Guest rattler Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Seems that the focus is on AC. If the wage parity ruling is upheld it than could / would be applied to other airlines. Talk about a wage hike for Westjet FAs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 It ain't gonna happen so don't spend it before you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Kip, it shouldn't happen, but it very well might. Look at BCE. That should have never happened as well. Again, it shouldn't happen, but don't be so sure it won't. It's definitely not a salm dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Yeh..right.. Think about it. What individual in his/her right mind would go through all the stress and years of training that is involved with becoming an airline pilot when he could take a one/two week course and be an F/A and make the same wages???..Geeeeze. If there is ONE F/A out there that actually feels they should have wage parity with the guys /gals who are doing the job up front, they definitely need to leave this planet. This is not a "Us" versus "Them" issue, it is someone trying to make a name for themselves and wasting your Union money in doing so. I could go on and on but why bore you/anybody when my view is posted and I'll stick by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The statement: "CUPE maintains that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value requires that flight attendants receive the same pay as pilots" remains absurd in my books I don't think you'll find anybody that disagrees with you, except for a few hardcore CUPE members and their reps. But, if you look at the statement again and instead of reading into it that they mean fa's and their work is just as physically, mentally, or technically challenging and requires as much training as pilots and AMEs and so should be compensated the same, but instead, read into it that they mean that the success of Air Canada is just as dependant on the work of FAs as it is on good pilots and AMEs and so the work is of equal value to the company and so should be compensated equally, then perhaps you can see a shred of credibility in the statement. It's a stretch, but if you look at it that way we are all pieces of the same puzzle that contribute equally to the success of the company and FAs being 80% female as a group allows them to file this claim. Don't get me wrong. I'm not sold on this equity claim either. But if "equal pay for work of equal value" is looked at this way, Pam has a fighting chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Kip, it shouldn't happen, but it very well might. Look at BCE. That should have never happened as well. Again, it shouldn't happen, but don't be so sure it won't. It's definitely not a salm dunk. With all due respect... Of course it's a slam dunk! Not a chance in hell it'll happen. There's probably not a soul on earth, with two bits of grey matter between their ears, that would think it should happen... and if by some quirk of insanity, it were to happen, AC and other airlines in Canada would very quickly be toast, pilots would probably stop working en-masse, I can tell you we AME's would be screaming for blood.... ... Total chaos would ensue. BTW... your comments re: Pam never losing anything???... Seems to me I recall the whole of the "AC component" within CUPE losing quite a bit, thanks to her. Is my memory flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 But, if you look at the statement again and instead of reading into it that they mean fa's and their work is just as physically, mentally, or technically challenging and requires as much training as pilots and AMEs and so should be compensated the same, but instead, read into it that they mean that the success of Air Canada is just as dependant on the work of FAs as it is on good pilots and AMEs and so the work is of equal value to the company and so should be compensated equally You're dreaming....so the nurse that hands the tools to the Neurosurgeon in the OR should be getting the same pay as the doctor.... after all they are both contributing to the patients final outcome...yeh, right. Get a grip on reality people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Focus Kip. I'm not saying that a flight attendant is just as important in landing an aircraft or in keeping it airworthy. But the argument could be made that we are all just as important to the success of this company. And FA's being mainly females, working for the same company, and having different rules with regards to reaching max wages and pensions than you guys gives them the shot at a pay equity deal that the CAW or any other group doesn't have. I still don't think the case has merit, but the courts have ruled against BCE and could just as likely do so here. You never know with legal stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Focus Kip. Focus on what...your bafflegaff speak says, to me...that F/As are contributing to the company in the same way as pilots (success) so they are asking for pay parity with pilots..... but instead, read into it that they mean that the success of Air Canada is just as dependant on the work of FAs as it is on good pilots and AMEs and so the work is of equal value to the company and so should be compensated equally I'm a simple guy MOEMAN, perhaps too simple, but I know when someone is trying to blow smoke . If that is NOT what you mean, please repost what you actually mean.When we use cyber space, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the true meaning of words...No??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Kip, then how do you explain the Bell Canada case? Obviously it has happened before, therefore there's a precedent. It may not make sense to most rational individuals, myself included, but legally it has a very good chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 But the argument could be made that we are all just as important to the success of this company. I am unable to find any reference within the Equal Wage Guidelines that says everyone should get equal pay because they all contribute to the success of the company. Within establishments there will always be a differential among employees based on my previouly mentionned determinents that I lifted directly from the Equal Wage Guidlines. Skill alone ("intellectual and physical qualifications acquired by experience, training, education or natural ability") is enough of a difference to unequate (is that a word??) the jobs. The other CC put it this way: the way i look at it, how long would it take to cross-train one to do the other's job. And realistically, most of us still working will be retired before all of this finally gets resolved... then we can, with all the authority of our fading memories, recall the original discussions for the newbies... ccairspace Before adding this post I noticed a response from YYC. Do you have a link to the Bell Canada case? Thnx cc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Kip Here's a little something to think about........ How many airliners can operate without Pilots?????? How many passengers can you haul without F/As (19 seaters aside)??????? How many airplanes fix themselves (other than AHRU snags on a dash) The same arguement can be made for every category within the company, everybody is not only important, but essential to the operation, and I think that's the way moeman was saying it could be viewed by the courts. Not how I would view it, but I can see the point Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The same arguement can be made for every category within the company, everybody is not only important, but essential to the operation, and I think that's the way moeman was saying it could be viewed by the courts. Brett I don't have a problem with using the term "essential" for the success of the company. I have a real problem with using "essential" to mean "pay parity" and in this case, trying to justify that a F/A should receive equivalent pay to a pilot. If everyone keeps using this "we are as essential" BS then I guess we should ALL be paid the same, from the guy who mops the hanger floor to the CEO.........and we know that is not going to happen. Look at it this way...we used to carry Navigators in the RCAF...gone now, we depend on black boxes...... perhaps in a few decades we will say goodby to the F/As and have in-seat vending machines...who knows?? Will there be a day when customers will get on an airplane without a pilot being upfront.??.....I highly doubt it, I know I would never get on an airplane, no matter how good the technology was, without a human up front, just in case the Energizer Bunny did have a bad day. Just my opinion from deep within the bowels of the dank and dark bunker.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Again Kip, you must realize that the primary purpose of having F/A's onboard any aircraft with more than 19 pax's is for safety, not as a replacement to a vending machine, as you so eloquently posted. However, the courts will decide, not any of us on this forum. I just wanted to make the point that there's a much better chance that CUPE wins this than many on this thread seem to believe. Again, my disclaimer must be posted one more time, I do not believe that F/A's should get paid the same as pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Before adding this post I noticed a response from YYC. Do you have a link to the Bell Canada case? Here is some info relating to the on-going Bell Canada situation: Bell Canada Pay Equity Bell reaches agreement on pay equity with the CTEA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 not as a replacement to a vending machine, as you so eloquently posted. Sorry, wanted to include a smilie with "tongue in cheek" but couldn't find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes Kip, focus. If doctors and nurses worked for the hospital itself instead of the province, and their performance made or broke the hospital as a business, your point would have made sense. One thing everybody keeps targetting is how they think CUPE only wants to be paid the same salary as a pilot, but that's not really what they're asking for. It may be the ultimate win, but if you read the definition of "wages" according to the legislation, it might not be as simple as that: (7) For the purposes of this section, "wages" means any form of remuneration payable for work performed by an individual and includes (a) salaries, commissions, vacation pay, dismissal wages and bonuses; (Watch out Westjet) (b ) reasonable value for board, rent, housing and lodging; (c ) payments in kind; (d) employer contributions to pension funds or plans, long-term disability plans and all forms of health insurance plans; and (e) any other advantage received directly or indirectly from the individual's employer. And in their complaint, CUPE targets the difference in salaries, benefits and pensions, so maybe they're hoping for a homerun but would be happy with one hit. If everyone keeps using this "we are as essential" BS then I guess we should ALL be paid the same, from the guy who mops the hanger floor to the CEO The only problem with that is that CUPE has the ability to ask for this simply because we are a mainly female group, something the other groups can't say. So they are able to go to court and request something like this because they satisfy all the requirements to do so. I suppose they would be remiss in not doing so as they are there to protect us and our wages(again, I don't agree with it, I'm just trying to find some logic behind it ). So if they passed on this opportunity simply because on the surface it seems foolish for a lowly FA to make what a pilot makes, even if there is a silly old wage equity law in place that gives them the right to demand it, then they wouldn't be doing their jobs. So is the problem really CUPE asking for this or is this wage equity law the real problem? I say the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfhunter Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 moeman: Nicely put! I was in the process of drafting something similar… yours was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 The only problem with that is that CUPE has the ability to ask for this simply because we are a mainly female group, something the other groups can't say. Just out of curiosity, and NOT to create a big kafuffle with this question, but how many male flight attendants would AC need to hire to shift the sex proportion to 50/50? ccairspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 MOEMAN... The only problem with that is that CUPE has the ability to ask for this simply because we are a mainly female group, something the other groups can't say. So in effect CUPE is playing the "gender card" and feel that as "females" they are being discriminated against with regard to pay equity??? Based on what you