ATC Wages Move Ahead of Pilots'

[Guest neo]

Thanks for your clarification. That was the impression I got from reading your post originally, but I wanted to be sure.

My take on it differs from your own in a number of ways. Please consider...

Adherence To Principles of Unionism

Which principles of unionism are you refering to? It would appear that you believe that principled unions act, when necessary, against the interests of their local members in favor of some broader ideal that encompasses members of other unions. That may well be the case at times, but in the world of unions I can assure you that the opposite is the more prevalent and numerous situation: a union will look after its own members first, and then when it's in the interests of its members, act in accord with other unions.

And, far from this being contrary to the principles of unionism, it is entirely in accord with the principles of unionism. Your local in your union is supposed to look after your interests first. It's not supposed to subjugate your needs in favor of some other, broader interest, unless you expressly wish it.

There is nothing whatsoever contrary to the principles of unionism for a union to be, for example, in conflict with a rival union over representation of the membership. These conflicts happen frequently, in many different industrial areas.

"Airline Pilots" vs "Pilots at an Airline"

I don't find this distinction to have a lot of substance to it in how airline pilots at Air Canada and elsewhere feel. It's normal to be loyal to a particular employer and to a particular union. They both represent one's future, one's prosperity.

It's true that JAZZ pilots have done an admirable job of combining their previous seniority lists. It would also be fair to point out that the circumstances of the individual airline groups were essentially similar, and that makes for a somewhat easier merge; but kudos to the JAZZ pilots nevertheless. But is all this apparent 'bonhomie' going to extend to your colleagues at the Tier 3 airlines? If some other rival union starts taking your jobs, are your "principles of unionism" going to prevail, or are you going to want your company union to take care of your business?

The reason I point this out is that it is quite easy to trumpet the cause of universal unionism when it's in your interests to do so. It's another matter when doing so will mean, for example, loss of your flying jobs, reduced wages for you, or fewer benefits for yourself and your colleagues.

The bottom line being, that I know of no union principle that states that one union must act against the best interests of its own members, in favor of someone else's idea of what the 'greater good' might be. Unions are free to decide for themselves what the greater good is, and further, they are free to ignore that greater good if they wish and simply take care of their own people. Union Principle #1: Take care of your members.

There's a reason why I'm pointing these things out, and I'm coming to it now. Thanks for your patience in reading this far. In my opinion, the biggest reason why JAZZ pilots are unable to reconcile with the mainline drivers is that they believe they have moral and principle right on their side. They believe that the ACPA pilots did was morally wrong; and from that immoral act flows all that is wrong with the relationship between the two groups. There's no doubt that there's some truth to that view; but it is, as in so many cases of moral outrage, a narrow view of a complex issue. And, as in so many cases of moral outrage, it completely ignores one's own responsibility in the matter.

I spent 8 years at the regional, through Picher, the 1997 strike and all the rest. WE WERE TAKING THEIR JOBS, DUDE! Let's be honest with ourselves. We took flying from the mainline. They had pilots that got laid off, and in large part that was because of us. We squeezed them from below, while their management was pushing down from the top. And is it your belief that the regional pilots were all embarassed and sympathetic towards their mainline breatheren? I'm sorry, that wasn't the case at all. We saw it as an opportunity to get ahead ourselves. That's the truth, buddy.

And anecdote from those days? Prior to CALPA calling for the merger between the mainline and regional pilots, I asked the AirBC MEC Chairman of the day, "Well, are we going to push for the merger now?" He said, "No. It wouldn't be strategic. The mainline's in reduction mode. We're growing. Once we're done this growth spurt, THEN we apply for the merger." Take as many jobs from them as you can first, then merge. Only makes sense, doesn't it?

But where was the regional pilots ideals of unionism then? The mainline guys were on the anvil, and we were the hammer. We knew exactly what we were doing, and it was in our interests to do so; so we continued despite the fact that it was not going to have good implications for overall union brotherhood.

