olp1fan Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 Few points 1., Air Canada is not an essential service 2., Minister Raitt signed the 1930 Convention on forced labour act which means the Canadian government cannot force people back to work 3., Harper prorogued parliament at the beginning of the 2008 financial meltdown to save his own ass with no regards to the very fragile economy yet Air Canada is a bigger threat to the economy should the workers go on strike? Who do these assholes think they are? All this is going to do is fuel the occupy wall street movement in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/10/air-canada-strike-threat.html The federal government is considering its options for handling a threat by Air Canada flight attendants to walk off the job as early as Thursday. However, a statement issued by Labour Minister Lisa Raitt's office leaves little doubt the government will intervene if the flight attendants go on strike. "We will be clear that a work stoppage is unacceptable in this time of fragile economy," the statement said. The 6,800 flight attendants have rejected a tentative deal reached between their union and the airline and are poised to go on strike at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, the union said in a news release Sunday. Air Canada said it hopes to avoid a work stoppage but will maintain a partial schedule in the event of a strike. Customers who have already bought tickets to fly over the next six days will be allowed to change their travel dates at no charge, the airline said. The Canadian Union of Public Employees said 65 per cent of the flight attendants who cast ballots voted to reject management proposals. Earlier agreement rejected It was the second time in recent months that flight attendants have turned down a tentative agreement with the airline. They voted 87 per cent against ratifying the previous effort, in August. "We ask the federal government, in the strongest possible terms, to respect our right to collective bargaining and not intervene unilaterally in this dispute,” Jeff Taylor, president of CUPE's branch for Air Canada flight attendants, said in a statement Sunday night. After the first day of a three-day walkout by Air Canada's sales and support staff in June, Raitt indicated she would introduce back-work-legislation. The airline and the Canadian Auto Workers union reached a deal the next day. Raitt vowed last month to force a contract on flight attendants, too, if they walk off the job. On Sunday, the statement from her office referred to the flight attendants' rejection of two agreements backed by their bargaining committee. "It is clear there is a breakdown in the process contemplated in the Canada Labour Code," the statement said. Taylor said this second rejection by attendants shows how frustrated they are with the airline after years of making concessions in wages and benefits. Union leaders had predicted the second, revamped offer, reached Sept. 20, would be approved. They said they had managed to get about 80 per cent of what the membership was demanding in the areas of wages, pensions, crew rest, working conditions and work rules. Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Don't worry Air Canada... The Minister of Management is here to help you out... What incentive does Air Canada have to negotiate in good faith when the Pro business Con's are here to back them up legislatively? Edited October 10, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
olp1fan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Posted October 10, 2011 Don't worry Air Canada... The Minister of Management is here to help you out... What incentive does Air Canada have to negotiate in good faith when the Pro business Con's are here to back them up legislatively? That brings me to my 2nd point 2., Minister Raitt signed the 1930 Convention on forced labour act which means the Canadian government cannot force people back to work How did she forget so soon? I let a few NDP politicians know on twitter, hopefully they call her on it for breaking the same documents she signed only a few months ago Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 That brings me to my 2nd point 2., Minister Raitt signed the 1930 Convention on forced labour act which means the Canadian government cannot force people back to work How did she forget so soon? I let a few NDP politicians know on twitter, hopefully they call her on it for breaking the same documents she signed only a few months ago It's interesting that the federal gov't will get involved in this labour dispute but won't do anything about the issue of the US Steel lockout in Hamilton over the company's unwillingness to deal with the pension issue there even though the Fed's and the company have a signed agreement that is seemingly enforceable? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
olp1fan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Posted October 10, 2011 It's interesting that the federal gov't will get involved in this labour dispute but won't do anything about the issue of the US Steel lockout in Hamilton over the company's unwillingness to deal with the pension issue there even though the Fed's and the company have a signed agreement that is seemingly enforceable? Who knows what their Ulterior motives are Quote
Topaz Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 If I were the workers, I wouldn't strike, but have a work slow down,be late for work anything, but a strike, which would give the government more power to order back to work. Aa long as they are working, the government can't get involved. Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 If I were the workers, I wouldn't strike, but have a work slow down,be late for work anything, but a strike, which would give the government more power to order back to work. Aa long as they are working, the government can't get involved. Well,I don't know about showing up late because if you are scheduled to work,you're supposed to be there... However,a Work to Rule campaign might be the best way to avoid The Ministress of Management's wrath.. Only do what your job description entails and nothing more or less...And no favours for management at all... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Smallc Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 I'm actually in favour of the back to work legislation. The union has, in good faith, twice negotiated a deal with Air Canada. The membership is being completely unreasonable. Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 I'm actually in favour of the back to work legislation. The union has, in good faith, twice negotiated a deal with Air Canada. The membership is being completely unreasonable. That depends on if the negotiating committee recommended acceptance of the deal... If it was a bad deal 2 times then it was a bad deal!65 % said no...Something tells me there's a little more on the table if they work at it... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
capricorn Posted October 10, 2011 Report Posted October 10, 2011 That depends on if the negotiating committee recommended acceptance of the deal... If it was a bad deal 2 times then it was a bad deal!65 % said no...Something tells me there's a little more on the table if they work at it... It seems the bargaining agent urged members to accept not only this latest offer, but a previous one that was on the table. In a statement, Air Canada’s executive vice-president and chief operating officer Duncan Dee expressed disappointment.“We are perplexed and disappointed that two tentative agreements negotiated in good faith with and unanimously recommended by the democratically elected representatives of our flight attendants have failed to be ratified,” Dee said. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1067294--air-canada-flight-attendants-reject-latest-deal?bn=1 My preference would be to forget back to work legislation and let them strike. A couple, three weeks without pay and benefits would have the flight attendants pleading for a deal. In fact, if they were to strike, so anxious would they be to get back to work, they'd probably accept a package inferior to the one they voted against. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
