Jump to content

Pilots Go To Arbitration


GDR

Recommended Posts

Really? No idea who's fault? :Scratch-Head:

Oh, I'm pretty sure...

No doubt about it.

I never expected a negotiated deal here, not with this ACPA committee having to show how much tougher it is than its predecessor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since no one has seen anything of the negotiations (unless someone is violating the blackout), why not wait for the process to run its course like everyone else, instead of stirring the pot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm pretty sure...

No doubt about it.

I never expected a negotiated deal here, not with this ACPA committee having to show how much tougher it is than its predecessor.

Your posts read as if you believe that AC has always been 100% reasonable and that ACPA has always been 100% unreasonable. Is that your position?

I hope that one of our pilots here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood AC's "last/best/final/ultimate/take-it-or leave-it" offer to have included for AC the ability to farm out all pilot work for any aircraft of the size of the A-319 or smaller, I.e.. the jobs of about one third of ACPA's members. AC knew that ACPA couldn't possibly accept such a deal, and that's precisely while they tabled it in the first place knowing full well that their government friends would quash AC's fake, false, 100% phoney-baloney "attempt" to lock the ACPA members out, and would refer the matter to arbitration. No reasonable person would consider that to be bargaining in good faith. Do you?

When it all backfired in the form of an alleged sick-out, and when it was announced that further negotiations would be held, I thought that a deal of some sort would be hammered out. I thought that ACPA might moderate its bottom line to be something closer to TA1 than it had previously been willing to accept (maybe it did, in fact, but AC wasn't willing to meet them halfway?), and that AC might have learned that its cynical plan hadn't been a wise one after all. Silly me, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your posts read as if you believe that AC has always been 100% reasonable and that ACPA has always been 100% unreasonable. Is that your position?

I hope that one of our pilots here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood AC's "last/best/final/ultimate/take-it-or leave-it" offer to have included for AC the ability to farm out all pilot work for any aircraft of the size of the A-319 or smaller, I.e.. the jobs of about one third of ACPA's members. AC knew that ACPA couldn't possibly accept such a deal, and that's precisely while they tabled it in the first place knowing full well that their government friends would quash AC's fake, false, 100% phoney-baloney "attempt" to lock the ACPA members out, and would refer the matter to arbitration. No reasonable person would consider that to be bargaining in good faith. Do you?

When it all backfired in the form of an alleged sick-out, and when it was announced that further negotiations would be held, I thought that a deal of some sort would be hammered out. I thought that ACPA might moderate its bottom line to be something closer to TA1 than it had previously been willing to accept (maybe it did, in fact, but AC wasn't willing to meet them halfway?), and that AC might have learned that its cynical plan hadn't been a wise one after all. Silly me, I guess.

i made quite clear why I said there would be no deal. The union couldn't afford the optics of a freely negotiated deal unless the other side capitulated. Simple as that. I don't know how "reasonable" or "unreasonable" either side really was because statements about how flexible we were are just PR BS. The odds didn't favour a negotiated deal for the reason I stated. It wouldn't shock me if the IAM does get a deal. If ACPA did move significantly closer to TA-1, then we will see AC offer something close to TA-1. And that will be the winning position. TA-1. For that matter, if AC lowballs in arbitration, but the union hews close to TA-1, well, the settlement might well resemble... TA-1.

The risk is that ACPA didn't move that much and that AC will offer something significantly less than TA-1, and prevail.

But if I was betting, the winning position is not going to be pretty far from TA-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I get your reasoning and if you had posted it earlier, I guess I missed it.

The optics for ACPA may have been some sort of stumbling block, but I'd find it equally feasible to conclude that a company that has behaved as outrageously as AC has during these negotiations had no real interest in reaching a negotiated deal over the 10 days of talks. A completely out-to-lunch approach to industrial relations by AC's executives and their government friends is what raised the temperature in the first place. There was no reason to table an entirely unreasonable offer, call it the final one, and then announce a lockout while giving Lisa R the *wink wink*, but that was AC's response to ACPA's announcement that it wanted to continue negotiations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rozar s'macco

People need to know dagger is out to lunch. Your info, tactics, and read of the situation is at least 5 if not more years old. Optics? This is real life you doofus, ACPA is not concerned with optics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since no one has seen anything of the negotiations (unless someone is violating the blackout), why not wait for the process to run its course like everyone else, instead of stirring the pot.

