A Risky Post

[Kip Powick]

At the risk of being torpedoed from all sides I thought I would nail this up. Because of my extensive background of working in a non-unionized organization, (DND) prior to going “civy” I was rather slow to embrace any and all aspects of “unions”. Having said that, I can now say that based on my limited experience there is a definite need for unions in the workplace, but I say this with the following caveat.

I am under the impression that there are many union members that feel that the moment a company makes a profit, they are entitled to increased benefits, as well as pay raises. How often have you heard, “Hey, we made XXX millions last year, time for a pay raise !”

I am under the impression that there are an awful lot of employees who feel that “ the company” is there primarily for their benefit and too many employees forget that the company exists primarily for the shareholders.

I am not advocating that any employee should work for minimum wage but I am saying, in my opinion, that greed, as demonstrated by some unions, has contributed greatly to the demise of many a company. This has been demonstrated with our flying brethren down south…… but they saw the light before the final door closed.

It is time to realize that a “reasonable” wages for work done is better than no wages at all, because as we all know….no one is irreplaceable…..

I would strongly suggest instead of all trying to justify your position in the “wages food chain” you would be further ahead expending your energy by all rowing the boat in the same direction.

Just my opinion.

[Guest WA777]

Kip....I'm afraid the unions are too late.....they're going to have to get used to saying "Yes,that's OK Judge".....We're no longer the ones flying the planes, we're just the passengers.....

[Mitch Cronin]

Risky or not Kip you're making some sense. But then, why not just drop a big ol' V8 in her and use the oars for steering.

[dr1]

Hi Kip,

Just curious, since you have walked on both sides of the fence, why is it you feel "there is a definite need for unions in the workplace"?

dr

[Guest Starman]

I appreciate what you're saying, but I'd counter that the group which has been worst served by Air Canada management are the shareholders. And a Union contract is really only a collective contract for services rendered during the contract period. If management feels that the cost of the contract is too high, they have the responsibility not to sign it in the first place. Management loves to point the finger at labour costs when losses pile up, but it is they who determine those costs in the first place by negotiating the contracts.

If we flew the aircraft the way management runs the company, none of us would have lived this long...

However, it is in our best interest to preserve the benefits of our contracts by ensuring the viability of the company, and that is why we should work with the restructuring process to increase overall productivity.

One other point that should be made, though, is that licenced professionals such as pilots and cert. mechanics have a responsibility to the Canadian people and the flying public at large, associated with the licence they hold which supercedes their responsibility to the company, and as it was when you were with DND, that should determine the quality, if not the cost, of our work.

[Kip Powick]

Hi Dave,

As you are well aware, we in DND did not/do not have unions and in truth they are not really required when a group of individuals is a “volunteer” force. While there are constraints as to when we as serving members could leave, we also realized that we were there as pure volunteers and of course there were those “volunteers” that “owed” the service their time for the education they had acquired. There was also a very strong sense of “belonging”, probably much like WestJet is now, and during my time with DND we never thought much about the issues that today’s airline unions have on their plate. We did our job, as diverse as it was, and we were there because we really enjoyed the job. In all honesty, if Military flying were as staid as airline flying perhaps we would have needed a union, but the constant fluidity of the Forces caused most of us to expend our energy in other areas. If one were to compare an airline employees life and a DND persons life one would probably see that the airline employee had a much more stable life and a better lifestyle. Not many airline employees moved every 3 years, started out on a new airplane, a new role, and at the bottom of the pecking order each time they moved.

Today’s airline employees need a union to ensure that the employees are treated fairly and are not put in harms way during the course of their duties. Having said that I still feel that some unions, at times, tend to push the gap between management and employees beyond what is healthy for either party. In DND we didn’t “make money” for any employer so the “greed issue” was never approached. In private companies it seems like everyone wants a piece of the pie and wants to do less and less work for that piece. There has to be a happy medium between management and the employees and I feel that is the job of the union; it is the buffer, and it must ensure equitable treatment for all concerned but not at the expense of a viable working relationship with company management. Powerful unions can literally “hog tie” companies and can bring a company to its knees, but in the end, that scenario is bad for all. Unions are required to act as a buffer and to protect the workers rights, but they should never become an Albatross for the company.

