Air Canada Moving Toward Cadet Program?

[internet]

My problem with unions is the forced membership - and thus forced to strike, pay dues etc.

And the intimidation used by some union members to keep everyone in line is criminal.

Never belonged to one - never will.

[Seeker]

How many days does the normal 'Joe' work a year, and how many holidays does he get ,and how many of these 'Joes' have gold plated pensions??

And that my friend is my last post on this issue....guaranteed.

So that means one of us gets the last word?

The benefits that non-union workers enjoy are there simply because some union member somewhere, sometime fought for it. I get so damn tired of non-union jokers spouting off about how their job is just fine and about how they don't have to belong to a union to get good pay and benefits - pretty simple-minded to think that their employers just gives them statutory holidays, vacation pay, a 40 hour week etc, etc out of the goodness of their heart. Got a good job? Thank a union member.

[Seeker]

The only qualification I can put on your post is to add this "Thank a retired union member who won all of those items for everyone"

That's what I meant but you said it better, thanks.

[Don Hudson]

Re, "I'm afraid I am not partial to unions, . . ."

But you'll take their benefits anyway.

[deicer]

Kip,

I know you are really enjoying your hard fought benefits in dotland, and as well you should.

You weren't here to go through it last summer at the old office.

The teachers are going through the same thing we did, and much like the way we walked out, they are showing their displeasure at how they are having their rights taken away.

So to you I will say the same thing that I have said to another friend who holds the same position as you have stated above.....

Which of your rights will have to be taken away before you become upset?

Respectfully...

Iceman

[Fido]

It has been 35 years since I was forced to be in a union and I think that I have done well without them.

Maybe so has The Bean.

[Don Hudson]

Fido;

I do understand that what you're saying can be true and does work for individuals. The record on wages and benefits for the labour force is however clear: unions provide better wages, better benefits and better employee protections including work-safe policies than non-union environments. I know there are exceptions to this and in fact would prefer that unions not be necessary to ensure fairness in the 3-legged stool that business is, (owners, managers, workers). I also understand employee dislike for unions but such views strike me as short-sighted, lacking an understanding of the broader benefits of unions. I understand charges of corruption, featherbedding, cronyism, patronage, nepotism. These are charges are however, not limited to unions as recent history has affirmed.

The Rand formula required membership and the collection of dues to protect unions against corporate anti-union actions such as intimidation, propagandizing and even violence designed and intended to prevent workers from joining a union.

Don

[Fido]

.....actions such as intimidation, propagandizing and even violence

Sounds like union tactics to control their own members

4 years in union jobs and lost a paycheque 3 times.

since then......

[Mitch Cronin]

My apologies Kip.... I withdrew my post after reading in another thread that you'd had a bad day.... I didn't want to add to that.

[Seeker]

Rich;

There's no intimidation or bullying intended - just a simple question; why do you think offshore, ex-pat pilot jobs pay so well?

[Kip Powick]

Seeker......I got your sarcasm but out of courtesy and respect for others I won't have the last word, I'm sure, but I would like to answer a couple of questions....even though I am fully aware I stated "no more posts on the subject"

deicer....I'm not in a Union so I really have no rights to be taken away...my experience with "the" Union was not good, nor was it good for a great many of us and, based on what I have read, is still not good for many. I believe Unions, at least those that advocate militant stands are of no use to their members and do little to foster a good working environment. I have a great deal of respect for those that sit down and negotiate in good faith but that negotiation has to be a two way street. The discussion as to what is better, Unions or No Unions will never end and each has to make up their own mind. It is obvious where I stand, as do a few others here.

Don H...we discussed the issue briefly in PMs and I respect your opinion and was heartened to see that you respect mine although we agree to disagree

Mitch.....thank you.. The salt container for the water softener cracked and I did not discover it until a great deal of water had leaked, (salty water) and then the water evaporated so I had a "salt flat" in the workshop and of course it was under everything on the floor and under a laden work bench. It's a bitch to have to unload all that salt, (I actually had to use a saws-all to cut it down the tank as my arms are not 4 feet long, and then dig the remaining salt out. That mess had to be cleaned up and wouldn't you know it, then hot water tank sprung a leak...more water but at least that tank was covered by warranty...not a good 48 hours and I'm really getting too old for this crap !!

