Conservatives set to table bill.........

TimG · October 4, 2011

During any strike an alternative might be costlier so why pick on an airline?

We are talking thousands of dollars more - it can be a significant chunk of a family's budget for the year. It is a lot more than paying for a courier (and that assumes fax, email and other options are not available). Plus you get the cost of cancelled or changed hotel reservations depending on where you are going. Lastly, I have seen what happens when one international flight gets cancelled. Cancelling all of them would leave people stranded for days.

Wilber · October 4, 2011

We're in the middle of the most shaky economic times in decades. This is no time for a union to be demanding things of a company that isn't making money, and then striking when they don't get their way, hurting the economy.

Seems there is never a time.

guyser · October 4, 2011

We are talking thousands of dollars more - it can be a significant chunk of a family's budget for the year. It is a lot more than paying for a courier (and that assumes fax, email and other options are not available). Plus you get the cost of cancelled or changed hotel reservations depending on where you are going. Lastly, I have seen what happens when one international flight gets cancelled. Cancelling all of them would leave people stranded for days.

I am quite surprised that you limit this to air flight.

For if you expand on the pemise, it simply does not work.

The have been re-building the Yonge St bridge for two years, cost me lots of money.

The airline cant fly when weather grounds them or equipment fails.

See where I sm going with this?

guyser · October 4, 2011

Seems there is never a time.

psst...throw a "good" bewtween 'a' and 'time'

Smallc · October 4, 2011

Seems there is never a time.

There are better times than this. It's unreasonable, under the circumstances, to expect anything from Air Canada.

TimG · October 4, 2011

The have been re-building the Yonge St bridge for two years, cost me lots of money.

Yep. That is a problem. But what is the solution? Never repair anything? There is something that can be done about strikes. They are not something that we have to put up with.

The airline cant fly when weather grounds them or equipment fails.

Short term failures due to unpredicable events are a fact of life. Strikes can go on for months. Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

Wilber · October 4, 2011

There are better times than this. It's unreasonable, under the circumstances, to expect anything from Air Canada.

Name me a better time in the last ten years when employees were free to bargain. If you believe in an employees right to bargain, there is no bad time. They have as much or more to lose than anyone. A hell of a lot more than inconvenienced customers.

Wilber · October 4, 2011

We are talking thousands of dollars more - it can be a significant chunk of a family's budget for the year. It is a lot more than paying for a courier (and that assumes fax, email and other options are not available). Plus you get the cost of cancelled or changed hotel reservations depending on where you are going. Lastly, I have seen what happens when one international flight gets cancelled. Cancelling all of them would leave people stranded for days.

So you are in favour of designating airlines as an essential service and not treating them as a regular business venture? You and government should make up your minds.

Smallc · October 4, 2011

Name me a better time in the last ten years when employees were free to bargain. If you believe in an employees right to bargain, there is no bad time. They have as much or more to lose than anyone. A hell of a lot more than inconvenienced customers.

What about a bankrupt company? How will the employees do then? And no, in the airline industry, there hasn't been a good time in the last decade.

TimG · October 4, 2011

So you are in favour of designating airlines as an essential service and not treating them as a regular business venture? You and government should make up your minds.

Essential service implies binding arbitration. I would rather see incentives put in place that make it so bloody expensive for the company AND the union that they would never consider a strike/lockout. Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

fellowtraveller · October 4, 2011

Corporations have one goal: Generate profit at all costs (monetary, social, environmental, legal) they can get away with.

Unions have one goal: To protect the interest, safety, wage and working conditions of their workers.

One goal is clearly more noble than the other.

Hilarious stuff.

In reality, both businesses have the same goal: maximum financial advantage to their shareholders. Oh, of course the unions call their sharholders 'members'

All this claptrap that unions spew about workers rights and social conscience is laughable. They exist to generate maximum advantage to their members, period.

And unions themselves are an industry.

Wilber · October 4, 2011

What about a bankrupt company? How will the employees do then? And no, in the airline industry, there hasn't been a good time in the last decade.

The last decade my ass. Airline employees have been constantly dealing with cut backs, bankruptcy's, impending bankruptcy's and mergers for over 25 years. I daresay there is no employee group with more experience in dealing with them, certainly a lot more than any government or government employee.

Wilber · October 4, 2011

Essential service implies binding arbitration. I would rather see incentives put in place that make it so bloody expensive for the company AND the union that they would never consider a strike/lockout.

You will have to be much more specific on the company side because as soon as you take away the right of an employee to remove or restrict their labour, they have no bargaining position. Would that extend to all labour relations or just ones you chose?