olp1fan Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Posted October 10, 2011 It seems the bargaining agent urged members to accept not only this latest offer, but a previous one that was on the table. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1067294--air-canada-flight-attendants-reject-latest-deal?bn=1 My preference would be to forget back to work legislation and let them strike. A couple, three weeks without pay and benefits would have the flight attendants pleading for a deal. In fact, if they were to strike, so anxious would they be to get back to work, they'd probably accept a package inferior to the one they voted against. if theyre forced back to work and refuse what could happen? would they be fired? Quote
capricorn Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 if theyre forced back to work and refuse what could happen? would they be fired? olp1fan, why don't you research your questions and share your findings? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 if theyre forced back to work and refuse what could happen? would they be fired? They could be fined and/or jailed... And the union could be sued...And they would be probably fired and blackballed. It would then effectively be a wildcat strike. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 It seems the bargaining agent urged members to accept not only this latest offer, but a previous one that was on the table. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1067294--air-canada-flight-attendants-reject-latest-deal?bn=1 My preference would be to forget back to work legislation and let them strike. A couple, three weeks without pay and benefits would have the flight attendants pleading for a deal. In fact, if they were to strike, so anxious would they be to get back to work, they'd probably accept a package inferior to the one they voted against. I don't think they should strike either... Simply circumvent the Ministress of Management,and our Canada Corp. gov't,and go on a Work to Rule campaign. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Sir Bandelot Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 Hell I don't blame them for rejecting the offer. The unions are corrupt and in bed with management. They do not hold the workers interests, they've become an entity unto themselves. They sustain themselves on the backs of labour. And as such, are just another burden for the workers to bear. Even when gains towards equality have been made, there will always be continuous pressure to undo and bring power back to the control of the elite class. The union leaders have been bought out. They exclude themselves from the working class itself only seek to gain their own privileges. They once had a place and a purpose, but there are no trade unions now, only labour unions. Our last two contracts were pitiful, they were an insult. Yet the workforce was told to accept it, it's the best we can do. Meanwhile management continues to increase their income, as evidenced by the growing lists of names in the annual report of Ontario's "$100,000 dollar club". We may yet have to resort to a Marxist solution. Sublime revolution, my brothers and sisters. And that's what we're seeing happening now. This is only the beginning. Quote
capricorn Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 I don't think they should strike either... Simply circumvent the Ministress of Management,and our Canada Corp. gov't,and go on a Work to Rule campaign. I doubt Raitt will back down. The flight attendants should be mindful of what happened to postal workers where the back to work legislation imposed a lower wage increase than was negotiated and which they rejected. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 I doubt Raitt will back down. The flight attendants should be mindful of what happened to postal workers where the back to work legislation imposed a lower wage increase than was negotiated and which they rejected. Sadly,I doubt it either... Therefore,limit her pro-managerial meddling to an absolute minimum. Work to Rule...Punish the suits... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
capricorn Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 Sadly,I doubt it either... Therefore,limit her pro-managerial meddling to an absolute minimum. Work to Rule...Punish the suits... If the attendants want to take the wind out of Raitt's sails, they should make a quick about face and accept the offer. There's still time. In the process, loss of income and all the immediate personal problems this entails in various degrees for the affected workers would be averted. Any good labour negotiator would make this scenario clear to his members. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) If the attendants want to take the wind out of Raitt's sails, they should make a quick about face and accept the offer. There's still time. In the process, loss of income and all the immediate personal problems this entails in various degrees for the affected workers would be averted. Any good labour negotiator would make this scenario clear to his members. You're right...I hope they've advocated for the Work to Rule option... What is this "private" corporation going to do?Complain to the Ministress of Management that the employees are only doing their jobs??? Everyone stays on the job,but they only do what is specifically in their job description...No more,no less...No favours for management! It takes longer until those affected get the message,but,they always get the message in the end... Edited October 11, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
MiddleClassCentrist Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 IMO - The only people that the government should be able to force back to work are public sector workers. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) IMO - The only people that the government should be able to force back to work are public sector workers. Well,there are such things as "Essential Services"... I'm not certain that flight attendants on a private airline,especially when there are other private options available,is a sector of the economy that could be declared "essential".It would only be so if a certain government of the day had a definate ideological stance against organized labour and was trying to force collective agreements down certain union local memberships throats. Kinda strange for a party that feels market forces should be the things that dictate how business should run and government should'nt intervene in the marketplace... Edited October 11, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Posted October 11, 2011 olp1fan, why don't you research your questions and share your findings? ive never seen a private company be forced back to work before Quote
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Posted October 11, 2011 If the attendants want to take the wind out of Raitt's sails, they should make a quick about face and accept the offer. There's still time. In the process, loss of income and all the immediate personal problems this entails in various degrees for the affected workers would be averted. Any good labour negotiator would make this scenario clear to his members. 2., Minister Raitt signed the 1930 Convention on forced labour act which means the Canadian government cannot force people back to work Quote
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Posted October 11, 2011 2., Minister Raitt signed the 1930 Convention on forced labour act which means the Canadian government cannot force people back to work Well...Clearly that's not going to stop Canada Corp. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
olp1fan Posted October 11, 2011 Author Report Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Well...Clearly that's not going to stop Canada Corp. mhm http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C029 Officials of the administration, even when they have the duty of encouraging the populations under their charge to engage in some form of labour, shall not put constraint upon the said populations or upon any individual members thereof to work for private individuals, companies or associations. Edited October 11, 2011 by olp1fan Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.