The new deal

[Guest anotherdx]

CALDA, the association representing the Flight Dispatchers, has negotiated a tentative deal with Air Canada that will see approximately 35% of mainline dispatch jobs disappear from the airline. The number of dispatchers remaining at the mainline carrier is forecast to be 66 out of a current 102. In addition to the significant layoffs the deal also means pay and benefits will be cut by a relatively minor 10%, this includes a 2.5% pay cut and work rule changes that will reduce benefits for the dispatchers that remain at the mainline carrier.

As part of the deal the flight dispatchers give up job guarantees.

Why the number 66? This is an arbitrary number that was reached without CALDA knowing what the end state of the carrier will look like! The negotiating committee simply did not know where the RJ fleet would end up or which pilot group would be flying the “new” 100 seat aircraft the company is proposing to operate. This number was negotiated as part of a tentative flight dispatch deal that was reached prior to a deal with the pilots.

The mainline dispatch group has bound itself to the mainline pilot group in that they have secured a tentative deal that states “any flying by mainline pilots will be dispatched by mainline dispatchers”. As the mainline pilot group will most certainly see its work reduced as their jobs are transferred to Jazz, the mainline dispatchers will also see their work heading to their friends in Halifax.

It is very likely that the number 66 will decrease as more and more of the mainline flying is transferred to Jazz!

What if the number 66 was selected to help ensure that there would be minimal risk or delay in ratifying the new deal? The company knows that acceptance of the deal would not be assured if they had said that 50% of Flight Dispatchers could potentially lose their jobs.

It is actually not a bad deal for the dispatchers that will remain as it is a relatively minor pay cut and pension benefits are intact. But what happens six months from now when the company says that the forecast requirement of 66 was too high and now it is time for another round of layoffs?

Six months from now the dispatchers will have no recourse because a key concession in the current deal is that Flight Dispatchers give up all job guarantees!

I wonder if the ratification vote would pass if the dispatchers voting now were told “Yes we need 66 dispatchers now, but we really don’t have any idea how many we will need 6 months from now.”

The company absolutely needs a deal from the dispatchers, as with all employee groups.

Before you ratify the new deal, ask your union what happens six months from now. They don’t know.

[Seeker]

Excellent post. I think most people are missing this factor - that none of the new agreements will have any sort of employment guarantees. The company is untaking changes in a certain direction but makes no promise to continue in that direction. The mainline unions are particularly vulnerable to this, as you point out, but Jazz emploees could get caught too. Let's say that the economy recovers quicker than expected ( it could happen! ) suddenly the whole "Let's get a bunch of RJs" plan doesn't look right and is changed back to " Let's get more Airbuses", suddenly you're looking at layoffs with the insult of having worked for years at a reduced rate to boot.

I honestly don't think any option exists other than to ratify, at this point, but I expect lots of people will end up saying " I didn't think THAT would happen" in a few years.

seeker

[Guest CabinDweller]

If that little concession to "give up all job guarantees" is also agreed to by other unions with the Company fully expecting to take advantage of it in months to come, isn't that called 'bargaining in bad faith'?

[Vsplat]

From what I have seen of the various deals and the posture of this company, there is no attempt being made to consider the ethics of the matter. Not that the folks are evil, it is just that they aren't wired to consider this stuff unless time permits.

Witness the ACPA negotiations. The mission seems to be to move the line as far as possible. Knowing how this company operates it is doubtful that much of what was on the table was backed by complete analysis or forecasts. I'm not even sure where they are getting their savings numbers from. It could be less or far more.

With respect to the job guarantees. This language, and others in some of the proposals, appears aimed squarely at the underpinnings of the negotiating process. The only purpose I can see for much of this is to keep the unions' hand weak. That speaks more to management style than business fundamentals. So much for partnership.

We shall see what kind of airline this is going forward. One thing is for sure. Those whose Plan A was to back their employees into a corner and turn the media against them have used up all of their silver bullets. I won't mention names here, but this package won't be complete until some of the architects of this mess are on the street.

Just my opinion.

Vs

[Guest Eventer]

Without knowing the details, I would still say that ACPA and ALPA should start to normalize diplomatic relations, or at least ACPA should start responding positively to good will gestures made by ALPA. It's in everyone's long term interests.

If these past events don't serve as a warning to all of the Air Canada's Pilots,(ie. AC and Jazz), then I don't know what will!

[Guest Eventer]

I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect Job Guarantees during these difficult times. Rather than a statement about the future devious plans of the Company, I believe it's more simply a sign of the times, ie. theat the Company needs to have unlimited flexibility from its labour groups moving forward.

[Vsplat]

"unlimited flexibility"

Yes, that's the goal. My point is that the whole company needs to show that flexibility. What we have now is a "my way or the highway" relationship. I haven't seen this kind of flex from the restructuring team.

Devious? No, that would take too much foresight. This is reactive, from a team that doesn't know if it's done its homework and wants to be able to go to this well again in case the plan, such as it is, doesn't pan out.

There are no job guarantees in liquidation, so this clause was always pretty well obsolete. My comment is a bit broader. There comes a point where folks absorb so much damage that they go numb, and simply respond to threats with words like "bring it on". We very nearly got there today. My concern is that, if this approach is ever used again, employee groups will simply entrench on all fronts. We need partnership way more than threats and fear.

I will wait to see what the BoD and their team do about their mis-handling of their people. They can either waste still more of the company's time spinning this, or take real action to start team-building. I hope it is plan #2.

Cheers
Vs