Most intelligent comment/question I've seen yet regarding this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Quote

    i made quite clear why I said there would be no deal. The union couldn't afford the optics of a freely negotiated deal unless the other side capitulated. Simple as that. I don't know how "reasonable" or "unreasonable" either side really was because statements about how flexible we were are just PR BS. The odds didn't favour a negotiated deal for the reason I stated. It wouldn't shock me if the IAM does get a deal. If ACPA did move significantly closer to TA-1, then we will see AC offer something close to TA-1. And that will be the winning position. TA-1. For that matter, if AC lowballs in arbitration, but the union hews close to TA-1, well, the settlement might well resemble... TA-1.
    The risk is that ACPA didn't move that much and that AC will offer something significantly less than TA-1, and prevail.
    But if I was betting, the winning position is not going to be pretty far from TA-1.

Dagger,

The IAM negotiation broke down last thursday, it too has now gone to final selection arbitration.

What is interesting though is, the submission from the IAM is said to be two submissions. One for the Maintenance group and the other for the airports group.

Now regardless of what happens, there is a very bitter taste in everyones mouth and I highly doubt you will see anyone give that extra effort as we have all had our limit with this management team.

Regardless of what argument you or any otheer management type puts forward, how can you justify having your employees go 11 years with ZERO raise but yet management, especially executive compensation has risen exponentially. Just the optics of it angers the employees, then couple that with managements us against them mentality, you are left with a recipe for disaster.

You will no doubt disagree, but the only solution is a complete cleaning of the executive suite along with a large sum of senior management, if not, contrary to Rovinescu's assertions, the culture has not nor will not change for the better, only the worse.

I myself am preparing for CCAA V2.0. This time though, there may be no coming back with out the government stepping in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...contrary to Rovinescu's assertions, the culture has not nor will not change for the better, only the worse.

I myself am preparing for CCAA V2.0. This time though, there may be no coming back with out the government stepping in.

After labour armageddon circa 2011/2012, I am sure that CR has abandoned any misguided initiative about culture as an asset at AC. So now he will move ahead with his agenda which will likely result in further reductions in FTE count at AC while preserving revenues.

As for CCAA v2.0, it will only happen involuntarily and as a last resort. At that point all bets are off and AC would need to be looking for a new executive suite if it hoped to restructure rather than liquidate. I cannot imagine any support from unsecured creditors for any group that ran the ship onto the rocks (again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagger,

The IAM negotiation broke down last thursday, it too has now gone to final selection arbitration.

What is interesting though is, the submission from the IAM is said to be two submissions. One for the Maintenance group and the other for the airports group.

Now regardless of what happens, there is a very bitter taste in everyones mouth and I highly doubt you will see anyone give that extra effort as we have all had our limit with this management team.

Regardless of what argument you or any otheer management type puts forward, how can you justify having your employees go 11 years with ZERO raise but yet management, especially executive compensation has risen exponentially. Just the optics of it angers the employees, then couple that with managements us against them mentality, you are left with a recipe for disaster.

You will no doubt disagree, but the only solution is a complete cleaning of the executive suite along with a large sum of senior management, if not, contrary to Rovinescu's assertions, the culture has not nor will not change for the better, only the worse.

I myself am preparing for CCAA V2.0. This time though, there may be no coming back with out the government stepping in.

Robert,

Dagger almost always takes the semantic approach when someone put the "no raises for 11 year approach". You compare your wage in 2003 to the one today. They are the same, so in some sense you are right. He will argue you did get raises (which you did). So he is also right. These pay increases came after wage reductions and have only got you back to the level of absolute PAY level AC maintenance employees had 11 years ago. We are no where close to where we are if you consider inflation.

In real terms, you would have been ahead in terms of total money received, had you kept the salary you had in 2003 for the last 11 years. What happened is worse then how you state it. We got a pay and benefit reduction and only today are w back to the same absolute level of pay. In real terms we are much further behind. The core CPI was 102.5 in July 2003 when everyone got salary cuts. In April 2012 CPI was 122.2 . That would have to be added to the loss of real buying power in that period The benefits are still being slowly eroded with each negotiation so the spread is only getting wider. So be it pilots, AME or FA, that 20% has been lost and it is on top of the cuts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What many seem to forget or don't truly appreciate-----comparisons with 2003 wage levels are meaningless.

