TA Vote by FA's

[UpperDeck]

Approximately 73% turnout and 65% rejection---the second tentative agreement rejected by AC FA's.

[dagger]

Approximately 73% turnout and 65% rejection---the second tentative agreement rejected by AC FA's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/air-canada-flight-attendants-reject-tentative-pact/article2196189/

[J.O.]

So less than 50% of the FA group actually said "no". Where does it go from here?

[dagger]

So less than 50% of the FA group actually said "no". Where does it go from here?

Well, I don't see the bargaining team staying on. Would be kind of awkward to threaten a strike after the bargaining committee resigns.

[Geminoid]

New team and new negotiations a couple of months down the road......then......a government imposed contract anyway?

[internet]

Hope the economy doesn't further into the toilet - sure would suck to end up with a worse deal.

[dagger]

New team and new negotiations a couple of months down the road......then......a government imposed contract anyway?

Nope, strike notice was issued, CUPE isn't that stupid to let this go on. I'd like to know if the committee plans to resign, because if they do, maybe Riatt does a head fake and let the lockout... errr... strike happen after all...

http://newswire.ca/en/story/855873/air-canada-receives-strike-notice-from-cupe

[dagger]

Hope the economy doesn't further into the toilet - sure would suck to end up with a worse deal.

You mean the like the CAW component in 2009?

[UpperDeck]

You know guys---sometimes you just have to stand for something. Self-respect isn't (or shoudn't be) measured by the amount of gold in that pot at the end. There is a certain degree of hubris, wouldn't you agree, in management's assertion; "We can only give you a 2% increase in wages---and by the way, we're reinstating service charges for pass travel. Please disregard our own rewards for your sacrifices."

This isn't just about flight attendants---or gate agents or......

This is about the arrogance of senior management who appear to believe that any success is by dint of their efforts; losses are the result of labour's lack of productivity.

The strike notice is deemed to have been delivered once the result of the vote is published. What CUPE and the company and the bargaining committee do are unknowns but in my opinion, the bargaining committee should resign and the process should begin anew. If that is the case, the Minister need not intervene because there wouldn't be a strike. Hopefully, you'd end up with a committee who know what exactly they are bargaining for and a company that understands the benefit of "negotiating to yes".

[pictues]

the thing is Air Canada always said the no service charge for travel is temporary, and never intended for it to become permanent for ANY group, sorry if thats the reason for voting no then it will always be no and the labour minister will probably impose a settlement.. don;t think you can really get mad at something that was told to you at the time to be temporary especially since management was upfront about it, guess Air Canada should never have waived the service charges and the service charge issue would be a non issue. Guess it is human nature to accept something but to grumble when it is reverted to normal when the "deal" has expired, and yes to me the company gave the employees a deal, not a permanent change.

[FA@AC]

So less than 50% of the FA group actually said "no".

Even fewer said "yes".

[dagger]

You know guys---sometimes you just have to stand for something. Self-respect isn't (or shoudn't be) measured by the amount of gold in that pot at the end. There is a certain degree of hubris, wouldn't you agree, in management's assertion; "We can only give you a 2% increase in wages---and by the way, we're reinstating service charges for pass travel. Please disregard our own rewards for your sacrifices."

This isn't just about flight attendants---or gate agents or......

This is about the arrogance of senior management who appear to believe that any success is by dint of their efforts; losses are the result of labour's lack of productivity.

The strike notice is deemed to have been delivered once the result of the vote is published. What CUPE and the company and the bargaining committee do are unknowns but in my opinion, the bargaining committee should resign and the process should begin anew. If that is the case, the Minister need not intervene because there wouldn't be a strike. Hopefully, you'd end up with a committee who know what exactly they are bargaining for and a company that understands the benefit of "negotiating to yes".

That's silliness. There is not going to be any more bargaining. No employer is going to bargain here. It's done. But if I'm wrong, and there is a strike, and there is no credible bargaining team, there will be no union by Christmas.

