Flight Attendant Symposium SFO Airport Museum

I, like a lot of us (Flight Attendants), was involved in some of this because of Mary Pat. I being a new Stewardess at the time(1969) really had NO IDEA what all she had gone through I appreciated her in those times, but not a nearly as much as I appreciate the person of strength she is and always has been. This was quite a read realizing just what we all have seen and done in the last 30, 40 yrs. or more. All of our lives would have been MUCH different if it weren't for Mary Pat. I, for one, thank her for all the good she added in my life and am glad she has so much in hers. She deserves it.
This was sent with Mary Pats permission and we were told to share this-so here goes

SPEECH AT SFO FLIGHT ATTENDANT SYMPOSIUM
> San Francisco Airport Museums San Francisco International Airport
> November 30 December 2, 2004
> Mary Patricia Laffey Inman
>
> I would like thank Mr. Hill and Mr. Phung for inviting me to speak.
>
>
> From the Bona Fides attributed to me in the program, some of you may
> be expecting a lecture on union solidarity but what I have to say has
> little or nothing to do with that subject at all. It is instead about
> 2 Acts of Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay
> Act of 1966, whose ultimate enforcement in the 70s and 80s paved
> the way for American women to enjoy equality with men in the American
> workplace. Because Northwest flight attendants were on the cutting
> edge of enforcing these Acts, I was privileged to have a front row
> seat. That women were a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 WAS AN
> HISTORICAL ACCIDENT. The Act was initially designed to remedy racial
> discrimination. A hidebound racist Congressman from Virginia named
> Smith thought he could defeat this bill by amending it to include
> equality for women; DISCRIMINATION because of gender was never part
> of the original Act. Whether he miscalculated because the almost
> exclusively male Congress at the time really wanted to cure sex
> discrimination or simply were afraid of their wives, daughters and
> female voters WE WILL NEVER KNOW, but I believe most of you can make
> an educated guess.
>
> You do not get appropriate enforcement of Congressional Acts without
> good lawyers. The Northwest stewardesses were fortunate to have 2
> exceptional lawyers, one for negotiations and the other for the
> subsequent lawsuit. When I use the word oel in what follows, it
> almost always means I was speaking or acting as those 2 lawyers
> specifically told me I should.
>
> Just after turning twenty, I was looking for the glamour of being an
> airline stewardess so that I could travel. I wrote to 4 or 5
> airlines, only Northwest responded with a FREE AIRLINE ticket to
> Minneapolis. I attended Northwests six weeks stewardess training
> otherwise known as (charm school), learning to apply makeup, manicure
> myself, walk with a book on my head, wear a girdle and, last but not
> least, also learned how to evacuate a burning aircraft. We were also
> warned not to discuss religion or politics with passengers, -- I was
> finally christened a stewardess as we were then called in the
> Spring of 1958. I chose Seattle as a base because it had
> international flying.
>
> For 7 years, I took every opportunity I could to travel, hitting 4
> other continents and visiting long lost family in Ireland. I had the
> normal interest in young males but this was secondary to me because I
> wanted to cram as much time in overseas as possible before I was
> forced to retire because I married or became 32. Along the way, I
> received copious advice about avoiding overheated cockpit jockeys. As
> it was, I pushed the envelope, not marrying until I was 38. .
>
> In 1965, I became the Base Representative for stewardesses in Seattle
> mostly by default when I was pushed into it by so-called friends. It
> was not a desirable job because you had to fly a complete schedule
> receiving no extra compensation other than trip coverage while
> handling union business. A by-product of this was the cramping of my
> social schedule. At that time, the head of the flight attendants
> union was not chosen in a general election but by vote of the other
> base representatives. In this case, the 3 other base reps voted for
> me as Master Executive Chairman of flight attendants for all of
> Northwest. The other base reps did not want the job themselves
> because of the extra work entailed with no extra pay. I was stupid
> enough to want the job because I was idealistic and it hurt seeing
> friends fired for being married or having reached age 32. The Civil
> Rights ACT of 1964 was beginning to be applied on behalf of women and
> I guess I envisioned myself as Joan of Arc. I assumed office in 1966
> just in time for the beginning of contract negotiations about which I
> HAD NOT A CLUE.
>
> Stewardesses had moaned and groaned for years about the inequities
> between male and female attendants. Pursers, all male at Northwest,
> enjoyed privileges well beyond those afforded regular stewardesses.
> Pursers could be married and have families. Pursers earned
> considerably more money than stewardesses. Pursers often had a
> lighter workload onboard the airplane and received single rooms while
> stewardesses had to share rooms. Some of the Pursers sorely lacked
> leadership abilities, but were pros at delegating when an incident
> erupted by directing a stewardess to calm the waters. Our working
> manual stated that when a male flight attendant was on board he would
> always be in charge, regardless of his seniority.