The suggestion that ACPA has abandoned union principle and the moral high ground as well, conveniently disregards the part that we all played in the events leading up to Picher. The belief that ACPA acts without principles, while others hold them dear, is pretty much propaganda. It's polarized thinking and does nothing to advance anyone's interests. The sooner everyone loses that perspective, the sooner people can move beyond the hurt and maybe even do some good.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest Kal]

Dick (the head)

You are so full of &%$@!e that that is all your anal rant deserves in way of response. You are well and truly phucked.

[Guest neo]

Truth hurts, huh?

That's OK. Not everyone can actually face reality and deal. They'd prefer to live in their make-believe world, to pretend the version they've constructed in their minds is actually the way it is, or was.

Unfortunately for you and your fantasy, some of us actually were there. We've walked the walk from both sides. I have nothing to gain from misrepresenting anyone's position. I saw what happened, and I don't blame anyone on either side. But neither will I rearrange the facts simply to cover my own inability to deal with the truth. That clever little ploy I'll leave to individuals like yourself.

It's pretty much a maxim in life, that the closer you hit to a contentious truth, the worse some people react. Judging from you, I'd say it was a bull's eye.

[Guest Kal]

There is nothing in your post that could be objectively catagorized as truth. What you have to gain is clear.

You were a leach, a parasite and a coward in your previous incarnation as a 'regional pilot'. A stain Dick, a stain. This little diatribe thru the looking glass you are promoting is nothing more than an attempt to ligitimise in your own (Dick first above all Dick) mind that rebranding yourself as an OAC guy (how sick is that) was a noble thing to do.

You don't know the facts, so you create them. You don't know the truth, so you adopt one. Yes Dick you know how to walk ( or sashy) the particular walk you decide is good for Dick today. You have never (nor will you ever I predict) Walk the talk, Dick

You just don't have in you.

[Guest Nail]

Hey Kal,

I was an observer for this whole process over the last bunch of years. What Neo says is what actually transpired. He obviously hit a nerve with you. The merger with the feeders was called by AC CALPA a long time ago, but didn't proceed for his mentioned reasons. It sat "untouched" for years, but still alive in "premise".

A DOH solution would have worked originally for both sides, but after years of dormancy the playing field changed dramatically. To ignore this fundamental change would have been wrong for us, but it was the reason it was now persued by yourselves. Your growth had slowed, and we had hired hundreds in the time span.

Try some introspection here, and try to see the vastly different arena we were in when the "monster" was brought back to life. To ignore that would have been to the detriment of our rank and file would it not? Is protecting your "rank and file" not the basic premise of unionism? The basic premise you seem to miss is that it was shelved by yourselves when it was "not right", but reawakened by you when your advantage appeared. For us not to defend ourselves would have been unthinkable.

Nail

[Guest neo]

Nothing could suggest the credibility of my version more than your sad attempt to make it about me, rather than about what actually happened. Do you really think that your diatribe will have an impact on me? Do you think that the harder you throw a tantrum, the more people will believe that YOU know what it's all about?

I'm sorry for you, I really am. It can't be nice living with that kind of bitterness and anger. It's eating you alive, by the sound of it. But of course, I guess you'll be in denial about that, too. I suppose you're just a happy, well-adjusted guy, with an even-handed approach to life and the viewpoints of others.

Whatever you say, dude, whatever you say.

[Guest Kal]

I really don't know what reality you are talking about.

Fact:

The original CALPA merger declaration was a product of a motion by the AC MEC to involve GX and ZX in 1985

Said declaration was put in abeyance at request of AC MEC in 1986. GX MEC protested vociferously over said action. ZX was not at the time a member of CALPA

1988-90 CALPA sought and obtained bargaining rights for ZX QK 3J and NV

Within months of achieving certification (4 months) All parties agreed to invoke merger policy once again.

All the delays that occured from March 1991 ( when document was signed) to the submition to arbitration in 1994 ( with award in March 1995) were at the request of the AC MEC , over the objections of the ACR MEC's.

