Guest WA777 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I'm afraid the unions still don't realize that their leverage is gone...they're just passengers.... http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030409/RAIRC/TPBusiness/TopStories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermatic Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I agree that the unions are along for the ride like eveyone else, but I disagree with your summary that they "don't get it" While we are on uncharted ground in this process, the umbrella of CCAA law will still apply. The questions the Unions will raise is whether or not Judge Farley has exceeded his authority in his initial order. Clearly, there is no precedent allowing him to allow Air Canada to unilaterally circumvent the parts of the collective agreement they don't feel like following at the moment. Do the Unions, and employees want a healthy, restructured Air Canada? Of course we do, and most are willing to do their part to reach this goal. No one thinks we will be able to hide behind our Collective agreements and escape unscathed. The CCAA process, and the Plan that evolves will require a "buy-in" from all stake-holders, including the employees. To start the process by alienating the most important part of the equation - the employees who will be tasked with implementing the Plan - is not a smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 "Clearly, there is no precedent allowing him to allow Air Canada to unilaterally circumvent the parts of the collective agreement they don't feel like following at the moment. " That's true, but as a number of articles have pointed out, there is also nothing in law - neither in the statutes or the precedents - that explicitedly prevent it either. Some lawyers had predicted that Air Canada would take the position that in the absence of prohibitions in law, the bankruptcy judge has the power to do what he did. If I were the union, I probably would try to get clarification, keeping in mind that if the judge isn't overruled, I'm probably toast. That's why a negotiated settlement might get a better outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermatic Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 "That's why a negotiated settlement might get a better outcome. " I couldn't agree more. Hopefully the issue of what Judge Farley can and cannot do won't sidetrack the rebuilding of our ailine. Air Canada has been given a great deal of power by Judge Farley's order. Hopefully they will use it wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermatic Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 "That's why a negotiated settlement might get a better outcome. " I couldn't agree more. Hopefully the issue of what Judge Farley can and cannot do won't sidetrack the rebuilding of our airline. Air Canada has been given a great deal of power by Judge Farley's order. Hopefully they will use it wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Go Around Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Legal or not, the creditors will decide what they will or will not accept. My guess is the creditors want management to make whatever moves they deem necessary to create an organization worth backing. The unions could either be there with their hats in their hands saying whatever you need from us you got, or they can negotiate themselves into liquidation - quite legally of course. They don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Another reason to bargain an agreement is that no matter how much of a haircut the unions get, they have choices. They can cut wages across the board, or give higher paid workers a bigger cut. They can say protect pensions, and we'll give more on work rules. Or vice versa. They should the best way to apportion the impacts. Also, in a negotiated settlement, people like Kevin Howlett (VP Labor) will at least be looking to leave a bit on the table in order to get the re-launch of the airline off to the best possible start. It's always a good rule in negotiations for the party with the leverage not to squeeze every last concession out of the other side. Both sides have to respect the outcome. However, the creditors don't care about that. They want maximum returns. That's why I was an advocate of a negotiated deal prior to CCAA, and why I advocate it today. My concern, however, is that the unions would secretly prefer a judge or creditors' committee to dictate terms so they don't have to try to sell concessions to their members. Sad, but I don't see the leadership in AC unions. Just as AC has a lingering Crown Corp mentality, its unions have a lingering bureaucratic mentality which makes it hard for them to acknowledge changing market conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I'm a little confused here Daggre. (Nothing new. ). It sounds from your post that if the unions refuce to negotiate a concessionary contract, or one that isn't concessionary enough, then the courts will impose a contract. From what I read, and even from what I'd gathered from some of your posts, I believed that if the unions failed to come to an agreement, then it was likely that the financing wouldn't be there and we the airline would be liquidated. What is the case? Thanks Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Powermatic.....If you examine some of the rhetoric coming from the unions, especially CUPE, you would get the impression they are acting hardline in a "normal negotiation" enviroment......I'm sorry CUPE, this is not a normal situation........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 The 'come-back' date is a normal part of CCAA and gives other stakeholders the opportunity to voice their concerns. This includes unions but also creditors, suppliers, and others. Air Canada has asked for powers that are unprecedented in CCAA. Some of them may even breach existing legislation covering pension and labour, something that the CCAA process is not empowered to do. Changes WILL be made to the original order and, while it is always possible that Air Canada may expand the boundaries of CCAA, it is nonetheless quite unlikely. Philip Aubin AC pilot PS. On a personal note, the extent of the unsubstantiated and anonymous anti-union rhetoric on this forum is escalating beyond control. Many thoughtful posters have already abandoned it. Since airline employees in general support unionism, if you decide to continue in this vein, perhaps you should consider changing this forum's name to something more in line with its constituency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 The latter... but if you face imminent liqudation, it is tantamount to having the terms forced on you. If you start bargaining early, you can have more influence in shaping the outcome. But you have to engage in a selling job for what you negotiate. An 11th hour deal with the threat of liquidation pending sort of sells itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Philip....criticism accepted....I have never been accused of being anything but a straight shooter......I still have a problem with the many people who DO NOT realize the seriousness of our situation....I know from personal experience that when you deal with a corporate bankruptcy