The "post-concessionary" wage and benefit level is base zero.

To the extent that wages since circa 2006 are less today with inflation less increases factored in-----that is the "loss" in income and it is not as significant as some argue.

Executive compensation is irrelevant. How many people have positions in that management pyramid who have aspirations to ascend? As they do (and IF they do,) how many competitors are there for that next level?

Realistically, as an Air Canada employee, it is reasonable to assess what your talents will attract in terms of compensation with another employer whether within or outside the aviation industry. If you are an AME, you have transportable skills. How much can you sell them for in the marketplace? If you like what you are offered, then I presume absent other relevant factors that you'll be gone.

The same is true of every other employee group. If you do NOT have transportable skills and are not interested in re-training, then you should be doing everything you can to ensure the continued viability of Air Canada because clearly, you have no alternatives.

There is no "right" to an increase in pay whether by reason of inflation or increased employer profitability. The ordinary employer will assess its willingness and ability to pay and make an offer accordingly. The employee chooses to accept that offer or market their skills elsewhere. Those rules change only in a unionized environment which in the case of Air Canada, resulted in 3rd party intervention and "final offer arbitration".

Whence comes this sense of entitlement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant it to be an accountant's (in training) view of the salary issue, not a sense of entitlement post.

In your post, you simplify the concept of leaving a corporation with the basis that if your skills are portable, you can easily move to find fortune elsewhere. I will just add the point that within some groups, the average age is so high that the pension, and its non portability, makes leaving a little more difficult then you make it out to be. Corporations do not like the cost of the DB plans but they do like the stability it adds to the workforce. Same for the pilot group. Items such as seniority and pension can be effective employee retention tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant it to be an accountant's (in training) view of the salary issue, not a sense of entitlement post.

Corporations do not like the cost of the DB plans but they do like the stability it adds to the workforce. Same for the pilot group. Items such as seniority and pension can be effective employee retention tools.

I agree that my post was "simplistic". I'm sure you expect little more in a three paragraph post on an internet forum. However, consider your remarks quoted. You reference pension plans and seniority as "retention tools". Implicit is the assumption that there is value in the retention of those employees which is true only so long as there is in fact value measured by cost/benefit. An employer must of necessity engage in an assessment of the value of the employee relative to the costs associated with that employee.

I suggest that when an employer can replace the skill set and effect substantial savings in wages, there has to be a significant "retention value" to balance the scale.

If I can hire a typist for $15./hr. and all I require is a typist, why would I retain a person in my employ who has been performing that function for ten years and expects an annual "merit" increase in addition to an inflation-related raise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would retain that person and pay the merit increase because they learn your operation and come to anticipate what you need. If all you need is a typist, then you will have to hire someone else to take care of all the 'other' functions that are covered by your long term employee.

Just my opinion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....................................

If I can hire a typist for $15./hr. and all I require is a typist, why would I retain a person in my employ who has been performing that function for ten years and expects an annual "merit" increase in addition to an inflation-related raise?

You would retain that person and pay the merit increase because they learn your operation and come to anticipate what you need. If all you need is a typist, then you will have to hire someone else to take care of all the 'other' functions that are covered by your long term employee.

Just my opinion....

I believe that UD is saying............... a typist is a typist. For example, during an AIB all we did was hire a typist for the report...she did not know a rudder from an aileron and we did not care, as all we wanted was a typist.

I believe that deicer has taken typist to possibly mean a typist, who in effect, becomes a'secretary'... and who will learn to adapt to the other administrative desires of the employer.

IMO there is a difference in the intended meaning of 'typist' in each post - No???? :Clever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UpperDeck: perhaps those, whomever they are, with a sense of "entitlement" are misguided or misinformed. However, I do think there certainly is a valid sense of "expectation." Milton walked away with something like $80+ million for having "saved" Air Canada, yet by 2009 the airline faced the same issue that led to the 2003 CCAA restructuring. The subsequent renegotiated pension agreement solved nothing, three years later and allegedly it still threatens to sink the company. At the same time, the executive cadre who are supposed to manage the issue see increasing recompense, and for what? Surely not for the shareholders who have seen their equity value shrink like cold water on a white man's, well you know. Not like there was much there to begin with...