An interesting fact: Canada is second only to Italy in days of lost productivity due to union strikes.

Regards,
Kip

[Kip Powick]

((If management feels that the cost of the contract is too high, they have the responsibility not to sign it in the first place. Management loves to point the finger at labour costs when losses pile up, but it is they who determine those costs in the first place by negotiating the contracts.)))

Agree to a certain point. When contracts are signed management is probably “crystal ball” gazing at the future and based on statistical data available at the time are accepting the unions contract based on what they feel will happen in the future. Perhaps that is wrong on their part but you have to concede that events since 9/11 were certainly not predictable. There also has to be some judgment calls made and if there was a travel boom instead of a turn down they would have guessed right and high fives all around. When there is a down turn aka 9/11 and post 9/11, what do you suggest management do???
The losses incurred by the company are not sustainable and where else can they go but to the employees.

((((However, it is in our best interest to preserve the benefits of our contracts by ensuring the viability of the company, and that is why we should work with the restructuring process to increase overall productivity.)))

Agree, 100 %

(((One other point that should be made, though, is that licenced professionals such as pilots and cert. mechanics have a responsibility to the Canadian people and the flying public at large, associated with the licence they hold which supercedes their responsibility to the company, and as it was when you were with DND, that should determine the quality, if not the cost, of our work.)))

I’m sorry but I’m not sure where this statement goes. Are you saying that pilots and engineers should be paid the most ?? If you are, then I would agree with you but the wages of each pilot could be the subject of another thread!!!. And again I’m not sure where “quality” comes in. I tend to think that everyone does their best to provide quality work no matter what job they have and if they don’t, they should be released.

[Guest Starman]

Good managers are good at managing the risks within a dynamic environment. Pilots could save the company money if we did not carry alternate fuel, but we do (when no-alternate criteria is not available) in order to operate within accepted margins and provide a safe flight that creates value for the customer.

I agree that many of the events of the past few years were unforseen threats to the airline business, but the company's ability to deal with the downturn was compromised well before that by management decisions that in some cases were self serving to the detriment of the shareholders, and in some cases just blind optimism.

As for licenced professionals, they do justify higher compensation by virtue of their licence, but my point was that whereas other employee groups have a contract with the employer, the licenced groups have a "contract" with the government of Canada, as well as with the employer. The responsibilities of the licence create a "contract" for the way in which the work is performed which supercedes the contract with the employer.

[Guest flax]

Wholly crap, good post.

[Guest flax]

I envy your career in the military. You must have been there long before the total bs took effect. I have never seen a group of more disgruntled people than my last 3 years in the military (and for good reason). If there is an institution that needs a union it is the Canadian military.

If anyone thinks for a moment that AC has the worst management possible (and thats not what i'm saying as i don't know).. spend a few years in the military. Watch those 'management' clowns in action and how it affects your life on a daily basis. People in the military (airforce) are promoted based on criteria that is about as far away from leadership as one can get. Unfortunately, the canadian military is an accurate reflection of our present federal government.

I will say it again... this country as a whole is headed in the wrong direction. It breaks my heart but there is no denying it.

[Guest neo]

Kip,

This is a fascinating topic and one that all unionized employees owe it to themselves to consider.

Employee unions are, historically speaking, a recent invention. Nevertheless the labor environment within which they operate has changed a great deal. Unfortunately, unions to a great extent are unable, or unwilling, to modify their raison d'etre. In turn, this means that they sometimes fail to protect the interests of the employees they represent.

When unions were invented, industrialists and capitalists resorted to virtually anything, including murder, to intimidate and control employees. Hired thugs frequently beat up innocent workers. There were few laws protecting them. Those that existed were rarely enforced. Governments were shamelessly in bed with industrialists, with the intent of subjugating and controlling employees and denying them the most basic human and social rights.

Small wonder that employees organized! They had to have some countervailing power in order to offset this injustice, and to advance their own interests in the face of employers who would stop at nothing to stop them.

