Guest WA777 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 After reading the material from yesterday's CCAA hearings, it seems obvious to me that the unions only have their own narrow interests in mind. Continuing their hardline positions will only put AC out of business permanently...I guess that's what everyone wants.....Hard to believe that no one can see where this is going...... http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030423.rairc0423/BNStory/Business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I agree that some flexibility will be needed by unions.A hard line is also needed for numerous things.I only have a few years with AC and pension issues barely affect me.The retirees from air canada paid into the pension plan for all of their careers.They deserve their pension and I don't beleive creditors should be put ahead of the pension fund.If ac as failed to contribute,hasn't properly managed the fund,or has been negligent towards the fund,I beleive they should be forced to start contributions to the deficient fund to bring it to an acceptable level.I know this is not a good time to add more burden to AC but at the same time they have a responsability towards the fund.The federal pension fund regulator was supposed to be in court yesterday to address these concerns. If any one heard any news about that...let us know. Lupin AME yul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 One of the main areas where I see a complete lack of understanding is on the issue of furloughs.....furloughs have been part of the airline business for 50 years...FURLOUGHS HAPPEN...somehow AC's unions have got the impression that they are guaranteed a job for life just like government employees...mind you the company was stupid enough to agree to "no layoff" clauses but the fact remains furloughs are a part of airline life...there are times when they are absolutely necessary...as in RIGHT NOW...The Unions (especially CUPE) are continuing to insist that they have a RIGHT to a job....IMO it will lead to utter failure if they continue on this course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I think we are pretty much on the same page on those issues wa777. Something big is going to happen at AC ,lets get it over with so we can get on with our lives!!!if they are to furlough so more then so be it but don't play the employees like yoyos. A pilot friend was trying to get a leave of absence for 6 months from jazz.They said they would give him the leave but not for 6 months...they wanted a leave from now....until they recall,and then if you don't come running back,you lose your job.Thats not what i call a leave of absence...usually the later has a leave date and come back date. Lupin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fanblade Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I believe that the no layoff clauses were put in place by the Fed's as a condition of the merger with Canadian. Also the same order was lifted after the Sept 11th attacks, you may want to ask AC's fearless leader why he has not layed off up until now? Just out of curiosity, are you an AC employee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Lupin can you clarify your post about the leave. does that mean they wanted him to take the leave now and wouldn't say for how long. was a little unclear. thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pull Up Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I totally agree with your point about furloughs, but as you said, the company was dumb enough to include "no-layoff clauses" in the contract. These are usually put there in lieu of something else ie; less of a pay increase, changes to working conditions, etc. so while you and I may hate them, the company gave them to keep costs down at the time they were signed. The same can be said for "me too" clauses. All they eventually do is keep a labour group from getting more than any other labour group, no matter how deserved. In essence, once they are there, they end up getting used against you. I'm confident that furloughs will come about, or else we all will be looking for work, and I'm sure the judge sees that wall looming on the horizon. Hopefully if and when it all gets straightened out, management will have learned that to manage you can't promise cash for life, and our unions will have learned that the best way to keep their well paying jobs is to go to work, do the best you can, every day, and don't hold the company hostage at negotiating times. Hopefully when it's all over we will have a new and better relationship between management and labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Yes..25+ years.....As for airline unions, I have always felt that a union does in fact serve a worthwhile purpose, but they can and must be smarter than management...in this march to CCAA and bankruptcy I just don't see it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 my friend asked for a leave for 6 months. The company told him he could get his leave of absence.Effective immediatly if need be,but they did not allow it to be for 6 months.The way he explained it to me,he could leave....but once AC started recalling people he had to come back.If he didn't come back he lost his recall rights and therefore is job at jazz. He found a job in the caribean and wanted to go seing as with his seniority he will be laid-off in the first or second round of pilot layoffs.The company seems to want to keep him "available".They aren't offering leaves of absence with a fix date at the moment. Its a strange thing when a company can't afford to keep you but does not want to let you go..... I don't know if that clears things up for you rollingrock,but thats the way he explained it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I can offer something on the Jazz pilot front. The LOA, and SLOA are both on the table. The SLOA has been declined to several pilots now on the furlough list. The company has said the SLOA was designed to