164 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

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?

[Machjo]

http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10361084



In what line of work is fatigue and street a viable reason to call in sick for work? This is clearly a work action because of the Federal government won't allow them to strike.

I wonder if there'll consequence for the actions of these pilots?

19 cancelled flights is exactly the type of thing the Feds are trying to prevent.

I doubt it was a coincidence, but since it could possibly be pure coincidence, we must accept the presumption of inocence in this case until some proof comes out.

And even if it was planned action among many of these pilots, how do you know one or two of them was not genuinely sick and it just happened to be on the same day as the rest of them?

To fire them would send a dangerous message that whenever labour tensions run high, you'd be best not to call in sick no matter how sick you are. Then it becomes a public safety matter.

[Wild Bill]

2) Unfair System: 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.

Maybe this is true. It's always been obvious that a government rarely can run a two-car funeral procession properly. Still, is that the whole story?

Maybe the world has changed and the union is blind to it? Maybe the Air Canada management is incompetent but it doesn't matter, because Air Canada just can no longer compete anyway!

It often seems like unions assume that the company can give them whatever they want - that it is just a matter of applying sufficient force. What if the company simply CAN'T? What if the union is demanding that someone with no legs show them a dance?

I'm beginning to think that Air Canada SHOULD die off, to make way for other, more modern companies. Rarely to we see an old-fashioned company successfully modernize. Their people are old and thus they practice old-fashioned business methods.

Perhaps Air Canada is an Underwood Typewriter company in a new world of computers and word processors.

[Michael Hardner]

It often seems like unions assume that the company can give them whatever they want - that it is just a matter of applying sufficient force. What if the company simply CAN'T? What if the union is demanding that someone with no legs show them a dance?

I guess you missed the last round of labour negotiations, in which the flight attendants union gave up huge concessions ?

Indeed the unions are recognizing the reality of what is happening, but it's still an open question as to how far the working people will descend before hitting bottom.

[Tilter]

Maybe this is true. It's always been obvious that a government rarely can run a two-car funeral procession properly. Still, is that the whole story?

Maybe the world has changed and the union is blind to it? Maybe the Air Canada management is incompetent but it doesn't matter, because Air Canada just can no longer compete anyway!

It often seems like unions assume that the company can give them whatever they want - that it is just a matter of applying sufficient force. What if the company simply CAN'T? What if the union is demanding that someone with no legs show them a dance?

I'm beginning to think that Air Canada SHOULD die off, to make way for other, more modern companies. Rarely to we see an old-fashioned company successfully modernize. Their people are old and thus they practice old-fashioned business methods.

Perhaps Air Canada is an Underwood Typewriter company in a new world of computers and word processors.

In a country with (basically) 2 Airlines the business should be classed as an essential service.
Air Canada had a monopoly on Air travel in Canada thru driving at least 2 world class airlines out of business using money losing fares (on a government dollar) (dumping) which is a business practice that is against the law.

Edited by Tilter, 14 April 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[cybercoma]

I guess you missed the last round of labour negotiations, in which the flight attendants union gave up huge concessions ?

Indeed the unions are recognizing the reality of what is happening, but it's still an open question as to how far the working people will descend before hitting bottom.

I'm glad you mentioned this. In 2000 they were able to negotiate freely and the pilots took a pay cut of 15-30% to keep the airline from going under. It's pretty misleading to hold that the union is not willing to negotiate fairly. Clearly, that's not the case. What is happening here is exactly what everyone has been saying. If people feel like they're being treated unfairly, they will resist by any means possible. Arbitration is the only fair solution now. The union may not like arbitration, but neither would management. So, when the government put back-to-work legislation in place, they ought to have forced it to an arbitrator. They should have given both the union and company forewarning. Give them a fixed amount of time to negotiate fairly, but insist that the pilots not walk off the job in the meantime. When the deadline passes, if no agreement has been reached it goes to third-party arbitration.

Edited by cybercoma, 14 April 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Shady]

Companies don't go bust because of their employees.

Actually, sometimes they do. See GM and Chrysler.

[cybercoma]

Actually, sometimes they do. See GM and Chrysler.

This is the biggest pile of revisionist crap I've ever seen. You don't think that GM and Chrysler were adversely affected by business models that weren't the least bit adaptable? Oil prices in the 70s skyrocketed, but they continued making gas-guzzling muscle cars. That's when Japan and Europe began their assault on the American automotive industry. Although still profitable through the 80s, the auto-industry made another serious mistake by reneging on the Fordist compromise. They packed up shop and moved production in the sake of greater profits, but to the detriment of a customer base that could purchase their vehicles. What happened in Flint, Michigan is the perfect example. Meanwhile, the government is left with its d*** in its hand, using taxpayers' money to pick up the pieces. A decade later, the quality of their product in the dumpster, foreign automakers overtake the American auto-industry. None of this has anything to do with labour. It has everything to do with management that was completely unwilling to be adaptable and continued running on outmoded business models.

