West Wind Pilots Reinstated

[Liquid Charlie]

My experience with unions is that it breeds lazy worker and the people that want to work suffer

Maybe unions don't work for mum and pop operations but once you get into a larger group and you have an incident, issue, personality conflict that can fry your ass it's funny how a union becomes everyones' best friend --

Someone mentioned WJ -- i believe they work under a collective agreement -- do they not or am I mistaken - if that is true -- they are unionized same as AC with ACPA -- sure unions take dues but wtf -- you can get some back on your income tax and if it means 2 or 3 grand a year more and days off and rules to work under -- money well spent --

Canada is lucky because we have labour laws that protect us and the non union guys can survive and have their freedom of choice -- ask yourselves how life is south of the border - our approach to unions is far different than theirs since we do have those basic laws to protect us -- collective agreement just makes a good situation that much better.

[Roper]

Marauder, Samaritan, et al:

Actually, I'm not fan of unions also...and I am a pilot. It is my position that they suck money out of you for their own political welfare, under the guise of "assisting" pilots better their conditions. They tell you to go on strike, rather than continue to negotiate in good faith, and if you do not obey the decree, you are blacklisted socially, emotionally, and professionally, treated with disrespect by other members who toe the line, and are subject to public humiliation, rejection, insults, and threats of retribution and violence against yourself and family while you are on strike...and for fuckn WHAT??

To deny services to the hand that feeds you, and force a hostile, uncivilized, confrontational resolution to the issues you are trying to resolve. eerrr....hello...?? What was that about vinegar and honey...?

Why not simply a collective bargaining unit of the pilot group within the company, with NO STRIKE MANDATE, and you keep picking away at things till you all agree. A "work-to-rule" mandate is fine, and appears to be effective in promoting the continuation of negotiations (doesn't it?) Consensus government? This is the only place in the world where it works properly.

Example: WJ and Skyservice are the only 2 I am aware of, but there must be hundreds of others.

These parts can be true of business owners and managers - not just some unions. I believe when this happens, this is when unions are welcomed in. Don't forget, business is there for the $ first.

Do you have a timeline on how long one should 'pick away at things till you all agree'? What happens if you get fired before you reach that magic timeline? After all, they might not like how you 'pick away'. If they keep clearing out those that don't agree, that timeline can stretch out for a very long time. That can certainly help a business bank account. Maybe check back, about 10 years, into a business history and see if some employees were 'let go' and then quietly 'disappeared' - possibly too afraid to fight back. This time, perhaps some of the employees didn't want to be one of those.

[FamilyGuy]

Marauder, Samaritan, et al:

To deny services to the hand that feeds you, and force a hostile, uncivilized, confrontational resolution to the issues you are trying to resolve. eerrr....hello...?? What was that about vinegar and honey...?

Why not simply a collective bargaining unit of the pilot group within the company, with NO STRIKE MANDATE, and you keep picking away at things till you all agree. A "work-to-rule" mandate is fine, and appears to be effective in promoting the continuation of negotiations (doesn't it?) Consensus government? This is the only place in the world where it works properly.

The right to strike is given to Canadians by an act of Parliment - the wise old men that run our country. Has been this way since about 1940 or so. This right is actually FAR more civilized, less confrontational and more peaceful than what used to be done by BOTH sides - sabotage, arson, actual fist fights etc.

There is also the company right to Lock out workers. Everyone always seems to forget that one . Both of these are designed to equalize the power and actually encourage BOTH sides to sit down and work out their differences in a civil manner.

Guess what - it does work rather well. Us in aviation should appreciate that just like accidents, we don't hear about the 1000's of safe flights. Same in the labour world - you don't hear about the 1000's of sucessful labour negotiations that occur every day.

Just one more thing to consider, in any non-unionized workplace, you can be fired for NO reason at all (provided it doesn't break a specific law like the present case). You send the boss an email asking questions about a safety issue he doesn't like - bye bye. All they have to provide is 2 weeks notice or 2 weeks pay. If they have an actual reason to fire you (caught stealing) - bye bye effective immediately - no notice and no pay.

In any unionized workplace, the employer has to have a reason and more often than not cause to fire you (caught stealing - not remorsful and won't accept responsibility). Unionized employees get fired all the time, but it can't be just because the boss doesn't like that you wrote him an email asking questions about a safety issue.

