Shady Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Joe Comartin is hilarious: "I plead guilty for being on the side of workers' rights." Worker's have every right to withdraw their labour. And their employers have every right to replace them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Worker's have every right to withdraw their labour. And their employers have every right to replace them. Fair enough. Works have the right to bargain as a collective as well though. So firing them would mean trying to replace a whole workforce at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 Same could be said "and what if nobody wanted to work for you?" They both rely on each other. The problem, and you acknowledged it in one of your subsequent posts, is that the government unfairly got involved in the negotiation process, throwing it out of balance. I didn't acknowledge that. The company and the economy can't afford a strike. These kinds of labour strikes and disruptions are supposed to be a reminder to management the vital role that labour plays. And if we have a strike that lasts any time at all, it will remind labour why you shouldn't strike when your company is already on the verge of failing. If the margins are so razor thin that they can't afford the labour they need to operate their businesses, then there's something wrong with how they're running their businesses. The management is never put under the microscope though. Again, the easy and lazy way to make more money is to go after your labour. All unionized airlines with legacy costs airlines are facing the same problems....or have you been living under a rock? Oh and if Air Canada packed up shop, another company would have to fill the void because there would be a huge demand for it. If Air Canada packed up shop, there's be no one to fill the void tomorrow. That's the problem. Laugh all you want, but this is the Asian model, and its also exactly what venture capitalists do with a lot of the companies they buy. North America is famous for extremely bloated and expensive management. Often theres 5 or 10 guys shuffling paper for each one guy who actually builds widgets. I agree that management should be cut, and that's part of what Air Canada is already doing. My point was that it wouldn't solve all of the problems, as you seem to suggest. Joe Comartin is hilarious: "I plead guilty for being on the side of workers' rights." Oh, so funny... Is he going to hire them when the company goes under? Fair enough. Works have the right to bargain as a collective as well though. So firing them would mean trying to replace a whole workforce at once. Do you honestly think that all of them would walk away from their jobs at once? Where are they going to go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 If the company goes under, it's due to poor management not labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) If the company goes under, it's due to poor management not labour. Is that why about half the airlines in the world are in danger of going under? in this case, it's a result of global conditions, but labour has to play a part in the solution, and for Air Canada, launching a low cost airline is part of that solution. Management in the past never should have made these agreements that included defined benefit pensions. They're absolutely idiotic, and unsustainable. I think we should open the skies up, personally. Edited April 13, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoDucks Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 We need Workers Councils, like in Germany. North American corporations typically have their heads up their asses when it comes to labour management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 If the company goes under, it's due to poor management not labour. So? The company will still be dead! I'm not so sure that the problem can be totally fixed with better management. If the competitive factors are beyond their control, like other countries having cheaper costs, you could put Christ himself in charge and it wouldn't matter. Again, I don't see how being able to blame one side or the other wold be any comfort to those ex employees when they need to buy groceries for their kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 It's okay if Air Canada goes bankrupt. Kevin O'Leary has personally promised to buy it, and change away from the labour - management model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 (edited) That's right, that happened, and now everyone has to live with it. No strike in the world will undo what Cerberus did to Air Canada. Calin doesn't, he just got a 5 million bonus. Not necessarily. The unions won't even give Air Canada their signature and most important initiative in this round. They can talk about salaries, hours, compensation, but the low cost airline is a necessity if they hope to compete. Salaries hours and compensation are all subjects to be negotiated for a low cost airline but the most important question is how much of the airline is going to wind up low cost. That is the real issue for the employees. When Calin was grinding the employees during CCAA to "save the company", Milty and his merry band was busy selling off everything that wasn't nailed down (as well as some that was) and sailing off with the proceeds. You say that was all in the past but it isn't. The legacy is an employee group that just doesn't trust its management. It's a bad situation and I don't know the answer, but it's true and it wasn't the employees who were responsible. This sick out wouldn't be something I would do but I can understand the frustration with the company and government. Edited April 13, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 13, 2012 Report Share Posted April 13, 2012 You say that was all in the past but it isn't. But it is in the past in that everyone has to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 But it is in the past in that everyone has to deal with it. You can't make yourself trust someone. Either you do or you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) You can't make yourself trust someone. Either you do or you don't. And that's fine, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Edited April 14, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 And that's fine, but it doesn't change the reality of your situation. The company is in trouble, few would dispute that but the problem with not trusting someone is you never really know what reality is. That is a huge problem and it is managements doing. BTW, it's not my situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 BTW, it's not my situation. I'm not sure how I typed that, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Because Trades aren't valued very much in High Schools. It's one of my great laments that I wasn't told in my teenage days that these careers would be recession proof. Now I stand here in my early 30's in an industry that I probably