Westjet Pilots Begin Union Vote — What's At Stake?

[Longranger]

This may explain further the status of the WJPA, with regards to labour law in Canada.

The WJPA is a form of non-union employee representation (NUER). This form of employee association is very much recognized and is not unique to WestJet. In fact, NUERs are common in different parts of the world. Airlines such as Delta (except the pilots) have non-union forms of representation, and succesful companies such as Dofasco in Hamilton as well.

The WJPA is an unincorporated association under common law. This means that any agreement negotiated by the WJPA, is legally binding. For employee groups that have a negotiated agreement, the terms of such an agreement is "read-in" the individual employment contract, which is also a legally binding agreement.

It is important to understand that common law is just as substantial as is labour law. As a federally regulated company, WestJet is bound to follow the appropriate rules under labour law. References to labour law that apply to unions, and the WJPA is not a union, so those particular laws don't apply to them.

[IFG]

Drat, Longranger - Now I've got some research to do. Thanks. Still skeptical about it, particularly around dispute resolution, but interested to look ...

Cheers, IFG

[Zan Vetter]

This feels a bit like a common-law spouse trying to convince their partner to get legally married. "But baby it's the same thing!" Ok then let's get married. "But why do we need a piece of paper to say we love each other, that's just a piece of paper." Ok I want the paper.

"[......]" So it's not the same thing at all, is it?

Gotta be a reason, if they were the same thing (Union vs employee association), they wouldn't be different.

[Critter]

Hi IFG.

I only posted the link as a reference because it helped me understand NUER (thanks long ranger) and the differences between that and unionization. Mainly that it's different ways to skin a cat and is acceptable in Canadian labour.

It certainly wouldn't be constituted as a bedrock of policy with the WJPA and I certainly hope that I didn't give that impression.

[IFG]

Hi again, Critter and Longranger - I'm not having much luck finding information. It's clear that employees at lots of concerns have different vehicles for consulting ("talking") to their employers, but that much I knew anyway. What I'd like to see is any examples of such structures empowering the employees in any way. I get that PACT "agreements" can be read into the individual employee's 'personal contract', but have found nothing that indicates any restriction on the Employer changing those terms, and even absent that, any means of enforcement short of the Courts - the limitations of that venue I've alluded to earlier, and absent any dispute resolution mechanism, the NUER seems a distinction without a difference from any disempowered employee group.

And BTW, nothing comes up on Labour Canada's website for NUER, NER, ERP ... Where are these structures formulated? (other than the fevered minds of anti-unionists )

Cheers, IFG

p.s. Zan Vetter - Exactly! except the Common-Law spouse is actually and clearly afforded rights (3yrs+?), unorganized employees perhaps less so.

[Guest]

Interesting to see foreign laws cited but nothing regarding nuer etc in Canadian Law.

[ILB]

Looking at this thread, three things come to mind:

1) This isn't over. Not by a long shot. I knew that as soon as I saw the 55-45 split. This thread reinforces that. The cat is set loose among the pigeons.

2) Westjet might have been better off if the vote had gone 55-45 the other way. It would have been hard for the new union to bargain hard and fair with a large anti-union minority.

3) Irony of irony, the pilots at the big airline with a union are more unified right now than the pilots at the big airline without a union.

1. You're absolutely correct. This is not over, particularly for JSYK. He's a smart guy, knows it, and speaks well. And while his rationalizations are wrapped in reason, his reason--I suspect--is at its core, entirely emotional.

2. Probably correct, but I'm still relieved at the outcome.

3. If correct, I'm really happy for them. While there will be stubborn holdouts, I hope we too can reunify.

[DEFCON]

Rich

“Unions aren't the saviours some folks make them out to be.”

I’m not advocating in favour of unions; I think they’re unholy aberrations, the curse that comes when common sense has been lost. They usually come to be during times of great tribulation where labour needs and seeks an instant saviour. Like vampires, unions have to be invited into your home, but once they’re through the door, look out because you really do need to drive a stake through the heart to get them out.

[IFG]

No matter where I've worked, the vocal minority has always tried to convince the rest that "things will be better if..." Whether or not the WJ pilots choose to unionize, that won't change; only the voices will. For a small fee (airfare, accommodation, and meals) I'll happily chat with the WJ pilots and remind them what things are like out here in the "real world" where pilots are truly on their own when it comes to their employee/employer relationship. From the perspective of an outsider looking in, things look pretty good there. BWTHDIK.

Hi, Rich - In fairness, that's a false comparison. Even the most basic Code (and Common Law) protections place anybody in Canada far ahead of privateering ex-pats (BTDT too). And IAC, from my own limited exposure as an interested outside observer, the union touts at WS have acknowledged the success their current structure achieved; their pitch (right or wrong) has been that it's no longer the best way forward to maintain and build upon those previous achievements.

