Here we go...

[Guest GDR]

>>But in that power resides not authority, but balance. Who among us think that corporations are not similarly endowed with enormous political and economic powers?<<

I hate picking one statement out of a long post, but I did want to comment on this one. I would agree with it, except that apparently they don't even have the power to ask for the opinions of their employees.

This particular occurence has really hit a raw nerve. (You might have been able to tell. ) When you look at our history and see the price that has been paid by others for our freedom I get very upset when we so casually give them up like this.

As for the rest of the post Don, I agree. I have often been in disagreement with the union but mostly it has served us well. ACPA is not the grassroots outfit that we started out with, but JMB and others are trying to change that. I hope they succeed.

Great day out here eh?

Greg

[Guest neo]

I also see that American Airlines is trading at about a factor of 7 on their share value this time last year.

We all remember AA, the guys that were 'this' close to bankruptcy a year ago? Then management and the unions negotiated a settlement and carried on business.

Oh, and of course, one of the most fascinating side issues to that was when Don Carty failed to tell the unions about his jammy pension. The hue and cry from the employees was a big factor in Mr. Carty's resignation. Why would the BOD abandon Mr. Carty? In part because the employees, who were on-side voluntarily, wanted his head. And losing employees who are on-side would be a disaster.

Digging in your heels, stonewalling, and petitioning to get rid of management is sometimes counter-productive. It's not the only way to have clout, not by a long shot.

neo

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Yes, great, great day! Working outside.

Also, great thread.

Re "...they don't even have the power to ask for the opinions of their employees."

I disagree. Of course they have the power. I think its not a matter of power here but a matter of propriety and the law.

In point of fact, employees have been surveyed ad nauseum. I can think of four or five recent ones right off the bat including the management survey of employee opinion a few years ago. There's been lots of surveys, the latest two were on the flight safety organization.

The difference with this one is what is being asked is a matter of collective bargaining.

To put it another way, the company was going to ask all employees about their pensions. Let me ask you if you would consider a different question as a fair ball:

Let's say the company surveyed its employees on a simple question not about pensions, but about wages. Please tell us what you are worth? Or, Would you be willing to help by giving up some vacation to work overtime?

Let's say that the employees responded in droves and said they'd work for "nn" wages, or that they would gladly exchange some of their vacation days for overtime work.

A number of factors are at work here. The first effect of such expressed opinions from all employees is to begin the process of neutralizing the lawfully elected representation and the culling of the members from their leadership.

The second result is, you're still at the "mercy" of the majority...in fact even more so, because, unlike union representation where dissenting voices can at least have a legal venue, (I understand Dagger's and Neo's points and do not dismiss them), in a "survey" there is no such venue for dissenting opinions whatsoever. In fact, negotiation evaporates in favour of the atomized membership response.

Thirs, the manufacture of crisis at some organizations has turned into an art form and in such crises, survey responses are likely to be heavily influenced (controlled?) by perceived circumstances.

However, those representatives of employees who spend all their time working deeply with these issues may see the ruse for what it is and stand fast rather than caving. I can think of a few dozen issues which would have gone badly off the rails had surveys been conducted.

In such surveys, the corporation wins hands down, because there's no negotiation at all. Its a targeted survey requiring a specific answer precisely framed by the one posing the question, (the employer). Do you think the question will be neutral? Is it even possible to ask a neutral question?

How would complex questions such as the Jazz question be handled? Who would be surveyed? How would disagreements with any results be handled?

Corporations have all the power they need to do exactly as they please including bending governments and even whole country's economies to their will as enormous financial transactions make a mockery of soverign borders and government autonomy.

Re "When you look at our history and see the price that has been paid by others for our freedom I get very upset when we so casually give them up like this."

I understand being upset, but no freedom has been given up or even threatened here.

If you want to get upset at loss of freedoms, how about beginning with the almost-total concentration of media ownership in this country and in the US? Canwest owns every major newspaper available in British Columbia except the Toronto Globe and Mail, Greg. That, is a loss of freedom to be lamented and upset over. Our news is completely filtered through the Canwest editorial philosophy, but not a peep about this travesty from our nation of cold-soup acceptors.

