Guest rollingrock Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 I am not writing this post to inflame any labour groups, but am i the only one that sees no layoff clauses as a very bad idea. In an environment where flights are being reduced, aircraft being parked and an industry in shambles, is it realistic for all of us to put on our blinders and hide behind these clauses. We all blame management for everything (we should blame them for signing these clauses), but do we not also have a responsibility to be realistic. There are cycles in business that require companies to get lean and hopefully this means the long term survival of all jobs. I would be one that would be directly affected, but in the long term i would hope it means i have a company to come back to. It drives me nuts to walk through the terminal and see 6 ticket agents flipping thru a newspaper.A job gurantee to 2005 doesn't do much good if your company goes broke in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Doc Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 You would be correct if those employee groups hadn't given something in return for that no layoff clause--easier and cheaper integration of AC and CDN. It is too easy to say now that those clauses hurt. They do, but they served a purpose at the time. Hind sight is 20-20 and, while agree, massive changes need to be made, to simplify the problem as 'employees and their clauses' is unfair. Case in point is the other stakeholders- shareholders, creditors/bondholders (in particluar)who push for employees cost reductions> their agenda is to walk away with as much cash possible--at the employees expense. Let EVERYONE take part of the haircut and you will see a better resolution. Asking one group to sacrifice without the others will never work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 You are correct of course. I could never understand where the company was coming from when a union would suggest a no layoff clause in negotiations. It would also be interesting to know what the unions have given up for this clause. All the company saw in there short sightedness was growth. It was an easy out for them at the time. The growth they predicted never came. I feel the consessions the unions should make would be an orderly layoff program. Not just slash/cut and burn in all departments. AC has identified 1200 excess customer service agents in the company. These are spread across the country. Pilots, F/A's and Maintainance as well as MANAGEMENT can be trimmed also. Anyone else have some suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 I agree, but i just feel the general principal that you can gurantee a job doesn't seem to be a practical option in this environment. I can't think of any other jobs with gurantees, especially in an industry as unstable as ours. I feel we blame management alot (and some is justified), but if all groups refuse to budge and don't lay off, how else can management effectivly cut cost?? and i don't know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Doc i was just re-reading your post about the merger of cdn and ac, but i think some of these job gurantees were just recently signed. I thought i heard the f/a's just signed these a few months ago and were given a big bonus....not sure if fact so correct me if wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Doc, What two airlines have ever merged, especially with so much overlap, and kept all the employees, and, stayed in business? Can you name even one? Life is not fair and AC is a business and not a make work project or social assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 How would you suggest the pilots lay off zipped, keeping in mind all the downline training and ripple effects, now that the busiest period of the year approaches? Just curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 It' s stounding to say that the unions had to "get something" for allowing the merger to proceed. It's an abuse of power to say that Air Canada had to make itself less competitive in order to access advantages that were supposed to make it more competitive. Similar amazing!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Dagger??... "Stounding"? "similar amazing"? What language are you speakin? You're starting to sound like you're using JW's keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Dagger: Please correct me if I'm wrong .... I was always lead to believe that one of the insistances from the GOVERNMENT regarding the "TAKEOVER" was that we have no layoff clauses to protect everyone. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Perhaps it is the spirits he may be imbiding sorry..about...the..spacing...see..my...post...above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACempl Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi Rollingrock, A 'signing bonus' was indeed included as part of our (the former Air Canada component of CUPE) negotiations. However, I do not think that we will ever see a penny of that bonus given the economic crisis within our company. Just to clarify: A lot of union groups negotiated, and received, a signing bonus (also called a loyalty bonus). Seems kind of silly in retrospet. The bonuses are such a bone of contention amongst and between union groups that they are almost not worth it. Of course, that is easy for me to say as I will not get mine! ACempl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Acempl With due respect, You along with zipped, obviously have NO idea how this myth about bonuses was born. It is uninformed posts like your’s, which help to perpetuate the mythical signing or loyalty bonus as you and many others refer to it. I have neither the time, nor the desire to educate anyone on this matter, if interested, the topic was covered on this board about 7 to 10 days ago, go have a look. Kind regards dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Let me correct you, you are wrong Frosty. In 10 words or less, Schwartz bet, Milton raised him, NO government. Ok, make that 7 words or less. kind regards, dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Dragon The Loyalty Bonus was paid to Original AC Employees to compensate the fact that in the takeover the former cdn employees got a 25% wage uplift when they came to the AC contracts. Rgds... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi Iceman, You are absolutely and completely, incorrect. cheers dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi Iceman As Dragon says we just went through this. About 3 contracts back the company gave employees SAUs during contract negotiations. During contract negotiations with the pilots 2 contracts ago the company offered SAUs as part of the contract again. The negotiations went to arbitration, (Bruce Outhouse), and the arbitrator asked how much are these SAUs worth. The company gave him a figure and he said ok, gforget SAUs, give them the cash. The bonuses had nothing what-so-ever to do with the merger. It has nothing to do with loyalty. It was just part of contract negotiations. Once the pilots got it paid out as a bonus then of course when the rest of the unions came up to bat they all sid, me too. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jet Dude Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 "I have neither the time, nor the desire to educate anyone on this matter, if interested, the topic was covered on this board about 7 to 10 days ago, go have a look." Then why did you make this comment????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Greg, I beg to differ, we were informed that an equal amount of money was put aside for each union group, our management in maintenance informed us that it was indeed due to the ex Cail folk receiving a substantial pay raise, but also that many of the original AC folk would be dropping down the seniority ladder. It seems each grouphas been given a different story,HMMM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 It seemed the quickest and must succinct manner in which to articulate my feeling. I took care to preface my comments, as well, I added an appropriate suffix, commensurate with my respect for a fellow former. If I have offended the originator, he/she may indicate so, and I will consider a further comment. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Gapper Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 131 Pilots to walk the streets (I should be #102) Would you like fries with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 I did not intend any disrespect Gapper. Jazz and mainline are two different ships and I was more looking for a mainline specific answer. It is easy to say, "layoffs", and it is more difficult to actually plan for layoffs and still manage the objective. That is what I was getting at. Good luck to you and your family, I mean that. dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 jazz employees do not have no layoff clauses in their contracts. Therefore its very easy to see who is going to get hit the hardest. Another example of cutting the lower salaries to preserve the higher ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi Robert I'm sorry, but I can't help what you were told. I remember it happening the way I said. it isn't based on what I was told. The bonuses had nothing whatsoever to do with the merger and nothing to do with the CAIL pay increase. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Greg: While what your saying is most likely true from your perspective what Robert has posted is also true from our perspective. The money was given to the different unions....sorry Association for different reasons. This does not make what you know to be any less true then what we know. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.