Differing personal experience? How about a respect for the fundamental principles of freedom and civil rights? When I read repressive statements like the following,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/imag...s/viewpost.gif
While this would not be good short term for the flight attendants, it would be in EVA's interest to fire any and all employees that are part of this so called union. Cut out the cancer before it spreads. This is getting ridiculous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have some other choice adjectives to use. The very fact that someone would advocate for the termination of anyone exercising his/her fundamental civil rights is indicative of something far worse and more vile than callous or selfish.

I note the other comment about what a prestige job a FA has. It is an arrogant and condescending statement. One must be seriously deluded and possessed of an inflated sense of self worth to actually believe that young people are over the moon at a chance to wait upon airline passengers. No one aspires to clean the mess pax leave in the lavs or to deal with the uncouth low class slobs found onboard in all cabins. After a couple years, the FA job isn't the glamorous job it was held out to be. On call at all hours, graveyard shifts, nasty routes etc. Once all the extra time is factored in for travel to and from the airport, and the additional costs of the job, the pay package isn't as generous as it is held out to be.

Taiwan has a low unemployment rate. One of the side effects of such an environment is that wages increase. Government and industry can attempt to bully the workers and to force draconian labour laws upon them, but it never works in the long term. Often the people who claim to believe in free markets and capitalism are the ones who advocate for brutal repressive measures (Martial law anyone? How about the change in labour standards that allows factories to force workers to work 7 straight days with only 11 hours off, or the 12 day work shifts with only 8 hours off between shifts?) that's the Taiwan labour market and the odds are stacked against the workers.

You clearly do not understand this market. My wife has worked as a flight attendant for nearly 20 years (she is retired now) in Asia. Stop trying to impose your N. American views on Asian workers.

1. What's wrong with pointing out the deteriorating quality? There are good and bad out there, but quality of FAs have definitely dropped compared to past years.

2. First off, they are not on call at all hours...what a ludicrous statement. Second of all, if you did not know about the awkward hours and graveyard shifts that you will go through as an FA, you did not do your due diligence before signing up. That is not the companies fault.

I noted the job as being prestigious to those not in the company but those wanting to enter, hence the huge amounts of applicants during each application period. What part of that statement was "arrogant" or "condescending" to the FAs? Perhaps you should brush up on your vocabulary. A survey of office workers was done and the results were that 61% wanted to work as an FA, with these specifics:
61% of office workers interested in becoming flight attendants: survey | Full Index Search | FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS

Citing the new Taiwanese labor law is completely irrelevant. FAs run on a different set of rules!

3. The main issue with the union is the completely unreasonable demands. TPE/TSA-TOY/PEK and back and you want to RON? Even the most "strict" labor markets like the US have crews working SFO-HNL and back. You can't stand a 3-day trip...airlines like CX, CI, SQ etc. all run 3-day trips. They want a 5-day BNE trip...seriously? Most airlines run overnight trips unless they need to continue on a trans-Tasman 5th freedom(BR crew do not). They also want "reduced service procedure" on that flight because it's ONLY 8 hours...how ridiculous. If that's how they want to label it, then perhaps BR should expand service on the longer flights because they are longer. They want more crew onboard(2FA/cart instead of 1FA/cart), but airlines like SQ, UA etc. all have plenty of one crew member a cart.

BR has offered plenty of solutions to their demands. They offered to adjust SFO and PEK trips and increase manpower onboard TOY flights but the union refused; they want everything they asked for AND a new demand about how they need more people on livery jets or no agreement. What kind of negotiation is that? The mgmt is not going to let you strong arm them into giving in to everything.

The union has been extremely hostile too. During the 9th arbitration meeting, they wanted to have over 50FAs join the meeting and take a live video etc. etc. Then, they kicked up a ruckus in a hotel when Mgmt. refused and even became extremely rude/hostile to the hotel workers for not allowing them in after hotel workers politely asked them to please tune the noise down(all this is in their live videos). At one point, some FA even yelled at the hotel worker that he was biased and not doing his job. How rude. In their protest regarding the increased manpower, they decided to fear-monger and say if you fainted and they were pushing the cart, they would have to ask you to "wait" and they will push the cart back before coming back to help you. Seriously? They are lucky that mgmt didn't take that the wrong way and call them in like CI did to their crew and fire them. They also decided that union flyers could be placed into a company mailbox given to each FA despite the rules stating that only company approved material could be placed in there. Managers found out, removed the contraband, and the union kicked up another ruckus. They also protested on company grounds which is illegal and why BR has trespassed union officials that are non-employees and participated in that action.