won't be able to stay in in the next few years. Depressing. The trades aren't recession proof??? I beg to differ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Unions cannot exist without government protection therefore they really have no right to complain when the government restricts the actions they are allowed to take. They still have the right to bargain - just not the right to disrupt the lives of thousands of innocent people. So you would prefer "corporate protection" under some form of "made in Canada" Right to Work legislation? Are you suggesting that Air Canada is an "Essential Service"? And how would unionized employee's collectively bargain if,as you claim,they don't have the right to disrupt the lives of thousands of innocent people? Would you propose some sort of binding arbitration in the event of a negotiation impasse? Do you really want to go there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Companies don't go bust because of their employees. The pilots could take a 50% cut and it wouldn't save the company. Pilots took cuts in wages and benefits of around 25% during CCAA and haven't had a raise since. The employee groups gave the company relief from its pension obligations till 2014. Compare that to executive compensation. They then watched ACE sell off billions worth of the companies most profitable assets, distribute the proceeds to its own shareholders and bail. That is the biggest reason Air Canada is where it is today. Great spin for the company though. Blame the pilots. Perfect when government is also willing to do its dirty work for them. Truth be known, there is always some scheduled flying that isn't crewed and can't be covered by available reserves. The company relies on what amounts to overtime to get it done either by pilots asking for extra flying or by drafting. All the pilots would have to do as a group is not request extra flying and not answer the phone. They wouldn't have to phone in sick. There is something about pilots though that doesn't make them effective unionists and companies are quick to exploit it. Spot on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 So the IRB said this was illegal, according to the reporter on the National. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Also on the National, Air Canada has cut $500M in expenses this year alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 So the IRB said this was illegal, according to the reporter on the National. It's only illegal if they cannot produce doctors notes saying they were sick... If they can't,the pilots have essentially engaged in a wildcat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) Also on the National, Air Canada has cut $500M in expenses this year alone. The Dominatrix of Labour...Er...Minister of Labour must be grinning with interventionist glee... Edited April 14, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Conservatives believe in a free-market. Unless it's the labour market. Then they believe in monopolies and interventionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 Conservatives believe in a free-market. Unless it's the labour market. Then they believe in monopolies and interventionism. I'm actually puzzled by all of it. Free Air Canada from at least parts of the Air Canada act, and open up the sky. Canada and the US should be like Europe for air travel within NA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 One labour professor's take on this. I won't comment on it or its links. Prof David Doorey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 14, 2012 Report Share Posted April 14, 2012 One labour professor's take on this. I won't comment on it or its links. Prof David Doorey A couple thoughts: 1) Piloting Fatigued is Illegal: Not directly related to the article, but he mentions that the law forbids flying when fatigued. It will be impossible for Air Canada to prove that the pilots that called in "sick" were not indeed fatigued. They could all claim that requiring them to fly would be asking them to break the law, which Air Canada is not allowed to do. Where it was ruled that their "job action" is illegal, any subsequent direct punishments issued to pilots will be a tightrope walk for management. If they take action against any particular pilot, he or she can just claim that they were fatigued and unable to fly, as they would be breaking the law. Their defense will simply be that Air Canada in effect would be punishing them for not breaking the law. I don't see how AC can win that one. 2) Unfair System: He claims that it is no surprise that this is happening and he's right. He couldn't be more right when he says, "Workers will resist when they feel an unfair system is being thrust upon them." The unfair system is thank to government intervention. Therefore, it is the Conservative government's intervention into the bargaining process that is causing this resistance. 3) No arbitration: Something that concerns me as well: "If the government were truly concerned that a work stoppage at Air Canada would wreak havoc on the economy, why would it not just refer the matter to arms-length arbitration, allow the parties to select an agreeable arbitrator, and then let the arbitrator listen to the arguments and make a decision?" So not only has the government interfered in the labour relations of a private company, but it has clearly picked sides. As a supporter of the NDP, if I were ultra-partisan, I would side with labour no matter what. However, I like to think I'm rational. I would be perfectly fine with back-to-work legislation if it was sent to a fair and independent third-party for binding arbitration. That wasn't done. Moreover, the employees probably would have seen this as a more neutral and fair process, likely meaning we wouldn't see these kinds of disruptions. Granted I'm speculating, but I believe that's a fair assessment. On this point, Doorey also raises an interesting question as to why Air Canada hasn't put this to arbitration. Well that should be obvious. With the government's blessing, they hold all of the cards. They have no reason to go to binding arbitration. Especially since there's very little heat on the company about any of this. Sure a handful of people are blaming them, but those that don't blame labour are split in their criticism of the federal government and the company. Those that blame labour, blame labour period. Until the public starts holding the company as accountable as they hold labour, Air Canada has no reason to go to arbitration because they're not seen as the "bad guys." Here's the questions he poses at the end that I think are worth reflecting upon. What do you think? Do you think that the Federal government’s form of intervention in the Air Canada dispute has benefited or harmed Air Canada?Do you think the government’s intervention is fair to the pilots? What do you think of the pilots’ efforts to resist the model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.