BWTHDYK? No less than me!

Cheers, IFG

[IFG]

Im not advocating in favour of unions; I think theyre unholy aberrations, the curse that comes when common sense has been lost. They usually come to be during times of great tribulation where labour needs and seeks an instant saviour. Like vampires, unions have to be invited into your home, but once theyre through the door, look out because you really do need to drive a stake through the heart to get them out.

Sheesh, DEFCON, isn't this air of jaded, world-weary nihilism getting old? ... that we're the poor, put-upon victims, the only honest, hard-working professionals on a stage crowded with venal Unions, Company managements, journalists, lawyers, accountants, bankers, politicians etc. etc. fill in the blank ...

Of course, you're not the only one here that sometimes adopts this posture, but with due respect, I think you guys convince only yourselves.

Cheers, IFG

[deicer]

Rich

“Unions aren't the saviours some folks make them out to be.”

I’m not advocating in favour of unions; I think they’re unholy aberrations, the curse that comes when common sense has been lost. They usually come to be during times of great tribulation where labour needs and seeks an instant saviour. Like vampires, unions have to be invited into your home, but once they’re through the door, look out because you really do need to drive a stake through the heart to get them out.

Hi Def!

Imagine today's world and the working conditions we would have if there had never been unions.

Light couldn't exist without dark, so I submit this to you about how things were before unions as compared to now.

http://www.sbctc.org/doc.asp?id=4463

Said it before, will say it again, we're back into the days of the Robber Barrons, and when it starts to get too expensive to own an Iphone, the push back will happen.

[DEFCON]

Many owe much of what they have to the union movement. The trouble is, like every other form of government we have, having been left largely to their own devices, unions became corrupted. Jimmy Hoffa was the early face of said corruption, but after removing mob influence from the movement, the government left unions free to determine their own direction, which led to other newer forms of deceitful behaviour.

[boestar]

I think what people are failing to grasp is that an employee group can actually work COLLABORATIVELY with the employer to make the working conditions such that the employee group supports the efforts of the employer to make a profit. The old adage of "A happy employee is a productive employee" seems to stand true.

Whether considered a union or not, the Employee group seems to be working for the westjet employee group. The argument over legality is moot.

[Lakelad]

.
As WestJet shows, new federal law requiring secret ballot is making unionization more difficult

Aug 07, 2015 - Financial Post
Kristine Owram

Pro-union pilots at WestJet Airlines Ltd. are undoubtedly disappointed by their colleagues’ no vote this week, but they may take some solace in the fact that it’s not just them: It’s becoming more difficult to organize across Canada as a whole.

The WestJet Professional Pilots Association (WPPA), which sought to form the company’s first union, didn’t have trouble getting the necessary numbers to sign membership cards and got approval July 16 to go ahead with a vote. (The law requires more than 40 per cent of employees to sign cards and the WPPA said it “comfortably” exceeded that level.)

The difficulty came later, when the WPPA held a secret ballot asking pilots whether they wanted to unionize. In the end, 55 per cent of the 1,247 who voted said no, a slim margin that allowed the company to preserve its status as one of the only major airlines in the western world without a union.

Had the WPPA managed to get the necessary membership cards signed a month sooner, however, the outcome might have been quite different.

On June 16, a new federal law took effect requiring a secret ballot before a union can be certified. Prior to that, unions needed only to get 50 per cent plus one of employees to sign a membership card and be automatically certified.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, several studies have shown that secret ballots actually reduce the success rate of unionization drives.

“A workplace is not a democracy, and we certainly saw that WestJet made it abundantly clear they didn’t want a union,” said Bill Tieleman, a labour consultant and former communications director for the British Columbia Federation of Labour.

“That really reduces the chances of votes succeeding because the employer has a period of time to campaign against the union.”

Even before the WPPA had finished signing up supporters, WestJet CEO Gregg Saretsky sent an email to employees saying a union “would have a significant impact on the nature of your employment and the way the company and employees interact with each other.”

Tieleman stressed that management did nothing wrong, but said the clear anti-union stance would have had a “chilling affect” on the campaign for certification.

John Aman, organizing director at giant private-sector union Unifor, said the biggest challenge in organizing a workplace is overcoming the “enormous influence” of the employer.

“I’ve seen grown men and women petrified, casting a ballot.”


.

[IFG]

I think what people are failing to grasp is that an employee group can actually work COLLABORATIVELY with the employer to make the working conditions such that the employee group supports the efforts of the employer to make a profit. The old adage of "A happy employee is a productive employee" seems to stand true.

Whether considered a union or not, the Employee group seems to be working for the westjet employee group. The argument over legality is moot.

I think you have it entirely backwards, Boestar. Who is it exactly who doesn't appreciate the benefits of a collaborative process? Certainly many, if not most union-management relationships are so for the most part - you just don't read about the hundreds of CA's reached fairly amicably compared to the occasional acrimonious process. It takes two to tango; unfortunately there are a few bad actors, on both sides of the table.

