164 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

Well, in some ways, yes. Air travel isn't exactly inexpensive, and it's become indispensable for business in this world. The reality is, the airline industry is doing terribly, and unions are being unrealistic in expecting things to get better for their members right now. Just do your job.

They have the right to strike by law. It is not an essential service, as you yourself have said. I believe your words were very close to "nobody needs to travel Air Canada." People don't have a 'right' to air travel. It sucks that your flight is delayed by a day. Wait it out or make other arrangements. If the government wouldn't have interfered in the collective bargaining process, this wouldn't be happening. You won't possibly consider that though. Labour is always in the wrong to you.

[Boges]

They have the right to strike by law. It is not an essential service, as you yourself have said. I believe your words were very close to "nobody needs to travel Air Canada." People don't have a 'right' to air travel. It sucks that your flight is delayed by a day. Wait it out or make other arrangements. If the government wouldn't have interfered in the collective bargaining process, this wouldn't be happening. You won't possibly consider that though. Labour is always in the wrong to you.

Well if Air Canada can't yield to the pilots demands and they do strike, can they fire the pilots?

I'm not a labour expert so I don't know. But it sounds like if AC could avoid all this bad pub, they would. I don't know why anyone would fly AC if they had any other options at this point.

[Smallc]

They have the right to strike by law.

Obviously not. They have the right to belong to a union.

It is not an essential service, as you yourself have said.

Did I say that? Wow, I don't even remember. If I thought that way before (I don't know when I said that - I've always been against any of the strikes this time around) then I've changed my mind. People need to travel by air. It's essential for economic activity. It's also essential to keep Air Canada from going broke, something they're already on their way to do without much union help.

I believe your words were very close to "nobody needs to travel Air Canada."

I must have been on crack, because some people do need to travel Air Canada. Now true, for most routes, you don't, but the alternatives are so expensive....

People don't have a 'right' to air travel. It sucks that your flight is delayed by a day. Wait it out or make other arrangements. If the government wouldn't have interfered in the collective bargaining process, this wouldn't be happening. You won't possibly consider that though. Labour is always in the wrong to you.

If I just spent $1800 for a round trip ticket to Cairo for example, I'm not going to be happy. If a family of five has a $20000 vacation to Australia, they aren't going to be happy, rightly so.

Leaving that aside, Air Canada is on the verge of going into bankruptcy protection (which is a very real possibility, especially with the unions costing Air Canada money in stunts like this), and I promise you, the union members will lose far more that way, and will lose even more if the airline actually gets liquidated (which won't happen, because the government won't allow it, because the Canadian economy would be decimated).

[Smallc]

I'm not a labour expert so I don't know. But it sounds like if AC could avoid all this bad pub, they would. I don't know why anyone would fly AC if they had any other options at this point.

It's too bad. Despite the stories you may have heard, Air Canada is great to fly on. My next two trips are on Westjet, but that's only because I have an extra ticket that I bought just in case of an Air Canada strike, and then I have to go on Westjet to Vegas with my brother.

[Wild Bill]

Actually, you've got that mixed up. These are the repercussions of the actions of govt interfering in the contract negotiations of a private company. The CPC supporters on this forum already contradicted the govt's reason for the BTW legislation, saying nobody needs to fly on AC. Therefore, govt interference must have been unnecessary. This is the fallout from a govt that does not respect labour and does not understand that there are two equal parties negotiating here.

I'm confused about where you stand, CC. I do understand your support for the union folks. However, are you denying that ridership may or will suffer? Do you believe that no significant number of passengers will decide not to fly Air Canada anymore?

Maybe that's true. Maybe all those folks stuck in the Pearson terminals are saying "Gee, this is a big pissoff but still, I can see it's all the fault of the government sticking their nose in! I'm on the side of the union and will cheerfully accept all this aggravation in order to support them!"

I really don't know how much business Air Canada will lose. Or can afford to lose, for that matter. It would seem that both the union and the management are playing a risky game. Obviously, they either consider their passenger reactions to be irrelevant or not serious enough to sink the whole ship.

You've made your support for the union plain, CC. I'm just curious what you think about repercussions to the entire picture. Maybe folks like me, who would resent being caught up as cannon fodder and would never fly Air Canada again are just a trivial minority. There are brand name stores that I have refused to enter since I was a teenager, because of the way I was treated.

But that's just me!

[cybercoma]

I'm confused about where you stand, CC. I do understand your support for the union folks. However, are you denying that ridership may or will suffer?

No.

Do you believe that no significant number of passengers will decide not to fly Air Canada anymore?