The simple fact is that the ACR MEC's did not have the political ponies to delay the policy time lines. The AC MEC did, and they did.

Date of Hire was not the outcome of the arbitration. Many of us (me included) were strong advocates of tailend with fences. Until the NV pilots broke with the herd over YYC YEG 737 flying and cut there own deal with the AC MEC. The AC pilots subsequently &%$@! on that one. After that it was apparant that the AC pilot would not honor anything that did not smell of total victory. So what was the point. You can't make a good deal with bad people.

Bitter? Nope. Outraged? Yup.

I am not a party to any litigation. I do hope you are made to pay for the destruction of my profession.

All of the above dates, motions, movers of said motions are on record.

[UpperDeck]

Not having yet reviewed the remainder of the thread let me deal for now with one matter that you and others have previously referred to and which is at variance with the facts. In the third from last paragraph, you refer to "CALPA pushing for merger..." Wrong. CALPA was an observer in that regard. In compliance with the Constitution, the President declared a merger AT THE REQUEST OF THE AC MEC. The President postponed the process at the request of the AC MEC; re-activated it at the request of the AC MEC; and, tried again to postpone it WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL at the request of AC MEC. In short, the process was driven by the AC MEC and NOT by CALPA.

One other point...you refer to the AC union and Regionals as though they were in different unions and with different agendas. I agree; the agendas were different but they were members of the same union---CALPA. Let us not confuse "locals" with the union.

I did not use "union principles" as a generic term; I was specific in my reference. Obviously, one can say that the "union" was of pilots employed by Air Canada and that this "union" properly discharged its obligation of preserving the employment of its members.That, however, would constitute a reconstruction of history. The "union" was in fact CALPA and the duty of the members of the union was to comply with the process and "law" of the union. Self-interest certainly motivates us all to some degree but once we agree to subsume our personal interest to the interests of "the group", we deviate from our duty thusly defined at risk. Were it otherwise, the benefits of unionism would be lost because there would be no obligations attaching and therefore, no compulsion to abide by the decisions of the group.

In the Second World War, many lives were lost that could have been saved by utilizing the information available by reason of Enigma. Allied leaders had to make painful, difficult decisions to "sacrifice" some for the benefit of many. Eisenhower did NOT say; "I'll risk British lives and save US lives". He was driven by a higher calling in favour of "mankind". Your logic, Neo, compels one to believe that the preservation of one's own immediate interest should prevail. That perspective was also evidenced in your remarks concerning the TA.

[Guest neo]

Believe me, you didn't miss anything among the posts that were deleted.

You're absolutely correct in your comments about which union local did what, however the quote you attribute to me is not what I said. I said that CALPA "called" for the merger, not that it "pushed" it. There's a clear difference between those two phrases. How do you think you can keep straight what happened in the past, if you're willing to misrepresent something that's sitting right in front of you now in black and white?

And likewise, some regional pilots will refer over and over to the fact that it was the AC section of CALPA that initiated the merger. They do so to try and point out how reprehensible it was that the AC pilots eventually walked away from the arbitrated seniority merger. What those same regional pilots conveniently disregard is why the AC pilots initiated the merger in the first place: because we were taking their jobs. That's the only reason they did it. Just as the AirBC MEC Chairman said, the longer it went unmerged the more jobs were lost to the regionals, and the stronger the regionals became. The AC MEC could see the regional strategy as well as anyone. The longer they delayed calling for a merger meant the worse it would be for them in the end.

The distinction you make between locals, and unions is a red herring. The business of a local, a union, or affiliated unions is to look after the interests of their members. Union Principle #1: look after your membership. Take care of other business after that. If you believe otherwise, and you claim that you are making a specific reference, then kindly quote the reference for us. Show us where in CALPA's, or ALPA's, or ANY unions constitution that states that a member local, or that union itself, must sacrifice its own interests for other locals, or other unions.