And finally...the teacher's Union 'protest' was ruled illegal while we were all sleeping and to the credit of the Union head, teachers were advised to go to work but I really feel it was a hollow gesture seeing many parents had already made alternate plans, there would not be a full platoon of crossing guards out there, may school buses had been cancelled etc etc. Yes, they did advise their members to go back to work but this could have all been avoided had the 'brass hats' acknowledged that the 'protest' was a function that was illegal and was, in fact, breaking the law. In my opinion, they should have started in the courts.

Have a nice weekend everybody.

[Seeker]

LOL. Of course there is. That's what unions are about.

Simple answer; seniority numbers and ESOPs. (But of course, it's a bit more complicated than that.)

Nope, the reason those jobs pay so well is because they need to outbid the union legacy jobs back home otherwise no one would come to work there. Your job pays what it does because 50 or 60 years ago some good 'ol union boys made it happen so don't pretend like there's no debt owed to them.

[Don Hudson]

Rich;

Me being compared to GWB? That's a new one!

Re bullying and, "That's what unions are about." And corporations are benevolent, forgiving, generous groups which never bully their employees.

The statement I made in response to Kip's was, I agree, on the edge and Kip sent me a very gracious PM. But the statement is in the context of "labour, and unions", and as such references labour history and the historical higher wages and better working conditions that unions bring to workers.

Labour history like any history is complex and it is deeply intertwined with the history of financial speculation and (intentional) boom-bust structure of the economy since the late 19th Century. I recognize that, like any history, the history of labour can be dependent upon who's history one is reading.

I've long advocated a reading of Alex Carey's, "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy" which discusses the violence and even the murders of those who tried to organize workers in the United States in the first half of the 20th Century as well as the singular corporate campaign against employees. The National Association of Manufacturers spend millions of dollars on anti-union propaganda, so hated were such labour movements. Even Hollywood got in on the act of union-hating by producing movies like "On the Waterfront" and others which portrayed the "goon squad" mentality attributed to union leaders. While there is demonstrable truth in some of what is portrayed the story is hugely imbalanced in favour of giant corporations and their so-called "benevolence".

Single examples of failure don't make the anti-union case. If the long, historical trends were there that unions did not raise wages, did not negotiate decent retirements or did not enhance health and safety standards for workers then the argument could be made that unions are bad.

But the record is what it is - better wages, better conditions, better pensions and retirements. That is most certainly not the case today. So successful has corporate propaganda been that we actually have the public hating the very organizations that used to give them such benefits - very strange behaviour. We even hear employees feeling sorry for corporations and showing a willingness to give back hard-won benefits because of a "lack" of profitability.

I know times are changing and globalization has placed far greater pressures on business for hefty ROIs for shareholders and that the relief must, and does, come from those who protest the least and who have shown they are willing to be "flexible".

History will show whether this view is anachronistic but I don't think it is. People are people and their needs don't change over long periods of time. I think that this time will be looked upon more as a travesty than a benefit when it comes to providing for employees especially in the face of the obscene bonuses awarded to CEOs, for failure as well as "success".

All this is certainly a simplistic summary and we are certainly better off than in the 30's thanks to tremendous increases in productivity and wealth generation but this is a forum and we have to sometimes read between the lines a bit!

None of this is new, including the ability for many to get along just fine without unions - most do not, because union membership is below 20% in the US and slightly higher in Canada. But both government and giant corporations have been enormously successful in putting employees exactly where they want them - at the end of the line, when there is one.

This is a political economy which has turned sharply to the right in the last fourty years and in the present context is anti-employee, pro-corporation, pro-shareholder. The few and sparse counterexamples to successful independence from unions are the millions of workers today who can't make ends meet and still raise a family, both in the U.S. and in Canada.

There will always be circumstances when one's organization did not serve one well. I know both sides of this (successes and failures) from having done the work.

The truth is, a corporation will be less tempted to take something away from employees when they know that there is a strong and united employee representative organization in place.

Notice that I did not use the word, "union" in that last paragraph because I think any employee group which represents members interests is a healthy thing. I believe WJ employees have such organizations, which do not necessarily fall under the Labour Code, (such as the Code has been interpreted by the Courts over the past few decades).