I'm sure they will avoid Air Canada for awhile, but I'm also sure that once the labour dispute ends they'll return. The only reason they're avoiding it now is the disruptions.

Maybe that's true. Maybe all those folks stuck in the Pearson terminals are saying "Gee, this is a big pissoff but still, I can see it's all the fault of the government sticking their nose in! I'm on the side of the union and will cheerfully accept all this aggravation in order to support them!"

I don't think all those folks have the same opinion on anything. I'm certain some of those folks probably do think that way.

I really don't know how much business Air Canada will lose. Or can afford to lose, for that matter. It would seem that both the union and the management are playing a risky game. Obviously, they either consider their passenger reactions to be irrelevant or not serious enough to sink the whole ship.

That's the point of the labour disruptions. The government interfered with the bargaining process, giving Air Canada the upper hand. They don't need to negotiate in good-faith if they're holding all the cards.

The problem with public perception in recent years, or at least the perception of the political right and many of those on the forum, is that they think we owe something to businesses. It's probably due to fear from deindustrialization from the mid-80s on. The public bends to every whim of corporations, going so far as to actually pay them for jobs. There was a time when companies paid people for their labour. Today, governments (all levels) give them so many tax breaks and other benefits that the tax-dollars we pay is like reverse wages. We now pay the companies for work because they blackmail us with threats of leaving. After they rake in all the cash they can, they leave anyway.

Moreover, what people are forgetting or don't seem to care to recognize is that companies are no longer budgeting properly for labour costs. It's up to them to ensure that they can pay for labour. Economists and business schools have hammered it into budding executives that labour is the only cost that's not fixed. Reducing benefits, lowering wages, and laying people off is lazy business. It's the easy route. But the important thing here is that without labour you have no business. A company does not run without labour. Likewise, people don't work unless there are companies here. The problem with many people's perception is that they only look at one side of that. The argument is that labour should just shut up and work. They should be happy that they have a job. The same could be said on the other side of that coin. Companies should shut up and find some other way to manage their costs. They should be happy that they have people working for them. You can't have one without the other. For that reason, it's for everyone's benefit that both sides negotiate in good faith. Nobody should expect that either labour or management will roll over to the other side. They're equally necessary and ought to have equal power to negotiate.

You've made your support for the union plain, CC. I'm just curious what you think about repercussions to the entire picture. Maybe folks like me, who would resent being caught up as cannon fodder and would never fly Air Canada again are just a trivial minority. There are brand name stores that I have refused to enter since I was a teenager, because of the way I was treated.

But that's just me!

I don't think there will be any long-term repercussions. In the short term it's going to affect Air Canada because they refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. People aren't considering the concessions that have already been made over the years by labour. Now, people of Smallc's mindset say that Air Canada is in the dumps and that means labour needs to continue to give, but at what point do you hold management responsible for their piss-poor business practices? It's easy to turn to labour and tell them that they have to continue to give up benefits and take pay-freezes or even cuts. However, at what point do you blame management for being terrible at what they do? If you're not making enough money to pay your labour, then you're doing something wrong and it sure as hell isn't the fault of the people on the front-lines that show up to work everyday busting their ass for the company.

[Smallc]

And what if there's no Air Canada to return to?

[Wild Bill]

Moreover, what people are forgetting or don't seem to care to recognize is that companies are no longer budgeting properly for labour costs. It's up to them to ensure that they can pay for labour. Economists and business schools have hammered it into budding executives that labour is the only cost that's not fixed. Reducing benefits, lowering wages, and laying people off is lazy business. It's the easy route. But the important thing here is that without labour you have no business. A company does not run without labour. Likewise, people don't work unless there are companies here. The problem with many people's perception is that they only look at one side of that. The argument is that labour should just shut up and work. They should be happy that they have a job. The same could be said on the other side of that coin. Companies should shut up and find some other way to manage their costs. They should be happy that they have people working for them. You can't have one without the other. For that reason, it's for everyone's benefit that both sides negotiate in good faith. Nobody should expect that either labour or management will roll over to the other side. They're equally necessary and ought to have equal power to negotiate.
I don't think there will be any long-term repercussions. In the short term it's going to affect Air Canada because they refuse to negotiate in good faith with the union. People aren't considering the concessions that have already been made over the years by labour. Now, people of Smallc's mindset say that Air Canada is in the dumps and that means labour needs to continue to give, but at what point do you hold management responsible for their piss-poor business practices? It's easy to turn to labour and tell them that they have to continue to give up benefits and take pay-freezes or even cuts. However, at what point do you blame management for being terrible at what they do? If you're not making enough money to pay your labour, then you're doing something wrong and it sure as hell isn't the fault of the people on the front-lines that show up to work everyday busting their ass for the company.