Which workplace do you think would be the better safer place to work?

[Driving Rain]

In my union some of the pilots me included don't have the right to strike. We are considered essential service. I hate to go on strike anyway because you never ever get back what you've lost taking that action. I've always found arbitration better. Sure sometimes your wage advance doesn't keep up with the cost of living but in the long run your still better off working.

In my career I've been denied advancement on at least two occasions because of my stance on safety issues over the years. I've saved and filed every piece of paper my employer has ever written me. I used that paper against them with the help of union lawyers to advance my career in spite of the employers wishes. Having that backing means you don't always have to take no for an answer.

I've counselled all new hires to do the same and you know what, it's worked for them also.
Yes I'm quite proud of that fact. Sometimes you have to take a kicking and screaming management by the scruff to make them see the light.

The work environment here has changed 180* for the better since I was hired 28 years ago. I'd like to think I and few other guys with backbones have contributed to that change. It never would have happened if we didn't have the backing of a powerful union.
It's no secret that my employers is a provincial gumitup and as you can imagine they more than anyone suffer from ideological rigidity and gridlock. It's the nature of the beast.

[Cat Driver]

It's no secret that my employers is a provincial gumitup and as you can imagine they more than anyone suffer from ideological rigidity and gridlock. It's the nature of the beast.

Mornin Driving Rain, I learn something new every day when I worked in Ontario water bombing I thought that the problem in OMNR management was terminal stupidity, turns out it was only ideological rigidity and gridlock.

By the way I agree 101% on what you have said about having an effective union because if you did not get one you probably would not still be in your job.

[Driving Rain]

I learn something new every day when I worked in Ontario water bombing I thought that the problem in OMNR management was terminal stupidity, turns out it was only ideological rigidity and gridlock.

Cat, good morning to you.

Ideological rigidity and gridlock or IR&G is gumitup speak for... terminal stupidity.

Just like you Cat, I've was branded with the all encompassing reason for non promotion. Inter- personnel skills difficulties. Turns out after all these years we've been misdiagnosed. What we really had was plain old AFB or..... assholes for bosses.

[Cat Driver]

Inter- personnel skills difficulties.

Bureaucratic speak for not being a dick licker.

[ifr]

Inter- personnel skills difficulties.

Bureaucratic speak for not being dick licker.

Blunt but correct.

Interesting enough, business owners are often the type themselves to go against the
grain. Now, if they could only figure out that others with personalities like theirs would be
a definite asset to them, instead of thinking only that it's a detriment - now there would be
progress and likely more money in the bank, too.

Owners need eyes and ears that will also help them to grow, see things from all sides (often differently),
and that helps them meet all the challenges. Staying in offices over a period of many years, often leads to owners
becoming oblivious to certain aspects of that business. Strong personalities, that employees know want the best for both them
and the company's bottom line, are ideal and can be as perfect a liaison as they can get. Those that are just there to be 'yes' men - aren't.

[Roper]

Inter- personnel skills difficulties.

Bureaucratic speak for not being a dick licker.

Yep. The men in the pilot group need to just use one of the two b@lls they were given and do what's right for their
profession and help to improve conditions for everyone. As for the women, they likely realized long ago that they don't need any to do what's right!

Some of those nay sayers need to do a check list of their own.
House insurance - check
Disability insurance - check
Fire insurance - check
Car insurance - check
'Cover my ass at work' insurance - check

If they realize the need for the first four then it shouldn't be too hard to make the connection to the last one.

[SaskStyle]

Blunt but correct.

Interesting enough, business owners are often the type themselves to go against the
grain. Now, if they could only figure out that others with personalities like theirs would be
a definite asset to them, instead of thinking only that it's a detriment - now there would be
progress and likely more money in the bank, too.

Owners need eyes and ears that will also help them to grow, see things from all sides (often differently),
and that helps them meet all the challenges. Staying in offices over a period of many years, often leads to owners
becoming oblivious to certain aspects of that business. Strong personalities, that employees know want the best for both them
and the company's bottom line, are ideal and can be as perfect a liaison as they can get. Those that are just there to be 'yes' men - aren't.

Well written.

It's refreshing to read some someone who can make the term "troublemaker" (which i know i've been labeled) sound so politically correct!