[internet]

So how does this work? Jazz flying (esp CR7) flying moved to mainline routes? Bye bye YYCYWG, hello YWGYYZ? Lots of flight consolidation. Fly the crap out of 777 an widebody. Assume it will take Harper couple days to ram through back to work (depending on Dippers) and Another day or two to get everything and everyone back in place. So, say back to normal Monday?

[dagger]

So how does this work? Jazz flying (esp CR7) flying moved to mainline routes? Bye bye YYCYWG, hello YWGYYZ? Lots of flight consolidation. Fly the crap out of 777 an widebody. Assume it will take Harper couple days to ram through back to work (depending on Dippers) and Another day or two to get everything and everyone back in place. So, say back to normal Monday?

The legislation will be tabled Tuesday, and from what I understand, the Conservatives were ready to ram it through in one day.

[FA@AC]

That's silliness. There is not going to be any more bargaining. No employer is going to bargain here. It's done. But if I'm wrong, and there is a strike, and there is no credible bargaining team, there will be no union by Christmas.

I'd be surprised if there were no more bargaining if for no other reason than AC wouldn't look good if it declined an invitation by CUPE to bargain in an effort to avert a strike. I still think that AC would prefer a negotiated settlement to an arbitrated one, and given the noises AC has made so far it doesn't appear that the company is 100% confident that legislation will shut a strike down before it occurs in any case. AC still has the IAM and ACPA to deal with. If an arbitrated settlement ended up awarding CUPE more than AC bargained for, it would set the bar higher for those negotiations. If I were AC I'd need to be very sure that an arbitrated settlement would contain a significant screwing for CUPE before I'd roll the dice. CUPE, of course, has reason to be concerned about arbitration too. As silly as things have become, I think that both parties have reason to sit down for a third try before they give a third party the opportunity to impose a settlement.

On the CUPE bargaining team I'm not sure what to think. After two rejections of their recommendation to ratify I can't see that they have any credibility left, but they have so far given no indication that they intend to step aside.

[Dork]

The legislation will be tabled Tuesday, and from what I understand, the Conservatives were ready to ram it through in one day.

This is all well and good. The TA was crap and it did not matter what the vote was..contract negotiating in Canada is a farce.

What we are witnessing with the FA's and all labour groups in Canada is revolution. Capitalism has taken over and democracy is history.

Not now but in the future...the proverbial will hit the fan. Gloat over the crushing of all workers...it will not last for long.

Our new citizens, colleagues, commrades. ..whatever the mantra are not buying it.

Actually they cannot afford to buy anything...that is the real problem

Over to you smug folks..

Dork

[Jaydee]

The legislation will be tabled Tuesday, and from what I understand, the Conservatives were ready to ram it through in one day.

" You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity"

[dagger]

" You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity"

Yes, I'm sure you and Dork have missed a lot of meals with your moldy bread and water diet.

[Jaydee]

Yes, I'm sure you and Dork have missed a lot of meals with your moldy bread and water diet.

Likewise

[Dork]

Yes, I'm sure you and Dork have missed a lot of meals with your moldy bread and water diet.

That diet is cat food...in retirement after our pensions get stolen. Now it's just enjoy the 35% paycuts and watch the mergers and demolitions folks ruin companies. Just like in the USA...... We have grown up.

Dork

[dagger]

Likewise

No moldy bread here. I have adapted nicely to a reduced income since 2009 without blaming somebody for it.

[rudder]

Pretty clear that CUPE leadership have lost any credibility in purporting capability to gauge the will of their collective membership. This is evidenced by the fact that if anyone were to ask them what it would take to get 51%, I doubt that they would know. And that is why AC will not deal with CUPE nor its bargaining committee going forward.