be an incentive for people to leave. The SLOA has not been offered to furloughed pilots past their respective furlough date. This is because the company does not feel obligated to offer the extra benefits after the pilot exceeds the date to which they are no longer an employee. This is just what I have heard/read in unofficial places and it sounds like a reasonable excuse, but in a way it now becomes an 'un-incentive' to leave before you have a pink slip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rollingrock Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Thanks Lupin, that is not good for your friend. thanks rr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Sorry to but in Lupin. You may actually know more than I have heard. Is it an LOA your friend was denied? or SLOA? Just curious, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I am unshure of all the details portack.Your post makes alot of sense as well.I don't know what benefits you keep when you are on leave of absence...save for seniority and travel passes. Normally (for us in maintenance) the company offered leaves of absence when layoffs occured.Who knows what is going on now??I don't know enough about the pilot situation to speculate.Thats basically all i know on the pilots leave of absence. Lupin AME yul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Retyred Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 777- You say the unions 'must' be smarter than management. Given my 'druthers' I'd have the best management I could..since we only get to choose the union side I guess we'd better have some high 'fences 'in order to run for union office! If the unions must be smarter than management..in what sense and to what end? Where you going with this philosophically..help me out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 When management (labour relations) stumbles, as badly as it has over the last few years creating an atmosphere of complete mistrust, I think it is incumbent upon any professional union to step up to the plate. They must provide the leadership that is lacking for the good of the company and the LONG TERM interests of its' members.....This is where they can and have to be smarter than management....I think you'll find that good management at most companies does not necessarily mean they are smart or have the ability to see over the horizon, in fact they usually are very slow to react....unions by their very nature have the advantage of size, focused interests, speed and proactivity if they so choose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAT3DUAL Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Furloughs, we all understand and some of us have experience with them. What was most concerning with AC was how they had planned to impliment them. I had heard from two different and reliable sources that they planned to lay off out of senoirity, if they had been successful in front of the judge yesterday. Basically, if you were on the B747 and they got rid of them, which is the plan, then you are gone until they can retrain you, now that something we all have to be concerned with junior or senior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Just watch for the blood let on May 3rd!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I think you'll find over the years that good management doesn't have to be smart, just good....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I think you'll find over the years that good management doesn't have to be smart.....just good....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Retyred Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Interesting reply. Not relevant to your original point, but is that your own personal overview or does that come from a Wharton think tank? Over the years, I found many smart people who were not necessarily good managers, never did I find a good manager who could not count being smart among his many attributes! I gather, from your premise, that your old friend Hollis was 'good' but not 'smart. Is it sufficient,then, for your union boss ( he's a manager ) to be just 'good' and not 'smart'. And when AC turns you loose in it's multi-million dollar toy with all those believing folks, you're the manager, is it sufficient for you to be just 'good' but not 'smart'. I'd really like to think you're both, but I'll keep your secret if you wish. Note that you pulled the first reply yesterday, I would have too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Over the years I've always found that the best managers were the ones who could deal with people...they had the best people skills....they were not necessarily the smartest people but just incredibly skilled at their job....the really smart ones tend to start believing they are smarter than everyone else and when that happens it usually spells disaster.. Hollis IMO had a great ability to manage people and attract respect....in return you got the same...As for my original post I felt it was too lengthy and needed to be condensed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywud Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Perhaps Air Canada played their cards smartly at the negotiating table by getting concessions from the unions in trade for 'No Layoff' clauses. Now that I am faced with the prospect of layoffs in my company, I can tell you that my company is exploring all avenues of saving money eg: LOA, Part-time flying, Job share, unpaid vacation etc. with no mention of furlough. Why? Because it is very costly to layoff. However, faced with bankruptcy, that is a whole different matter. Which leads me to my original point, why not give something like 'no layoffs' during negotiations in return for other gains when you know full well that you will always retain the right to layoff while in bankruptcy. I think unions should rethink their strategy of 'no layoffs next time they sit down at the bargaining table. Just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.