Jump to content

Unions Still Don't Get It...


Guest WA777

Recommended Posts

Excellent rebuttal, Phil. Thanks for your contribution.

"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."

I'll assume that in this case you're refering specifically to our union's stance before and since CCAA filing. I have no way of validating or countering your claim. But generally speaking, I would like to point out the fallacy that is inherent in all assumptions that sort. You have concluded that because most pilots you've heard from on an ad hoc basis are in favor, that you have strong support. This is a dangerous assumption. It's dangerous because, of course, it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. And it's dangerous because one of the greatest problems with unions is that all too frequently they substitute opinion and impression for the democratically voted will of the majority.

I recently had an email, from a colleague who's opinion I generally respect, who told me that my criticism of our union's position prior to CCAA was totally off-base. He said there were 400 pilots(!) at a union meeting in Toronto and he didn't hear a dissenting voice from anyone! So, in other words, 400 pilots (minus the number who were afraid to speak out) decided our union's part in our company's potential journey to bankruptcy. (I simplify of course, but you'll see my point, I'm sure.)

If it's in this haphazard manner that unions determine the most critical of issues, how much validity can we give to claims for the support they receive?

From my perspective, I do not claim that unions have no support amongst all the employees they represent. My point is that all to frequently, unions claim support both for their representation and their policies without any valid democratic justification whatsoever.

Your next point. I said, "When people hire on at an airline, they don't have a choice whether or not they can belong to the union..." and you responded, "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."

I'm guilty of simplifying the issue, but I beg your indulgence. Yes, it's true, you can refuse membership. But you will still have to contribute to the union that you refused to join. And you will still be stuck with every single choice that the union makes, despite your refusal to join. Is this a real choice in regards to opting out? Hardly. You sink or swim based on what the union decides, regardless or whether you're a card-carrying member.

Your next point. I said, "Nor do they have a choice of which union they feel will do a better job of representing their interests." And you said, "Again not true. Pick your union, convince the group, and get recertified..."

I have no squabble at all with your point, I'll just mention that you're looking at the issue a little less broadly than the observation I made. When an individual joins a unionized company, he does not get to pick which union he would like to represent him. It's not like a normal democratic election where you have a range of political views to choose from. You get the incumbent union, full stop.

If you wish to change the union, it's up to you to fight the entrenched incumbents, gain support of 50%+1 of the membership, and re-certify. That's not something a new hire employee is going to achieve, Phil. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, when you hire on at a unionized company, you have no choice as to who represents you.

In many ways, the process is completely back-asswards. What should really happen is that imcumbent unions should have to demonstrate their legitimacy against alternative unions, via votes held at reasonable intervals. The way it is now, a union is in power in perpetuity until someone manages to circumvent all the roadblocks to its removal. If we had a similar system of government, we would call it totalitarian.

I've run out of time to continue the debate. Will try to pick up the thread later.

Many thanks for your comments,

Richard Roskell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent rebuttal, Phil. Thanks for your contribution.

"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."

I'll assume that in this case you're refering specifically to our union's stance before and since CCAA filing. I have no way of validating or countering your claim. But generally speaking, I would like to point out the fallacy that is inherent in all assumptions that sort. You have concluded that because most pilots you've heard from on an ad hoc basis are in favor, that you have strong support. This is a dangerous assumption. It's dangerous because, of course, it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth. And it's dangerous because one of the greatest problems with unions is that all too frequently they substitute opinion and impression for the democratically voted will of the majority.

I recently had an email, from a colleague who's opinion I generally respect, who told me that my criticism of our union's position prior to CCAA was totally off-base. He said there were 400 pilots(!) at a union meeting in Toronto and he didn't hear a dissenting voice from anyone! So, in other words, 400 pilots (minus the number who were afraid to speak out) decided our union's part in our company's potential journey to bankruptcy. (I simplify of course, but you'll see my point, I'm sure.)

If it's in this haphazard manner that unions determine the most critical of issues, how much validity can we give to claims for the support they receive?

From my perspective, I do not claim that unions have no support amongst all the employees they represent. My point is that all to frequently, unions claim support both for their representation and their policies without any valid democratic justification whatsoever.

Your next point. I said, "When people hire on at an airline, they don't have a choice whether or not they can belong to the union..." and you responded, "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."

I'm guilty of simplifying the issue, but I beg your indulgence. Yes, it's true, you can refuse membership. But you will still have to contribute to the union that you refused to join. And you will still be stuck with every single choice that the union makes, despite your refusal to join. Is this a real choice in regards to opting out? Hardly. You sink or swim based on what the union decides, regardless or whether you're a card-carrying member.