Why does WalMart vehemently resist employee representation other than retaining the ability to pay terrible wages and outsource work?

We all know why.

So why do we consistently take the side of Walmart by not speaking out against them or protesting? Because the wages most earn now require Walmart's cheap-Chinese goods in the marketplace - it is a rational, intentional degradation which puts people where big business needs them - scrambling for cheap goods, making enormous profits and paying poverty-level wages. It is a shame that ordinary people are actually forced into being grateful for such treatment.

As always, it's balance that I argue for, (which is something GWB was not particularly known for ) - The Eastern Airlines disaster was a clear example of stupid unionism driven by power and ego.

But you have to admit that Romney's outright dismissal of 47% of the electorate was pretty arrogant and cheeky, and an example of how big business views the lot of employees - not much was going to change with a Romney administration. The puzzle is, why so many of the 47% still supported someone who expressed such disdain and contempt for those self-same folks, er, people (sorry, "folks" was a Bushian term wasn't it?)

Cheers,

Don

[mrlupin]

Sometimes, some sort of body to represent workers is absolutely necessary.

When the Chrétien Liberals looted the unemployment surplus, money taken from workers to provide some sort of sustenance when unemployed, no individual would have been able to take the government to court over the issue. No one person has the necessary financial backing to carry out such an action.

The Quebec based CSN faced the government in supreme court in order to protect the surplus and keep it from being applied against the Federal debt. While you can disagree with the idea of whether or not that money was the workers money, the fact remains that only a large union could have taken such a stance against the government. (of course I realize that some here, firmly believe that since the government is elected they can do what they want) Such actions are sometimes necessary when governments go astray. The 5 year blank check democratic system needs these sorts of checks and balances.

Éric

[Fido]

Your job pays what it does because 50 or 60 years ago some good 'ol union boys made it happen

I take that to mean that the pay received has no basis in contribution to the company.

It is just what some good ol union boys managed to strong arm 50 years ago.

[GDR]

IMHO the problem isn’t the unions nor is management. It is a poor system that victimizes everyone. Let’s just look at Air Canada. If Ac had been allowed to strike not only would the company have been damaged but so would the employees. How many businesses, small and large are dependent on AC to move goods or people around. (Sure there are other carriers but they can only pick up some of the capacity.) There are so many others that are disinterested parties as far as the details of an agreement is concerned, and their only interest is that there is an agreement without a lock out or strike. (How many little guys trying to eke out a living have been hurt by this stupid NHL squabble?) I think unions are important but I don’t agree with either them or management holding the general public up to ransom.

The system is designed to be confrontational. It becomes us against them. It is a system where the union is out to make the maximum gains possible and of course company management is out to minimize any gains. From the standpoint of the unionized worker their employer becomes the enemy. How healthy can that be? Once again that attitude is detrimental to both company and union member. I don’t disagree with Don though that unions have been responsible for protecting and enhancing the lives of just about everyone at some point or another, and that they are still necessary today.

Personally I would favour a system that isn’t unlike what was imposed on the AC unions by the government. The problem in that specific case was that it was done way too late in the process. If both parties were to work with a panel of 3 mutually agreed on mediators right from the start. (Possibly each side could pick one mediator and then both would have to agree on the third.) Both sides would present their case and the mediators would provide their input in trying to bring about an agreement. If the talks wind up in a deadlock then both the union and management would have a good idea of what the mediators were thinking and vice versa. Only then would we see a final offer selection by the panel of 3 mediators and the result would be binding.

JMHO

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Fido;

Let us examine your statement.

What is meant by your term, "contribution" with reference to "pay received" by employees? What is the measure of "contribution"? Are we not talking about "market forces" in another way?

Let's take a look at pilot wages as an example. Clearly, the contracts won in 2000 by ALPA (United) and, separately (they're not ALPA) the Delta pilots were far too rich. I was astonished at the rates!, and knew that neither organization could sustain them. The term "strong arm" is popular with those describing unions because it calls to mind big-muscled enforcers visiting in the night with billy-clubs but come on, in truth these were negotiations between intelligent, highly-motivated men and women that got off the rails with wages....(way different than the Eastern Airlines disaster). And of course, giant corporations don't "strong arm", do they?

