Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor And Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City council reconsiders LAX operating permits and orders payroll and monitoring steps for Terminal 2 workers
Summary
After a reconsideration motion, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved operating permits at LAX and directed Northwest Airlines and the Department of Airports to ensure hundreds of Terminal 2 workers are rehired and put on payroll on specified timelines, with monthly monitoring.
Get email alerts on the Labor And Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved operating permits for Los Angeles International Airport terminals on July 28 and directed Northwest Airlines, Aviation Safeguard (contractor) and the Department of Airports to take steps to return Terminal 2 workers to payroll and to monitor compliance.
Councilmember Cindy Goldberg moved and Councilmember Joel Feuer seconded reconsideration of the operating-permit vote and brought forward a package of commitments negotiated at the hearing. The council approved a motion that (1) requires Northwest Airlines to ensure Aviation Safeguard immediately contact and notify displaced Terminal 2 workers of required documentation and deadlines; (2) requires that the first group of workers already in training (described in the hearing as roughly 59 of 147 eligible Terminal 2 workers) be placed on payroll no later than Aug. 2, 2000, provided they pass background checks and drug tests; (3) requires that the remaining eligible workers who present required documents be placed on payroll no later than one week after they deliver the documentation; and (4) directs the Department of Airports to monitor compliance and report monthly to the council until the matter is resolved. The motion passed unanimously (13–0).
Testimony at council included Alan Steinbrecher, representing Northwest Airlines, who outlined the carrier’s staffing timetable: a first cohort of about 23 employees had begun training and the carrier expected 13 of those to be issued badges and uniforms imminently and to start employment the following Monday; an additional 36 employees were in background checks and expected to begin training the next week. Steinbrecher said the company’s proposal would make pay retroactive to employees’ first day of training or to Aug. 4, whichever came first.
Union and worker representatives asked for firmer guarantees and faster timelines. Mary Anne Hohenstein, organizing director for SEIU Local 1877, told the council that some employees were told their training would be unpaid (which SEIU said would violate California labor law) and pressed for guarantees that training be paid in full and that the remaining cohort be on payroll no later than Aug. 2. Worker speakers — including Danisha Robinson, Norma Torres and Tommy Wugler — described financial hardship after 5½ weeks out of work and urged immediate rehiring.
Councilmember Goldberg’s motion included three enforcement elements the council required: immediate outreach by Northwest/Aviation Safeguard, guaranteed payroll dates for the first cohort (no later than Aug. 2) and payroll for the remaining eligible workers within one week of submitting required documentation. Councilmember Feuer asked the Department of Airports to provide monthly status reports until the council lifts monitoring. The council adopted the motion by a 13–0 roll call.
Council members also discussed how the worker-retention rules apply to a small group of former Argenbright employees who the contractor says were hired at other terminals; the city’s retention ordinance and advocates’ interpretation would make those workers eligible to return to Terminal 2 based on prior seniority. The council expressed frustration with the pace of rehiring and directed stringent monitoring and reporting by the Department of Airports.
The council set the reconsidered operating-permit approval in motion as a local enforcement step tied to worker-retention commitments and oversight rather than as a change to the underlying rules for contractor selection.