Your next point. I said, "Nor do they have a choice of which union they feel will do a better job of representing their interests." And you said, "Again not true. Pick your union, convince the group, and get recertified..."

I have no squabble at all with your point, I'll just mention that you're looking at the issue a little less broadly than the observation I made. When an individual joins a unionized company, he does not get to pick which union he would like to represent him. It's not like a normal democratic election where you have a range of political views to choose from. You get the incumbent union, full stop.

If you wish to change the union, it's up to you to fight the entrenched incumbents, gain support of 50%+1 of the membership, and re-certify. That's not something a new hire employee is going to achieve, Phil. Ergo, for all intents and purposes, when you hire on at a unionized company, you have no choice as to who represents you.

In many ways, the process is completely back-asswards. What should really happen is that imcumbent unions should have to demonstrate their legitimacy against alternative unions, via votes held at reasonable intervals. The way it is now, a union is in power in perpetuity until someone manages to circumvent all the roadblocks to its removal. If we had a similar system of government, we would call it totalitarian.

I've run out of time to continue the debate. Will try to pick up the thread later.

Many thanks for your comments,

Richard Roskell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neo

The membership is necessarily responsibe for the policies and practices of "the union".

Democracy is represented at all levels of your union. You may not favour the decisions of its executive however, a decision of that body on behalf of its membership is fair and final in the absence of any willful constitutional or other misconduct.

Absolute power leads to corruption. I can appreciate the notion that an apathetic constituency allows this evolution to occur. This result is a notably demonstrable failure of most democratic systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re - "...there is also nothing in law - neither in the statutes or the precedents - that explicitedly prevent it [abrogation of CBA's under CCAA] either.":

Not a lawyer, but love a legal discussion none-the-less. This reminds me of the exchange in Robert Bolts "A Man For All Seasons":

Cromwell
: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!


More
: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent." If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.


Cromwell
: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?


More
: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Not quite analogous, tho', since More is arguing about the interpretation of his personal actions rather than laws themselves.

The articles I saw speculated more about legislated contractual relief for AC than one imposed by the judge alone. Seems to me that the Law can compel or it can forbid, all else (on which it is silent) is permitted (consented to?), ie neither forbidden or compelled.

However, since the collective agreement compels certain behaviour by the parties to it, would it not follow that the compulsory conditions can only be legally over-ridden by specific compulsion of another, over-riding statute?

For the good faith of all contracts, I'd think it was the duty of employee representatives to challenge an involuntary abrogation of any agreement without specific legislative authority.

In the dire straits of CCAA there are lots of other imperatives on employees to open there CBA's, without a blunt hammer from the court, and I hope at least those unions with other contracts elsewhere contest any arbitrary abrogation (unless authorized by statute) even as they may voluntarily work out options with the other stakeholders in this mess.

I think it opens a pandora's box to assert that the judge is free to anything not specifically forbidden in the law, because one hopes that one of the prohibitions of our law is that on arbitrary measures. Kind of leaves the imagination wide open. If there are arguments for legislatively permitting this, let them be made and the law changed. IMVHO of course

Cheers, IFG ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEFCON,

Employing a rigid legal or linguistic definition to the concept of democracy will be the death of it; or at the least, do it a disservice.

Do you recall the former East German Republic? According to their principles, it was called a "Democracy". So is that the end of the story?

Electing a representative, to a government or a union, does not make the operation of that entity democratic except in the most superficial of ways. Democracy is not an end product; it's a process that must be renewed and strengthened at every conceivable opportunity.

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And picking up where we left off...

"Can you point me to some posts that are rapibly pro-union..."

The point you raised initially was about about rhetoric and I responded to that, not about how many posts are rabidly anti-union. But really Phil, this is a forum full of unionized employees. Are you really trying to say that the majority of the posts here are rabidly anti-union? If so, I challenge your claim. I don't think there's much doubt that the majority of posts here are anti-management, at least from our family of employees.

But if you're also claiming that our own union does not employ rhetoric in its communication, I will be happy to show you otherwise. However, I do not post our union's correspondence here on the forum. Please email me and I will provide you with details.

"Representing pilots is like herding cats..."

So it's been said. But what's the big problem in that, Phil? Herding cats is easy. Give me a big enough can of salmon, and I'll have a thousand of them lined up in a corral, doing backflips.

It's not in how difficult you see the problem, it's about how creative you're willing to be to find solutions.

"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."

I think your expectation is very reasonable.

"As to dissent being stifled, what power does the union have to stifle dissenting opinions."

You're speaking tongue in cheek, right? Well, let's look at it from the other direction then. It's not enough that unions (or any democratic organization) NOT STIFLE dissent. They must facilitate and encourage it.

