Sign in to follow this  
conehead

Iamaw Members Reject Contract Offer...

Recommended Posts

We are now awaiting the results of the "Strike" ballot...

There were 2 ballots cast; one asked "Do you accept this contract offer?" This one was voted "no" by the majority.

The other asked "Do you want to Strike?"

Standing by for message from Lisa Raitt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain IAM members are quite capable - intellectually and lawfully - of steering well clear of government interference, while making their collective mindset quite obvious. I think it won't do to treat these employees as pathetically insulting as has been the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 78% in favour of strike.

That is a failure/

Who are you trying to kid? Within the IAM, 78% in favour of anything is a freaking landslide!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you trying to kid? Within the IAM, 78% in favour of anything is a freaking landslide!

But 65% against the contract is not. That's a bad place for any union to be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The folks with the licences deserve their own bargaining unit certification. That is just one of the underlying issues.

Louise Otis was shocked that we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really must not be getting this. Can we compare having CSA and F/A's, Dr. of medicine and Dr. of phycology, Pilot and Dispatchers in the same union. :Scratch-Head:

Edited by skyline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really must not be getting this. Can we compare having CSA and F/A's, Dr. of medicine and Dr. of phycology, Pilot and Dispatchers in the same union. :Scratch-Head:

You're being a prat...and I don't mean Whitney. Grammar was never your forte was it?

The skinny on this forum was that it would pass because of the Ramp Workers vote. Does this mean that was wrong or does it mean that most AME's came out to vote and outnumbered the Ramp Workers who turned up to vote? I wonder what the total number of voters were as opposed to the number who were eligible to vote.

I'm a Lead Stat at a base that has a very senior workforce.

You raise very pertinent points Malcolm.

The "skinny" on this forum was obviously very wrong (myself included).

Naturally, there was quite a bit of talk today on the tarmac & in my opinion this was also rejected by Airport Services (ramp, baggage & cleaners) for a number of reasons.

1) Shift committee changes...relinquishing more control to the company over our shift structure.

2) Pension changes.

3) Anger at our supposed "leaders" lining their own pockets...while running a NON-PROFITABLE airline & preaching to the employees about wage restraint.

4) Shafting Maintenance.

(Not necessarily in that order)

Edited by GateKeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being a prat...and I don't mean Whitney. Grammar was never your forte was it?

No it is not.... I'm french, but should still come out the same. Instead of being defensive why don't you just explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another day, another tussle between employees and management spills into the media and tatters the company's reputation. I'm surprised anyone even books AC with them neverending strike vote merry-go-round.

At what point do you say "stick a fork in this dysfunctional turkey, it's done"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another day, another tussle between employees and management spills into the media and tatters the company's reputation. I'm surprised anyone even books AC with them neverending strike vote merry-go-round.

At what point do you say "stick a fork in this dysfunctional turkey, it's done"?

Well...they book AC because it's a helluva good airline to fly with.

No tired corny jokes...just good service, as our awards show.

After all, it's not like our contracts come up very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...they book AC because it's a helluva good airline to fly with.

No tired corny jokes...just good service, as our awards show.

Or, as I heard today from a "guest", it's the only option in many many places, presently.

Soon, in the next 18 months or so, you will be able to hear corny jokes in many new, smaller communities. :icon_anal:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement from Air Canada;

Air Canada Confirms Business as Usual Following IAMAW Vote Written by AIR CANADA Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Air Canada confirmed it is business as usual for the airline and that its customers can continue to book Air Canada flights with confidence, following the announcement today of results of a vote by members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW).

The membership did not ratify the tentative agreement reached by the Company and the union's Negotiating Committee on February 10, 2012, and concurrently gave union leadership a strike mandate if a subsequent agreement is not reached.

As a result of the vote, the conciliation commissioner, the Honourable Justice Louise Otis, will be filing her report to the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Lisa Raitt, for consideration and determining next steps. Air Canada is confident that there is sufficient time for the parties to avoid a disruption.

The IAMAW represents the airline's approximately 8,600 mechanics, baggage handlers, cargo agents and certain finance and clerical staff.

The airline will provide further updates as developments warrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey GateKeeper... No apologies required. French form France but Canadian now and forever. Only trying to understand this mess.

You do know the French take Union's and Strikes very seriously. I still can't understand how having one union for two professions. One will naturally try and take care of themselves and family which may not be advantageous to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyline, It has been that way for years. My understanding is that the Mechanics had a choice WAYYYY back and chose to go with pure numbers instead of the profession. I believe they had the option of joining with the pilots. Since shear numbers gave them strangth it also hindered growth for thieir profession. It is a real shame.

There was a movement on a few occasion that attempted to remove the mechanics from IAM representation that ultimately although I am not sure as to what caused the failure.

When the conditions are right the membership can remove the union as their bargaining unit and chose other representation. the rules are pretty cut and dry and it is not an easy thing to do. I do think it is time to take that action and lose the IAM.

There may (and probably are) people here who have a better insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe they had the option of joining with the pilots.

Interesting but unlikely. The AC pilots were founding members of CALPA and the association was trade restricted (except I believe for Flight Engineers who were the precursors to Second Officers).

This debacle is a perfect opportunity with the full attention and possible intervention by the Minister of Labour to argue that the bargaining unit composition does not serve the best labour relations interests of either the employer or the affected employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyline, It has been that way for years. My understanding is that the Mechanics had a choice WAYYYY back and chose to go with pure numbers instead of the profession. I believe they had the option of joining with the pilots.

I've been hearing that urban legend for 25 years now, don't know if there's any truth to it. Doesn't matter now anyway.

There could be a silver lining in this cloud. I was told by one of our negots guys that Madame Otis was dismayed that Maintenance was included in the Airports group for the vote, and that she believes strongly that we should be separate. Perhaps she will include this information in her report to Labour Minister Raitt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that all of the Maintenance members email their concerns in this regard to their MP, The Minister of Labour and also of course Madame Otis. Don't reply on the press to voice your concerns.

Sure, maintenance should probably be separate but it won't happen as part of this negotiating process. No one, not union (which has no particular interest in having a split), not the company which might want it - why overpay one group and underpay another? - but can't negotiate it through this process, nor the minister who cannot impose it. Nor can an arbitrator. Only the board, usually prompted by an application supported by the employees seeking it, can undertake to do that as a separate process, and as has been well documented here, that's no easy task.

The problem for the members of the union with respect to this contract is that if maintenance is seen as voting against the contract because of dissatisfaction with the union or the bargaining unit, it gives the minister the perfect excuse - like she did with CUPE - to declare normal negotiations impossible because of a structural dispute that is intra-union in nature and not part of the bargaining mandate.

Edited by dagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this