have quoted re legislation, then perhaps AMEs should get on the bandwagon too. While you have admitted that you can find no logic for the submissions, you do support the notion of using the Unions time, energy, and financial resources to continue this quest..is that correct? employer contributions to pension funds or plans, long-term disability plans and all forms of health insurance plans; and Would these not be items that best be negotiated between the Union and the Company? Anyhow, I'm not in CUPE, am not particularily thrilled with their leadership, for other reasons, have the higest respect for F/As, (I've seen what they have to put up re customers), but really feel the time and money could be spent elsewhere, with more positive results. Thanks for your Un-bafflegarbled response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 So in effect CUPE is playing the "gender card" and feel that as "females" they are being discriminated against with regard to pay equity??? That is the basis behind the legislation. It can be any of the following: "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted." To qualify under "sex", your group must fall under these guidelines: "For the purpose of section 12, an occupational group is composed predominantly of one sex where the number of members of that sex constituted, for the year immediately preceding the day on which the complaint is filed, at least (a) 70 per cent of the occupational group, if the group has less than 100 members; (b ) 60 per cent of the occupational group, if the group has from 100 to 500 members; and (c ) 55 per cent of the occupational group, if the group has more than 500 members." CUPE estimates that we are 80% females. It's not even close. So for us to fall back under the limits, they would have to hire thousands of men while denying women the opportunity. And that's another big old can o' worms, isn't it ? Based on what you have quoted re legislation, then perhaps AMEs should get on the bandwagon too. How so? See above, and again, please try to focus on the specifics. employer contributions to pension funds or plans, long-term disability plans and all forms of health insurance plans; and Would these not be items that best be negotiated between the Union and the Company? Yes. But CUPE is alleging that the company(s) have discriminated against them and I don't really know the specifics of how these things work. It is my understanding that the company has been pretty tough about negotiating changes to our pensions so that we could make up the difference between ours and other groups. Perhaps since they couldn't negotiate it, they will now try to litigate it using this legislation. As for targetting the wage aspect of this, here's what section 15(1),(2) of the equal wages guideline says: Where a complaint alleging a difference in wages between an occupational group and any other occupational group is filed and a direct comparison of the value of the work performed and the wages received by employees of the occupational groups cannot be made, for the purposes of section 11 of the Act, the work performed and the wages received by the employees of each occupational group may be compared indirectly. (2) For the purposes of comparing wages received by employees of the occupational groups referred to in subsection (1), the wage curve of the other occupational group referred to in that subsection shall be used to establish the difference in wages, if any, between the employees of the occupational group on behalf of which the complaint is made and the other occupational group. So, if our wages take 7(and now 10 ) years to max out and yours only takes 5(?), there would be an obvious difference in the wage graphs, all other parameters being equal. And the gap would widen as equal COLA increases are applied year over year. If,as CUPE alleges, there are other differences that make the gap even wider, their case looks even stronger. Given this, it would seem that if CUPE were to win, our wages may not ever be on par with pilots (as they shouldn't) but the differences in the wage graphs would have to be corrected and that would mean repayment of lost "wages" over the years. So is CUPE wrong to be going this route? I don't know. I still think the legislation is flawed and that most of the wage differences can be attributed to negotiations, but I suppose that if the opportunity to recoup millions in wages for your members knocks at your door, any one of us would be a little miffed at our unions if they passed on it simply because it seemed silly on the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Well put moeman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 "The complicated technical aspect of the job is not apparent because that part happens when the door is closed. Although the FA might know intellectually that there's more to it then is seen I don't believe the depth of the skills required is commonly understood. In the same way I never understood what a huge difference there was between the Captain's job and the FO's until I became a Captain. What you see the person doing is not the half of it." As a wise man once told me - "Anything done well, looks easy." Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 CUPE estimates that we are 80% females. It's not even close. So for us to fall back under the limits, they would have to hire thousands of men while denying women the opportunity. And that's another big old can o' worms, isn't it ? Wasn't that called "affirmative action" in the past. ccairspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 MOEMAN...you said How so? See above, and again, please try to focus on the specifics. I don't have any problem with my focus. Based on what you posted above, (a) through (e), my question concerning AMEs is a valid question........then you post more info that refutes my question, info I do not have, and you tell me to focus.Sheese. I understand that you are attempting to inform the unwashed about all the legaleeze that is involved and I wish you and your group all the luck in the world but still stick to my premise...whether legally correct or not. Not trying to be offensive but the day F/As have pay parity with pilots will not happen..not in my lifetime and not in yours...and of course that is only my opinion, so if you don't mind, I'll take all my toys and skulk back to my bunker. PS...it has been entertaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.