Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Dear Mitch: Robert has asked me, as head of Air Canada Technical Services, to respond to your concerns. First, let me reiterate that safety is always our number one priority and every operational decision is looked at with that in mind. For that reason, please provide me with your whereabouts for the next 24 hours in order to facilitate an interview with a corporate safety officer to validate the safety concerns you have raised. Scheduled mandatory overtime allows Air Canada to work more efficiently by ensuring adequate staffing in line with the volume of work to be performed. Contrary to your belief, scheduled mandatory overtime will, in fact, allow us to provide greater predictability of overtime for our employees and thereby hopefully contribute to their ability to coordinate their own personal lives. This was not the result of a one-sided decision and was the subject of complex negotiations aimed at ensuring that Air Canada achieved a labor cost structure more closely ressembling the reality in the market. Clearly, however, we remain open to reviewing any decision that is unworkable or does not make sense. It is therefore disappointing that you would resort to threatening the company (call it what you want) with "flexing your muscles" should you not get your way -- hardly the actions of a self-described "company man". I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of my ACTS colleagues are true professionals who would never compromise safety or the integrity of our work in order to make a political statement. Knowing of your personal aversion to working your existing shift schedule (as expressed in your previous emails to Robert) I hope you have not simply used the posting of your comments on two public websites as a means to try to further reiterate those objections or as a rant against the IAM. As has been stated previously, given the commercial schedule and the availability of our aircraft, it would be impossible to accommodate the desires of employees to only work the dayshift while at the same time ensuring the scheduled maintenance of the fleet. As you have made your correspondence with Robert available on the internet, it would only be appropriate for you to make this response publicly available in its entirity as well. A corporate safety officer will be in touch with you shortly. Sincerely, Rob Reid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 Hello Rob Reid, First off, let me quote the only mention of my shift schedule I've ever made to RM. ....And this was upon the first occasion that I e-mailed him directly, after he phoned me at home: "PS. My wife will never forgive me if I don't add: ...and please see if you can find a way to keep me on a day shift. That, sir, was added to the e-mail to lighten up the conversation. I knew full well that he could do no such thing and I said it only to enable me to say to my wife, "Yes, I did ask"... and I believe Robert took it in that context. Here was his reply: "P.S. I assume your wife wants you on day shift so she can see you, or does she want to get you out of the house when she's home? I suspect my wife would love for me to go on night shift! " In a like vein, light hearted nonsense. And I understood it as such. My recent email, and copied text to these web sites, were not so light however, because, as I have clearly said, I believe our company has taken (or is about to take) a course of action that is not in their best interest, and is certainly not in my best interest (nor that of any Air Canada employees, or Air Canada's customers). I haven't "threatened" a damned thing! All I've done is offer my honest opinion about what I think of this mess and what I believe the consequences will be. I think you'd find the majority of my colleagues would agree with me. I'm on holidays now, but I am willing to discuss anything you like. I'll be either at home or on Lake Simcoe for a while... You may call me at your whim. Robert has my number. I've done as you asked and copied your response to both web sites. I'm somewhat disappointed that Mr Milton has decided to sick his dogs on me so to speak, rather than respond directly, but I guess I'll have to take what I can get. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mitch: As least have the honesty to admit that you were making a threat. "...there are many, many ways maintenance employees know that they can flex their muscles..." Regardless of your preamble, a threat is a threat. Frankly, I didn't think making that statement added anything to your argument. You should have listened to your wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 I do see why you'd take it as such, but I can only ask you to take it as it was intended: a clear message of what I believe to be the probable result of bad decisions. Some of that response to those bad decisions, I have already witnessed, some, I have heard talk of... I am only being as honest as I can be. AME's are not slithering little morons who take all the crap that's fed to them. Some of us are wide awake and will do everything we can to avoid being treated like garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 As a bondholder all I have to say is, were not the only ones that are going to get a haircut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I agree that AMEs are not "slitering little morons" but none of the AMEs I personally know would ever "flex their muscle" to protest a bad decision. The AMEs I know are