Mitch Cronin Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Someone said we're not all rowing in the same direction... Absolutely correct! The company, and our own union, have singled us out for what we view as ridiculously unacceptable treatment. ("Us" and "we" being unionized employees within Air Canada maintenance) Our union, behind our backs, suggested a plan to the company, and evidently agreed to it in May, to adopt a 200 hr. time bank for maintenance only, and allow "scheduling" of "overtime", for maintenance only, to fill those hours. And, further, all overtime worked, regardless of reason, would no longer be paid for, but would simply add time to this bank until the company chose to give us time off.. Not at a time of our own choosing. It is said that "we voted to accept" this deal, but the sad truth is that neither our union, nor the company made this aspect of that deal clear before we voted. In fact, I have good reason to believe the information was intentionally withheld before we voted. So, for conehead, if he were to have accepted the call to go out on his days off, he would receive no additional pay, and perhaps, sometime in January, or who knows when, he'd be sent home for a week. Why should he accept that? The majority of us within maintenance, as I have posted here before, would like nothing better than to have a decent relationship with our employer, that fosters the work hard and feel good aspect of employment. However, it has been made abundantly clear to us that our employer has no desire to have us feeling good about our work. Their interest is in having us in chains. We will be told to work overtime and we must comply. This is not a happy group. Back in July I wrote to Milton, and posted here my thoughts on where that would lead the relationship. It was an honest assessment, with a certain inside perspective, and it could all have been averted if any of the head cheeses had taken a serious look. But they chose to view my comments as a threat. They want to treat us like members of a chain-gang with numbers imprinted on our backs and expect, somehow, to get a decent level of service from us. Like the moron who told me, "employee morale cannot be quantified, therefore you have to assume it has zero value", our leaders don't seem to grasp the need for even a semi-satisfied work group. Well, we all have our limits. Being told to work overtime has always been a limit for me... I'll do it if I choose to... And I usually only chose to if I could see that my doing so would mean some paying customers waiting at the gate wouldn't have to wait as long for their airplane. I certainly understand the need to improve AC's bottom line, and we've given up a lot to help in that regard.... But when it comes to the notion of never being able to plan in advance for some days with my family, or even knowing from one week to the next, which, if any, days I'll be dragged off in chains, that exceeds my tolerance for what is an acceptable sacrifice. And I'm not alone. This can be a very stressful work environment... we need our days off! Our union chose to avoid an across the board hit of some 10% to 15%, for all IAM members, by allowing the maintenance group only to be treated like slave labour. And the company brass, in their infinite ignorance, believing us to be dense working mules, bought into it. Strong words, I know, but that is how it feels. I gave my best effort in trying to fend this off.. Now, if this goes ahead as planned, the rowing in different directions is quite possibly going to sink this ship. I won't be at fault. Neither will my cohorts. It's up the management to find a way out of this. None of us wants this to kill the recovery effort, but I can see as clear as the nose on my face that we're headed into serious trouble if nothing is changed. Conehead is very definitely not in the minority. Am I again sounding like a threat? For god sakes pay attention management! Treat your people well and they'll return the favour. Treat them like crap and you'll get what you asked for. Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 ((Kip, I take it back and apologize to you for the curt remark. ))) Accepted and I feel my sarcasm was not justified in my first comment to you as well, so let’s just say we start all over. (((Perhaps in fairness to yourself I need to understand why it is that anonymity is such an issue for you? I base that purely on the number of times you've stated so on this forum. ))) Anonymity is a subject that will never be resolved. Yes I am against anonymity as I feel it gives a poster a “shield” from which they can espouse anything they want without facts to back up their discourse because no one knows who is writing, knows nothing of their expertise, or their background. A good example right before us is you and I. You know a few facts about me, probably based on what I have written in the many years I have been part of this group and you have probably gleaned info about me based on what some other authors have written. You, on the other hand could be Robert Milton of Joe Wrenchhand and if I read something you write I have no idea from whence came your opinion. More importantly an awful lot of “flak” is tossed about on this forum because the writer is hiding behind their “shield”, and ask yourself, would you actually talk to a person like that if you were standing face to face and having a conversation ?? I will use two examples of individuals who speak their mind but seldom, if ever, deride another person’s opinion or take personal cheap shots at other writers. DON HUDSON and MITCH CRONIN. Now we all know what their professions are and of course we all don’t agree with what they may post but don’t you think they take a little more care and perhaps put a bit more intelligent thought into their efforts before pressing the “post” key ?? On the other hand there are those that have a definite need for anonymity for a variety of reasons but I think, my opinion only, it is a safe bet that the majority of anonymous authors are anonymous because of an underlying feeling of being dumped upon by the masses should they put their naked opinions and thoughts out in this medium. Perhaps it is good to “vent” from behind the “shield” rather than at your place of work but being behind the “shield” can also detract from a well written piece because one can not relate to the writer, as the reader is not sure of the authors position in the airline industry. Anyhow…I ALWAYS read those that post using their name and those who’s “secret” handles I know as it helps me build a mental picture and impression of the author and I do