum is 3.5hrs) At jetblue it’s 5 hrs, at spirit it’s 4 hrs. Duty can be scheduled between 12-14 hours and extended upwards of 15 for delays.
Take the example of this fun little overnight trip, you fly one leg to Norfolk, sit on the ground for five hours (six and a half, but half hour deplaning, one hour boarding) then fly back. Your flight time (paid time) is 4hrs33 and your time away from base (time on duty) is 12hrs35
But dont panic folks, you can be disciplined at any point during duty time for your behavior, where you are, and uniform compliance :,(
(Edit: blurred some stuff in the pic)
No idea if PSA even has a day value in their FA contract.
I say the same thing, where “flying” is transit time between places, even if there’s a layover. There’s a difference being at home and “on duty” as in on-call and ready to go and being stuck in an airport for 10 hours because you’re doing a Chicago-LA-Chicago return and stuck in LA because the shitter’s broke on the plane you took there and need to get back to O’Hare.
Seriously, that person is not at home and not able to really have control over their own time because of their job. It’s more than being just “on duty” in a sense that they shouldn’t be getting paid.
I didn’t want to get in the weeds for an audience that doesn’t need to know the differences between reserves or being stuck at an airport all day on a trip that went bad over weather or maintenance. Yeah, there’s different kinds of duty, but for this argument I’d suggest the latter is far more likely. Long days made worse due to some disruption where you might only get one or two legs done on an RJ.
Probably an ignorant question but if you go to work 15 hours just to go back to the homeless shelter. Why not just skip the middle man, and just not go to work?
Maybe they live in a state that requires working for medicaid?
https://www.newsweek.com/states-medicaid-work-requirements-map-2023330
If I have to spend time doing ANYTHING (including nothing) for your company against my free will. You will pay me.
Lol you should be allowed to clock in when you start your commute. These CEOs don’t even want to pay their employees when they are on the clock and working.
Here’s a fun fact. Vasquez Rocks is a common shooting location for Hollywood. Particularly Star Trek; my wife and I make a game of pointing out when they’re using Vasquez Rocks for yet another episode.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”. If they shoot within the studio zone, people have to pay for their own transportation and meals. If it’s outside, the studio pays for all that. Vasquez Rocks is just outside the studio zone.
Slight correction, it’s just inside the studio zone. Studios wouldn’t prefer a place that requires them to pay more!
Yeah, that makes more sense.
The reason it’s used so much is that it’s an arid environment just outside the “studio zone”.
Vasquez Rocks is inside the studio zone, according to your link.
-
I also love seeing the Vasquez Rocks for the same reason. Had a friend that lived in Antelope Valley and I would drive by them any time I went out to his place.
-
Same trick is pulled across Africa. If a conference takes place a certain distance from the capital city, you get per diem. So you’ll see clusters of hotels with fancy conference centers just outside the radius. It’s just a day trip but people will play receipt fraud and make it look like they stayed the night and split the price with whoever is selling receipts.
-
that fact is indeed fun
In theory that sounds good but I don’t really get how it’d work. I mean what if you just lived four hours away so your commute there and back was just your eight hours? That’s obviously ridiculous so what’s the cut off? Like an hour? How does that affect breaks and lunch if you do live an hour away so you’re only working six hours? Or is it just like a premium pay, like you earn 10% of your salary on your way in?
I wonder if any company actually does this.
My husband has to drive to different sites every day. He clocks in when he starts his car, and starts getting paid either an hour later or the minute he gets to the job site, whichever is sooner. So if they schedule him more than an hour from home, he gets paid for that extra drive time, which is nice. First hour is just expected commute.
Any company that does that likely uses a company vehicle as company property and demands you live in the specific area.
My old employer did that for our field technicians. You were paid from the second you left your home until you got back. If you had to stay overnight - then they paid for that too.
