January 20, 2002
More Evidence of United's Lack of Concern for Safety:
Mechanic Exonerated in United Airlines Whistleblower Violation
This article, which appears on the Chicago Mechanic and Related
Grievance Committee's web site,
should give passengers cause for concern: UAL is evidently less
concerned with the safety of its aircraft than it is of
intimidating its own employees. As always, we challenge the airline to
respond seriously to these concerns.
LACONIA, N.H., Jan 15, 2002 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The U.S. Department
of Labor issued a Preliminary Order dated January 8th ruling in
favor of United Airlines employee George Gulliford, in his case
against United Airlines alleging that United Airlines discriminated
against him in violation of 49 U.S.C. 42121. Gulliford is an
associate member of AMFA (Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association).
Gulliford was reprimanded after reporting a crack in the Station
188 frame of aircraft 1366. He filed his complaint on Sept. 18,
2001 with the Secretary of Labor-OSHA (Occupational Safety and
Health Administration) under the employee protection provisions of
49 U.S.C. 42121 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21 Act).
Gulliford was represented by AMFA's attorney, Lee Seham of
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP.
"Unfortunately, it's common practice for airlines to threaten
aircraft mechanics for reporting problems outside their work areas,"
said O.V. Delle-Femine, AMFA National Director. "We at AMFA say
that's wrong. We're pleased there's now a law to protect mechanics
and encourage them to come forward, and we're proud to have helped
Mr. Gulliford earn his victory."
January 4, 2002
Airport Security Questioned
This article, which first appeared in the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1782
website in mid-December 2001, raises some very disturbing questions
concerning United Airlines' concern for the safety of its passengers.
As we have on several occasions in the past where saftey issues have
been raised, we challenge UAL to respond to this article and offer to
post replies from the airline here.
Underpaid and unhappy United Airlines Customer Service Representatives are
taking on a major role in airport security whether they like it or not.
Before September 11th, much of the problem with air safety was that
Airlines hired low cost security contractors. Recently though, given
the scrutiny they're under, these companies are paying higher wages;
now, United's own employees cost less.
Actually, saying that United's CSR's are underpaid is an understatement.
Most are earning less per hour than the kids flipping hamburgers at
MacDonald's. The much-maligned Argenbrite Passenger Screeners are earning
at least 30 percent more per hour to start than a new hire CSR at United.
What's equally disturbing is that United is short-changing the safety of
the flying public. By forcing unwilling, ill prepared CSR's to screen
passengers at departure gates and supervise checkpoints manned by the
Argenbrite screeners, United is weakening FAA security directives.
The FAA has always required the Airline to have a Ground Security
Coordinator (GSC) on duty at all times. Typically this was a senior
management type who'd been through a three-day training course at Company
headquarters. Since September 11th, the FAA has deemed it necessary
to have a GSC oversee every checkpoint where screening takes place.
Training now takes only eight hours and no longer includes passing a
written test.
Citing the poor training, responsibility for security breaches, and
having to oversee incompetent screeners, most United CSR's do not want
to become security 'experts.' The duties not only invite random drug
testing and interrogation by FAA officials, but also being written up
every time the checkpoint screeners under your supervision fail the
frequent FAA attempts to breach security.
The Public Contact Employees Union (IAMAW District 141) isn't challenging
the Company over the big issue of whether a CSR's job description includes
hand wanding, bag searches, and supervising checkpoints. The Union has,
however, taken steps to insure that work rules governed by their current,
expired contract with United are satisfied.
For example, when the Company forces employees to do work against their
will, seniority must be considered. This means the least experienced,
lowest paid employees are doing the security work.
The Union's position is understandable. It doesn't make sense to fight
to keep members out of jobs. Big changes are taking place in the airline
industry and when new jobs are created, it's to the membership's benefit
to allow for interpretation of the contract that insures that members
have claim to the work.
So what are the other options for United's lowest paid employees who
don't want to be subjected to the responsibilities and requirements of
security work?
Simply resigning from the specialized positions doesn't work. Instead,
it needs to be revealed to the flying public and to the FAA what United
wants to keep secret: That once again the airline won't pay for effective
security. Employees need to publicize that United is short-circuiting
the Government's intention to have highly motivated and well-trained
professionals keeping airports and airplanes safe.
It's no secret that United has created an unpleasant work environment
for frontline employees. The Company's relationship with labor is worse
than ever, morale is at a low point. Ask anyone who has flown on United
recently and they'll likely tell you that many CSR's seem to care less
about being helpful let alone polite. Making these same people the
airline's security force is irresponsible.
Unbeknownst to all but the Airline employees, the 'minimum wage workers'
protecting the safety of air travelers are not the bored, non-citizens,
staring blankly at TV screens as luggage passes by. They are the unhappy
United CSR's supervising those very screeners, or searching passengers
and their luggage at the departure gates.