professionals who would not take advantage of their position to make a statement. If you can see how I could "take it as such", imagine how the media and public could take it? It's truly amazing that you'd chose those words in a public forum which is regularly used by the media for story ideas. What do you think a customer hearing that an Air Canada AME is unprofessonal enough to "flex their muscle" as a result of changes to a collective agreement will do when the time comes to book a ticket? Do you not think making such inflamatory statements (under whatever guise you'd prefer to make them) don't turn away customers? I think Rob Reid's rapid response to your comments is proof that senior people pay attention so why communicate via a public forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I agree that AMEs are not "slitering little morons" but none of the AMEs I personally know would ever "flex their muscle" to protest a bad decision. The AMEs I know are professionals who would not take advantage of their position to make a statement. If you can see how I could "take it as such", imagine how the media and public could take it? It's truly amazing that you'd chose those words in a public forum which is regularly used by the media for story ideas. What do you think a customer hearing that an Air Canada AME is unprofessonal enough to "flex their muscle" as a result of changes to a collective agreement will do when the time comes to book a ticket? Do you not think making such inflamatory statements (under whatever guise you'd prefer to make them) turns away customers? Customers who we need in order to get through the CCAA process? I think Rob Reid's rapid response to your comments is proof that senior people pay attention so why communicate via a public forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mitch, this whole timebank issue and forced O/T need to be reviewed.The IAM states we voted it in, well a correction needs to be made here, the station folks voted this nonsense in. The IAM sold us out, plain and simple, station attendants are exempt from this time bank and forced O/T, so there fore this item should have been a separate item to be voted upon by maintenance and maintenance only.It is discriminatory, it is disadvantageous to maintenance pensions, and I would not be the least bit surprised if it violated my constitutional rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Airmail, you are obviously not familiar with what was called the "RED DOG DAYS" inj YYZ back in 96, this was a result of local management forcing brutal work schedules upon us, we basicly shut the system down by working strictly by the book, the days can return very rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 My decision to copy that message to this, and the other, forum was based on a sincere will to change what I thought was a serious management error. I believed ( and still do) that the more people who are aware of this serious error, the more likely my objections will be heard, and possibly the bad decisions will be reversed. As for professionalism... Perhaps you and Rob whozits will take your rhetoric south. I certainly do consider myself a professional. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, would ever do anything to jeopordize the safety of an aircraft and it's occupants in order to further our own goals. What I said was that AME's know we can "flex our muscles", in the context that I meant to caution our managers that as AME's we can keep aircraft on the ground when they'd prefer they were available for revenue flight, and I feared that that could be one of the consequences of this "scheduled mandatory overtime". That shouldn't be anything new to you. Surely you know that these birds don't fly without our blessing. Nothing veiled there, simply honesty and concern. I never want to get in that situation myself, and for that reason, I said that such things are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Airmail Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Robert: If you think shutting down the system does anything for your cause, you'd better think twice. You shut down the system and you can wave goodbye to your job. Threats of industrial action in this environment are plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 Airmail.... Management has the ability to stop this nonsense before it becomes a problem. Why don't you direct your energy toward correcting what's wrong, rather than echoing the Company Line "employees are the devils"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Please don't say the station folks voted this in......because by that you give the impression that all of the MTC guys voted no and all of us voted yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 Look you guys.... This isn't about who, or whether or not we agreed to something or another... The facts are that we've been dealt a very bad hand and it will, and already is, having a detrimental effect on our employer's ability to improve it's position. If management goes ahead with this rotten scheme, they'll be hurting us and themselves. We need to fix things, not argue over who did what to whom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 I agree Mitch: Just that lately so much mud has been thrown the station way you get sick of it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 I don't know what happened to the rest of my comments there.. Internet gremlins I guess... Anyway, Airmail, I think you and I are on the same team. We both want this airline to prosper. I recently became aware of a situation that I believe will impede the chances for renewed strength, and I've done all that I can to prevent it. Posting it here was a genuine attempt to assist me in saving myself, the rest of our employee's, and our customers some aggravation. If, for some bizarre reason, the press actually takes some of this story, they'll be just adding another bit of trash, in a series of trash, to the heap. If any journalist quotes any part of what I've said, they'll owe it to me to quote my jubilation upon hearing of a successful, and sensible conclusion. Which could only be good public relations. