Kip Powick Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Today..From the Globe and Mail....Makes me wonder if any of the crew is aware that the boat will move faster if everyone rows in the same direction..... "It would apply company-wide to all employee groups including executive management, with the exception of employees earning less than $25,000 a year." At least one union has already rejected the request as a non-starter. "We don't have the time to ratify their 10-per-cent thing and sit and bargain with them, too. We don't think this interim thing is on the table because of that," said Dave Ritchie, general vice-president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I wonder what Judge Farley will think about those comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Good for the IAM...well done. Bravo. Way to tell them. They'll know you're serious now. I wonder if Judge Farley is allowed to crack a couple of heads together, like Dave Ritchie and Pam Sachs???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 As a IAM member, Dave Richie should keep his comments to himself.The membership will vote on this.Remember he has one adgenda,keep those union dues coming.He IMHO does not speak for the majority anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I am glad to here that the membership might be more in tune with reality than the leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lupin Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 before everyone starts blasting the IAM,I would like to point out that with the seperation of the diferent groups at air canada(technical services and ramp+ station)the IAM risks losing the right to represent the aircraft tecnicians.We are actively persuing representation from another union formed by air canada employees for air canada employees.CAMA (Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Association) seeks to represent everyone involved in aircraft maintenance at AC. The last card drive was not successfull but missed by only a small margin.Although not successful,it served to enlighten the IAM to the dissatisfaction of the maintenance personel toward their representation. The iam has to take a tough stand as their survival as our bargaining agent depends on it.Everyone sees what happened in the US,the layoffs,cutbacks and bankrupcies.But no one seems to remember the huge raises that they got in 1999-2002.Even with their cut backs the united tecnicians will make more then they did 3 years ago.That is not the case at AC.If AC wants to compare us with westjet I suggest they look which employee groups need to take a cut,and bring salaries to industry standard I do beleive some change to work rules and pay will be necessary but caution should be excercised not to lock us in a contract longuer then a 2 year period.Make the cuts bigger but shorter....that will leave some breathing room for the company and if within that time they can't change or improve their operation... then maybe a fresh start would be a better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 It appears that they are just following the old tired and true lines of .....Company has the wish list .......we say no and hope for a meeting in the middle. One question though.....Just as an observer who has been through a few contracts and seen others get negotiated.....How does the company expect to sit down and negotiate with all the unions in 3 weeks . Normal negots start at least a year before contract is due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 I think in this case, it's not just the company asking for a quick resolution, the creditors want to have a crack at THEIR money -- remember, AC is living on borrowed time (and on borrowed money) so the deadlines being set are also for the benefit of the creditors (and the judge) who have the ability to pull the plug if they don't like what they see. This can only go so long as the creditors believe that AC can continue in the hopes that a viable business plan can be achieved. Without that viable business plan -- which must be judged to be sound and capable of withstanding more 9/11s, SARS epidemics and wars by lowering costs dramatically -- then it will be in the interests of the creditors and others to simply pull the plug and put the company into bankruptcy/liquidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Airmail: Granted what you say is true. But with the shear scope of what the company wants to do , how do we not know that when everyone sits down at the table as the unions are looking at the language in the contract that if it does not meet up to the companies timeline that they are not going to go to the Judge and say "They are barganing in bad faith". Call me cynical but I think that this will be a rush job and when the dust settles and we actually do get a good chance to look at the language we will All find huge holes in the contracts that the company will exploit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Frosty: It's exactly the same process followed by UA and US under Chapter 11 and AMR outside Chapter 11 so if they can do it, why can't AC? The fundamental direction has already been set by the judge who has said that he expects 100% cooperation on all sides and for everyone to stop playing the blame game and take the necessary steps to ensure AC's cost structure is in line with market realities. This is not a negotiation in the traditional sense of the word because any leverage under a traditional negotiation on the part of either management or union is neutralized by a court-appointed monitor who sits in on the negotiations to represent the creditors and bondholders and ultimately, the judge. The unions or management cannot rely on delaying tactics in the hopes that the situation will right itself because any delay will be met with a giant kick in the backside by the mediator who really has nothing to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 So why does it appear then that the company wants to negotiate through the newspapers? Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Why do you say that? If you're talking about company issued press releases, the company still has disclosure obligations under Canadian securities laws and since it disclosed certain material information as part of its presentation to the unions last week, the company was required to put out a press release detailing information which would be relevant to investors (since the stock contiinues to trade). So the duty to communicate material information in a timely fashion as specified by securities laws in this country obliges such disclosure to take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest olddakboy Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 sorry for the personal note here folks... Mr (or Mrs) Lupin.... I worked at the Lupin site during the late 70's and early 80's, would you be willing to say hi to billboper@yahoo.com (that's an alias)... thanks....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.