Laws to protect employees from unfair labour practises have emerged from a long history and, like all laws, must be obeyed. ("Unfair labour practice" charges can go both ways.)

That's no more a "loss of freedom" than your or my "loss of freedom" to break into a store and take what we want without paying.

I would welcome a "new dialogue" with corporate Canada (and America) in terms of a new relationship which makes partners of everyone. Others here and on other forums have voiced very imaginative concepts of how this might be done and I for one am all eyes and ears. But it can't be done overnight. In the meantime, sufficient legal labour representation just to retard the retreat is absolutely required to defend your pension and our wages.

And now, to more sawdust-making.

kind regards,

Don

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Yes, great, great day! Working outside.

Also, great thread.

Re "...they don't even have the power to ask for the opinions of their employees."

I disagree. Of course they have the power. I think its not a matter of power here but a matter of propriety and the law.

In point of fact, employees have been surveyed ad nauseum. I can think of four or five recent ones right off the bat including the management survey of employee opinion a few years ago. There's been lots of surveys, the latest two were on the flight safety organization.

The difference with this one is what is being asked is a matter for collective bargaining. That's not just preference, that's the law and the CIRB has agreed.

Let's examine this from a slightly different perspective.

The company was going to ask all employees about their pensions. Let me ask you if you would consider a different question as a fair ball:

Let's say the company surveyed its employees on a simple question not about pensions, but about wages. Please tell us what you are worth? Or, Would you be willing to help by giving up some vacation to work overtime?

Let's say that the employees responded in droves and said they'd work for "nn" wages, or that they would gladly exchange some of their vacation days for overtime work.

A number of factors are at work here. The first effect of such expressed opinions from all employees is to begin the process of neutralizing the lawfully elected representation and the culling of the members from their leadership.

The second result is, you're still at the "mercy" of the majority and would likely find your wages going down and more overtime with less vacation, (because, people need the money! )...in fact, there'd be the tyranny of the majority even more so because, unlike union representation where dissenting voices can at least have a legal venue, (I understand Dagger's and Neo's points on a union's openness to dissent and do not dismiss them), in a "survey" there is no such venue for dissenting opinions whatsoever. In fact, negotiation evaporates in favour of an atomized membership response. In an every-man-for-himself context, the race-to-the-bottom simply accelerates.

Third, the manufacture of crisis has turned into an art form and in such crises, survey responses are likely to be heavily influenced (controlled?) by perceived circumstances.

In such circumstances however, those representatives of employees who spend all their time working deeply with industrial issues have keen vision to "triage" crises as they occur and make informed decisions on whether to stand fast or sit at the table. I can think of a few dozen issues which would have gone badly off the rails had surveys been conducted.

In such surveys, the corporation wins hands down, because there's no negotiation at all. Its a targeted survey requiring a specific answer precisely framed by the one posing the question, (the employer). Do you think the question will be neutral? Is it even possible to ask a neutral question?

How would complex questions such as the Jazz question be handled? Who would be surveyed? How would disagreements with any results be handled?

I anticipate the criticism that this is "just one survey and won't lead to the results discussed here and in fact you're exaggerating". I agree. In the short term that won't happen. But the endeavour to take negotiations in directions which provide easier control of outcomes is clear and present. These changes happen at an incremental level below the awareness level of most employees but not below the keen awareness of those who work with these matters day in and day out.

Re "When you look at our history and see the price that has been paid by others for our freedom I get very upset when we so casually give them up like this."

I understand being upset, but no freedom has been given up or even threatened here.

If you want to get upset at loss of freedoms, how about beginning with the almost-total concentration of media ownership in this country and in the US? Canwest owns every major newspaper available in British Columbia except the Toronto Globe and Mail, Greg. That, is a loss of freedom to be lamented and upset over. Our news is completely filtered through the Canwest editorial philosophy, but not a peep about this travesty from our nation of cold-soup acceptors.