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mitch: Ever get the feeling that sometimes the powers that be just don't want to hear about it? We have screamed about the deice cost in YYZ ever since GTAA's wonderful new pad...well it took till this year before someone really took a good look at it. Frosty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mitch, There may be good reasons not to say something on AEF, but fear of the press quoting you is not one of them. Without commenting one way or the other about the substance of your original post, the possibility that The Press might quote something from it is not sufficiently serious that you, or anyone else, should refrain from legally speaking your mind. I recommend discretion, of course. But if no one said anything out of fear of being quoted by a journalist, a lot of important comments would remain unspoken. To be fair, some people disagree with me vehemently on that point. Hope your air conditioning is working well. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neo Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mitch, There may be good reasons not to say something on AEF, but fear of the press quoting you is not one of them. Without commenting one way or the other about the substance of your original post, the possibility that The Press might quote something from it is not sufficiently serious that you, or anyone else, should refrain from legally speaking your mind. I recommend discretion, of course. But if no one said anything out of fear of being quoted by a journalist, a lot of important comments would remain unspoken. To be fair, some people disagree with me vehemently on that point. Hope your air conditioning is working well. neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gadgeteer Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Mr Reid, thank you for taking the time to answer Mitch. I am glad to hear that safety is the highest priority in the operational decision making process. However, I do feel an interview with a corporate safety officer to “validate the safety concerns” is unwarranted. The safety concerns raised by Mitch are well documented throughout the aviation industry. I am sure you are completely aware of that fact. Scheduled mandatory overtime shift cycles will not improve the predictability of overtime. In fact, most overtime is unscheduled and the result of upsets in our operations. Regardless, the employees will never benefit from the said “scheduled mandatory overtime” unless the employee is part of the decision making process Clearly, the negotiations were one sided. The negotiations were similar to a shotgun wedding. If Air Canada really wanted a “cost structure resembling the reality in the marketplace”, why not have agreements that closely resemble the marketplace as well? You are correct in your belief that the overwhelming majority of my ACTS colleagues are true professionals who would never compromise safety or the integrity of our work in order to make a political statement. However, I am very disappointed that you believe Mitch was threatening the company. Let me assure you that is not the intent of Mitch’s letter. Rob, you have completely missed the point, if you truly believe that Mitch’s letter was intended as a means to try to further reiterate the objections to shift work or as a rant against the IAM. Mitch was trying to raise the level of awareness and ensuring safety will remain our highest priority. Regards, Larry Zadel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Continuous Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Please accept apologizes, as I was getting popcorn when this movie started, but what is the issue being debated to do with scheduled mandatory overtime? Thanks ... munch munch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Airmail Like Pilots, AMEs are called upon daily to exersize the discretionary authority granted by their licence and experience. What Mitch may have been alluding to is that this may be withheld and all decisions will be strictly by the book until a satisfactory resolution can be found. This wouldn't an organized thing, but rather the personal decision of each AME, based on their GF factor Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Airmail, spoken like a true manager, direct you concerns to the management for their idiodic way of conducting business with their most valued assest, the employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Frosty, you are of course correct, my humble aplogies, what should have trasnpired with this mandatory 200 hour time bank for maintenance only (this is a little shot at the IAM not you Frosty) is a separate vote soley on this issue, but the IAM saw fit to include it in the general vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.