TimG · October 4, 2011

You will have to be much more specific on the company side because as soon as you take away the right of an employee to remove or restrict their labour, they have no bargaining position. Would that extend to all labour relations or just ones you chose?

For the company it would have to be a fine that exceeds whatever they would have paid in payroll if the business is operating normally. This would eliminate the perverse incentive where companies can actually make money with temporary business shutdown.

My criteria is any business where alternatives are not available or are likely to be prohibitively expensive.

Actually, to ensure the playing field is level these fines could be imposed after 6 months without a contract. This should motivate a company to make a deal.

Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

Wilber · October 4, 2011

For the company it would have to be a fine that exceeds whatever they would have paid in payroll if the business is operating normally. This would eliminate the perverse incentive where companies can actually make money with temporary business shutdown.

My criteria is any business where alternatives are not available or are likely to be prohibitively expensive.

Actually, to ensure the playing field is level these fines could be imposed after 6 months without a contract. This should motivate a company to make a deal.

None of these apply to Air Canada. Shut downs or even the threat of them are very bad for airlines. Employees are very aware of what they can cost them as well and not just in the matter of immediate wages. Both sides have been operating in an environment of impending disaster for years and have become accustomed to dealing with it. Been there, done that, leave them alone.

TimG · October 4, 2011

Been there, done that, leave them alone.

They were about to go on strike. Twice. They can't be left alone.

The entire concept of a strike is flawed. Why is it even necessary? Why wouldn't fines levied on both parties after the expiry of a contract accomplish the same thing?

Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

cybercoma · October 4, 2011

We're in the middle of the most shaky economic times in decades. This is no time for a union to be demanding things of a company that isn't making money, and then striking when they don't get their way, hurting the economy.

BS. They have every right to strike whenever they please. Corporations and their apologists have lost sight of the fact that people are not just a means to an end. There has to be a negotiation for the cost of labour and if the employees want to bargain collectively that is their right. I'm absolutely sick of this mentality that the masses ought to be grateful for the scraps that are thrown their way, while executives rake in the bonuses from labour's surplus value. The corporations ought to be equally as grateful that people are willing to provide labour, just as the former are willing to provide jobs.

cybercoma · October 4, 2011

Hilarious stuff.

In reality, both businesses have the same goal: maximum financial advantage to their shareholders. Oh, of course the unions call their sharholders 'members'

All this claptrap that unions spew about workers rights and social conscience is laughable. They exist to generate maximum advantage to their members, period.

And unions themselves are an industry.

So we should do away with them and just have people sitting at the table that are only concerned with the maximum advantage for the companies? The labour market needs to be negotiated and it needs to be balanced. What you're suggesting is an unbalanced equation.

Smallc · October 4, 2011

BS. They have every right to strike whenever they please. Corporations and their apologists have lost sight of the fact that people are not just a means to an end.

No, some people need to stop feeling like perpetual victims. Air Canada isn't a good target. A bankrupt airline that pays well will do far less for the employees than a solvent airline that pays less. Even CUPE recommended to their members that they take the deal in this case. There are bad times to strike, and this is one.

MiddleClassCentrist · October 4, 2011

So we should do away with them and just have people sitting at the table that are only concerned with the maximum advantage for the companies? The labour market needs to be negotiated and it needs to be balanced. What you're suggesting is an unbalanced equation.

All part of the conservative dream world where everyone gets paid the lowest wage possible and we live in straw shacks and mud huts. Except for the top 1-5% of course.

cybercoma · October 4, 2011

No, some people need to stop feeling like perpetual victims. Air Canada isn't a good target. A bankrupt airline that pays well will do far less for the employees than a solvent airline that pays less. Even CUPE recommended to their members that they take the deal in this case. There are bad times to strike, and this is one.

Who said anything about being a victim? You're the one painting the victimization narrative. This is about equal parties negotiating a contract in good faith. When the corporation has a team negotiating for them (the shareholders) collectively, labour ought to also have the right to negotiate collectively.

Wilber · October 4, 2011

They were about to go on strike. Twice. They can't be left alone.

The entire concept of a strike is flawed. Why is it even necessary? Why wouldn't fines levied on both parties after the expiry of a contract accomplish the same thing?

And if they can't come to an agreement who do you asign the blame?

October 4, 2011

Corporations have one goal: Generate profit at all costs (monetary, social, environmental, legal) they can get away with.

Unions have one goal: To protect the interest, safety, wage and working conditions of their workers.

One goal is clearly more noble than the other.

Who reaps the benefits from those profits? Shareholders/investors………a lot more Canadians invest to some degree than belong to unions......What are the typical union pension plans invested in?