What happened to all the posts by that pgbulldong character?

[officejet]

Marauder, Samaritan, et al:

Actually, I'm not fan of unions also...and I am a pilot. It is my position that they suck money out of you for their own political welfare, under the guise of "assisting" pilots better their conditions. They tell you to go on strike, rather than continue to negotiate in good faith, and if you do not obey the decree, you are blacklisted socially, emotionally, and professionally, treated with disrespect by other members who toe the line, and are subject to public humiliation, rejection, insults, and threats of retribution and violence against yourself and family while you are on strike...and for fuckn WHAT??

To deny services to the hand that feeds you, and force a hostile, uncivilized, confrontational resolution to the issues you are trying to resolve. eerrr....hello...?? What was that about vinegar and honey...?

Why not simply a collective bargaining unit of the pilot group within the company, with NO STRIKE MANDATE, and you keep picking away at things till you all agree. A "work-to-rule" mandate is fine, and appears to be effective in promoting the continuation of negotiations (doesn't it?) Consensus government? This is the only place in the world where it works properly.

Example: WJ and Skyservice are the only 2 I am aware of, but there must be hundreds of others.

It is my position that they suck money out of you for their own political welfare, under the guise of "assisting" pilots better their conditions.

I think you don't quite grasp the fundamental basic of a union concept. Or maybe I don't. I always thought the "union" was, like the definition of the word, the collective voice of the united group. I can see how your viewpoint may have developed however. There are cases where unions have become so strong that the tail wags the dog. And as a result the leaders of the union start to politicize their power via the media etc. However....like a democracy, the real power lies in the vote. If the workers within the union do not like the direction the elected leadership is going, they have a responsibility and the power to change it. Just as you have a social responsibility to take the time to educate yourself and vote in the democratic elections of your mayor, MLA or MP...when you join a union you have a responsibility to know that it is serving your interests. And you have the power to toss them out if they stop. It is in their best interest to keep you happy. Because as you said, you pay them.

They tell you to go on strike, rather than continue to negotiate in good faith, and if you do not obey the decree, you are blacklisted socially, emotionally, and professionally, treated with disrespect by other members who toe the line, and are subject to public humiliation, rejection, insults, and threats of retribution and violence against yourself and family while you are on strike...and for fuckn WHAT??

A strike is always the last resort, a result of a breakdown of the good faith negotiations. "They tell you to go on strike" WRONG. You as a group vote to take that route.

What sort of a timeline do you propose in these "negotiations?" The very nature of negotiating means that there are two sides with differing views trying to reach a compromise. And like mentioned in another thread, if both sides respect good faith...then you're right. A union isn't necessary. When trust is lost however in the other side for whatever reason, what then? I think you would be reserved a place in the history books if you could propose an effective alternative to the strike...that doesn't involve bloodshed.

As far as being "blacklisted socially emotionally professionally treated with disrepect etc"...I'm sorry if you have experienced this. If it's just an opinion based on speculation, it is overboard.

As far as I understand...all votes made are confidental. Of course there will be discussions amongst the members, and there will always be those with loud voices in the coffee room. But there is nothing saying you have to get involved. You pay your dues, you vote. If the majority decides a strike is necessary, then you have a responsibility to stand by your peers and possibly be subject to everything you described. There is a purpose to it all though. "and for fuckn WHAT??" It's because as a group, you decided that the terms the management offered were not sufficient.

"threats of retribution and violence against yourself and family" Seriously????

I don't quite think they're in the same league as the stories you're talking about. I know in Saskatchewan there's the odd bar fight...but I'd be surprised to see things reach that level. Worst case you'd recieve a pile of manure in your driveway...

"To deny services to the hand that feeds you, and force a hostile, uncivilized, confrontational resolution to the issues you are trying to resolve. eerrr....hello...?? "

First. I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you have a real effective alternative to the strike, you will have a place in the history books. The strike allows the unionized employee the legal right to voice their displeasure with the current situation in a civilized, non hostile, non confrontational measure by denying services to the hand that feeds you. eeerrr hello

Second. You keep focusing on strike strike strike. That shows your lack of education on this union issue. A strike is one small part of being in a union. I know it's the most visible part because that is what is always filmed by the media and reported in the papers when negotiations break down. Depending on the length of the contract, there can be years between contract negotiations and the threat of a strike. The function of the union and the bonuses they offer during the interim I'll be happy to discuss with you if you really are interested.