>
> We stewardesses were the first group of women to appear before the
> Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) protesting the
> airlines continued violation of the Civil Rights and the Equal Pay
> Acts. Although the EEOC agreed with us and found the airlines in
> violation of the new laws, it lacked the enforcement powers to effect
> any changes.
>
> Frustrated by Northwests failure to comply, I turned all my energies
> to negotiations. There were two women on the negotiating team and two
> men. We women, ( the other was already secretly married), were intent
> on remedying the inequities by forcing Northwest to abide by the
> Civil Rights Act which stated that you cannot discriminate on the
> basis of race, creed, color, religion or GENDER. In 1967 we
> successfully negotiated a non-discriminatory contract; it could not
> have been done without the excellent counsel of Gil Feldman, an
> attorney working for the union who educated us on the Law and told us
> how we should assert it.
>
> Coming out of theses negotiations and primarily because of the Civil
> Rights Act, stewardesses were allowed to fly after they married. In
> fact all of those who were forced to retire because of marriage or
> having reached age 32 after the effective integration date of July 6,
> 1966 were notified and given the option of returning to work as a
> stewardess at their original date of hire seniority.
> Stewardesses could now bid for the purser position
> We could wear eye glasses
>
> Stewardesses felt for the first time that they were not perceived by
> some as PLAYBOY Bunnies and began to think that this was a career;
> they could plan ahead beyond age 32, buy a home and raise a family.
> Most of us felt our problems had finally been resolved. But in
> actuality, our problems had only just begun.
>
> In 1968, knowing that stewardesses would want the higher paying
> purser position; Northwest hired five men off the street without
> putting those positions up for bid. It was my responsibility as MEC
> to monitor the contract and see that Northwest complied with its
> terms. Northwest was finally forced to post the bids. Stewardesses
> told me they were afraid of being subject to retaliation if they bid
> the position and did not want to incur the wrath of male pursers who
> now feared for their jobs. I therefore submitted the first bid myself.
>
> For eight months Northwest jerked me around by requiring for the
> first time a battery of tests on which I scored higher than any of
> the male applicants and so became the first female purser. Because
> the 1967 contract did not provide for the integration of female
> pursers into the general purser list, I went to the BOTTOM of the
> seniority list even though I had been on the job over 10 years ---
> plus they red circled my pay until the beginning purser pay caught up
> with the top stewardess pay. By contrast, male flight service
> attendants were slotted into the list with their original date of
> hire - when they became pursers. On line, I experienced open
> hostility from some of the male pursers who got a lot of support from
> some of the pilots. LITTLE DID THE PILOTS KNOW AT THAT TIME THAT
> FEMALE PILOTS WOULD SOON BE HIRED.
>
> Being the bottom purser meant that I was on reserve so I was forced
> to fly 17-day trips to Vietnam - during the Tet-offensive of 1968; we
> were sometimes subject to missile attacks in Danang. In May of 1968
> Northwest opened a small base in Washington DC for 7 pursers (I was
> the only female) - to fly the domestic portions of international
> trips; I transferred there to be near my family. The working
> conditions were good and seniority was not important because we all
> flew the same trip; I was enjoying my own room on layovers although I
> was still not being paid equal money for my equal work.
>
> In 1969, negotiations for the next contract commenced. It was clear
> to the negotiating committee which was dominated by men that the
> remaining inequities were a violation of Title VII. I definitely
> expected changes. Northwest refused to include language which would
> treat women pursers in the same way they treated the male pursers.
> This left me as the sole female purser at the bottom of the purser
> seniority list and without a raise for the term of the contract.
>
> I was sorely peeved, to put it politely, - so contacted the union
> attorney Gil Feldman, who in turn gave me the name of Michael
> Gottesman, a young Washington DC lawyer my own age who would later be
> recognized as a genius in labor law, he now teaches that subject at
> Georgetown Law School. Little did I appreciate at that time that our
> attorney-client relationship would extend over 15 years. After
> reading our contract and manual, he saw that we stewardesses not only
> had a Title VII Civil Rights case but an Equal Pay Act case as well.
> - - We filed a class action suit under both Acts in 1970 called
> Laffey et al v.s. Northwest Airlines. We were supported by the EEOC
> who filed a brief with the court on our behalf. While friends
> supported me as the case progressed, I was often laughed at by
> others , and was reminded that , No one has ever won a lawsuit
> against Northwest Airlines. However, as we began educating more of
> the stewardesses about the Civil Rights Act; - many said that they
> had not realized that we actually HAD SUCH RIGHTS, about 70 percent
> ultimately joined the Equal Pay class SECTION of our suit.