And yes, if you're a part of a particular union, you have to comply with that union's rules. That's why the AC pilots left CALPA: because they could no longer live with those rules. That's the right of every membership! If the union you belong to is no longer representing your interests as you wish, then you're free to join another one, or make your own if you prefer. Those are the 'rules' too, UpperDeck. They cut both ways.

Bottom line: your local, or your union, is required to represent the interests of its membership. If it doesn't do that, you're free to leave that union and go elsewhere. That's what the AC pilots did. But more than that, that's the way it HAS to be if workers interests are going to be looked after. To have it any other way would be a disaster.

This isn't about war, U/D. It's industrial relations in a time of peace and prosperity. True, when you listen to some people you'd believe that WWII was simply a warm-up to the current situation. The regional pilots aren't the plucky Allies battling the forces of fascism. Neither are the AC pilots the RAF. It's not war, it's not family, it's not socialism, it's not a workers' paradise and it's not a team. It's the BUSINESS of looking after your members' interests.

And your post, unintentionally I'm sure, ignored the point... the irrefutable and unavoidable point... that WE WERE TAKING JOBS AWAY FROM THE MAINLINE. We took their flying, UpperDeck. We were their colleagues, in the same union, but we participated in a whipsaw with AC management against our fellow pilots at the mainline. You can quote chapter and verse of the union machinations that went on as a result of that whipsaw, but you cannot absolve the regional pilots of their responsibility in that regard.

I was there, UpperDeck. I watched it happen and I participated in it because it was in our interests to do so. It meant a brighter future for us; but it was clearly at the expense of other pilots that were in OUR OWN UNION. And I promise you this: the number of regional pilots that professed principles of unionism, principles that would require all of us to act for the greater good rather than what was in our best interests at the time, well... those regional pilots were very thin on the ground.

It's easy to say how one should sacrifice for the good of all; but the numbers of people who will do so are few. I see nothing in your post that indicates that you would do so either. What I see is a willingness to disregard your own responsibility, and to sacrifice the reputations of others. No doubt you admire the solidarity of the regional pilots, yet the solidarity the mainline pilots showed in protecting every single one of their pilots, IN PARTICULAR those at the bottom of the seniority list... that's somehow disloyal to the principles you believe in.

'Fraid I don't see it that way. What the AC pilots did made life as difficult for me as for any regional pilot of the day. Will I condemn what they did; will I call dishonor on them while hypocritically ignoring my collective behavior of the day? I will not.

The collective way ahead lies in recognizing everyone's responsibility in what happened; not in trying to assign all responsibility to one party. Those who refuse to share the responsibility are the ones who impede our collective future, if there is one.

neo

[UpperDeck]

Misrepresent??!! You do me an injustice and dissemble. You are correct that you said that Calpa "called for merger". "Pushed" --"called for"; you know what was intended ---to correct your statement that it was CALPA that originated the merger process when in fact it was the AC MEC.

You also frequently refer to Regional decisions as though they were the decisions of the pilots rather than of the management of those carriers and of AC.

You indicate that you asked of the Air BC MEC Chmn., "are we gooing to push for the merger now?" Kent evidenced certain machiavellian tendencies throughout the process that failed to clothe him with the attire of solidarity.

Anyway...enough for now. It takes me too long to locate the thread and since you and I have different perspectives I otherwise foresee the necessity of a plethora of exchanges.

[Guest neo]

I see. You misrepresent and misquote me, but I'm the one doing you the disservice and dissembling.

OK.

It matters not one bit WHO initiated the CALPA directive for the merger. It was either going to be the AC MEC when we'd taken too much of their flying, or it was going to be the regional MEC's when they felt they'd gotten big enough. The AC MEC called for it because their losses became unacceptable. They were being squeezed by us, UpperDeck. It was either call for the merger, or watch their domestic flying lose even further ground.

"You also frequently refer to Regional decisions as though they were the decisions of the pilots rather than of the management of those carriers and of AC."

