Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Edwin Leong/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 2.0
AN EVA FLIGHT ATTENDANT has died after reportedly being made to work despite feeling ill while on a flight between Milan and Taipei in September. The leader of the cabin crew reportedly did not contact Medlink, which provides guidance for in-flight medical emergencies, and ordered the cabin crew member to continue working. The flight attendant in question was not allowed to take sick leave, nor was an ambulance called for her when the flight landed, though she requested one. Though she was later taken to the hospital, this resulted in her death.
The incident came to light after a social media post that pointed to the death as a result of systemic issues in EVA, one of Taiwan’s leading air carriers. The post pointed out that flight attendants are forced to continue working because sick leave, personal leave, and annual leave can affect their year-end bonus.
EVA later stoked further outrage after sending a text message to the family of the deceased requesting proof of leave. The family, angered, responded with a photo of the flight attendant’s death certificate.
The death proves ironic, in that in past years, the flight industry has been the center of a wave of union activity, but also backlash against unions. Many of the issues at hand return to overwork, as well as a lack of labor protections.
That is, Taiwan saw a wave of activity in the flight industry after the 2016 China Airlines flight attendants’ strike. The strike was historic, as the first strike in the Taiwanese flight industry, with flight attendants organizing through the Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ Union (TFAU) rather than China Airlines’ company union. In the wake of the strike, strikes began to take place in other airlines, such as EVA Air, as well as among pilots.
EVA Air flight attendants, too, later went on strike. The strike lasted for seventeen days and was the largest and longest strike in the history of Taiwan’s airline industry. Apart from striking, TFAU members also held demonstrations on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office and held an occupation outside of EVA Air’s headquarters in Nankan, Taoyuan. Thirty flight attendants also held a 35-kilometer march from EVA Air’s headquarters to the Presidential Office.
But according to the terms of the agreement later reached with management, the Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ Union could not strike for three years if management complied with the condition of not retaliating against EVA employees. The Taoyuan Flight Attendants’ leadership agreed to the terms of the meeting after EVA management agreed to drop clauses from the agreement that would have forbidden union members from “bullying” or “criticizing” company executives, imposed a 500,000 NT fine on employees making “untrue comments” against the company, and required a 30-day notice before strikes were declared. In past years since the China Airlines strike, companies have increasingly leaned into claims that unions should make advance warnings of strikes before they are carried out.
But two days after the end of the strike, EVA fired Kuo Chi-yen, the director of the TFAU. EVA’s justification for firing Kuo was a joke she made on social media regarding “adding something special” to the meals of flight attendants who opposed the strike, claiming that this showed that Kuo was unfit for her duties and could potentially endanger flight safety through engaging in acts of “sabotage”. EVA also demanded that TFAU representative Liao Yi-chin and deputy secretary Chou Sheng-kai be held responsible for helping organize the strike, claiming that they should be held responsible for the heavier workload faced by non-striking workers.
EVA later filed a lawsuit against striking flight attendants, demanding compensation for losses incurred by the company during the strike. As part of their suit, EVA claimed that the TFAU refused to allow workers who wished to stop striking to return to work by withholding their passports, seeing as TFAU members handed over their passports to the union as a sign of their determination to strike, something which had taken place during previous flight attendants’ strikes. The Taipei High Court later ruled in EVA’s favor, meaning that flight attendants now need to pay for going on strike. As this was the final ruling, the TFAU now seeks a constitutional interpretation on the issue.
It proves ironic to see a wave of social commentary about the death of an EVA flight attendant, then, when society has otherwise allowed for a wave of retaliation by EVA management against workers demanding better and more equitable conditions. It is to be seen if this changes anytime soon. Still, it is possible that social discussion about the death never reaches the level of discussion that evaluates the overall outlook for organized labor in airlines in Taiwan.