Private member's bill that would ensure flight attendants are paid for their pre- and post-flight duties

[Malcolm]

Conservative MP Lianne Rood has put forward a private member's bill that would ensure flight attendants are paid for their pre- and post-flight duties.

Flight attendants have been advocating for changes to the labour code because they don't start getting paid until their plane is in motion — and their compensation ends when the plane stops at the gate after landing.

"This is unfair and puts many women and diverse Canadians at a disadvantage," Rood said Wednesday as she tabled the bill.

 

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) air division — which represents 18,000 flight attendants — says that on average, flight attendants do 35 hours of unpaid work per month. That includes such duties as overseeing the boarding and unboarding process.

C-409 would amend the labour code by adding a section requiring that flight attendants be paid for "carrying out all pre-flight and post-flight duties relating to aircraft security and passenger service, including assisting with embarking and disembarking and pre-flight cabin and passenger safety checks."

 

Wesley Lesosky, a flight attendant and president of CUPE's air division, said the bill being introduced is "momentous."

"I think it's amazing that we're growing the support behind the payment for flight attendants, so we're very happy to see that something has been introduced," he said.

But Lesosky said the Conservatives didn't consult with the union before tabling the bill and it could use some tweaks.

As it stands, the bill says that flight attendants should be compensated for completing mandatory training. But Lesosky said that language needs to be altered to specify that attendants must receive their full hourly wage for mandatory training.

"For training, for instance … a lot of us are paid half our hourly rate or minimum wage, whichever is greater," he said. 

"Flight attendants deserve to be paid their full hourly rate for any mandatory training."

 

 

 

The NDP has been calling on the government to make similar changes to the labour code. Party leader Jagmeet Singh and MP Bonita Zarrillo joined CUPE members for a press conference to raise awareness of the issue in May.

Zarrillo told CBC News she wants to ensure the changes the Conservatives propose are thorough enough before deciding on whether to support the bill.

"The consultation has been limited on this bill. So we definitely want to consult with the workers," she said.

"We definitely want to make sure that the bill is robust enough to cover all the needs of unpaid workers and unpaid flight attendants."

 

In a media statement, CUPE said that the lack of consultation by the Conservatives is "disappointing." But Lesosky said he was encouraged by the fact that the issue is gaining cross-party support.

"You have two parties behind it. It definitely gives us pause to reflect and see that this is a great thing. It's moving, it has momentum," he said.

 

Rood wasn't made available for an interview. A Conservative Party spokesperson referred CBC News to her statement on Wednesday, when she introduced the bill.

The House of Commons has adjourned for the summer, meaning the bill won't be debated until MPs return in the fall. But private member bills rarely get through the Parliament in a timely manner — if they pass at all.

When asked if the Liberals would support the legislation, Labour Minister Seamus O'Regan's office said they are evaluating Rood's bill.

"We take the issues facing flight attendants very seriously and are currently reviewing the proposed legislation," a spokesperson said in an email.

Lesosky said he doesn't expect the legislation will pass before the next election, but hopes the labour code changes will make it into parties' platforms.

[Seeker]

In my experience there are many FAs that do not understand how and why their pay system came to be.  

[FA@AC]

4 hours ago, Seeker said:

In my experience there are many FAs that do not understand how and why their pay system came to be.  

The majority now are new hires.  None of them understand how it came to be.  I’m not saying that it shouldn’t change, but one might watch what one wishes for.

CUPE recommended that FAs at AC and at Air Transat (among other carriers) accept contracts with the pay formula that calculates pay from push back to block in.  They now want legislation to overturn what they recommended we accept.  Embarrassing.

[Seeker]

19 minutes ago, FA@AC said:

The majority now are new hires.  None of them understand how it came to be.  I’m not saying that it shouldn’t change, but one might watch what one wishes for.

CUPE recommended that FAs at AC and at Air Transat (among other carriers) accept contracts with the pay formula that calculates pay from push back to block in.  They now want legislation to overturn what they recommended we accept.  Embarrassing.