Good pilots embrace that concept in managing their cockpits. The captain will turn to you and say, "If you EVER see ANYTHING that looks like a problem to you, speak up right away." He hasn't simply permitted dissent to silently exist; he has encouraged and facilitated it.

"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."

Fair enough. So what was the consensus of the pilot group on the best way for our union to approach the impending CCAA? You don't know. None of us do. The issues were never placed before the pilots, nor were they asked for their consensus.

When elected officials in government face an issue that was never contemplated in the mandate they received from their constituents, they return to population and ask for their direct vote on the matter. That's one way that democracy is strengthened and renewed. Unions have a lot to learn in this area.

Thanks again for your comments,

Richard Roskell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And picking up where we left off...

"Can you point me to some posts that are rapibly pro-union..."

The point you raised initially was about about rhetoric and I responded to that, not about how many posts are rabidly anti-union. But really Phil, this is a forum full of unionized employees. Are you really trying to say that the majority of the posts here are rabidly anti-union? If so, I challenge your claim. I don't think there's much doubt that the majority of posts here are anti-management, at least from our family of employees.

But if you're also claiming that our own union does not employ rhetoric in its communication, I will be happy to show you otherwise. However, I do not post our union's correspondence here on the forum. Please email me and I will provide you with details.

"Representing pilots is like herding cats..."

So it's been said. But what's the big problem in that, Phil? Herding cats is easy. Give me a big enough can of salmon, and I'll have a thousand of them lined up in a corral, doing backflips.

It's not in how difficult you see the problem, it's about how creative you're willing to be to find solutions.

"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."

I think your expectation is very reasonable.

"As to dissent being stifled, what power does the union have to stifle dissenting opinions."

You're speaking tongue in cheek, right? Well, let's look at it from the other direction then. It's not enough that unions (or any democratic organization) NOT STIFLE dissent. They must facilitate and encourage it.

Good pilots embrace that concept in managing their cockpits. The captain will turn to you and say, "If you EVER see ANYTHING that looks like a problem to you, speak up right away." He hasn't simply permitted dissent to silently exist; he has encouraged and facilitated it.

"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."

Fair enough. So what was the consensus of the pilot group on the best way for our union to approach the impending CCAA? You don't know. None of us do. The issues were never placed before the pilots, nor were they asked for their consensus.

When elected officials in government face an issue that was never contemplated in the mandate they received from their constituents, they return to population and ask for their direct vote on the matter. That's one way that democracy is strengthened and renewed. Unions have a lot to learn in this area.

Thanks again for your comments,

Richard Roskell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Terminated

I support Neo's assertions that unions have often lost sight of proper member representation and democracy. At least, it appears that neo reflects similar issues in his representation as I do in mine (at Jazz).

Through this latest company crisis, as an example, what SHOULD be done is the leadership asking and finding out from the members what direction they should go.

Neglecting this, what, at least, COULD be done is to be made aware of what the union leadership is (before and during) trying to do.

As it stands, in most situations I have witnessed, what IS done, is we are merely informed, after it has been completed, what has been done. At that point you are informed of the many reasons why it would be bad, and against the greater good, for you to go against what has been decided on your behalf, without consultation. As neo said, we are told we must have 'solidarity'.

It's always funny when I hear someone say 'YOU are the union', yeah right, only when it comes to paying dues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. I got tingly all over reading your post. ;) If thoughtful posters are leaving this forum, they're missing some bright lights.

I think More would agree that the situations are not quite analogous. On the one hand, he was debating for his life (and principles) against an absolute ruler. In the situation at hand, two parties to an agreement are trying to determine who has the power to do what. I would expect that both parties would test the limits of their power and control.

However, wise parties on both sides would not necessarily use all the power and control they have, but rather find an accomodation somewhere within those boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Electing a representative, to a government or a union, does not make the operation of that entity democratic except in the most superficial of ways. Democracy is not an end product; it's a process that must be renewed and strengthened at every conceivable opportunity."

Agreed. Our form of democracy also provides the constituency with another relief valve which of course is the "petition and recall" of one or more elected reps.

An old CALPA AC MEC was attempting to deal with a problem in a manner not acceptable to the vast majority of AC pilots. All the crew room antics went on until such time as a P&R campaign was undertaken by the membership. The MEC got the message and a new course was selected.

Today you find yourselves in unique circumstances in which most everyone enjoys an equally unique position. As I see it, the ACPA MEC is operating in a manner that they believe to be consistent with their mandate and in the best interests of the membership.

In the absense of any direction to the contrary their present course is likely to continue. Is membership apathy the problem in the present case or is the membership satisfied with the MEC's direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...