Guest WA777 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 You can expect some new CCAA/Labour contract precedents to be made starting tomorrow....more than 50 lawyers will be in court, all jockeying for position....look out from above...! http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030421/RAIRC_2/TPBusiness/TopStories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 That's why it's so amazing that the union leaders decided that CCAA was the pre-requisite for any action on their part! Now you've got "more than 50 lawyers" representing wildly competing interests which will make Milton's $650 million look like a stroll in the park. It seems that Johnson, Fane, Sachs and Ritchie rolled the dice and lost and are now trying to deflect blame by making silly noices about management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wilber Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 The decision to go to CCAA was ultimately managements and they are also along for the ride. Everyone is blaming everyone and there is enough to go around for all. You name it, management, employees and just about every layer of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 That is precisely why you need your hard hat...too many people still have no idea how brutal CCAA or CH 11 can be.....it means employees will pay, guaranteed...you NEVER NEVER NEVER want to end up in CCAA or bankruptcy.....but hey, it's already too late for that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Retyred Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 I understand the unions, as they surreptitiously band together to bluff their 'pair of twos' in this high stakes game (they're in over their heads ), are adopting a theme song!! It's that old tune " Oh no, they can't take that away from me " !! I understand that Ms. sachs, who is intimately acquainted with that logic, has volunteered to lead the group in a hearty refrain before the Court and its many attendees. Possibly there will be a small cash collection, which may be about all the unions may get for their efforts!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 What bugs me about this whole thing is , we still haven't seen any kind of changes comming down the pipe , we are still going along the same way. I'd also love to see the union's get together....yes this means ALL the unions and do some collective head banging to try and come up with some solutions so that the haircut we get won't be soooooo bad. But that is a nice dream....all the union leaders want to do is spend our dues on laywers. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 WA777, you're right it is too late to do anything now on a CCAA filing now but it isn't for liquidation. The unions rolled the dice on CCAA and lost -- plain and simple. Milton asked for $650 million on February 6 and through every stalling tactic in the book and every excuse known to mankind, nothing happened -- blame whomever you want but nothing happened so CCAA became a reality. The next stage involves a plan of arrangement under CCAA or liquidation. Will the employees put their fate in the hands of the same unions who have already lost a big one for them by refusing to come to the table (for some until the very last possible moment, for others not at all) in time to prevent a CCAA filing? Who knows? But I would venture to guess that the noise from the unions and their lawyers will result in more pain than required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Look, it's not up to the unions to try to come up with solutions. Let the management come up with a plan, something realistic, with legs and I'm sure the unions will be onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B75/76 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 I would think being proactive gives the unions the greatest chance at the most favourable outcome. Sitting back and saying "It's not my job." can't be too beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Demon72 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Being part of a union is a double edged sword. The solutions for AC and its employees are unique to AC. Unfortunately CUPE, CAW and others, with the exception of ACPA, have other employee groups working for other employers who have nothing in common with AC but, whose interests the union must also protect. These unions will not willingly accept anything which could be prescendent setting for the other employers to use against other union members. There is no doubt when things are good the collective bargaining power can produce results, the down side is now when individual company solutions won't be readily applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Given all that : What are we supposed to do sit around on our hands? Unions can and have done a lot of good in the past, but in times like this it also beneficial for them to come up with part of the solution. Remember that unions dues are based on a percentage of the hourly wage that is set in the collective agreement ,plus more memebres working more dues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Demon72 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Unfortunately there is not much else you, the individual, can do. You can listen to whatever information is offered, and make positive suggestions, but in the end you are paying an organization to bargain for you, and they are. Hang on, your only real input will be at the end, IF you get the opportunity to ratify the outcome. I think the waiting is the worst part. Once the decision is made, good bad or ugly at least then you can move forward and deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 While all this is true I just want to know what's happening. Now I'm not going to be another one of the people that are bashing Milton but ....here's my two cents worth. When American and United went to the employees I'm told (correct me if Im wrong ) they actually had something to put on the table other than the demand of we need XXX number of $in savings. Maybe just maybe if we had done that things would have been different. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Hey Frosty: If you're going to hang something out there like this, you need some type of reference to back it up. It doesn't sound like you really believe what you're saying. Maybe you heard it from somebody else making the same guess. This is how rumours get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 No: I'm just saying that instead of just saying to all the employee groups that we need so much $$$$$ in savings, if there had been a plan on the table to show people, things could have been different. And I did say correct me if Im wrong....so where is the reference that says that they did not go to the table without a plan. Remember I said this was my two cents worth. I for one am more apt to say if the company had a frame of reference to say this is where we are today this is where we want to be 6 weeks (or however long) from now things may have been different.People love to have something concrete to see rather than an ambiguous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Aubin Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 There was no plan on the table. Philip Aubin AC Pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 just playing devils advocate here.... what's the point of putting forward demands...How would the pilots react if AC asked for 30% wage cuts,to remove the restrictions preventing jazz from operating certain types of airplanes,remove all growt restrictions at zip,as well as change the work rules, including increased work hours per month(up to max transport canada alowable),as well as adding a few "new" responsabilities.... Imagine the case with the ramp agents,station and cargo personel....AC wants to spin them off in a diferent business unit....then have that business be competitive with globeground,hudson general etc. I don't know if you see things the way I do but I can't see a productivity increase so great as to much the lower cost structure of the competitors.Maybe increased productivity will be one of the things the new company will aim for,but I imagine a large salary cut is also going to be demanded from the this group.If this new company fails to be competitive with competing providers...the work would likely be farmed out. The same will happen for most departments.Now if you were leading this great company and were seeking to cut that much from the employee groups and dramaticaly change work conditions..... would you lay your plan out on the table and cause revolt?Or would you wait until the last minute (May is suposed to be the release date for the restructuring plan)and leave no time for any of the unions to organise. Lupin yul AME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bigbigbus Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 under CCAA can the company law off by fleet type? If so even the most senior pilot has to be worried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 re bigbigbus I beleive all our unions are going to find out in court in the coming days what can and cannot be done under ccaa.I have a feeling AC is in unchartered waters. For the record,the press was saying yesterday that a quebec mining company tried to get around the collective aggrements of its employees when in ccaa but the court ruled that was not legal.The press went on to mention that was probably the reason AC filed in Ontario instead of Quebec. With our beloved finance minister looking at this fiasco from the sideline....its not hard to imagine he will support any cuts demanded by Air Canada.I beleive everything will be fair game as long as its not coming out of tax payers pockets. We just have to see how things unroll in the comming weeks,maybe months. Lupin Yul AME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bigbigbus Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 thanks for the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GDR Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 >>>I beleive everything will be fair game as long as its not coming out of tax payers pockets.<<< Air Canada doesn't want to get into the tax payer's pockets, we just want the gov't to get out of ours, and the pockest of other airlines for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 "With our beloved finance minister looking at this fiasco from the sideline....its not hard to imagine he will support any cuts demanded by Air Canada" Won't he also be looking on thinking about the economic impact to the economy as a whole with regards to that much of a reduction in tax money taken in, as well as the reduction to overall spending across the country? This whole process is bigger than just AC now, and that's what makes it so dangerous. Just my opinion... Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.