Nevertheless, there are economic and labor relations drawbacks to unions. Economically-speaking, employers will always pay what the market will bear; they have to, otherwise they won't be able to hire employees. But when employees attempt to exert their collective will on what the employer will pay, irrespective of what the labor market allows, they destabilize the business financially. Obviously, and this is really the crucial point, the employees put themselves at economic loggerheads with the owners of the enterprise. This is costly and destructive for owners and employees alike.

Now, back in the days when business owners hired thugs and murderers to beat up on workers, it didn't matter that employees were at sixes and sevens with the boss's economic interests: they were as much trying to stay alive as win a raise! But we no longer live in a society like that. Look around you at the labor world we live in. It's a utopia compared to what existed when unions were invented. Yet unions still view owners and capital with suspicion, if not downright enmity. Our unions have won the war over thuggery, and turned their arsenal onto the economic battlefield. As with all wars, that conflict is a costly way to advance the interests of the employees.

Trying to exert our will without regard to the economic principles which permit a business to thrive is simply cutting our own throats in the long run. We NEED the enterprise to succeed. We NEED the business to turn a good profit. That's how we secure a prosperous future for ourselves and our families.

But how do we ensure that employees share in that prosperity without forcing the employer, through collective action, to cough up more dough? It's simple. We buy into the company. The company prospers... we prosper, because we are owners.

As soon as employees do that, they eliminate the systemic conflict with owners, shareholders, and management. Everyone's rowing in the same direction. The enormous costs associated with that conflict are now available for the good of all.

In summary, unions had a historic role to play that was vital for the protection of employees. But to a very large extent, those days are gone. It's necessary today that unions re-invent themselves. They no longer need to focus so heavily on the political and social aspects of workers rights, and instead focus on what will work economically to ensure employees prosperity in the long run.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

Kip,

This is a fascinating topic and one that all unionized employees owe it to themselves to consider.

Employee unions are, historically speaking, a recent invention. Nevertheless the labor environment within which they operate has changed a great deal. Unfortunately, unions to a great extent are unable, or unwilling, to modify their raison d'etre. In turn, this means that they sometimes fail to protect the interests of the employees they represent.

When unions were invented, industrialists and capitalists resorted to virtually anything, including murder, to intimidate and control employees. Hired thugs frequently beat up innocent workers. There were few laws protecting them. Those that existed were rarely enforced. Governments were shamelessly in bed with industrialists, with the intent of subjugating and controlling employees and denying them the most basic human and social rights.

Small wonder that employees organized! They had to have some countervailing power in order to offset this injustice, and to advance their own interests in the face of employers who would stop at nothing to stop them.

Nevertheless, there are economic and labor relations drawbacks to unions. Economically-speaking, employers will always pay what the market will bear; they have to, otherwise they won't be able to hire employees. But when employees attempt to exert their collective will on what the employer will pay, irrespective of what the labor market allows, they destabilize the business financially. Obviously, and this is really the crucial point, the employees put themselves at economic loggerheads with the owners of the enterprise. This is costly and destructive for owners and employees alike.

Now, back in the days when business owners hired thugs and murderers to beat up on workers, it didn't matter that employees were at sixes and sevens with the boss's economic interests: they were as much trying to stay alive as win a raise! But we no longer live in a society like that. Look around you at the labor world we live in. It's a utopia compared to what existed when unions were invented. Yet unions still view owners and capital with suspicion, if not downright enmity. Our unions have won the war over thuggery, and turned their arsenal onto the economic battlefield. As with all wars, that conflict is a costly way to advance the interests of the employees.

Trying to exert our will without regard to the economic principles which permit a business to thrive is simply cutting our own throats in the long run. We NEED the enterprise to succeed. We NEED the business to turn a good profit. That's how we secure a prosperous future for ourselves and our families.

But how do we ensure that employees share in that prosperity without forcing the employer, through collective action, to cough up more dough? It's simple. We buy into the company. The company prospers... we prosper, because we are owners.

As soon as employees do that, they eliminate the systemic conflict with owners, shareholders, and management. Everyone's rowing in the same direction. The enormous costs associated with that conflict are now available for the good of all.