Now here's where my heart really hardens. Just what do you think union solidarity is, U/D? Union solidarity is about employees acting in concert against those acts of management which harm their interests. The regional pilots don't get to hind behind management's skirts. We acted with management against the interests of our union colleagues because it was in our interests to do so. The plea that we were just pawns in management's game is the height of hypocrisy for anyone who champions union principles. It's precisely against circumstances like that, that unions are meant to protect each other and their members. We did not act on that principle; we acted in our own best interests.

Kent Hardisty, a gentleman for whom I have a lot of respect, was not the individual to whom I refered. There was a different MEC Chairman at the time, and the reason I don't mention names is because the individual was not acting out of some personal self-interest; he was doing what his membership expected him to do. Are you trying to say that you didn't see what was going on? That you didn't notice all the flying we were taking from the mainline? That they were laying off pilots while we couldn't hire them fast enough? Well, the obvious answer is that you saw it then, just as you see it now. But now, just as back then, you'd prefer to pretend that it didn't happen, because to do so destroys your claim for moral superiority.

Acknowledging what we did undermines all the anger, all the resentment, all the outrage that regional pilots have built their existence on for years. And if it's one thing that people will cling to beyond all else, beyond all reason, it's anger. But of course, that's precisely the way ahead, too: acknowledge truthfully what happened and lose all the anger and resentment.

I will not sluff off the responsibility for what happened in those days to someone else, and then dash to the moral high ground. Just like everybody else in the drama, our hands were dirty. You won't get to wash off that filth until you recognize it for what it is. And until then, your claims for union principle, solidarity and the like have no credibility whatsoever.

neo

[Guest neo]

I see. You misrepresent and misquote me, but I'm the one doing you the disservice and dissembling.

OK.

It matters not one bit WHO initiated the CALPA directive for the merger. It was either going to be the AC MEC when we'd taken too much of their flying, or it was going to be the regional MEC's when they felt they'd gotten big enough. The AC MEC called for it because their losses became unacceptable. They were being squeezed by us, UpperDeck. It was either call for the merger, or watch their domestic flying lose even further ground.

"You also frequently refer to Regional decisions as though they were the decisions of the pilots rather than of the management of those carriers and of AC."

Now here's where my heart really hardens. Just what do you think union solidarity is, U/D? Union solidarity is about employees acting in concert against those acts of management which harm their interests. The regional pilots don't get to hind behind management's skirts. We acted with management against the interests of our union colleagues because it was in our interests to do so. The plea that we were just pawns in management's game is the height of hypocrisy for anyone who champions union principles. It's precisely against circumstances like that, that unions are meant to protect each other and their members. We did not act on that principle; we acted in our own best interests.

Kent Hardisty, a gentleman for whom I have a lot of respect, was not the individual to whom I refered. There was a different MEC Chairman at the time, and the reason I don't mention names is because the individual was not acting out of some personal self-interest; he was doing what his membership expected him to do. Are you trying to say that you didn't see what was going on? That you didn't notice all the flying we were taking from the mainline? That they were laying off pilots while we couldn't hire them fast enough? Well, the obvious answer is that you saw it then, just as you see it now. But now, just as back then, you'd prefer to pretend that it didn't happen, because to do so destroys your claim for moral superiority.

Acknowledging what we did undermines all the anger, all the resentment, all the outrage that regional pilots have built their existence on for years. And if it's one thing that people will cling to beyond all else, beyond all reason, it's anger. But of course, that's precisely the way ahead, too: acknowledge truthfully what happened and lose all the anger and resentment.

I will not sluff off the responsibility for what happened in those days to someone else, and then dash to the moral high ground. Just like everybody else in the drama, our hands were dirty. You won't get to wash off that filth until you recognize it for what it is. And until then, your claims for union principle, solidarity and the like have no credibility whatsoever.

neo

[Guest V1V2Vgo]

Go to bed, Richie.