Corporations have all the power they need to do exactly as they please including bending governments and even whole country's economies to their will as enormous financial transactions make a mockery of soverign borders and government autonomy.

Laws to protect employees from unfair labour practises have emerged from a long history and, like all laws, must be obeyed. ("Unfair labour practice" charges can go both ways.)

That's no more a "loss of freedom" than your or my "loss of freedom" to break into a store and take what we want without paying.

I would welcome a "new dialogue" with corporate Canada (and America) in terms of a new relationship which makes partners of everyone. Others here and on other forums have voiced very imaginative concepts of how this might be done and I for one am all eyes and ears. But it can't be done overnight. In the meantime, sufficient legal labour representation just to retard the retreat is absolutely required to defend your pension and our wages.

And now, to more sawdust-making.

kind regards,

Don

[Guest neo]

Don's points are very well taken and spoken. As a union dissenter I take the following viewpoint on this particular issue.

If a union demands that it shall have exclusive right to communicate with its membership, and shall have the exclusive right to poll its members for opinion, and shall have exclusive right to "negotiate" on behalf of the members, I'm willing to go along with that. But it's a "use it or lose it" situation, as far as I'm concerned.

If a union makes a point of unilaterally acting as its leadership wishes, without seeking direction from its membership as issues warrant, then as far as I'm concerned they have lost any moral claim to the protection mentioned above. You can't have it both ways. (I recognize that legally speaking, unions can act in the most un-democratic ways possible, and still retain the protection afforded by law.)

One must be careful here. On normal everyday issues, union leadership must rightly have the ability to act. And conversely, polling the membership every time the employer snaps its fingers is obviously counterproductive. As Don points out, employers can continually "manufacture" a crisis if they wish. However, times do arise where major events happen for which no union leadership can or should assume that they automatically speak with the membership's voice. Air Canada's corporate situation is a clear case in point.

I'll give a specific example for illustration. A year ago, my union was contemplating a purchase of new office space. Prior to buying it, our union leadership was CONSTITUTIONALLY-BOUND to ask the membership if they could buy the real estate. (There's a historical/political reason for that constitutional requirement, but it's not necessary to go into that here.)

In contrast to that request for my approval to purchase office space, my union has never asked me for my views on any of the enormously important issues which have arisen in the past year. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! The employer went bankrupt. A crucial conflict arose between our union and another union. The pension situation just about cratered and may yet undergo changes. But my union asks me if I'd rather they lease or buy office space! If Monty Python and Franz Kafka got together to invent some bizarre scenario, they'd reject that one as too off the wall.

Use it or lose it, as far as I'm concerned. If you want unions to have exclusive rights to interact with their membership, then they damn well better interact. MHO only, of course.

neo

[Guest victor]

Let's look at this from an investor's point of view.

If you had half a billion dollars burning a hole in your pocket, and you had a fancy for the airline industry, where would you invest it? Would it be in something like JetBlue, or WestJet, or Southwest, or AirTran, which are making piles and piles of money, and where employees are happy and devoted and loyal (and rich), and sometimes even volunteer to come in on their days off without being asked, and where (except for Southwest) there are no unions at all (by the way, are any of these issues related)? Or would it be in a bankrupt carrier where unions prevent management from even talking to employees, let alone motivating them to go the extra mile?

If I were in your shoes I'd be doing everything I could to make sure that Air Canada comes out of CCAA, with a big check from TTI, before Li comes to his senses and realizes there are better things he could be doing with his money.

[Guest neo]

I can see part of your point, no problem. But if you're implying that all that's necessary for my company to become a big, happy WestBlue is that the employees roll over, you are sadly mistaken. It doesn't work that way.

The successful low-cost carrier with which I am most familiar has a corporate culture that is different from mine in almost every respect. That difference runs from the most recently hired employee right through to the most senior executives. Simply changing one aspect of the labor scene at AC will not replicate the successes elsewhere.