I note the above and will not waste time refuting. However, I ask two questions;
At the hotel event which you are referencing, were you there, or are you relying on the information put out by a third party?
What is your relationship with EVA and its parent and associated holding companies? Is there a conflict of interest here?

Keep bashing the flight attendants representative association if it makes you feel better. However, it will not improve the quality of service on board. Issues relating to service are directly related to management. The employees deal with a stressful and at times abusive environment. The decisions to cut costs wherever possible, whether it be in the changes to catering, the switch to synthetic fabric in the onboard linens because they last longer than the old absorbent cotton fabrics, or cutbacks on newspapers, or even the change in the slippers are just part of the cumulative roll back of quality. The poor OTP isn't the fault of the FAs, yet they are the ones who have to work the extra hours.

BTW, if you want to cite a "study" at least get one that is reliable and actually supports your position. Polling users at a job posting website isn't the most reliable of data gathering methods. Nor is citing an annual salary and not taking into account that FAs work significantly longer hours than junior office workers once the standby, delay, prep and travel times are factored in.

However, what I liked best of all and perhaps you do have a sense of humour ,was that you didn't mention this;
75 percent of those who would be willing to enter the profession said they would not make it a life-long career and would plan to leave the job after 5.8 years on average, the survey showed
The takeaway for people who have a bit of experience in labour management is that the respondents are not taking the job too seriously. When a worker only sees staying with an employer for 5.8 years that is a strong indication that it is not a job that actually interests them. These respondents said that they thought they would be traveling, i.e. as in having an opportunity to visit the world. Little do they realize that with the work schedule and quick turnarounds, there will be no trips to the beach in Malibu, no visit to the Royal Albert, no visit to the rijiksmuseum etc. At best, maybe they can enjoy the mediocrity of an Evergreen hotel. If people were truly enthused about the job opportunity they would first see it as a potential career. It is expensive to train employees, and I would expect the retention of these type of people would be poor. But then, the respondents were drawn from a job bulletin board. :rolleyes:

I watched all the live videos the union had at the hotel(they had around 6...both pre and post meeting that showed the chaos) and am very close with quite a few "unionized" FAs that were there. It was the 桃園市富麗登國際大飯店. This is a link to their public FB page: https://www.facebook.com/TFAUTFAU/?ref=br_tf. You can find the many videos(some are short, some are extremely long) of all the union activities.

I don't have an issue with catering, neither do I have an issue with the linens used. And I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the slippers and newspapers since I don't use either item. I do have an issue with the lack of consistency amongst FAs. Some are great, some are terrible. Some are proactive, others need you to prompt them. And I find that they use their phones WAY too much(I witnessed one FA flat out ignored the call button chime because she was in the middle of playing her game...made a note to mgmt. regarding that) Regarding the retention rates, 5 year retention is pretty much how long BR expects you to stay, hence the initial contract being 5 years and training bond ending after 3. They hold around 3-5 classes of FAs each year. Turnover is high and mgmt knows that(most leave after 3 years...those that work to DP/CP are impressive).

As for conflict of interest, I used to be a ground staff member with BR a long time back(pre-2008) and have been a very frequent traveller with them and CI since I was young. I have no familial(some friends) connections to Evergreen or EVA Air Management. I own no stock of any Evergreen Group company. I only know of people that work there thanks to my ex-job with them.

And btw, they only use the Evergreen hotels in CDG and BKK. At outstations like DPS and CGK, they live at beach resorts like The Mulia and in the US at places like Holiday Inn, Crowne Plaza, Novotel etc....not that it makes much of a difference.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

What you want to believe does not change the reality and I direct your attention to the previous statements made wherein your friend advocates for the quick termination of the FAs for exercising their legal rights to organize and to voice their views. My position in respect to the rights of the FAs to advocate their position is based upon the three pillars of labour rights. These three laws set out the right for collective bargaining, i.e. the right to negotiate, the right to organize workers, and the right to withhold labour service. The EVA FAs are exercising their legal rights as set out in the Labour Union Act, Collective Bargaining Agreement Act and Settlement of Labour Disputes Act. Demanding their termination, their crushing, etc. is disrespectful and a throwback to pre 1987 when a corrupt cabal of selfish interests ruled with no regard to the niceties of democratic representation and were anti labour.