We hired people all over the US but we only hired people in centralized areas key to our customers. You were NOT allowed to change your home address more than 20 miles without sufficient approval. It would be grounds for termination.
My coworker lived in Alabama, and got some girl pregnant when they had him working in Philadelphia on an all-hands type of emergency . He decided to move to Philly to raise the child. You’ve no idea the amount of bureaucratic headache it took to stay employed.
Interesting. Where I work we have field techs as well but I guess it’s a little different. Everyone’s issued their own truck, the truck just lives at the office. So you’d drive to the office, pick up your truck, and then start earning windshield time. In any case, I do wonder what it’d look like for like a retail worker or something.
When I worked for IT call center back in the day they had a reimbursement plan for everyone coming into work… Within reason of course. We rearly had call in due to transportation issues. If you lived within one hour drive of the office you got an estimate on the gas, time, and vehicle maintenance check at the end of each month. If you didn’t have a vehicle they paid for your yearly public transportation cost. It was such a additive to the culture of the office and ensured the worker wasn’t being held financially responsible for getting to work! Such a weird concept in a world of selfless leadership and a beat down labor force.
We don’t have enough density for that.
We had maybe 1 field technician for every state. So like literally 1 technician for all of North and South Carolina. 2 for Alabama/Mississippi/Louisiana. 3 for all of Florida (North, South, Central).
There often isn’t an office to go to in your state but we do sell there so we need on-site staff.
If the CEO of the company you work for has to travel more than 30 minutes one way, believe it when I say they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
Just tie it in with minimum wage reform that your “paid” hours start one hour before you are scheduled to work, and end one hour after you are “off the clock.” Mandate a minimum of 40 paid hours a week for all employees, and no more then 12 scheduled hours within a 24 hour period.
Of they live 4 hours away. Why are they applying for that job and why is that place hiring someone that fast away when commuting is a requirement.
I mean if I was a miner and instead of working in the mines I could just drive for 8 hours that sounds a little more doable. In any case, what if I just get a job somewhere and then move? As much as people on lemmy hate driving I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes it.
The real question is.
Why would the mine hire the guy who gets paid 8 hours of unproductive driving? They would only hire the closest individuals.
And what if you move? I guarantee there would be a contract stating you cannot change your home address by [X distance] without approval.
So your employer can choose where you live?
Can they also prevent you from biking to work or taking public transit since those would be slower?
If you get in an accident is the company liable since you are on the clock?
How would they check your time?
What if you were running an errand before work does time start when you get in the car or when you finish the errand?
At the end of the day it’s just easier for the company to pay you whatever money would go into the commuting budget and evenly distribute it to everyone’s salary.
I pay for food delivery, they should pay for labor delivery.
And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
Guess we just have to make more shareholder value if we want nice things. We can’t talk too loudly though, just in case someone gets the idea that the workers should actually become the shareholders.
Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.
I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable
My company’s policy is that if you’re traveling to other offices, that’s paid time. If I go into the main office, but then midday have to drive 2 hours to one of our labs or something, it makes sense I’d be paid for that, right? Same with commuting during business trips. So, if I have the ability to WFH, how is it any different? I’m having to travel from one office location to another.
It depends, where is your designated work site. If your main office is the one at work then being able to wfh is a privilege that if feasible should 100% be allowed but if part of your job is not able to be done remotely and once a week they require you to go the office there is no reason the company should pay for that
On the flip side if you are a remote employee who does not have a designated work site that’s asked to come to some random office to pick up a new laptop that should be on the clock.
The difference is control of the situation if you know where your designated work site is and choose to have a long commute to get there that is a personal choice, you don’t however have control over the random places that your work sends you like secondary job sites or another state.
Obviously there is no right or wrong answer to this as it’s all opinions but the way I see it is it’s bad for morale if a coworker got to work less than because they lived further away and others had to pick up their slack. Environmentally it’s worse because it encourages people to live further away and be even more car reliant.
There also are just better options.