You make some good points CC but I still don't think they are all "real world". First off, while it's true that there is no business without labour things are badly slanted against labour today, at least here in Canada. You see, in Canada we have more labour than companies need!

Stelco, the steel company here in Hamilton, employed about 20,000 workers when my father worked there. Now they need a bit less than 1,000! It's the same story everywhere. Advances in technology have brought about efficiencies that require much less labour.

Of course, this happened a bit too quickly for society to properly adjust. So we have vast numbers of unemployed, often older workers for whom it's a bit late for retraining and certainly they are no longer in the most desirable demographic for employers. What do these workers do? Stay home and watch Jerry Springer?

Second, countries like China DO offer FAR lower costs! Few or no pensions or benefits, an artificially low currency, bribes to government officials that are far less than normal taxes...they make it very hard for towns like Tillsonburg to compete. That's why the various levels of government bribe them to stay. They have to! I will agree with you however that not tying the money to staying for a long time and keeping jobs just shows how shallow and shortsighted are our politicos.

Smallc has a very good point that you seem to have ignored. He said "And what if there's no Air Canada to return to?" I don't think you can take it for granted that there are no significant numbers who will give up on Air Canada. Most Canadians don't care about who is right or wrong in any labour dispute, or if the government should or should not have gotten involved. They simply resent any inconvenience to themselves. What's more, what happened a few weeks ago to all those riders stranded in Pearson without even someone to tell them what was happening was more than just inconvenience. I' surprised that someone in line didn't "go postal". If it keeps happening someone probably will!

If Air Canada gets a reputation for these problems it could be the proverbial straw on the camel's back. Maybe you're right, I dunno. Still, I think we will soon see...

[Smallc]

You see, in Canada we have more labour than companies need!

Actually, we don't. We have too much labour with the wrong skills. In the west, and even in parts of the east, there is a labour shortage.

[Wilber]

And what if there's no Air Canada to return to?

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.

Edited by Wilber, 13 April 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[mentalfloss]

This will only get worse as the government continues to legislate employees back to work for the "sake of the economy."

[dre]

I'm confused about where you stand, CC. I do understand your support for the union folks. However, are you denying that ridership may or will suffer? Do you believe that no significant number of passengers will decide not to fly Air Canada anymore?

Maybe that's true. Maybe all those folks stuck in the Pearson terminals are saying "Gee, this is a big pissoff but still, I can see it's all the fault of the government sticking their nose in! I'm on the side of the union and will cheerfully accept all this aggravation in order to support them!"

I really don't know how much business Air Canada will lose. Or can afford to lose, for that matter. It would seem that both the union and the management are playing a risky game. Obviously, they either consider their passenger reactions to be irrelevant or not serious enough to sink the whole ship.

You've made your support for the union plain, CC. I'm just curious what you think about repercussions to the entire picture. Maybe folks like me, who would resent being caught up as cannon fodder and would never fly Air Canada again are just a trivial minority. There are brand name stores that I have refused to enter since I was a teenager, because of the way I was treated.

But that's just me!

Obviously the collective bargaining process can disrupt the lives of workers, and the smooth operation of companies. But its still the best process available to see that the interests of both sides are considered, and it effects working conditions and wages in both union and non union shops.

[Wild Bill]

Obviously the collective bargaining process can disrupt the lives of workers, and the smooth operation of companies. But its still the best process available to see that the interests of both sides are considered, and it effects working conditions and wages in both union and non union shops.

I'm not saying it isn't, my good Doctor! However, that doesn't change the fact that the market or rather the public who use airlines will have their own feelings on the matter and will make their own choices.

Too often management and labour take their customers for granted. Then if the customers vote with their feet they point fingers at each other as the bankruptcy accountants move in!

[Wild Bill]

Actually, we don't. We have too much labour with the wrong skills. In the west, and even in parts of the east, there is a labour shortage.

I stand corrected. That's a good point and worthy of a thread of its own. Why is this so? What about all those government studies, career counselors in high schools, retraining programs and the like? If they all knew what they were doing then why has this situation occurred?

[Smallc]

Companies don't go bust because of their employees.

They do if the employees strike, legally or illegally, and that negatively affects revenue. Make no mistake, Air Canada is on the edge. It probably won't take much to push it over.

Air Canada needs to be freed from The Air Canada Act, too.

Edited by Smallc, 13 April 2012 - 09:56 AM.