The fundamental issue for the FAs is relief from what they perceive as oppressive and crushing work conditions that interfere with normal family life, good mental and physical health. This issue is a foot in the door to making the workplace better. The FAs are human beings deserving of a safe work environment. They should not be rendered exhausted. I know that aircrew fatigue impacts my personal safety and service. Do we really need to see mass suicides of workers before there is a response from management? It took 18 leaps of despair at Foxconn and 150 people to stand on a roof threatening to jump before change was forced upon the employer. That change was forced by the customers.
The situation at EVA is nowhere near as bad as that, but there is an assumption among some old school employers that workers should be grateful for a job and accept whatever the working conditions are. That cannot be done in a labour market that has full employment.

The very fact that you see nothing inherently wrong with a high turnover of service based personnel demonstrates to me that you do not respect the value of the labour. Workers are an asset. As employers, we invest in their training, development and advancement. Employers with a high turnover of staff typically have weaknesses in their quality of service. FAs are not generic fast food chain employees. They are charged with multiple life and safety responsibilities in addition to onboard service. I put it to you, that part of the reason why there is a deterioration of service onboard is that the turnover of staff has increased. If workers are fatigued and disrespected they won't stick around. Workers don't quit because they dislike the colour of their uniforms or the company song. They quit because of the work environment.

Please stop imposing your N. American attitude on Asia. There is nothing wrong with collective bargaining, but there is something wrong when the bargaining is clearly one sided and one group is being unreasonable. I quote your comment here: "The fundamental issue for the FAs is relief from what they perceive as oppressive and crushing work conditions that interfere with normal family life, good mental and physical health." - if you fundamentally believe that a FA's job is oppressive/crushing and other such colorful language that you use, you clearly do not understand what an oppressive/crushing work life is in Asia.

I guess the irony is lost on many when you clearly so despise the horrendous service that Air Canada flight crew provide which is comprised of unionized and overpaid (arguably) workers.

You should probably heed your own advice here. My point from the beginning is that you believe your reality is the only one that matters and you dismiss everyone else's experiences. As I noted, my experience of BR FA service deterioration long predates the grievances aired by the FAs, all the while I experienced better service on other airlines from FAs who had similar if not identical working conditions. Maybe - just maybe - that's one reason why we have differing opinions of their merits. But I assume you will simply continue to dismiss other's experiences, because after all, only you could possibly be right about reality.

Further highlighting your lack of understanding of reality is your insistence that a surveyed 5.8 year average intended career length somehow indicates a "high turnover of service based personnel". This shows you don't know the airline industry (hint: average career length for FAs is far less, even in the USA) and you definitely don't know the service industry (hint: average turnover is far higher than even FA turnover, even in the USA).

The simple reality is that you don't know very much about reality, but want to lecture the rest of us as if you do.

The issue is whether their perception is reasonable. If what EVA demands of them is no worse than other airlines, and their pay is comparable (adjusted for PPP) to their peers at other airlines, then putting forth demands with no room for negotiation hardly seems reasonable.

I am not attempting to impose North American views. Rather my position is an affirmation of the three pillars of Taiwan labour law. You advocated the termination of workers, calling them a cancer. Your strategy of attempting to characterize my reference to the existing laws as a "foreign" interference is quite similar to the strategy previously employed to label anyone who disagreed with the pre 1987 dictatorial labour tactics as an agent of the mainland. The red label strategy still features in some labour negotiations.

It's nice that your wife is a retired FA. The working conditions today are quite different than what they were 25 years ago when she first started. Layovers for crews were longer, there was less pax density on flights, passengers did not attack FAs etc. The old B767 and B747 did not have 10 across seating did it? At the end of her career, she had the seniority to avoid the difficult conditions that the younger FAs encounter today and that's part of the struggle the FAs have.

And btw, any company which seeks to exploit a foreign market opportunity should understand the characteristics of that foreign market. For example, if I go to the mainland I must appreciate that there are certain sensitivities. By the same token, if I am located in a relatively small transportation hub competing against giant hubs with economy of scale and greater clout to access profitable markets, I would pay attention to compatibility with those foreign market characteristics. EVA needs the North American and EU markets to survive, and Taiwan has relatively little to offer in return to protect that access. What sets EVA apart over the past 7 years has been the quality of its product and its cabin crews.
If cabin crews are unhappy or unmotivated it will reflect in the service provided and at this time EVA cannot afford to have any significant labour unhappiness. If EVA cannot maintain a quality edge, it will lose market share and it can't afford to do that. It is facing a tough time on some of its routes.