In summary, unions had a historic role to play that was vital for the protection of employees. But to a very large extent, those days are gone. It's necessary today that unions re-invent themselves. They no longer need to focus so heavily on the political and social aspects of workers rights, and instead focus on what will work economically to ensure employees prosperity in the long run.

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest Tri-spool]

flax,

I believe the correct description of the CF is a $12Billion experiment in social welfare!

LOL

Cheers!

[Kip Powick]

I started this thread at the risk of being hit upon, I can take the heat, but your blatant ignorance with regard to the CF is astounding.

[Guest leftbase]

AIR CANADA AND WEST JET


Air Canada and West Jet decided to engage in a dragon boat race.Both teams practiced hard and long to reach their peak performance. On the big day they felt ready. West Jet won by a mile. Afterward, the Air Canada team was discouraged by the loss. Morale sagged.


Corporate management decided that the reason for the crushing defeat had to be found, so a consulting firm was hired to investigate the problem and recommended corrective action. The consultant's finding: The West Jet team had eight people rowing and one person steering; the Air Canada team had one person owing and
eight people steering.


After a year of study and millions spent analyzing the problem, the consultant firm (Proudfoot) concluded that too many people were steering and not enough were rowing on the Air Canada team. So as race day neared the following year, the Air Canada team's management structure was completely reorganized. The new structure: Four steering managers, three area steering managers
and a new performance review system for the person rowing the boat to provide work incentive.


The next year West Jet won by two miles. Humiliated, Air Canada laid off the rower for poor performance and gave the managers a
bonus for discovering the problem.

[dr1]

Hi Kip,

For the most part I agree with what you have said, but (you knew there had to be a but) only in the context of what we will call traditional labour/management relations. Neo summed it up in his post far more eloquently than I ever could. Simply put, I’m a firm believer in the axiom that every company gets the union they deserve. A traditional top down management style will inevitably spawn a traditional union, which by the very nature of its birth will be adversarial and relations will only worsen over time. In such a relationship there is very little incentive for employees to go above and beyond what is prescribed in the work rules. In the worst case scenario employees will hide behind the work rules in an attempt to “stick it” to management, knowing that as long as they follow the letter of the law no matter how archaic or counterproductive, the union will protect their job. In that environment a union is essential.

In the more modern approach spearheaded by Herb Kelleher at Southwest, and which we are trying to emulate at WestJet, one of the key goals of the business plan is to align the interests of employees, management and shareholders. The cornerstones of the foundation are employee ownership, profit sharing, employee empowerment and mutual respect. It requires a very enlightened management team to pull it off and huge leap in faith for employees to buy in, but it works.

Having said all that, for all intents and purposes WestJet is unionized, just not in the traditional sense. All employee groups are represented by an in-house association. The most important difference is the employee/management relationship. From a practical point of view the only difference between our in-house association and a certified trade union is that we haven’t bothered to certify. The only thing certification would give us is the right to strike. If it ever comes to that both sides will have failed miserably.

All of which is of course, just my opinion…

Cheers

Dave

[Guest neo]

You are far too kind. I'd rewrite that sucker in a heartbeat, but I'm a little pressed for time right now.

By the way, after all this time I finally got the hidden aviation reference in your AEF handle. Nice one!

neo

[Guest TBird One]

Hey Buddy,

While I believe that you are correct wrt the strike issue, I have also been led to believe that the executives of an association are better protected in a certified environment than they are in our current set up. This becomes important in cases where someone may be "wrongfully dismissed" or feel that they have been treated poorly by the association.

As I write this, perhaps if these things are true- these are reasons not to certify- to prevent the executive from being complacent and allowing crappy decisions to be hidden behind the whole certifed deal.

Cheers,
TBird One

[dr1]

You could be absolutely correct regarding association executive exposure. I never thought about that, even during all those years I was “exposed” in our other life. Anyway, gotta go pack. We’re off to Lake Louise at the crack of dawn for the Toshiba Breath of Life Ski Challenge which WestJet is sponsoring again this year. We get to spend the weekend at the Chateau :) , get some great spring skiing, hobnob with Ken Read and a bunch of other Canadian Legends of Skiing and hopefully raise a whole whack of cash for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. (Y)(Y) (Y)

Later bud.

dr