The notion of "contribution" has changed over the decades, perhaps for the better in my view. One could "soldier" on at one's work, reaping large wages with little productivity. Economic circumstances have changed that formula for the general health of the company but in doing so, wages have plummeted and benefits including retirement planning have been downloaded onto individual employees who must then privately hire financial planners, stock market experts, tax planners and so on along with trying to raise a family. This signals the "atomization" of the workforce, for when you destroy unity you pit individuals against one another which is every corporation's dream because labour peace is rarely a goal, especially now since workers have no common voice with which to address the employer regarding problems and issues.

Regarding the term, "good ol union boys"....I guess Romney's little speech in that cloistered conference room where no cameras were permitted was a fine and upstanding expression of a frank economic realities faced by struggling business and nothing at all like the corporate backroom boys talk we just hear rumours about?

I would never claim that unions are free of such base human behaviours but you cannot speak of one without invoking the other.

Cheers,

Don

[RussD]

There is at least one "succesful" union leader who strongly advocates a collaborative approach to the business of union.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11788250/1/how-lee-moak-changed-the-airline-industry.html

He is an interesting guy. Love him or hate him (and that seems to be the two options most folks have chosen in the their opinion of him) he is a man who knows what he wants. He has no tolerance for what he refers to as 'lazy unionism' His strongly believes that the role of a pilot union is to proactively partner with management. What needs to happen is the outsatnding advances that have beeen achieved by the two "big" airlines find their way to the rest of industry. Unfortunately, to date, the industry closer to home seems to be going the other way.

[Airband]

.

ARE YOU INTERESTED IN A CAREER AS A PILOT?'

If you are a young Canadian searching for an exciting and fulfilling career you may be a good fit for our Cadet Program. We are looking for motivated, intelligent high-achievers who are interested in becoming airline pilots. To be eligible for the Cadet Program all of the following must apply to you:

• Be a minimum of 18 years of age by September 1st of the year applying.
• Have completed either high school (with excellent results) or a college or university program within the past year or be completing one of these by June of the year applying.
• Be legally entitled to work in Canada and must be able to travel to the United States without restriction.
• Be able to demonstrate and sustain a strong record of academic achievement.
• Have a good record of community involvement and/or participation in team sports.

If you are chosen to participate in the Cadet Program you will be given a conditional offer of employment by Air Georgian Limited and Air Canada. You will be sent to the FlightSafety Academy at Vero Beach, Florida for a 48-week training course. The cost of this course is approximately US$60,000 and is to be paid for by the candidate. This amount includes full tuition and housing for the duration of the course.

.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

Wow. The future is now. This career has become so shitty that they have to canvas 18 year olds to sign up to do it.

Here it is, the bottom. And the training isn't even in Canada. Embarrassing.

[deicer]

Wow. The future is now. This career has become so shitty that they have to canvas 18 year olds to sign up to do it.

Here it is, the bottom. And the training isn't even in Canada. Embarrassing.

And they make you pay $60,000 to even be considered for a job.....

I was always told, you don't take a job where you have to pay to pay them

[Peter Gill]

Doesn't look all that bad. So many mainline pilots talk about the dues they paid, cost of training, flying in the bush, etc etc.

Can't help but wonder, if it the initial AC interview someone said, "do $60,000 in more training and you have a job guarantee," how would that be received?

Kinda funny it's through one company, is Georgian having a big problem with pilot retention?

[mrlupin]

You have to wonder why they don't try to set something up with one of the Canadian colleges and get the government to pay for it. AC seems to be well plugged at government level... why stop with getting work contracts imposed? Maybe they can ask for the feds to sponser their pilot training too.

[Guest]

There's a lot of 'conditions' there, and when you cut through the all the 'bling' on GGN's website, it's just plain 'gimmicky'. A year of training in the US, then 4 years at GGN, then there's really no guarantee of a job at AC. An ATPL is required and not to mention you would have to convert licenses etc.

rozar said it: "embarrassing".

I feel like I need to go and shower after clicking on that link.

[Peter Gill]

There is kind of a guarantee: After completing a minimum of four years of employment with Air Georgian, the candidate will be hired at Air Canada as a pilot provided he or she meets the following conditions...

None of the conditions are onerous or unreasonable.