One of the ways to address incorrect perceptions is through dialogue, which is still a difficult concept to get older managers to accept. It is understood and employed with success by many of the younger managers with outside work experience. You offer the argument that if the demands are no worse than other airlines, then those demands should be considered as reasonable. Well, let me return to the Foxconn example. Compared to other employers, the working conditions were fine. The workers were allowed a toilet break every few hours and had access to a cafeteria where they enjoyed 30 minutes for lunch. It was described as one big happy family. Thing is, the workers were not happy and 18 took a leap off the roof in one year. It was only after 150 workers threatened to jump in unison off the roof that there was a foreign intervention that forced change on the employer. That's what happens when one offers terms and conditions that are comparable to other employers, because Foxconn wasn't any worse than its peers and I think a case could be made that they were better.

And this then brings us to a dose of reality, I understand the complaints of "poor service" and the deterioration on board. However, much of this comes from the cost cutting at the administration level. FAs are tired. They work hard and IMO are not properly rested. That's at the heart of the issue. The FAs have every legal and moral right to advocate their position.

And to those who demand that the FAs be terminated, think again. China Airlines didn't achieve its hiring goal when it sought to replace workers. That's what happens when there is full employment in the market. One cannot impose demands on labour when there is full employment. in order to attract and retain workers, the job and compensation must be attractive. The unemployment rate in Taiwan is around 3.7% and this makes it a herculean task to attract workers. EVA management has to balance the difficulties of a tight labour market with the urgent need to contain costs. Historically, airlines in such a predicament have used innovation to work their way out of the problem. the easiest and most effective way to get around the impasse is for EVA management to be more generous with rest periods and turn around. the failure to work with labour will only poison labour relations and further erode service quality. Other airlines have been through this before, and EVA should not repeat their mistakes.

And to those dismissing my view on labour turnover, how about actually citing the tirnover rates instead of making a spurious claim. The USA DOL requires filings of labour stats so there's a pretty good indicator of turnover in the US market. Turnover is also gender sensitive with males having a lower turnover as they do not get pregnant. There's also a reason why some airlines have older cabin crews; it's because the turnover rates are low and staff have stayed, despite the presence of payout package options over the years.

What does any of these has to do with BR situation now?

1. Is BR attendant paid less than CI? Answer is no.
2. BR 7/8 crew rest issue violated legal rest rule? Answer is no.
3. Does other airline that fly the similar route has same or less rest? Answer is yes. CX has same issue with one of the SFO flight
4. BR crew demand PEK to be over night flight because duty time often exceed 9 hours. Well UA has 11 hour duty time for west coast to Hawaii flight.

So which part of BR crew's demand makes any sense what so ever?

Does it really make sense to compare sweatshop work with the job of a FA?

Sweatshop conditions in the East are huge labour violations if practiced in the West, but when EVA doesn't violate the labor standards found even in the West, I fail to see how you can begin to compare the two.

If you're just talking about whether EVA is making a good business decision (e.g. whether service standards will decline, ultimately harming their business or whether they can hire FAs faster than they lose them), then what does that have to do with legal and/or moral obligations that you keep bringing up?

Even if I grant that FAs have a moral and legal right to advocate their position, EVA also has a legal and moral right to defend their company's and their shareholder's position.

One of the few arguments I got from another board is..

1. CI has $5 per diem now, BR has $3 (but... wait BR got more year end bonus and most of CI's one-stop flights were cut)
2. It does not violate the rules but the FAs think it's too short. FAs believe they are the one who is flying and you cannot understand their situation cause you are not working on the plane (though we work once we are off the plane, like we don't know jet lag does not get any better the longer you stay at another place once you return).
3. Other airlines has nothing to do with us, we believe the rule itself is too short so it is too short (though I am unsure why they don't go complain with the CAA if that's the case, and now other airlines cannot be used to compare when it's not in their favor).
4. Not just PEK, many flights were named. They will tell you pay us UA benefits and $ and we will talk about UA duty hours (so is it really a health issue?).

Basically anything not going their way they tell you to not compare or you don't understand. I give up, lol.