"Why not simply a collective bargaining unit of the pilot group within the company, with NO STRIKE MANDATE, and you keep picking away at things till you all agree. A "work-to-rule" mandate is fine, and appears to be effective in promoting the continuation of negotiations (doesn't it?) Consensus government? This is the only place in the world where it works properly."

That works well only if you have good faith with the other side. If you do, great. Consider yourself fortunate. When that trust breaks down however, what are you left with? Picking away at things till you all agree is a great concept. Reality says that there are timelines that should be respected. A bargaining unit within the pilot group means that there will be a volunteer who will be putting his job on the line to negotiate one on one with the managers. Put yourself in that position. Can you can honestly say that there would be no pressure to settle to the owner's demands?

Westwind fired 4 pilots in short order. Don't deceive yourself with rose coloured glasses.

[Roper]

What happened to all the posts by that pgbulldog character?

I would think that he either changed his opinion, or he found out he wasn't allowed to express it as much as he thought
he could. Much as I disagreed with most of his opinions, if he was 'asked' to stop and/or felt he better for his own job security or employee relations - that's wrong.

Now, back to the union discussion. People need to realize that the same rules that apply to bring a union in are the same
rules that can be used to leave a union once it becomes redundant. Unions aren't there for the reason to keep inept employees - they are there to make sure the 'good' ones have an equal footing and a voice to ensure they get heard.

Inept employees can be gotten rid of if the employers follow the proper rules/procedures. If business wants employees to follow certain rules and procedures, then they need to step up to the plate and follow certain rules and procedures, too. Unions don't want inept airline employees working on/flying planes that they and their families fly on any more than anybody else. In fact, they want to help to ensure that the rules are followed by everyone to make sure aviation is safer for everyone. How can so many of you be in support of the Widow - and rightly so - and not feel the drive to support her by doing your part in the industry also?

[swordfish]

I appreciate the moderate tone of your reply, officejet. Yes, you are correct that I am relatively ignorant of the union perspective as I have never been a member of one. And I do realize the strike mandate is the option of last, frustrated choice. Your issue about timelines, while valid, makes me wonder if they aren't somewhat artificial and arbitrary. Trying to negotiate within a forced timeline would appear to add to the stress of the process.

My only close experience with unions was with the Giant Mines strike in Yellowknife in about 1992. Everything I described in my post was there, and I had close friends working there with the true insider horror stories. It was scary even driving past the mine to go to the recreational lakes further to the North East. It seems to me that employer-employee relations deteriorate with a union.

However, many of my own positions on unions will steadfastly remain. I believe they have driven our auto industry to be uncompetitive in the world market, and a wide implementation of unions in our industry would have detrimental effects to employer-employee relations. I also agree with many of you, however, that we need some global improvement to the working conditions and remuneration of Canadian pilots, when compared with our counterparts in Europe.

[ifr]

1. Trying to negotiate within a forced timeline would appear to add to the stress of the process.

2. It seems to me that employer-employee relations deteriorate with a union.

3. However, many of my own positions on unions will steadfastly remain.

Re # 1 I guess it depends if the timeline is over a period of 2 - 6 months or if it drags on over 2 - 6 years. Is there not a point when enough is enough? What happens when some of your co-workers, that are negotiating on your behalf, begin disappearing without proper procedures being followed. What to do? You realize that you better start watching your own back and wish someone else would take over - because you're too afraid to do it. I would think that if safety issues are being brought forward, the length of the timeline process would be a very big factor affecting your stress level.

Re #2 It seems to me that employer - employee relations have already deteriorated before a union comes in. As someone
previously said, a business gets the union they deserve. (If they don't deserve one - they won't have employees wanting one.) The members also get the union that they want. They don't need to follow the autoworkers' rules, teachers' union rules, miners' union rules, nurses' union rules, or any other but their own. You seem to be painting them all with the same brush.

