Guest bianchiboy Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I'm surprised nobody else posted this article before me. I offer no opinion, just posting it. "Union drive begins at WestJet But Teamsters official admits it won't be easy to organize airline's flight attendants" http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/WireFeedRedirect?cf=GlobeInvestor/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20030806&archive=gam&slug=RJETT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I hope for their sake that they turn down the teamsters. IMO they would be far better served by their own F/A only assn and hiring a paid negotiator than joining a national/international union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I agree with AME, the issues are far better resolved in house with your own people. I think WestJet has a good communication system in place that would be a far better resolution system than the Teamsters or other orginized labour group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 "Our people will continue to make the right decision. They have chosen not to unionize in the past and we believe they will continue to make the right decision for the company." ...Therefore: Choosing to unionize would be the WRONG decision for the company and you wouldn't want to cross THE COMPANY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Chico twice, This (the teamsters attempt to unionise the F/A's) has been going on for a few months now. (Actually somewhat surprising that this is the first we have heard about it on the forum!) WestJets "Total compensation policy" allows us to make much in excess of our brethren during boom times (F/A's Inclusive) and 95% of median when times are lean, If nothing else it allows the company to lessen expenditures when needed and believe me (read the quarterly reports) it ain't chump change they are handing out on profit share days!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ECB Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 I think it's a fairly dead issue. The "letter" went out about 2 months ago and most laughed it off. Unfortunately for the Teamsters, there are a fair number of ex-Teamsters (from Inter-Canadien) at WestJet, who were able to let the few F/As who seriously considered Teamsters, know how totally useless a Union they were at ICN. I'm sure that there are some employers who deserve, and employees who need, a union. For instance, Diamond Miners in South Africa, or Fruit Pickers in California, but for now at least, WestJet is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 nevertheless...only a matter of time IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimer V Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 "Our people will continue to make the right decision. They have chosen not to unionize in the past and we believe they will continue to make the right decision for the company." *Hmmm continue to make the right decision for "The Company"As long as its a two street. "Ben Cherniavsky, an analyst with Raymond James Ltd., said he doesn't give the Teamsters a high chance of success at WestJet. He said the WestJet workers he has spoken to blame labour unions for Air Canada's woes". Just show's you how little these WestJet people know.Ah to be young and foolish again and believe everything management tells me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cabo Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Teamsters have been pursuing WJ for quite some time now. The majority will eventually speak and vote yeah or ney. Not knocking either way, lets just hope everyone takes a good look at what they are getting into or leaving behind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WA777 Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Gotta agree with you on this one LV.... Some interesting observations taken from actual accountants' case studies..... The three signs a company is in trouble: When the boss 1. Buys an airplane and begins to take flying lessons or 2. Goes on safari or 3. Gets involved with a much younger woman Interesting................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybye Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Well, I don't know much I guess....but I do know we're: 1)NOT bankrupt - the opposite actually 2)NOT laying off - the opposite again 3)NOT being asked to reduce our pay - you guessed it, the opposite. 4)NOT getting rid of aircraft - this is getting old!!! .....on and on, all WITHOUT a union. I used to work in a union shop, and was actually doing work for the union - never again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Just one question for 'ya LTV, How has the union protected your pension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Well, for now at least, they still have a pension. Most non-unionized carriers can't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Agreed but I have almost 20% of my gross pay that I can and have put into RRSP's and the company can't tell me when I qualify to use it. Pensions (IMHO) are for those incapable of saving. It is still a coin toss whether AC will be able to pay back the pension shortfall anyway. For a guy that's 55 years old with a house payed for but no real savings....has to be a terrifying thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 "Pensions are for those who are incapable of saving..." A tad condescending, don't you think? Just ask Ontario teachers if they would rather have an RRSP, self-directed type of pension plan. Bet a lot of people with such defined-contribution plans put a lot of money in Nortel shares. Sorry, I think a good pension plan is a good pension plan, not some kind of sop for the weak or incompetent. Maybe you are in the top 0.1% Maverick, who never makes a bad investment. I know I'm not in that league, and frankly, I would be better off if over the last 12 years of "independent" (i.e. self-employed) status I had been able to contribute to a real pension plan. Saving isn't my problem. I'm quite good at it. Protecting my savings and seeing them appreciate at a good, healthy rate in excess of inflation is my problem. Putting money in stocks of a couple of companies that went bust is my problem. Pension plans share risk and mitigate risk a lot better than most people can do in self-directed mode. For example, real estate is a great pension investment and if you follow relative real estate values, as I am sure you do, but until income trusts came into being it was not always a convenient vehicle for self-directed retirement plans - unless you had a big enough investment portfolio to invest directly in real estate. Pension plans, on the other hand, are very good value real estate investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 A tad condescending perhaps, but for most people myself included I found that when I was contributing to a pension plan there was a mental shift that took place that made saving much more difficult. Another point was a teamsters stat that I read years ago (don't ask me post or prove anything it was eons ago) that the average teamster collected 18 pension cheques before death, 18!! After 40 years of work they lived for a year and a half. That point taken with the companies whims as to whether or not they want you...ask anyone in the I.A.M. and they will tell you. At least my retirement lives or dies from my hand and not corrupt union officials or incompetent companies. I'll take my chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest George Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Just ask Ontario teachers if they would rather have an RRSP, self-directed type of pension plan. Or ask the WJ executives, since the Ontario Teachers are one of the largest investors in WJ! Oh and Maverick, the pension plans are (somewhat) protected, unlike people's individual RRSP accounts invested in the stock market.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTFA Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Furthermnore, To join or form a union is not necessarily a mistake. Make sure that you join the right union for the right reasons. Make sure that the union you join represents your position. Politically and practically. If you form your own union make sure that you are able to maintain control of the mandate of your reps. Sometimes your own partners in employment can be your worst enemy. With a union you have a chance to keep the original direction of your group. Just wait til times get tough to see who your friends really are! GTFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.