find solace in that I know that the individual has a “slot” in the business.. (((I certainly take your point and if all human beings could be trusted to be respectful (a rather naieve thought) I might agree with your opinion but quite honestly I simply disagree and find freedom in anonymity. Who I am, where I am, what I do, is no ones business until I decide otherwise. Right? )))) Absolutely….but it would be nice to know about your job/position etc. and why you may write about a subject the way you do. Again, using MITCH, his perspective is mainly from the maintenance POV and I am sure he has enlightened many pilots about that facet of the business that many of us did not know or perhaps were totally ignorant about problems in Maintenance. Of course I am sure that MITCH has had his illusion of pilots shattered more than once but I am just as sure he has gleaned “pilot” info that he would not have known had he not been here.The point is, I seriously consider his input concerning many issues, but primarily maintenance, as credible because we all know what he does, similarly AME because I know who he is and that he too is associated with maintenance. (((I don't think Coneheads' attitude or opinion is exemplary. I do think he's entitled to assess his bottom line as we all are. To label him or any entity as a sh*tdisturber is rather unbecoming. You've posted far to many eloquent and well thought out ideas and opinions.))) Remember I did not “label” him as anything I merely suggested, but did not say outright, that his anonymity could account for his comments and questioned his actual position. If you were here for the &%$@! episode then you perhaps you could appreciate my comments. If you were not here then the comments I made re-CONEHEAD could be understandably be misconstrued. (((As a further comment, I'd add that everyone at Air Canada right now needs to be preparing for the worst and would be well advised to plan accordingly. That means a clearer definition of individual bottom lines.))) Don’t have a problem with that but I don’t think demeaning the company that is paying your bills, at the present time, is the way to go. Rather than post comments like that I think it would be best to sit in the weeds and make noise like a barrel of apples. And like you, that is only my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Kinda funny... I put an ex-AEFers handle in my post near the end which referred to an incident on AEF where we had a "bad" character who was eventually banned from the site. When I went to PREVIEW his handle came up but when I posted the message this is what came up.... the &%$@! So for clarity all I can say is the name , (handle) of the individual is the name that is given to the fictious character that paints all the leaves in the Fall or perhaps you may remember the name as I refer to him as ".... ...... nipping at you nose" in the Christmas Carole. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Mitch, I agree 100% with you! To add to your comments, last Tuesday at the monthly IAM meeting, certain General chairpersons and a Local VP stated publicly that there was never an agreement to scheduled overtime and that it was the company who took it upon themselves to insert this item into the agreement. Low and behold on Thursday the Distric Presiden Mr. Jallet issues this memo to all, fyi, this wasnever voted on, it was imposed by the union president(notice the final paragraph, he sounds more like AC management than a union leader) AIR CANADA MEMBERS Technical, Maintenance and Operational Support SCHEDULING OF OVERTIME FOR EMPLOYEES IN TECHNICAL OPERATIONS Dear Sisters & Brothers: In order to clarify and expedite the respective interveners ability to develop local processes, here are the agreed to guidelines in regard to the said scheduled overtime. (Note that # 3 will be challenged through the normal arbitration channels in an expedited fashion.) SCHEDULED OVERTIME All employees in Air Canada Technical Services and Air Canada Maintenance will participate in this program in order to facilitate the adjustment of manpower capacity to meet operational requirements as agreed to under the Restructuring Agreements dated May 29, 2003. Following discussions with the Union, the following guidelines have been established in order to assist with the implementation of the agreement. 1. The company will have the ability to pre-schedule employees on overtime as required. Considerations for assigning overtime include: a) Operational requirements Minimum qualifications c) Equal distribution of overtime based on a system of rotation d) Provide reasonable notice to the employees being assigned 2. Rotational overtime lists will be established locally for each appropriate group or formation to assure equal distribution of overtime. 3. The scheduled overtime hours worked differential amongst the employees on the rotational list should be kept to a minimum, and every effort will be made not to exceed forty (40) hours. 4. Normally, the overtime schedule will be established for the following month, with the employees sequenced in accordance with the rotational list and posted five (5) calendar days prior to the start of the month. Notwithstanding, employees will be provided with a minimum of five (5) calendar days notice prior to any scheduled overtime or changes to the above notice of scheduled overtime. 5. Local management and the local Union representatives have the ability to agree to local procedures as long as they are consistent with the above noted principles. 6. Local management and the Union may agree to allow employees to exchange scheduled overtime shifts/hours, consistent with the principles of local shift trade privileges, in order to facilitate their preferred overtime schedule provided that the requirement of equal distribution and qualifications are met. 7. Employees who are on vacation shall not be considered for scheduled overtime. Employees are considered to be on vacation from the first scheduled vacation day until they return to work after their last RDO at the end of their vacation period. In addition, for the purposes of scheduled overtime, employees will not be considered for scheduled overtime on the RDO’s immediately preceding their vacation. 8. Subject to operational requirements, the Company will make every effort to avoid scheduling overtime on scheduled statutory holidays. 9. Employees may only be assigned scheduled overtime on the RDO’s as follows: a) One scheduled event on RDO’s for 5x2 or 6x3 or 4x3 Two scheduled events on 4x4 (under study by the Union). 