Revolt of the Cabin Crew - But What does It mean and Where do we go from here?
There were unusual scenes at the EGHQ this week when a Cabin Crew forum turned rowdy after the Cabin Crew turned out en mass to protest their conditions at a company arranged forum. With the confidence of numbers and reduced perception of their job worth, many vocally harangued the attendant managers who tried to field queries and complaints. Some Managers were visibly shaken. Others demonstrated their lack of appreciation of the issues at hand. And some resorted to age old tactics of promising a review, given time. Clearly the powers that be had entirely underestimated the building resentment in an essential and major portion of their workforce and so were entirely unprepared to address the open rebellion.
Videos being circulated by many multimedia channels show admin staff in the building agape at the numbers flooding into the building, and managers bumbling their lines in an attempt to quell the heartfelt outpouring when the forum got underway.
Two questions spring to mind. Why did the relatively docile cabin crew body suddenly protest so vocally and forcefully. And why only now?
Everyone has a cracking point. That is often when the individual finally thinks that if they do not at least attempt to improve their lot, they have little to lose. We have finally got to a point where the more educated amongst the cabin crew feel that if things do not improve they will leave anyway. They might as well try to get a myriad of injustices addressed.
This is not unusual. Monarchies and Governments fall when they have pushed matters too far and the majority rise up and rebel, often with chaotic and unpredictable results. See French Revolution, Russian Revolution or Arab Spring. In every case the masters had got complacent and completely out of touch with regard their charges. Companies can have this dynamic but on a smaller scale.
In the airline industry Terms and Conditions have been steadily eroded for the past 3 decades. This has been accelerated in recent years by the Great Recession, incompetent and corruptible aviation regulatory authorities and to some extent improved technology.
The airline industry is highly susceptible to changes in world economics. Holidays and business travel are the first to be cut in a downturn. This makes anyone in the industry vulnerable. Airlines can slash conditions, whether warranted or not, as often there are no options for the workers to seek alternative employment. Once slashed, they seldom return to the pre-crisis norms even in the good times when the airlines become highly profitable. An example of this is when the company increased the pilot flying hours in 2009 by 18% for no additional pay. At the time the letter indicated this a temporary measure. They have never returned to pre GFC levels despite the robust economic recovery.
The airline business is a high capital, high cashflow game. Their purchasing power allows them to dictate their own views of safe levels of fatigue and the hours their employees can work and the conditions they can work under. Pseudo science and dubious algorithms in "fatigue monitoring" software invariably prove that despite arduous hours crossing multiple time zone duties with continually disrupted circadian rhythm, in high noise, reduced oxygen environments, in rapidly changing climatic conditions with additional exposure to foreign bacteria, virus and fungus, the crews are being unreasonable in protesting fatigue or elevated sickness frequencies. This is blatantly apparent when one considers that cabin crew can work up to 115 hours in 14 days. This is 44% more that the norm of 80 hours typically worked in an office without circadian disruption! Incidentally this was increased in 2016, but carefully disguised by marginally reducing the maximum hours in 28 days. The objective being to gain maximum productivity in any month containing leave as the 28 day limit would never be reached anyway. One queries how this example of the continual, rapacious erosion in T&C was ever sanctioned.
Advances in technology and automation have improved aviation safety allowing companies to capitalize on the reduced likelihood of serious incidents by eroding the experience levels of crews in their aircraft allowing cheaper staff, and tolerating a quicker replacement of experience with inexperience. Modern airliners typically carry crews with low experience levels that were unthinkable and illegal 20 years ago. A rash of recent online incidents have shown this approach to be questionable. When the technology and automation fail, the safety net is thin. No amount of proceduralization will ever cover this and over-proceduralization has been shown to be almost as detrimental as under-proceduralization. Knee jerk responses in reaction to incidents is simply not the cure for reduced experience and training.
Set all this against a background of modern economics where the disparity in wealth between the rich and the middle is continually growing, due to clamoring shareholders and greedy upper management and it's no surprise that workforces are beginning to flex their muscles. As union membership worldwide has fallen, companies have taken liberties with corporate responsibility and moral ethics. A key feature in the rebellion at EGHQ appears to have been the company cutting medical benefits in a country with no free public health facility for foreigners, where most of the cabin crew are ex-patriot, at the same time denying them the ability to seek fully independent medical cover. If one employs young girls from all over the globe to work in a highly profitable and branded company, is it too much to ask that they medically cover them completely should serious sickness or injury occur, as they have done for the past 33 years? Clearly this cut was a step too far and a serious lack of judgment considering the emphasis on brand reputation.
Where to from here?
The world is reaching a tipping point in regard to middle class workers. The disparity in reward in highly profitable, international and branded companies cannot continue. Profits must be better distributed by means of better salaries and conditions or the companies will pay the price in a multitude of ways not envisioned by their accountants. These range from gross misfortune, to difficult to quantify brand damage, to consumer resistance or worker rebellion. All of these likely to damage these companies and possibly result in the demise of their hierarchy if not the company itself.
Already we see evidence of this beginning. Ryanair, the model of how not to treat workers (and customers) and its morally bankrupt peacock of a CEO has had to bow to union acceptance. German workers have won the right to a 28 hour week and flexible hours. Youtube has multiple instances of ex cabin crew vocalizing quite eloquently why they quit EK. A few websites by ex employees are disparaging about the brand. To go to these lengths are likely heartfelt, not necessarily whining. There must be reason. The multimedia savvy younger generation will not be silenced by a generation of managers still somewhat naive to the power placed in the common hand.
The company has reached a fork in the road. Do they forcefully silence the protest? Not too difficult to identify the agitators and make examples of them. But they will be replaced in time and the pot will simply build more pressure and the brand will suffer. Employing more desperate, less educated and docile replacements will denigrate the service, the safety and ultimately the product and profits. Many of the cabin crew are vibrant, educated youths with much to offer if only they were allowed to. It would be a waste to force them seek to better pastures.
Or does the company wake to the changing world, where economic pressures must be addressed for the good of all? Where corporate ethics and responsibility are going to have greater relevance in the ultimate success of future companies. The connected world will ensure that.
Clearly the incident showed the upper echelon to be unaware of some of the issues. They are out of touch. This may well be because of a failure in middle management to effectively alert them. Or maybe middle management have been making decisions based on the bottom line in pursuit of personal reward, without oversight from above. If this is the case they should be weeded out forthwith in whatever remedial processes are decided. Middle management would be well cautioned to wake up to the potential future implications of their cost saving initiatives. Their decisions will not be hidden by passage of time in today's world. There may even be legal consequences.
Once the company was a great employer. Clearly this is now being challenged vociferously in many forums. But with a purge of those who only see the bottom line and do not see the bigger picture of what it means to be an international brand, greatness can be restored.