Same executive cadre enriches themselves with performance bonuses, based on what performance? Do you seriously expect salaried employees to accept further cutbacks "for the greater good" when the people in charge, who are supposed to run the outfit, enrich themselves despite pitiful financial performance?

Perhaps mgmt could provide some leadership wrt costs and pensions, such as passing on bonusus (Lee Iacocca, where are you?) or just maybe, whilst demanding an end to employee DB pensions, giving up on their own NON-CONTRIBUTORY DB pensions? Naw, never happen. Lose a billion dollars and get well paid for doing it.

shot, over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deicer----KP accurately characterized my meaning. I agree that the typist who continues in the office for a few years acquires information and "familiarity" as a result of which, I may be prepared to pay that person $25.00/hr. The difference between the "street rate" of $15. and the $25. paid is the "retention value". Once that is exceeded, the "new hire" is preferable.

Peter----the Board agrees to the executive compensation package based upon input from consultants as to the "market value" of those executives. Perhaps the Board needs an "Ackman Moment"; perhaps those senior executives should receive significantly less in compensation but not many "worker bees" are afforded the right to dictate how much honey the Queen receives. Certainly, entrepreneurial types are known to take less from their company in order to pay employees but that's not Air Canada, is it? Regardless, if the top five AC execs were to each receive only $350,000. annually, the savings would be a mere drop in the bucket relative to the totality of the wage demands of the "worker bees".

But we deviate-----Were the Board to tell CR (for eg) that his salary is to be reduced, he has the right to market his services elsewhere. If his value to Air Canada is less than his "value" elsewhere, and absent other factors, he'll be gone. If not then he'll revise his expectations and accept the reduced compensation package. The same is true of every other employee within Air Canada-----if the company won't (can't) pay you what you think you're worth, then sell your services elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. The same is true of every other employee within Air Canada-----if the company won't (can't) pay you what you think you're worth, then sell your services elsewhere.

This is a major part of the problem as far as the pilots are concerned. We are essentially "married" to this corporation. As a pilot if I want to live in Canada and make a living as a pilot then I am going to have to stick it out and hope for the best. If I were to go elsewhere within Canada then I would be starting out at the bottom again and this is not financially feasible for me or most other AC pilots. By the time a pilot reaches air Canada they have usually been with a few a few companies and this can mean going to the bottom pay scale each time in order to get the experience to get to AC.

The Corp. knows that we are tied to this company and they have been exploiting that fact for 10 years to find out how low we will go before they find people start to leave for greener pastures. I think they have found that bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UpperDeck;

Dagger has been telling us for years that the problem is that the employees demand the same (too high, in his opinion) wage whether the company makes money or not and that the secret to success is for all of us to participate in the good times and to take less when things are bad - some sort of profit-sharing/risk-sharing. Now, aside from the fact that management has already promised and then reneged on a profit-sharing plan, I would be willing to do this but only if every manager takes the same risk. Let's see CR take a $350K/year salary and stock options to make up the difference - I'll take no raise to my current salary and some stock options at the same price - I'd even take a cut in pay if there was some independent auditor to monitor the numbers. We'll all be in it together - I'll work damn hard to get my options and so will he. Instead what do we have; I'm supposed to make concessions and he gets his bonus either way. That's obviously no road to success.

We need a shared interest that both management and the employees can work towards and will be rewarded for achieving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Livin.....I understand that dilemma but it isn't unique to pilots. Certainly to a lesser degree, but, it applies to anyone who is confronted with the necessity of leaving their home to pursue a job in another city or Province when their hometown plant closes. Ever watch the news show interview with a laid off worker who complains that he/she has been looking for work for 19 months and ask yourself; "Why doesn't he/she move to......?"

As you know, life style decisions are a very significant factor in a pilot's career choices. If you really like YVR, you stay in the right seat longer and take less pay. If you wanted left seat, you downsized and went to YWG just long enough to sidestep the less ambitious. And there are a LOT of pilots at Jazz (Chorus) who were quite happy to stay on a Dash in order to be home most nights.

These are all factors which one presumably assessed when considering an employment life as a pilot. There are certainly risks. When ACPA made its submissions to the Parliamentary Committee considering foreign ownership rules, its representative basically said the same thing when asked about the possibility of Canadian Airlines pilots with 20 years having to start fresh if Canadian folded.

Harsh----seemingly unreasonable---but reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...