10. The requirements of the current Canada Labour Code will be applied in accordance with the provisions of Article 10.02.07.08 of the current collective agreement. 11. In the absence of a mutually agreed to local process, these guidelines will apply. (NOTE: In the event the English and French versions of this agreement are at variance, the English version, which corresponds to the language in which the agreement was negotiated, shall prevail.) Your local shop committees are asked to meet with your local management and secure to the best of their ability, processes that will better protect your interests. Failing to address this issue while the employer is receptive will be at the detriment of us all, as the employer has the right to implement this agreement as they see fit. Some members tell me that we should have taken a pay-cut instead; well the calculation is as follows: Projected savings divided by the number of employees in Tech Ops now = approximately 15% to 18% of your wages and as our membership is further declining, the percentage would rise. The I.A.M.A.W. has no intentions of re-opening the collective agreement, as it would prove to be disastrous. As our legal advisors appraise and the current situation is, the employer would seek further cuts, etc… Brothers and Sisters, we are not out of the woods yet, the pension is still a major concern a MAJOR -MAJOR –MAJOR CONCERN. At the end of the day, if we cannot find resolve to the pension, then your employer is bankrupt, you will not be concerned with scheduled overtime then! Your primary focus as an I.A.M.A.W. member should be to protect your jobs to the best of your abilities through doing your best in a new reality. The old Air Canada (should it survive) will never be the same. I get reports of members showing such discontent that they promote a possible work stoppage. I would suggest to them to seek alternate employment now before you bring the situation where we are all looking for employment. Ever heard the expression “shooting yourself in the foot”? Think of the unfortunate members now on lay-off status… Hope that someday they will return! . In Solidarity, Jean Jallet, National President and Directing General Chairperson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virtual Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 What was your union thinking? Perhaps the first step is to start with some reorganizing within your own union and then get the union 'on side' ... since that is the group that does the negotiating with the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nozel Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Written like a true scholar! Your rant is subtil and forcefull but I'll add this: A respected Human Resource is a Productive work Force but sadly Your Company And Your Union don't see it that way! We are seen as a means for achieving "their" respective ends ... Air Canada AND the IAM should be ashamed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gino Under Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Kip. I must say, with all due respect, I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to explain your position on anonimity. But honestly, I never felt you owed me an explanation in the first place. It says a lot about you and your character. Not that that surprises me because, like I've already said, your posts tend to be full of common sense and credibility. I suppose it boils down to integrity and character with a bit of plain old fashioned honesty mixed in. I'd sincerely hope that most (probably not all) of my posts carry credibility and a modicum of intelligence even though I'd never espouse to be perfect or all knowing. I certainly know I'm not always correct but don't always agree with some of the posts. I DO have and feel entitled to my opinions which this forum affords me the opportunity to express. It's a small, small world. Especially within the aviation community. Anonimity provides many on this forum the luxury of posting, free of bias or intimidation which could quickly turn into personal attacks. I for one am not interested in the mud slinging that could foster. I recall our winter friend and share your opinion on that character, full stop. But, on an open public forum, he too was entitled to his opinion and simply wore out his welcome. It's WE who choose to bite when anonymous posters post their venimous remarks or opinions. Getting axed was the price he paid for his attitude and nastiness. In all probability, it was justice served. For me, anonimity is simply my preferred way of dealing with other issues. Particularly the security aspects of my computer, e-mail, other forums and pretty much anything else that enters and exits through the DSL cable. Some might take offence to one of my opinions or suspect an 'attitude' as the written word and the manner in which individuals may read a post could invite unsolicited 'attacks'. Sorry, not interested. I simply prefer to be and to remain anonymous. I figure I'll simply have to earn my credibility on this forum so I'll work toward that end. When I'm buLLsh*tt*NG, most will know. When I'm not, most will know. as a footnote... I've enjoyed numerous posts by Mitch, and others, and I agree he too has shared some darned good comments, opinions and points of view. So too have a number of anonymous members on this forum and we owe it to ourselves to evaluate what we read which is sometimes easier said than done. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 There is one big issue that I can not write about on this forum but if you want to get an anonymous mailbox...Hotmail...Yahoo etc., drop me a note and I'll explain something I don't think you and others are aware of. kidi@sympatico.ca Kip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted October 15, 2003 Author Share Posted October 15, 2003 OI! I notice my inbox seems to be empty? Or is this something I already know, that I just don't know I know? Or maybe some secret between those who know and those who oughta know, while leaving us folks who already know in the dark?... or do I haveta get a you-don't-know-me-style e-mail address to know this one? Anyway... I wish you folks would tame the ya-mitch-yada-yada-stuff just a tad... I really am close to getting a complex of some kind... My mother always told me that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt... then the old man says stuff about my unbalanced opinions.... then neo, and now this... I'm about to go nuts posting, then deleting everything I post. Maybe that's more of the Irish, English internal conflict? Maybe it's bed time?.... damn.... g-night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.