A distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.newlygrounded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:25 pmWhat do you call CERB and CEWS?cloak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:54 pmClearly in Canada the liberal government has failed the nation, but particularly the aviation industry. In stark contrast with the United States, Justin has used every opportunity to issue bans and restrictions while failing to bear the cost and offer support. The States understood the challenges early on and proactively supported the industry.George Taylor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:53 pm
Umm, you’re wrong. I said employees, not pilots. So the termination, not layoffs, of thousands of employees wasn’t taking advantage of the crisis? The way the employees have been treated is disgusting. The only thing that saved the pilots was the union and the cost of layoffs.
The circus currently happing re: Union is a totally different matter.
In this environment, airlines have tried to cope with the realities in which they find themselves. They can’t be faulted for wanting to survive. It wouldn’t do anyone any good if a company kept all its staff including non skilled labour and went bankrupt nine months ago. At the same time, one’s perception is one’s reality and as long as some remain of the opinion that the big bad company wants to hurt their career, they will find a way to make it a reality themselves!
As for the current circus that you say, clearly the deal had to be presented to the membership and the will of union reps as illumined and informed as they may think they are, cannot decide for the majority. Frankly, if really illumined and wise, they wouldn’t want to bear that responsibility. Unfortunately ALPA, like other unions, becomes the very obstacle it seeks to remove.
More WJ layoffs
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:04 pm
Re: More WJ layoffs
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:28 pm
Re: More WJ layoffs
So what would've been the right move?simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pmA distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.newlygrounded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:25 pmWhat do you call CERB and CEWS?cloak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:54 pm
Clearly in Canada the liberal government has failed the nation, but particularly the aviation industry. In stark contrast with the United States, Justin has used every opportunity to issue bans and restrictions while failing to bear the cost and offer support. The States understood the challenges early on and proactively supported the industry.
In this environment, airlines have tried to cope with the realities in which they find themselves. They can’t be faulted for wanting to survive. It wouldn’t do anyone any good if a company kept all its staff including non skilled labour and went bankrupt nine months ago. At the same time, one’s perception is one’s reality and as long as some remain of the opinion that the big bad company wants to hurt their career, they will find a way to make it a reality themselves!
As for the current circus that you say, clearly the deal had to be presented to the membership and the will of union reps as illumined and informed as they may think they are, cannot decide for the majority. Frankly, if really illumined and wise, they wouldn’t want to bear that responsibility. Unfortunately ALPA, like other unions, becomes the very obstacle it seeks to remove.
Re: More WJ layoffs
Same thing but without the 75% topped at 575$/week; this is totally unfair for people who used to earn 10x more (they have contributed way more into income taxes). My friend in Europe getting is 4500€/month under the equivalent program...newlygrounded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:38 pmSo what would've been the right move?simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pmA distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.
Re: More WJ layoffs
That’s almost C$7000/mth. Do you really think this or any country can afford that?FL320 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:21 amSame thing but without the 75% topped at 575$/week; this is totally unfair for people who used to earn 10x more (they have contributed way more into income taxes). My friend in Europe getting is 4500€/month under the equivalent program...newlygrounded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:38 pmSo what would've been the right move?simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pm
A distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.
I’m all for supporting people through this, but I’m not for totally screwing over the next generations with debt. It’s going to be hard enough for the nation’s finances to recover from this as it is.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:34 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
And yet MOA 1 was not voted on. This is undeniable proof that a vote is not mandatory. The MEC alone decides if an offer from the company will be brought to the membership for ratification. Otherwise, the Company will just submit lowball offer after lowball offer and if the majority are getting laid off, then then majority will accept the lowball offer.cloak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:30 pmInterestingly enough it does say under your own post number (1) that once a ratification is established, as in the last MOA, it remains in effect until a new ratification is done! Not to mention that a vote was promised in the last MOA. Not to mention that the decision was not unanimous. Not to mention the opening paragraph above regarding substantially affecting the membership, etc. And in a position of authority of just recently being acclaimed, one who is wise and a well wisher of all members would not wish to carry alone the burden of making such weighty decision, rather seek participation and involvement from as broad a base as possible. A vote would have been and remains the right thing to do. Let the members decide their own fate.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:22 pm
A. Any contract, letter of agreement or letter of understanding that, in the opinion of the MEC, substantially affects the pay, working conditions, retirement, or career security of member pilots will be subject to membership ratification under the following terms and conditions:
(1) The MEC will, at its option, ballot the membership of their airline to determine if it is their desire to have membership ratification. Once membership ratification is established it will remain in effect until changed by another ballot of the membership through MEC action.
(2) Unless the membership is balloted, as described in Section 2A(1) of this Article, membership ratification of individual contracts and agreements will remain the option of the MEC.