Labor and management together will have to devise a way that gets everyone pulling in the same direction, or face catastrophe sooner or later. Again, that's just MHO.

[Guest victor]

I believe you are right. All of the successful turnarounds that I am aware of have only worked when the senior management team has been replaced.

We can take shots at employees and employee relations, but at the end of the day, the problems at Air Canada fall at the feet of the company's senior management. The poisoned employee relations and archaic work practises didn't just happen. They were allowed to happen by a senior management that hasn't been doing its job for years.

And unfortunately this is the same senior management that you are going to be depending on to lead you to future prosperity. IMHO the prognosis doesn't look good.

Hey, Continental's Gordon Bethune is on the market!

[Guest lupin]

Interesting post Neo,

An association I am currently involved with has a constitution that will allow the recall of any National Officer whose view or actions, in the opinion of the Local, are contrary to the goals of the Association.

All that is required is a petition with 25% of the local's members endorsing it and the charges against the officer to initiate a recall vote .

While it doesn't solve all problems,it does go a long way to assure accoutability of the leaders of the association.

Lupin

AME yul

[Guest GDR]

Hi Don

If the company wants to poll about wages or vacation; then so what? As they did this time, the union can ask its members not to participate and that would probably be my choice. Why should the union leadership be afraid of its members expressing its opinion in any forum.

As far as freedom of the media is concerned; I have the freedom to go out and start a newspaper tomorrrow should I so desire. It is unfortunate that the media in the country is in so few hands, but it isn't from lack of freedoms that it has occured.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Dang rain, eh...

Re "Why should the union leadership be afraid of its members expressing its opinion in any forum."

Indeed then, why have a union at all?

Business would love it because individually, employees without representation are easier to deal with, (intimidate) and always would settle for less, (and less, and less as individuals were worn down). Lower wages of non-unionized, equivalent-work employees is a fact born out in StatsCan statistics.

Re "I have the freedom to go out and start a newspaper tomorrrow should I so desire."

The plain fact is, you don't Greg.

Freedom without opportunity is a denial of freedom.

Restrictions on freedom are not limited to the "legislative" or "police" kind, so, academically you are right: No law prevents anyone from starting a newspaper, nor will the thought-police visit your press-rooms.

These outdated notions of how freedom is restricted or removed from individuals traditionally inform these kinds of discussions, but in fact they're irrelevant to the realities today as is the freedom implied in the statement, "anyone can grow up to be President...".

Today, one could not even begin or sustain a monthly neighbourhood newspaper let alone a circulating daily. Seventy years ago, thousands of small, local worker papers thrived, not because of advertising but because of community support. Today, that is impossible. Media concentration and the cost of operations which require billions in advertising dollars (which can subtley control content) has removed that freedom for you and I.

Re "It is unfortunate that the media in the country is in so few hands, but it isn't from lack of freedoms that it has occured."

No it certainly isn't, provided you have the wealth of the Aspers, the Thompsons or the Blacks. Its also because the government, lying in the shadow cast by business, has caved in to corporate interests over the decades and has been very meek about restricting a concentration of ownership.

And that is without even discussing the relationship between Canwest and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Anyway, ...singin' in the rain out here on the Wet Coast. I see more info about pensions is coming through email today. Another, far more crucial issue for employees and retirees alike.

kind regards,

Don

[Guest GDR]

On the polling thing we'll have to agree to disagree. As I said the union is completely free to tell its members not to respond to company polls which would skew any results the company gets.

As for the newspaper issue, we both lament the concentration of ownership we endure in this country. Where we probably do agree is the fact that there are political issues at play. As we have seen lstely there is too much of ,"I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine", going on with anyone who will play the game and the federal Liberals.

When you have corrupt government all of our freedoms are put in jeopardy.

Forget about the rain. We ain't shovelling it, and this too shall pass.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Greg;

Re "and this too shall pass. "

Yeah, and it nourishes those little croci popping up all over... (6)