Laying the blame

[Mitch Cronin]

Rampies certainly jumped to the front of your mind in that category, I see... and I'd agree, but I'd say they're not alone.

[Guest Airmail]

Well, I think if three AC unions out of four could successfully negotiate agreements with the management team and only one union out of four could not bring themselves to negotiate the exact same deal with that very same management team then the answer to your question is clear. My point is, why could three agree and one could not? The management team was the same one for all four discussions.

As for why, I think part of it is the fundamental inability of CUPE to strike a deal -- any deal -- without protracted negotiations or unless those negotiations are conducted based on their timetable and terms.

The bottom line is that CUPE is really not a private sector union -- its origins are as a public sector union where the employer (governments) really has limitless resources (ie. using other people's money; taxpayer dollars) and an ability to incessantly raise adequate revenues to quench CUPE's demands for higher wages or inflexible work rules.

I firmly believe that had the flight attendants been represented by the Teamsters (as the Jazz F/As are) or even by the CAW, the story would have been different. Unfortunately, with Sachs, Darcy et al. in charge, the F/A's will continue to be poorly represented.

That's just my opinion.

[Guest Airmail]

In all fairness, no one is talking about protecting management and because management is management, they will take a disproportionate hit in relation to the rest of the employees plain and simple.

Management has had three years of salary freezes already -- unionized employees therefore have a significantly higher starting point from which to take current or future wage reductions. The average management wage is $50,000 so we're not talking about millionaires here.

Management took pay reductions last year starting before 9/11 and continuing for a full 12 months -- in that period, unionized employees took pay increases and salary progression for unionized employees continued uninterupted.

Management ranks are being reduced by 20% starting Monday on top of a 12% reduction in management ranks from 2001 to 2002 -- unionized employees have not been and are not being laid off (yet) in the same numbers and even those unionized employees (F/As and ramp workers) laid off in the post-9/11 environment were largely recalled soon thereafter.

Management have had to work unpaid overtime for the past 24 months (with extremely few exceptions only for operational emergencies) -- unionized employees continue to receive premiums for working overtime.

So there is really no proof whatsoever that managers have been somehow protected at the expense of unionized employees.

Bottom line is that we're in this together.

[Frosty]

Mitch:

In the spirit of trying to be fair.....why don't we just stop the finger pointing......as we also know that the rampies have taken the biggest hit on layoffs so far. This is exactly what management wants in the long run, they want all the unions bickering and pointing fingers . Remember Divide and conquer!

Frosty

[Guest Airmail]

"Stop finger pointing" and "that is exactly management wants" sounds like contradictory advice to me. Is this the workers of the world unite speech?

[Guest Philip Aubin]

George:

With respect to you comment: "So you can continue with your shallow analysis of the problems, but I would suggest that you start to use some critical thinking skills that the good Lord gave you and remember that these issues are a lot more complex than people think they are."

I found it oddly amusing that while I agree entirely with your statement, I would have directed it at the exact opposite group of posters.

Philip Aubin

AC Pilot

[Guest Philip Aubin]

Just for clarity, of that 210 pilots that the Company claims are not covered by the no layoff clause, 171 remain in dispute due to a disagreement as to the date on which the collective agreement was signed. Only about 39 or so are clearly not covered.

"Air Canada undertakes that until April 1, 2004: No Pilot on the Air Canada Pilots Seniority List as of the date of signature of this agreement will be involuntarily laid off."

Philip Aubin

AC pilot

PS. By the way, during the 2000 negotations for this contract, it was not ACPA, but was rather the Company that brought this clause to the table during bargaining.

[Frosty]

Please spare me the workers of the world line!

We all know that unions do have a good side.... but by the same token they also tend to protect the 10% that are the DOGF@%kers of the world.

We also know that its only a matter of time before the IAM splinters...I just think that now is not the time to be pointing fingers...get this settled then it'll be time to move on.

Just my two cents!

frosty

[Guest Airmail]

Frosty: I agree but when you call for AC people to work together, one would hope you would mean all AC people which happens to include management. In the same way as this company could not function without the employees who are unionized, it would also not function without those who are non-unionized.

So it's really not about divide and conquer but rather unite and thrive.

[Guest croupier]

I CANNOT let this stand. No deal was made behind anyone’s back. In April, may and June 2000 the CAIL component approached the AC FA component several times and there are numerous correspondences from then CP component Terry Twentymen asking for joint bargaining. Time and again this was turned down and clearly stated by way of replies by Vice Richard Nolan. Cail FA had no choice but to it alone

[inchman]

I think we're on the same wavelength, Mitch, but if we end up arbitrarily taking 20, 22 or 30%, it needs to applied fairly.

For example, if the flight attendants had not gotten a contract prior to filing, what should their "give" be based on, their last official wage which is 2 years old, or what it might have been if they had gotten the same as the other CUPE component settled for?

If the IAM or any other union had agreed, before CCAA, to take a 15% wage cut to help prevent it, should they take an additional 30% to match the 30% (just numbers) the other unions will eventually agree to? Of course not. Their total "committment" should be exactly the same. There should be no "double-dipping" of concessions. If they tried to help out they should not be unfairly penalized.

Take 2 employees, one union, one lower management, both making $40,000 per year in 2000. In 2001, the union employees get a 2.5% raise and another in 2002. For the first year, they made $1000 more than the non-union employee and for the second, they made $1025 more than the non-union employee. In the meantime, the management employee takes a 5% pay cut for a year. So he's out $2,000.

So the unionized employee is already ahead by $4,025 even though these two people were making the "same" money in 2000. (This is where a unionist says "See, everybody should be in a union!".)

Now, even though the lower management guy has already "provided leadership" (whether voluntary or not) and already given to try to keep the company out of this situation in the first place, if they have to give the same 30% they will be the entire 30% plus the 5% they are behind because of no pay raises, plus the $2000 they lost while on the 5% pay cut.

In my opinion (and it is just that), everybody who was making $40,000 before the cuts and lost raises started, regardless as to when they started, should end up with the same salary after all the cuts stop, without regard as to whether they are management or unionized.

Fair is Fair.

[Guest olddakboy]

How you convoluted Msr Roskell's name into this point ...... in this posting ....... is nothing short of nonsense....

Stick to 'Laying the Blame...'

[Frosty]

Airmail:

I have said on a few posts before that it's time for Every employee of AC to work together.

I don't know what it will take , but just from having a quick look at the chess board (from the stands) it will also take a huge leap of faith as the two sides (management and union...all of them ) are soooooooooooo far apart it's actually disgusting!

Frosty

[Guest neo]

Jeez SLEUTH,

You almost make me feel sorry for DannyDog.

But I tell you what. You're the hotshot sleuth. Why don't you search the archives for ONE (1) posting I've made saying ONE WORD about what we should accept in concessions. That's ONE WORD, Sherlock.

Your own union just volunteered you for a 22% wage cut over how may years?

Glad you know how to pick a winner.

Roskell