Indeed, what many "fail to grasp" is that, where collective bargaining is in process, negotiating teams usually work in good faith, on both sides.

A more general thing many "fail to grasp" is that a Union is as good or bad as the membership that drives it. A suggestion that Unionism would lead the WS Pilot group into bad behaviour betrays a lack of faith in that group. Not so sure about the management side there, tho', and clearly concerns about that (a change in management's behaviour) worry many Pilots there.

Not sure what's moot about "legality". Nobody has said anything about the current structure at WS being il-legal; the assertion was that it would not continue to be effective, that there was allegedly no effective, 'legal' empowerment or protection for the pilot group if things were ever to turn for the worse (i.e. one of the "two" stops tangoing).

IAC, Time will tell, hopefully it all works out for everybody.

Cheers, IFG

[boestar]

IFG

With all due respect I have seen too many interactions between company and union that were NOT at all collaborative. I would term it more dysfunctional.

On both sides of the table what is best for the company should be best for the employee. Far too many, on both sides of the table, do not see it that way.

WJ has a pretty good thing going and it is a thing that benefits both company and employee. Too many times that addition of a union breaks that down from a give and take to a take and take.

I for one would hate to see it. and I don't work there

[IFG]

IFG

With all due respect I have seen too many interactions between company and union that were NOT at all collaborative. I would term it more dysfunctional.

On both sides of the table what is best for the company should be best for the employee. Far too many, on both sides of the table, do not see it that way.

WJ has a pretty good thing going and it is a thing that benefits both company and employee. Too many times that addition of a union breaks that down from a give and take to a take and take.

I for one would hate to see it. and I don't work there

Hi again, Boestar - I think you work in the AC/Jazz world. If you're thinking that you wouldn't inflict that history on the good folks at WS ... couldn't agree with you more. But that's another false comparison. The choice before the WS Pilot group was not between their current world and the world that prevailed at AC(+) thru' the last couple of decades, with the enormous pressures that placed on everybody, individually and collectively. It was between their current world and a slightly different one, but one inhabited by the same folks facing the same issues.

Nobody should think that this stuff is a bed of roses. When the $#!+'s hitting the fan, interests conflict, and it's sometimes pretty ugly. I've always said that any pain a union Rep will bear will come not from the Company guys, but from their own (and come to think, probably a "NUER" Rep' as well ). But it's a consequence of the trying times, trying to find any way to resolve competing interests, not the very presence of a Union on the property at all. And, I haven't seen any tough situation like that (i.e. the AC tribulations) where a better outcome would have been secured without the leverage that Part I of the CLC provides (as very, very slight as it sometimes is)

Even so, you've obviously been irrevocably set in your ways by your personal experiences (and perhaps the prism through which you view them), That seems pretty clear in the anti-union sentiment you've expressed on several threads. I will not even try to change your mind.

Have a good one, IFG

[boestar]

I am in the AC/Jazz world but have worked many places as both Union and Non-Union and in my experience an healthy, collaborative, non-union work environment has always been the best working environment.

I don't want this to come across wrong but it is not the Union specifically that I do not like. It is the certain types of individuals that gravitate to the union "Protection" that add nothing to the productivity of the employee base as a whole and only become a disruptive influence.

(That's about as polite as I can put it)

I know they are a very small percentage of the employee base but they have a dramatic effect on that employee base.

In the non-union shops it is easier to deal with these "bad apples" and as a result end up with a more pleasant work environment.

This is just from my experience after 27 years in this industry.

[MD2]

Some have spoken about collaborative labour relations and that is certainly true and the preferred method; at the same time, it would be short-sided to put the onus on the employees. Sure as was said, it takes two to tango, but even in tango one must lead. And in labour relations it is the employer who must lead. The onus is on the employer to lead and produce an environment conducive to collaboration. WestJet had been revolutionary in this regard and up until recently second to none. Its founders seemed to had laid a solid foundation. Which begs the question: what is the real reason(s) for wanting a union? If anyone cares to share and enlighten the people on the outside...

[CanadaEH]

Ever since the vote was completed the shares have steadily risen. Coincidence?

[Geminoid]

I think it's more to do with the falling oil price.

[CanadaEH]

I doubt that. Our CAD $ is falling as well.

[moeman]

Air Canada has had a good week too. I doubt it's due to the vote.

[CanadaEH]

Good point.

[cata]

Its due to the share buybacks, they have bought 1 million shares since 2Q report, I guarantee you the shares would be down today if it wasn't for the buybacks, they bought 117,000 shares today. Westjet still has 2 million shares to buy so hopefully they finish that off in this quarter, its a good value to the shareholders, if the shares remain undervalued they should announce new buybacks together with the Q3 report.