Having said that, notwithstanding the rhetoric expressed in the media by the CUPE spokesman in the wake of the solid rejection of TA2, CUPE must know what happens next. All that is left to see is exactly what the terms of the legislation will be. The terms might actually settle the agreement as a fait accompli. Or it might send certain matters to a binding arb process. Or a combination of both. I would expect that the terms will be heavy handed from the perspective of labour. CUPE had better hope that benchmarking does not form part of that process.

Obviously, many CUPE members see the strike/legislation path as a lottery ticket. Lottery tickets typically do not pay out.

Best of luck to those stuck in a crappy situation.

[Dork]

Well said Rudder.

Dork

[UpperDeck]

Here's where I'm lost. Clearly, the government expressed its intent to intervene in the event of a strike. There has yet to be a strike. Service of a strike notice is a condition precedent to a "legal strike" but service of that notice does not compel the union to in fact withdraw the services of its members.

I would expect the bargaining agent to expend some effort to ascertain the priorities of the members and a revised committee to use that survey to resume negotiations. Unlike others, I don't agree that the employer would refuse to negotiate further. In fact, such a refusal might be construed as "wrongful conduct".

[dagger]

Here's where I'm lost. Clearly, the government expressed its intent to intervene in the event of a strike. There has yet to be a strike. Service of a strike notice is a condition precedent to a "legal strike" but service of that notice does not compel the union to in fact withdraw the services of its members.

I would expect the bargaining agent to expend some effort to ascertain the priorities of the members and a revised committee to use that survey to resume negotiations. Unlike others, I don't agree that the employer would refuse to negotiate further. In fact, such a refusal might be construed as "wrongful conduct".

You are seriously confused about the Labour Code and labour law. Also bargaining dynamics.

First, the employer - any employer - is under no obligation to keep returning to the bargaining table and offering more ad infinitum. At some point, it can determine that it has no more to offer and that what was offered - and rejected - was its last/best offer. In other words, final. There is no bad faith involved in drawing a line in the sand, especially after the union committee has TWICE concluded that it has negotiated a fair deal. Otherwise, negotiations would never end. Contracts would never be ratified because of a belief that the union can keep signing agreements and - nudge-nudge-wink-wink - there is always a better deal to be had by rejecting those tentative agreements.

On the other hand, service of a false notice could be construed as exhibiting bad faith, but from a practical standpoint, if the union committee resigns, and issues a never-ending series of 72-hour strike notices, the employer - any sane employer - would lock out the employees, employ replacements, and dare the employees to walk the line. In this case, with the slowest part of the travel season upon us, it would be a long, perhaps permanent lockout, and I dare say the employer would end up dictating terms to the workers, or just busting the union outright. As I have postulated, in such a scenario, CUPE would be dead before Christmas. Most senior employees would cross the line at some point, the lockout - and the union - would fizzle out. Air Canada would trim its schedule, and restore it gradually between now and the Christmas rush as it trains up replacements and reintegrates existing employees.

I have a poor regard for CUPE generally, but they are not stupid enough to put the employees in that position. Issuing the 72-hour strike notice is their way to force government intervention. They need bailing out here more than Air Canada so they can rebuild internally for 2015. Calling on the government not to intervene is false bravado, about all I ever expect from CUPE.

What I heard is that CUPE assured the federal mediators in September that it could get this deal ratified. Obviously, they failed. They were told, or agreed with the mediators, that they would issue this strike notice in the event of a rejection. Indeed, this was made clear to the membership at the road show, if I am not mistaken.

There will be no further talks with CUPE. And the end of this isn't going to be deferred at CUPE's convenience.

Now I hope for the FA's sake the gains in the two TAs are preserved in arbitration, but it wouldn't shock me if Lisa Raitt found one way in the legislation to discourage similar actions from the groups that will follow. For example, the legislation could take the start date for an arbitrated settlement out of the hands of the arbitrator and make it effective, say, the date of the legislation rather than make it retroactive. or it could appoint Attila the Hun as arbitrator.