I understand the frustration about working the boarding and deplaning for "free" but this work was accounted for in the hourly rate.  If the original system was to get paid from checkin to checkout the hourly rate would have been lower - same end result.

Personally, I'd suggest just leaving it alone and negotiating a raise.  Messing with the pay structure allows for the company to open the whole thing up for small changes that end up being worse.

Biggest winner is the union leadership who gets to say, "See, we're working to get you paid for your current free work, aren't we great?"

[Innuendo]

Be interesting to see the difference in pay checks of a short haul intercity block with say 50 legs in a month and a long haul block,   (say YVR-HKG, YVR-Sydney Oz) that is probably six legs a month, if you are paid for the time before and after aircraft movement in addition to the actual flight time.

Edited June 24 by Innuendo

[Leeroy]

I think the issue for most F/A's is the hours where they have delays and IROPS at the gate. They can be dealing with pax for hours before the door closes and the pay clock starts for them. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to want to be paid for this time, it's often some of the hardest work they do. Of course, their hourly rate would have to reflect these potential new hours, which they may not be too happy with.

[Jaydee]

Are the me-too clauses still (n effect?

If so the pilot group will love this as they will get a minimum extra 1 1/2 hrs pay for each cycle. Just think of all the hours spent flight planning and pre flight duties on board prior to departure

At an average of say 20 legs per month,,that could easily be a 30 hour pay increase. WHOOP WHOOP (all figures are just a guess, varies with seniority and AC type.)

The demand for pilots are already at an historic high will go stratospheric. = problems galore or (be careful what you wish for.)

IMO this bill will no doubt die on the drawing board as fares would sky rocket with subsequent screaming.

Edited June 24 by Jaydee

[Seeker]

6 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

problems galore or (be careful what you wish for.)

I know of some airlines that consider layover time to be "days off."  I know of some airlines that stop the pay clock for the time a crew member spends in the bunk.  Trying to force the company to open the pay structure to get paid for boarding/deplaning time is a huge mistake IMO.  Many FAs I have talked to about this expect a windfall gain is coming their way - I do not think it will happen.

[J.O.]

I've said this many times before - the company comes to the negotiating table with a bucket of money. So long as the flights are crewed appropriately, they don't much care for how that bucket gets divvied up. But legislating the change as proposed doesn't magically make that bucket any bigger. 

[Vsplat]

Everything has a consequence.  This will too.

One thing about pay for all time at work, not just time in motion, is the transparency it adds and the abuses that might go away.  Right now it is just too easy to park someone at an airport for hours during an IRROP.  Cost free means value free to some.  A bad management practice on so many levels, but one that won't change without an external influence.

It might just get a bit harder to play games with flight and duty time of all of the true duty time is captured by pay.  Early days, we'll see how this plays out.

Vs

[Turbofan]

On 6/23/2024 at 6:04 PM, FA@AC said:

The majority now are new hires.  None of them understand how it came to be.  I’m not saying that it shouldn’t change, but one might watch what one wishes for.

CUPE recommended that FAs at AC and at Air Transat (among other carriers) accept contracts with the pay formula that calculates pay from push back to block in.  They now want legislation to overturn what they recommended we accept.  Embarrassing.

True.  But it is not working or has been abused when people are making less than minimum wage for their at work time.

We generally work 80-85 credit hours and that equates to full time. 85 credit hours takes anywhere from 120 to 200 hours of at work time to accomplish depending on seniority and productivity. As a result our wages are higher to compensate.  Roughly double as we are paid half a 160 hour work month.

When a hourly wage divided by 2 is below minimum wage someone has been let down by their union and abused by their employer.  The union has to do something.

When you have a junior FA doing 200 hours of duty time in an 80 hour month?  $30/credit hour works out to $12/hour of on duty time.

The problem isn’t the pay system.  It’s the hourly wage.  
 

This is a private members bill.  They rarely pass.  Get very little resources and time put towards them.  And like any other proposed legislation evaporate when parliament is dissolved.

 

Highly unlikely this bill will help the FA’s.  You need to do it yourselves when your contract is open.  Maybe a hybrid system is the way to go.  Completely up to the membership.