Re: More WJ layoffs
It should be up to the individual to decide if saving their job is worth whatever concessions come with it. Not even letting them have a say is treating them like children that need to be saved from themselves.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:34 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
If that's what WE wanted as a group, then we should not have elected a bargaining representative under the Canada Labour Code. Because we have a bargaining agent, they are free to decide matters in our name, as long as they satisfy the Duty of Fair Representation. I tried to warn my colleagues about this, quite vigorously, on this forum and elsewhere, a few years back. I guess it is now a case of buyer's remorse for some.
I have made my peace with the ALPA and now want only that they follow their procedures. In this latest drama, we have seen some allegedly* in the hierarchy step outside the lines. That is not right and not fair.
I support our NC, and I support the right of the MEC (the body, NOT the Chair), to decide what is the best course of action. I am not in a position to judge. And I hold no personal malice towards any of my colleagues.
Let us move on quickly from this terrible episode and continue to learn how to function as a labour union.
*EDIT I added the word “allegedly”.
Last edited by ALPApolicy on Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: More WJ layoffs
And why not? As a paying dues member, you are free be heard and be happy or unhappy with how things went down.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am
- Location: Betelgeuse
Re: More WJ layoffs
A correct answer. A rare event here on the Net. 100 internet points.simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pm A distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:34 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
I cannot judge because I don’t have all the facts, or any of the facts. I don’t know what is true. And I don’t really care. I know that in all likelihood no one was out to screw anyone or anything on purpose. There likely were just lapses in judgment. I’m in no place to judge. I just want a union that more or less functions as is it supposed to. We are not there right now.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:04 pm
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
The best part is.....
3 of the 6 status reps that made the decision to not take this to the pilot group won their position by acclamation. No one gave a sh!t at the time and now it comes back to haunt everyone....... Rookie mistake for the WJ pilot group.
3 of the 6 status reps that made the decision to not take this to the pilot group won their position by acclamation. No one gave a sh!t at the time and now it comes back to haunt everyone....... Rookie mistake for the WJ pilot group.
Re: More WJ layoffs
Doesn't haunt me. I'm losing my position and I'm very happy that the LEC stood up to WJ. I doesn't matter how they won their positions it's irrelevant.
CJet
CJet
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:28 pm
Re: More WJ layoffs
So what would you have preferred? Every is unhappy but nobody ever says what the fix would've beenMostly Harmless wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:20 amA correct answer. A rare event here on the Net. 100 internet points.simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pm A distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.
Re: More WJ layoffs
Bring on the relief trucks....... lol. Let’s get Bob Geldof and Bono to sing we are the world to help someone who made several times his free-agent value get a little more than the mom and pop small businesses that are closing never to reopen.FL320 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:21 amSame thing but without the 75% topped at 575$/week; this is totally unfair for people who used to earn 10x more (they have contributed way more into income taxes). My friend in Europe getting is 4500€/month under the equivalent program...newlygrounded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:38 pmSo what would've been the right move?simply_no_one wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:37 pm
A distraction making true unemployment numbers stay hidden by funneling what would have been EI payments through CEWS? That's what I call it.
How much does your friend pay in taxes compared to you?
Everyone hates socialism until they want a bloody handout.
Re: More WJ layoffs
Because there was no time in response to the pandemic; the membership made it clear that they wanted a vote and on important issues such as this, there should be a vote. Your argument is tantamount to saying that few sage (senior?) members know better to decide for the masses which apparently was the problem in the first place! Plus the same could be said about the senior group that if something favours them they will vote for it.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:29 amAnd yet MOA 1 was not voted on. This is undeniable proof that a vote is not mandatory. The MEC alone decides if an offer from the company will be brought to the membership for ratification. Otherwise, the Company will just submit lowball offer after lowball offer and if the majority are getting laid off, then then majority will accept the lowball offer.cloak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:30 pmInterestingly enough it does say under your own post number (1) that once a ratification is established, as in the last MOA, it remains in effect until a new ratification is done! Not to mention that a vote was promised in the last MOA. Not to mention that the decision was not unanimous. Not to mention the opening paragraph above regarding substantially affecting the membership, etc. And in a position of authority of just recently being acclaimed, one who is wise and a well wisher of all members would not wish to carry alone the burden of making such weighty decision, rather seek participation and involvement from as broad a base as possible. A vote would have been and remains the right thing to do. Let the members decide their own fate.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:22 pm
A. Any contract, letter of agreement or letter of understanding that, in the opinion of the MEC, substantially affects the pay, working conditions, retirement, or career security of member pilots will be subject to membership ratification under the following terms and conditions:
(1) The MEC will, at its option, ballot the membership of their airline to determine if it is their desire to have membership ratification. Once membership ratification is established it will remain in effect until changed by another ballot of the membership through MEC action.
