Sign in to follow this  
Lakelad

When unions aren't necessarily the best support for employees

Recommended Posts

.

When unions aren't necessarily the best support for employees

In the case of Flair Airlines, the company gave union members improvements and new workers competitive wages. 'But CUPE wants them to strike'

Nov 28, 2018 - Financial Post
by Howard Levitt

The question of whether unions can flourish in infertile soil is now salient in a labour dispute involving one of my clients, Flair Airlines.

Flair was a charter carrier heading for extinction when purchased by investors wishing to develop a national carrier flying across Canada and to popular U.S. destinations at ultra discount rates. A service that Canada needs.

Often when new ownership steps in, employees bring in unions for perceived protection against the unknown. It is a popular misapprehension that employees unionize for increased wages and benefits. Far more often, it is because of apprehended threats to job security or in response to abusive management. Flair’s flight attendants turned to CUPE, better known for representing white-collar public-sector employees than new private-sector entrepreneurial enterprises. But you take the union you get and, increasingly, unions, in decline in Canada and accordingly desperate for new membership i.e. dues, organize well beyond their historic craft/industrial boundaries.

Negotiations quickly foundered on what ostensibly was an intractable problem. The flight attendants’ starting wages, which the new owners inherited at this heavily discounted fare airline, was 30 per cent higher than those at Air Canada Rouge (also represented by CUPE) or at WestJet’s Swoop. The flight attendants’ wages were even higher than those at Flair’s full-fare competitors, Air Canada and WestJet. This had not been a problem when Flair was a charter airline, since it simply passed those costs on to its clients, largely oil companies ferrying workers to Fort McMurray.

When we pointed out in bargaining that these wages were unsustainable for a low-fare carrier and asked CUPE to brainstorm a solution with us, CUPE replied that it was there to obtain increases not negotiate rollbacks.

The irony is that, if these employees had never unionized, Flair could not have reduced wages because that would have been a constructive dismissal. Once unionized though, constructive dismissal law no longer applies and there Is nothing illegal in negotiating, or even imposing, even massive wage reductions. CUPE quickly ended the meeting.

I had our client advertise, everywhere it flew, for flight attendants at 30 per cent lower wages than it had been paying. CUPE was apoplectic. One can imagine the phone calls it was receiving from its members.

We assured it that, as long as wages were frozen (a temporary legal requirement as a result of the certification application), we could and would not hire at this lower wage. I informed the union that we were advertising to “better establish market wages” to assist in bargaining and to have lower-cost employees available if CUPE decided to strike.

At the next bargaining session, we shared that this young airline had received 2,100 job applications in just five weeks, all at the advertised lower wage. The meeting again ended quickly.

At the next negotiating session, the company announced it would not reduce the wages or benefits of its current employees. On the contrary, it offered certain improvements. Reciprocally though, the wages and benefits of newly hired employees would be consistent with these advertisements and there would now be a two-tier wage system.

Existing employees were relieved. Not only would their wages not be reduced as feared but they would actually obtain improvements. But CUPE has taken the position that it will not, as a matter of national policy, negotiate a two-tier wage grid.

Usually unions ask for conciliation and run out the strike deadline to pressure the employer. But in this case, planning our strategy well in advance, we had months earlier asked for conciliation and run out the legal time frames, putting the union in a position to strike, Flair in a position to impose a lockout and, to the point, ending the legal freeze on terms of employment. When CUPE rejected our offer, we were then free to unilaterally introduce our new employment terms so that existing employees had the advantage of the improvements without having to pay union dues and all new employees were hired at the lower, advertised rates.

CUPE is now attempting to convince existing employees to strike against employees who have largely not yet even been hired. Although both sides have a legal duty to bargain in good faith, there is no point in going back to the table. CUPE has made clear that it will not negotiate a two-tier wage grid and, from Flair’s perspective, its members are now working under the unilaterally imposed, new and better terms. If CUPE suddenly accepts the company’s terms, which I am confident it will not, employees will earn less because of union dues. CUPE has an organizational  incentive not to agree to a two-tier wage system. I am advised that it has no two-tier agreement in Canada and it would be a terrible precedent for it in the public sector.

But to what extent should that be a concern for Flair’s flight attendants?

Flair has polled its employees to determine who will continue to work if CUPE strikes. A large number of flight attendants said that they will continue to work, certainly enough to operate the airline without disruption while new flight attendants are hired. Ironically, if CUPE’s strike were to make the airline unreliable to its passengers, Flair would quickly go out of business, thereby eliminating the jobs of all of its members. Flair has taken steps to ensure accordingly that a strike will not prevent it from reliably flying.

It is hard to imagine why a flight attendant making 30 per cent more than their counterparts would strike just to be replaced by a person making less. Where is CUPE’s logic in this?

CUPE has filed an unfair labour practice against Flair for communicating its position to its employees and asked the labour board that it be prevented from doing so. That strikes me as a rather desperate move since the labour board has not entirely eliminated employer free speech. But as things stand, new employees are being hired at the lower wage, consistent with other discount carriers, and existing employees are working under the new, improved employment terms and original wages — what could motivate employees to go on strike?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the Financial Post is giving space for one side in a labour dispute to basically write a news story outlining his activities at union busting. I hate CUPE, but I hope the union gets equal space. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lakelad said:

Flair was a charter carrier heading for extinction when purchased by investors wishing to develop a national carrier flying across Canada and to popular U.S. destinations at ultra discount rates. A service that Canada needs.

With respect to LC and ULC carriers........why do we need them?? (I know they are here to stay but what is the rationale for creating a LC or ULC carrier??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

With respect to LC and ULC carriers........why do we need them?? (I know they are here to stay but what is the rationale for creating a LC or ULC carrier??)

Egos that want to point to how they grew their companies? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Homerun said:

If you have read any of Howard Levitt’s columns over the years, he makes it quite apparent that he has a major hate on for unions of any stripe.

I'm wondering how much longer old Howie is going to have Flair as a client. If they have any brains at all, they'll cut ties with him ASAP. This union busting "article" is a disaster in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting responses but what of the substance of his remarks? I have many objections to CUPE and other similar undertakings that seem far more interested in generating membership and dues than in actually representing the interests of the employees at a particular employer. ALPA represented pilots at regional as well as mainline carriers and their collective membership paid for their " failure to represent".

ACPA has no interest in any employees other than the pilots of Air Canada. It will presumably continue to be guided by what the union believesvto be in the best interests of its membership.

CUPE by definition is conflicted. If it is an unyielding matter of principle that two tier wage scales are unacceptable, the union is failing to represent the interests of existing employees. This issue arose on re-structuring with the proposal for a combined DB pension plan and  DC plan for new employees which was opposed by the union.

How can it possibly be in my interests as an AC employee with a DB pension to put that benefit in jeopardy so as to preserve CUPE's "principles" for the benefit of employees not yet hired who would be quite content with a DC plan?

Howard Levitt is a very capable advocate and well-respected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CUPE couldn't care less about the handful of FA's at Flair. However, they have a strong interest in negotiations at WJ and failing to show 'strength' in the Flair talks would be a problem. Their tactics have been somewhat underhanded as they lead the flight attendants to make decisions based on misinformation or lack of information. When the 30% pay decrease was discussed the flight attendants were told it was meant for them and not just the new hires because CUPE has an agenda and it was clear that if the current FA's would not take a pay cut they would not vote against the contract. They could not get answers because it didn't make sense to CUPE to provide them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One should never be part of a small school of fish swimming with a bunch of massive sharks. The sharks ain’t in it for you.

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