Kevin J Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 A few words from someone that has been involved with the Teamsters through the two most recent set of negotiations at Jazz. Don't sign on with the Teamsters as long as the current people at Teamsters Canada are in place!!!!! Kevin J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flyersclub Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 wow, aren't you the guy who spent months on this forum trying to get the cdn reg f/a's to vote teamsters?? what made you change your mind?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin J Posted August 9, 2003 Author Share Posted August 9, 2003 Yes, I am the one. The reason for the change in opinion is a change at the executive level at Teamsters Canada. The individual in place doesn’t listen to reason and does just what he wants to do, not exactly the kind of person you want representing you at the negotiating table. Kevin J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nova Zemlya Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Kevin, thanks for your courage and honesty in revealing some of the problems we are facing right now. I hope I am not the only one walking around with the idea in my head that negotiators that negotiated the concessionary contracts for CUPE at CRA are now on the Teamster negotiating team coming up with concessionary contracts once again. Or, that the company just has a lot more intelligence and grit than anyone at the Teamsters. WJ F/A's, choose your organization wisely, and one that will not play off your competitive postition with another airline to push a contract through a vote. :[ NZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dwb yyc Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Hi Keven. You are seeing the same thing alot of us saw in negioations. They have not changed. This is one of the worst unions in the business. It is all about politics and ego's. They don't care about the FA's and will never care. It is time for the FA's to get rid of them and the magic date is the 3rd anniverssary of the signing of the collective agreement less 3 months. So April 2004 is the date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dwb yyc Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 To NZ Maybe if you would talk to these ex CUPE CRA'S and find out the truth about this wonderful union(Teamsters), you would understand that we had seen through the crap 2 years ago. As we were told many times this is a TEAMSTERS agreement. The people at the table were trying to make it a FA's agreement. But Kathy and Garnett kept on saying that their untested AirBC language was the best. As we now see it not worth the paper it was printed on. Again ego's got in the way. We would not have the problems that we now have if some of the inferior Cupe (LOL) language in this collective agreement. So lay off on the ex Cupe people, they were there for the FA's and got screwed by the Teamsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nova Zemlya Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Nothing personal, dwb, but whatever. From my pov, the membership is just as much guilty of their disadvantages and the mistakes that were made as the leadership. Anyone formerly CRA knows this situation intimately, because they have been there several times now and cannot easily pass off blame to anyone. Turning around and blaming someone else for your concessionary TA's/bad union when you actually voted yes to it is considered disingenuous, imo. How a group collectively manages to undermine their support and undermine their own union is the question here. It makes no difference who represents us any longer, because there is no such thing as solidarity amongst F/A's. One need only refer to the amount of voluntary overtime that is being performed in the face of exceptionally heavy layoffs or the endless bickering amongst F/A's at the mainline over seniority. We're all selfish snot bags that feel we are entitled to our jobs and attempt to hold over the next person the measure of our quality, though it is totally empty. But the whole question really is meaningless the day we are all thrown into the street. Hopefully one is at home when it happens and not out on RON in Timbuktu and having to hire a camel in order to escape the authorities. Yet, there is no contingency fund in case this happens. The company really does not care in the least for our fate and exists solely so that most senior/well paid employees at the mothercorp can continue to enjoy their gilded priviledges and false professionalism and with open eyes and fully conscious minds, attempt to ape themselves after the likes of Klyde or preserve for themselves the dubious patrie over how many company sky gods can dance on the head of a cumulo-nimbus. The situation is completely farcical to most people in business, but to us at the bottom it means the destruction of our livelihood. I think the most telling statistic is the number of regional F/A layoffs as compared to mainline pilot layoffs. Therein lies your answer as to which employee group is being sacrificed and how the company is determined to run things. The street beckons and seems more and more inevitable as the days drag on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSkyGuy Posted August 9, 2003 Share Posted August 9, 2003 Wow; he sounds like a pilot to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin J Posted August 10, 2003 Author Share Posted August 10, 2003 Hello Dave, I must ask, just what is it that you’re smoking? Although I agree with you that the Teamsters in their present state are seriously lacking LEADERSHIP. I must say however, that prior to this concessionary contract our CA was quite good overall. You continue to spout your phrase of the day “untested” and that Kathy and Garnet forced the agreement on you but that is simply not the case. A large chunk of that language did originate from the old Air BC CA and yes some of it was tested. Other parts were not and that is simply because it was crystal clear and unambiguous. If you still believe what you write and you really want changes made, learn from the past but don’t dwell on it! Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dwb yyc Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 Hi Keven I would like to know what is different with this group than the previous group. I am learning from the past and looking to the furture and waiting for the day to kick these butts to the curb.It has been said that if you don't learn from the past you will repeat your mistakes in the future. This is not just my feelings but a majority of the FA's across the system. The JAZZ FA's are not just happy with what is happening now but what has happened in the past. You just have had the Kathy and Garnett group clouding your judgement. This union is more of making deals with the company than protecting the rights of the FA's. What you are seeing is the same thing we have seen from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dwb yyc Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 Hi ZN As being a person involved with the CRA restructoring I can tell you that we negioated with the company not just given an amount and hand over the farm. I do agree with you on the FA's that are prostituting themselves for a few dollars. The union should be using the collective agreement to find out who is doing the work and post their names and let the FA'S deal with them. I do not pick up overtime and never will when we have layoff FA's. We have given up the most of any groups, hopefully we will be awarded later and get back a majority of the FA's back. This union has to start to stand up to the company and say enough is enough and we won't deal with you until the layoff stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AME Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 dwb I respectfully submit that the decision to work overtime is no more wrong or right than your decision not to. The reality is that the airlines can nolonger afford to carry the reserve coverage they once did, and sometimes there is going to be a need for O/T, be it short sightedness or an IROP. I once declined O/T (along with a number of other people) for almost a year because we didn't have a contract and I believed that it was the right thing to do, in the end the only loser was me, as it didn't make one bit of difference, and my T4 was about 20K light. By all means go ahead and voice your opinion, and take your stand, just remember after this settles down you all have to work together. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 "The union should be using the collective agreement to find out who is doing the work and post their names and let the FA'S deal with them." Be very careful with that sort of thing. If those people are working within the collective agreement, like it or not, posting names constitutes harassment, in my opinion. The union and/or individuals can be very much at risk of winding up in court and parting with lots of dollars. The Canadin justice system is very intolerant of harassment. PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 "The union should be using the collective agreement to find out who is doing the work and post their names and let the FA'S deal with them." Check with a lawyer, in my opinion, that sort of tactic would be ill advised. If those people are working within the working agreement, which they are, any publishing of names constitutes harassment. The union and/or individuals are at risk of parting with lots of dollars. The Canadian justice system is most intolerant of harassment, especially in the workplace. PG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin J Posted August 11, 2003 Author Share Posted August 11, 2003 Dave, Please step off your soapbox for just one minute. “ Kathy and Garnet group clouding my judgement”? I think not, anyone that knows me, knows differently. Although, I do believe that they would have never caved as early as the current Director did. And on the subject of deal making, one needs to look no further than your previous representation. Which was rampant with individuals making bad deals for the f/a’s but good for themselves! Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.