If the goal is to reduce the total hours people have to work because 8 hours + 1 hour unpaid lunch + 1 hour of commuting eats away at people’s day then you could just lower everybody’s required work time by the average commuting time
If the goal is to pay people more you could just use the extra money you would use for paying for the commute and just pay your employees more
But you could add extra incentives like anyone who bikes/walks/takes public transit to work gets to leave extra early
As I mentioned before pay people more if they live within X distance from work so they don’t have to commute as much
Are they driving for work? Or driving for personal reason?
Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.
Why is your time and your coworkers time so worthless to you? Not to mention the financial burden. And believe it when I say, if the CEO of your company has to travel more than 30 minutes one way they have it written in their contract that they are “reimbursed” for their time lost. But you? Eat the cost of not only your commute but your CEOs as well. Some even get a private jet to fly them to work and back every day.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/starbucks-new-boss-private-jet-b2600164.html
It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.
It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution
If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair
If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away
I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it
It’s the rules of the game you’re mad at. Not the commuting equitably issue.
I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”
I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.
Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense
Bunch of lazy freeloaders wanting to get paid for working.
Looks like the US flight attendants are following Canada’s lead. Good on them.
Air Canada (AC.TO), flight attendants want to make gains on unpaid work that go beyond recent advances secured by their U.S. counterparts, a union leader said on Wednesday, in a fresh test of the way airlines compensate cabin crews.
…
New labor agreements at American Airlines (AAL.O), and Alaska Airlines (ALK.N), legally require carriers to start the clock for paying flight attendants when passengers are boarding, not when the flight starts to taxi down the runway. Those gains came after Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), whose flight attendants are not in a union, instituted boarding pay for its cabin crew at half of their hourly wages in 2022 when they were trying to organize.
I did not know this. It’s a wonder anyone chooses to be a flight attendant at all. I know I would quit as soon as I found out they weren’t going to pay me for the work I did.
This sounds insane, it would be like if every cashier had to greet customers at the door for free several hours each day.
Or they only got paid for the seconds/minutes they were actively checking out a customer. This is insane
What kind of people stay in a job like that? I would have to be pretty desperate and know that I was otherwise unemployable to keep showing up for a job that only paid me for a fraction of the time I was required to be there.
Because it’s still a “glamor” job, and it eventually pays OK after a decade + of work. Travel, travel benefits, don’t take your work home with you…if you’re good with people and can do the training it can be a good gig. It should pay better, but nobody gets paid until the door is closed and the plane pushes back. Not even the pilots, but pilot pay can be high enough to account for all the time at work outside the “door closed at departure and door open at destination” pay clock where the flight attendants are stuck dealing with passengers on a plane even if the door is closed sitting at the gate and they don’t get paid.
The greed in this world is astounding.
We really need to stop respecting businessmen.
Do you mean like work at Starbucks or Home Depot?
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/home-deport-responding-call-31-day-boycott-over-dei
https://www.newsweek.com/american-businesses-supporting-donating-donald-trump-list-2027957
The Home Depot was embroiled in whistleblower litigation brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) law. In July 2005, former employee Michael Davis, represented by attorney Mark D. Schwartz, filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the Home Depot, alleging that his discharge was in retaliation for refusing to make unwarranted back charges against vendors. Davis alleges that the Home Depot forced its employees to meet a set quota of back charges to cover damaged or defective merchandise, forcing employees to make chargebacks to vendors for merchandise that was undamaged and not defective. The Home Depot alleges that it fired Davis for repeatedly failing to show up for work.
Easy, not on the clock, I’m not working.
Edit: no I didn’t read the article.
So the converse of that would be: on the clock, I’m working.
And since they’re on the clock before and after the plane is in the air, they should be getting paid for that time. It’s a fucking travesty that they haven’t been until now.
Someone watched Canada and got an idea…
Go for it!
Sounds like commie talk.
/S