(2) Unless the membership is balloted, as described in Section 2A(1) of this Article, membership ratification of individual contracts and agreements will remain the option of the MEC.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:34 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
My argument is not that at all. My argument is that ALPA has a system. The system seems to have been utilized. The 4 LEC reps out voted the 2 LEC reps. That's the system.cloak wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:01 pmBecause there was no time in response to the pandemic; the membership made it clear that they wanted a vote and on important issues such as this, there should be a vote. Your argument is tantamount to saying that few sage (senior?) members know better to decide for the masses which apparently was the problem in the first place! Plus the same could be said about the senior group that if something favours them they will vote for it.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:29 amAnd yet MOA 1 was not voted on. This is undeniable proof that a vote is not mandatory. The MEC alone decides if an offer from the company will be brought to the membership for ratification. Otherwise, the Company will just submit lowball offer after lowball offer and if the majority are getting laid off, then then majority will accept the lowball offer.cloak wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:30 pm
Interestingly enough it does say under your own post number (1) that once a ratification is established, as in the last MOA, it remains in effect until a new ratification is done! Not to mention that a vote was promised in the last MOA. Not to mention that the decision was not unanimous. Not to mention the opening paragraph above regarding substantially affecting the membership, etc. And in a position of authority of just recently being acclaimed, one who is wise and a well wisher of all members would not wish to carry alone the burden of making such weighty decision, rather seek participation and involvement from as broad a base as possible. A vote would have been and remains the right thing to do. Let the members decide their own fate.
If we want to organize ourselves differently, we can.
Cheers
John
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:00 pm
Re: More WJ layoffs
While the system has worked as it’s designed to, I find it concerning the division it’s creating among the groups. Forming an us against them mentality between the 3 membership groups.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:21 pmMy argument is not that at all. My argument is that ALPA has a system. The system seems to have been utilized. The 4 LEC reps out voted the 2 LEC reps. That's the system.cloak wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:01 pmBecause there was no time in response to the pandemic; the membership made it clear that they wanted a vote and on important issues such as this, there should be a vote. Your argument is tantamount to saying that few sage (senior?) members know better to decide for the masses which apparently was the problem in the first place! Plus the same could be said about the senior group that if something favours them they will vote for it.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:29 am
And yet MOA 1 was not voted on. This is undeniable proof that a vote is not mandatory. The MEC alone decides if an offer from the company will be brought to the membership for ratification. Otherwise, the Company will just submit lowball offer after lowball offer and if the majority are getting laid off, then then majority will accept the lowball offer.
If we want to organize ourselves differently, we can.
Cheers
John
While it has benefited the more senior bases in this instance, down the road when/if Pilots numbers return to 2019 levels the junior/yyz members could have their chance at “payback”. The company will also likely exploit this.
Re: More WJ layoffs
It took many people years to get their first job in aviation. Sometimes, years after that to touch an airplane. Then more years to even hope for an interview with an airline. How long did it take you to get to the airlines? If it was fast, it wasn't because you are special, it's because you were born in the correct year. Winning the birth lottery, if you will. Perhaps it wasn't an easy road for you. I don't know, it's not important. What is concerning to me is the statement you made about payback. Extremely shortsighted and self-indulgent. One day, you will be the senior person and you will want some things for yourself because you've walked a long road to get there and you have precious few years left in your career to make up for the bad times you may or may not have gone through for 10-20 years to get to that airline and begin earning real money. If you want people to look out for you because you are junior, you had better be willing to sacrifice for those senior people as well. It can't always be all about you.Yycjetdriver wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:19 pm While it has benefited the more senior bases in this instance, down the road when/if Pilots numbers return to 2019 levels the junior/yyz members could have their chance at “payback”. The company will also likely exploit this.
Last edited by Mach1 on Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:34 am
Re: More WJ layoffs
If people want to carry a resentment for that long, who am I to get in their way?Yycjetdriver wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:19 pmWhile the system has worked as it’s designed to, I find it concerning the division it’s creating among the groups. Forming an us against them mentality between the 3 membership groups.ALPApolicy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:21 pmMy argument is not that at all. My argument is that ALPA has a system. The system seems to have been utilized. The 4 LEC reps out voted the 2 LEC reps. That's the system.cloak wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:01 pm
Because there was no time in response to the pandemic; the membership made it clear that they wanted a vote and on important issues such as this, there should be a vote. Your argument is tantamount to saying that few sage (senior?) members know better to decide for the masses which apparently was the problem in the first place! Plus the same could be said about the senior group that if something favours them they will vote for it.
If we want to organize ourselves differently, we can.
Cheers
John
While it has benefited the more senior bases in this instance, down the road when/if Pilots numbers return to 2019 levels the junior/yyz members could have their chance at “payback”. The company will also likely exploit this.
Life goes on.
Cheers,
John