>
> We initially went to trial in Dec. 1972 it lasted five weeks. During
> the trial, stewardesses gave testimony that all Flight crew positions
> were equally responsible for the safe operation of the flight and the
> completion of the cabin service. It was successfully demonstrated
> that our duties required equal skill, effort and responsibility to
> those of the pursers, thereby proving our equal pay claim.
>
> In November of 1973 the trial court reached its decision, holding
> that Northwest had violated the rights of the stewardesses in every
> respect that had been alleged in our complaint. The trial court wrote
> opinions setting forth the violations and then offering remedies to
> correct them.
> In sum, it ordered:
> 1. Northwest must raise the salary of each stewardess to the purser
> pay level.
>
> 2. The company must pay EVERY stewardess (not just those who had
> joined the class) back pay for the difference between stewardess and
> purser salaries for the entire period BEGINNING 2 YEARS BACK FROM THE
> FILING OF THE SUIT and continuing until their salaries were raised to
> the purser level.
>
> 3. The company had to pay every stewardess for the difference in
> value between single and double rooms for this same period.
> 4. The company was forbidden to weigh stewardesses, or to have a
> weight chart, or to ground any stewardess on account of weight unless
> she was so overweight as to be physically incapable of performing
> her duties.
> 5. Northwest was forbidden to establish any chain of command which
> made a stewardess subordinate to ANY MALE FLIGHT ATTENDANT WITH LESS
> SYSTEM SENIORITY.
>
> Northwest managed to drag the case out for the NEXT 12 years. When I
> asked why are you continuing to appeal, one executive made the
> statement that they were hoping the Federal courts would be filled
> with more conservative judges whom they thought would not look kindly
> on this case. Under the Equal Pay Act, the TRIAL court found we were
> owed double damages because Northwest had acted DELIBERATELY; it also
> allowed us to go back 3 years rather than 2 on our damages. The trial
> court handed down a further opinion on Nov 25, 1982. The judgment
> awarded $52.5 million to 3,362 present and former female attendants.
> Two more years passed.
>
> In July 1984 the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a ruling for the
> second time. The 63-page decision reaffirmed its prior holding that
> Northwest violated Title VII and the Equal Pay Act in each of the
> respects alleged in the lawsuit. Of interest is that the opinion was
> written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now on the Supreme Court, and
> was concurred in by Ken Starr of Clinton impeachment fame and the
> well-known conservative justice, Robert Bork.
>
> Northwest again appealed the case to the US Supreme Court but on Jan
> 14, 1985 the US Supreme Court again refused to hear it, -- letting
> stand the lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs which now
> required Northwest to pay, $59 million dollars in damages plus our
> attorneys fees. At the time this award was the largest judgment in
> an Equal Pay Act or Title VII case. Northwest had until the end of
> May to issue the women their settlement checks.
>
> The exact pay-out to each flight attendant was based on her
> longevity, and whether or not she joined the suit as an Equal Pay
> Plaintiff. Actually those who flew domestic flights received larger
> awards. The largest single award was in the neighborhood of about
> $56,000, some received as little as $1,000 but the average award was
> between $30 -35,000, some of which we were later able to establish to
> be untaxable. It took 15 years but we won. Other airlines Flight
> Attendants, notably at United and TWA, had cases on these subjects in
> the pipeline and were able to favorably settle based on this
> decision. Not only Flight Attendants but American women in many
> vocations have relied on this case to establish parity in employment
> and pay with men.
>
> GONE were the days of having to share hotel rooms on layovers. GONE
> were the weights checks, GONE were the requirements to retire from
> flying at 32. GONE was the requirement to remain single, and having
> to leave if you married. GONE was the double standard of paying men
> more than women, GONE was the prohibition of stewardesses wearing
> eyeglasses, GONE was the requirement that female F/As must be
> subordinate to male flight attendants. The day of equal pay for equal
> work had finally arrived. -- As one flight attendant wrote to me,
> Every time I walk around naked in my hotel room, I think of and
> thank you.
>
> There is an irony I often think about. I wonder how long it would
> have taken for American women to achieve some parity with men on
> employment and pay if it hadn’t been for that racist congressman from
> Virginia who was HELL bent on killing the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 -
> Sometimes great blessings come in ODD PACKAGES. Sadly, as I have read
> in the papers in the last month, other serious challenges face Flight
> Attendants on many airlines in the coming years, based not on GENDER
> discrimination but THINGS LIKE the DILIBERATE FAILURE of managements
> to keep OUR pension funds fully funded.
>
> There has never been peace in the valley in the airline industry.
> As Gilda Radner would say, ˜It is always something
>