[Shady]

This is the biggest pile of revisionist crap I've ever seen.

Nope, it's not revisionist at all. The UAW managed to turn GM and Chrysler into massive pension and medical providers, that made the occasional car on the side. Did you know that GM was the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world? Workers wouldn't even pay for their own boner medication by themselves.

It's no wonder that GM and Chrysler finally became somewhat profitable again after their pension and benefit situation was renegotiated to more appropriate levels. Their legacy costs are no longer crushing them, at least as badly as they were before.

[BubberMiley]

boner derangement syndrome.

[dre]

They should do what they did with Harmac... find a way for the workers to have an ownership position in the company... the government could maybe help them with loan guarantees.

Once the workers are the owners and they get a good look at the books, then they will be more likely to make concessions to make the company healthy.

[Jack Weber]

I'm glad you mentioned this. In 2000 they were able to negotiate freely and the pilots took a pay cut of 15-30% to keep the airline from going under. It's pretty misleading to hold that the union is not willing to negotiate fairly. Clearly, that's not the case. What is happening here is exactly what everyone has been saying. If people feel like they're being treated unfairly, they will resist by any means possible. Arbitration is the only fair solution now. The union may not like arbitration, but neither would management. So, when the government put back-to-work legislation in place, they ought to have forced it to an arbitrator. They should have given both the union and company forewarning. Give them a fixed amount of time to negotiate fairly, but insist that the pilots not walk off the job in the meantime. When the deadline passes, if no agreement has been reached it goes to third-party arbitration.

The problem with binding arb,at least with this government,is that they will somehow get to appoint an arbitrator that will give a decision that will be favourable to the Ministry of Labour and Air Canada management...Or they will set the parameters that the arbitrator can look at in such a way that they can only find in favour of management...

See the arbitration that went on with Canada Post last year...

If this case went to a true Binding Arb,both Air Canada and the government probably wouldn't like the outcome because the case history is on the unions side...

Edited by Jack Weber, 14 April 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[cybercoma]

The problem with binding arb,at least with this government,is that they will somehow get to appoint an arbitrator that will give a decision that will be favourable to the Ministry of Labour and Air Canada managemen...Or they will set the parameters that the arbotrator can look at in such a way that they can only find in favour of management...

See the arbitration that went on with Canada Post last year...

If this case went to a true Binding Arb,both Air Canada and the government probably wouldn't like the outcome because the case history is on the unions side...

Those objections are outside having an independent arbitrator hear the case. With Canada Post the government didn't allow independent arbitration, they set the terms. That's not independent.

The only solution to the Air Canada problem is true independent binding arbitration with no interference from the government or anyone else. It needs to be a neutral and fair process for all parties concerned. That's as much for Air Canada's protection as it is the employees'.

[Jack Weber]

Those objections are outside having an independent arbitrator hear the case. With Canada Post the government didn't allow independent arbitration, they set the terms. That's not independent.

The only solution to the Air Canada problem is true independent binding arbitration with no interference from the government or anyone else. It needs to be a neutral and fair process for all parties concerned. That's as much for Air Canada's protection as it is the employees'.

Agreed on both counts...

[Wilber]

Nope, it's not revisionist at all. The UAW managed to turn GM and Chrysler into massive pension and medical providers, that made the occasional car on the side. Did you know that GM was the largest private purchaser of Viagra in the world? Workers wouldn't even pay for their own boner medication by themselves.

It's no wonder that GM and Chrysler finally became somewhat profitable again after their pension and benefit situation was renegotiated to more appropriate levels. Their legacy costs are no longer crushing them, at least as badly as they were before.

Everything is so simple in Shady Land, so black and white.


All the misfortune was forced upon the company in Shady Land. No negotiations, no agreements. Why the company agreed to a pension system where it accepted 100% of the responsibility is beyond me. Why the union would want one that depended 100% on the company for its survival is also a mystery. Bad decision on both their counts. Japanese and European auto companies have pretty good pension plans but don't let that bother you.

It's not the company's or the employee's fault that the US doesn't have the universal health care systems that their competitors enjoy but don't let that get into the equation either. As far as Viagra goes, most if not all medical plans in the US cover it, God knows why. At this time, why Viagra is covered but birth control isn't is the subject of some debate in the US.

Fact is the US auto industry was bloated and complacent. Too many makes and models, poor designs and quality. They, both unions and companies thought their position in the US market was unassailable and they were wrong. In Chrysler's case the merge with Daimler was a disaster, they were actually doing rather well before that. They did a lot more than just redo their labour contracts. They shed makes, models and a lot of other dead weight but most of all, they finally started building well designed, good quality vehicles that people actually want to buy.

Interesting there is no mention of Ford here. Same unions and basically the same contracts. If the unions were responsible for GM's and Chryslers troubles in Shady Land, could they also have some responsibility for Ford's success. Somehow I think not.

Edited by Wilber, 15 April 2012 - 08:15 AM.