Re #3 It might be helpful to research the history of unions and business to see how it evolved. You may not have considered that your Canadian lifestyle and rights are a result of many of those early conflicts. Whether it's workers' rights, racial discrimination, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, etc., it always takes a group - whether it's called an association/union/whatever - to move us into a more fair society. Just look at 2nd and 3rd world countries to see what happens when people aren't allowed to organize and better their life. North America moved in a forward direction when our governments passed labour laws.

Remember that all unions are not the same any more than all businesses are the same.

[swordfish]

Thanks for the reply, ifr.

re:
1. Rather than set a timeline that is ridiculous, or unattainable, what's wrong with a commitment to continue negotiations in good faith (by both sides), keeping communications channels open, and search for creative solutions? i.e. both sides become part of the solution rather than each side becoming part of the problem? The AC pilots are going into negotiations this year (subject of many posts in their forum) and many of them already see quite clearly the situation the company is in. I'm not trying to comment on the directions each side should/will take. I'm simply saying that if you look at things from the other side, it will be less confrontational/adversarial to reach resolution.

2. If your pilot group joins an existing union, they must surely have a template which your local follows? Or are you telling me that each local formulates its own constitution? We are not likely to amalgamate with any of the groups you identified.

3. Quite true. However, the retention of the strike mandate as a lever to achieve your goals is something I will always be opposed to. It is my philosophy that there MUST be a better way to resolve issues on which you are at loggerheads other than striking. Nobody "wins" after a strike.

[swordfish]

No respondent has really addressed the proposal to create a Collective Bargaining Group within a company, rather than unionize. Input on this would be welcomed.

[xsbank]

The collective bargaining unit is fine if you have someone who has all the required knowledge but usually you are too busy doing your job to take on a second one, which is why, with your dues, you 'hire' the expertise.

Labour law and collective bargaining is immensely complicated. Eventually you will arrive at a good contract but remember it is give and take so without expertise you might arrive at where you want to be only after a number of contracts.

The senior guys at A/C only fly a couple of days (8?) out of a month so they have more time for this. 20, 22 days for 704?

Hold your nose and call a successful local union - its worth it. You can always de-certify and form your own group once you think you know it all.

Most medium-sized companies have legal staff so you are playing with a stacked deck without representation.

[ifr]

Thanks for the reply, ifr.

re:
1. Rather than set a timeline that is ridiculous, or unattainable, what's wrong with a commitment to continue negotiations in good faith (by both sides), keeping communications channels open, and search for creative solutions? i.e. both sides become part of the solution rather than each side becoming part of the problem?

2. If your pilot group joins an existing union, they must surely have a template which your local follows? Or are you telling me that each local formulates its own constitution? We are not likely to amalgamate with any of the groups you identified.

3. Quite true. However, the retention of the strike mandate as a lever to achieve your goals is something I will always be opposed to. It is my philosophy that there MUST be a better way to resolve issues on which you are at loggerheads other than striking. Nobody "wins" after a strike.

Swordfish, it's nice to actually have some real dialogue. Let's see how I can manage to continue it.

It's my belief that if there is a problem and difficulty getting some 'good faith' in setting a timeline - let alone some of the other issues - this is unfair. Would it be more unfair to the company or to the pilots? Think about it. If keeping communication channels was open, then 4 pilots should not have been let go without hearing some communication themselves. These were long-term employees with three having from 5 to ll years each and, like you, had obviously done what they were supposed to do and maybe more, to be in the pilot position they were in. It is also my belief that even one of the four, while also fulfilling his flying duties, actually worked wonders at the company's Winnipeg IAS division - ultimately saving a large and profitable contract for them and your profit sharing. I would not think that this would be a position to put an unreliable and uncommunitive person into and was less than 7 months before he was let go. Now, if that wasn't enough to help him - what do you think one really needs to do to ensure you have some protection and rights?

As for point 2, I am of the understanding that the local formulates their own constitution as in AC where the flight attendants, mechanics, pilots, etc. all have their own considerations that reflect their position. Such should be the position here. You get the union you want because you formulate it. Make a point to investigate and do not make an assumption without learning the facts.
Those that 'hide' and hope it all will be resolved without putting their @ss on the line or learning anything (except from gossip and opinions from those not knowing the whole story) are not being fair to themselves, their families, or their fellow coworkers and professionals. Those are the ones who are failing this profession and ultimately themselves.