or restructuring it is a brutal experience and unfotunately the employees ALWAYS lose....I just wish we all could have acted sooner and that it did not have to get to this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Philip....criticism accepted....I have never been accused of being anything but a straight shooter......I still have a problem with the many people who DO NOT realize the seriousness of our situation....I know from personal experience that when you deal with a corporate bankruptcy or restructuring it is a brutal experience and unfortunately the employees ALWAYS lose....I just wish we all could have acted sooner and that it did not have to get to this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermatic Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 WA777..... Fair enough. Anytime you want to say Cupe and Pam Sachs "don't get it" I will agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Assuming that AC gets it's way in breaking the contracts of the unions, does this mean that this CCAA could also be used to negate the employment contracts of some of the senior VP's. If this is the case then they could quite easily send some of them packing (ie. Monte) without the golden handshake clauses I'm sure they must have. Anyone have any opinions on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Further to my above posting, this would be not withstanding the agreement with GE on the senior management team staying intact. How far down the org chart does this apply??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I wish that too, and to lay this all at the feet of AC's unions is far less than the full story, IMO. Do you ever sit and wonder how our relationship has degraded to the dismal level it has? BTW, I am not blaming RM either, the relationship sits where it does for many reasons. As you say, the important thing is to put that behind us ASAP. That is the challenge now to both management and employee alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I couldn't tell you, but Brewer is considered one of the brightest of the bunch. That may or may not be a glowing recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stickle Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 You're kidding right, Dagger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 not at all. He's considerable one of the most cerebral of the team. And I have that from a couple of United officials who also felt losing him at UA was a significant loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 If "many" thoughtful posters have abandoned this forum, there doesn't seem to be any lack of thoughtful posters to take their place. Such is the way of the world. No one has exclusive rights to Wisdom. And while it's certainly true that North American airline employees are heavily unionized, that is different from how _many_ support the unions as they currently exist, and how _strongly_ they do so. When people hire on at an airline, they don't have a choice whether or not they can belong to the union. Nor do they have a choice of which union they feel will do a better job of representing their interests. You're stuck with what you have. You can't even take it or leave it; you've got it regardless. As far as rhetoric goes, I watch both sides of the labor coin throw it about with the wildest of abandon. Unions do not take a back seat in this area, no sir. It's possible, (just possible, mind you) that employees are beginning to see that unions, in some cases, are not serving their interests properly. They're speaking out against that. That may look like "anti-union rhetoric" to you, but what it is really is people being dissatisfied with the representation they are receiving, and speaking out accordingly. That looks foreign to you and to many unionized people, because dissent within unions is stifled to the maximum degree possible. SOLIDARITY is the only position that traditional unions will accept. And more's the pity, because they wouldn't have been so stuck in the past if they'd paid more attention to the voices pointing out the problems of rigid union thinking in a changing world. Richard Roskell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Dragon....I have asked myself over and over again...If Hollis were still here running the show would we be in this mess?....the answer is always NO. I have never worked for anybody who I respected more than Hollis and who I felt truly respected his employees...He always made us feel important and that the company cared....I guess it all comes down to a matter of trust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 amen brother.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 OK . . .who are you, and what have you done with the REAL WA777 Philip Aubin AC Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Richard, A few corrections to your current espousing if I may, especially considering that you and I belong to the same union. re: ". . . that is different from how _many_ support the unions as they currently exist, and how _strongly_ they do so." While I can't speak for other unions, the amount of support that ACPA has recieved from its memebers on this issue has been nothing short of amazing. Normally we only hear from those few pilots that are &%$@! off at us on a specific issue. These days 90% of the emails we recieve are atta-boys with about 5% on each of the extremes. Re: "When people hire on at an airline, they don't have a choice whether or not they can belong to the union." Absolutely not true. Since you benefit from the negotiated settlements, you do have to contribute dues to the union, but there is no requirement to become a member. Re: "Nor do they have a choice of which union they feel will do a better job of representing their interests." Again not true. Pick your union, convince the group, and get recertified. Heck, make your own union up (it only takes about $4,000 and 20 people), convince the group, and raid us . . . that's how ACPA was formed in the first place. If you really think the pilots don't want a union, convince the group and have ACPA decertified. The process is all right there in the Act . . . you just have to convince the group. Re: "As far as rhetoric goes, I watch both sides of the labor coin throw it about with the wildest of abandon." Richard, I guess I was asleep on this one. Can you point me to some posts that are rapibly pro-union. About a year ago I think, I dared to ask if it was time for a union at Westjet, that's about as rapibly pro-union as I ever saw. R: ". . . dissent within unions is stifled to the maximum degree possible." Representing pilots is like herding cats . . . and there are very few pilots that are shy about speaking their minds. I know because I end up talking to a lot of them. Personally, all I ever ask of a member that speaks his mind is that he goes on to provide some logical basis for his perspective. As to dissent being stifled, what power does the union have to stifle dissenting opinions. At best all we can do is convince the group by presenting a better alternative. In the end, we HAVE to follow the consensus of the pilot group, because that is from where our mandate flows. Philip Aubin AC Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.