As for point 3, it is also my position that things are best resolved with both sides being part of the solution. However if your company has their own lawyer on retention, you really should have some added 'insurance' for yourself. If you end up, nose down off the end of a runway and not a result of your actions, do you want to just hope they 'like' you, you're not a threat to their bottom line' and that you're not going to be the sacrificial lamb for the company's reputation? I don't know if a pilot association, as you interpret it, could do a thing for you in this case. And, would your 'leader' be putting his/her nose on the line to protect you? Was this already the case in these dismissals? (If so, nice back up from the coworkers!) In some companies, what is called a pilot association is often set up, run the same, and is just another name for a union - just a more acceptable word to ease the mind of the worriers. (You could do that, too.) Remember, do you buy fire insurance because you know you're going to have a fire or 'just in case'?

'What you risk reveals what you value' - J. Winterson.

[Cat Driver]

If you end up, nose down off the end of a runway and not a result of your actions,

Except for a failure of the brakes and or reverse thrust what other excuse is there for running off the end of a runway.

[officejet]

If you end up, nose down off the end of a runway and not a result of your actions,

Except for a failure of the brakes and or reverse thrust what other excuse is there for running off the end of a runway.

Couldn't resist could you?

See it for what it is Cat. I think IFR was simply trying to make a point by using an hypothetical example.

I think arguing the validity of the example takes away from their dialogue.

There's some good discussion going on here about a real situation.

I agree with IFR when he said mentioned that it is nice to experience some intelligent rebuttals without it descending in a spiral dive into

Let's keep it on track and leave the hijacking aside. If you want to talk about excuses about running off the end of the runway...there's more than one relevant thread out there.

[ifr]

Cat - I bow to you and not the greatest example, I agree. More brain cells focused on my point than the example. (Did I do better there?) With your vast experience and background, I'm sure you'd have lots of more relevant material to share with us -preferably backing me up, of course.

[Roper]

Cat Driver. These guys seem to have almost as much chutszpah as you. Thought that you'd be one of the first to support and respect that kind of backbone instead of joining a group that is trying to kick some dirt out from under them. Please don't tell me I was wrong. I don't have the time to go back and reread all your thousands of posts and change my interpretation!

[Cat Driver]

Let me clear these couple of issues up.

Commenting on the running off the end of the runway was tongue in cheek...should have put a after it.......with the exemption that it is O.K if you fly for a regional.

As to the pilots that were reinstated by the company in question...good for them.....and a company only gets the union they deserve.

[swordfish]

There's a lot of meat in your post, ifr. For the record, btw, I am not employed by WestWind. I didn't mean to imply that in my comment "We're not likely to amalgamate with any of the groups you identified". By "we" I mean non-organized pilots in general.

Clearly there gets to be a certain size or sophistication of a company where a union best serves the bargaining and welfare rights of the group. In large organizations such as the tier 1 carriers (with large employee groups) they are inevitable.

But let's look at the [apparent] success of the WestJet model, where the employees have a vested interest in the viability of the airline. By becoming "owners", they discuss and ratify agreements on a consensus basis. Now I'm not cool with the internal workings of this particular group, and I certainly have no credibility discussing the difficulties they may face. All we (the outsiders) see is that they seem to interface much better with their management group than the AC pilots do.

Same with Skyservice.

So with the conflicts I see with unions organizing against their employers in an adversarial bargaining position, they don't appear to be the solution for "smaller" companies such as WW. And when(if) there is a strike called (I realize it is by majority vote, in a highly democratic process), it seems to attract immediate media attention, which - from the way the media deals with strikes - further aggravates the conflict by hyping and sensationalizing the differences in their respective positions.

I don't know what was at the root of the WW dismissals. And to be quite sure, I don't want to go there, on either side of the issue. However the points you have raised certainly underscore the need for better conflict resolution than what happened there. By promoting a union they are diametrically opposing to what has been the "norm" at WestWind.

When they hired on there, there was (undoubtedly) no misunderstanding of the employment contract they entered into, with respect to wages, scheduling, holidays, promotion, etc. Do they want to change it now? Or does management?

From the little I know of the management there, I have to admit that I was somewhat stunned by their actions.

The Chinese have an expression that I have soberly regarded for some time: Be careful what you wish for, as you may get it.

[FamilyGuy]

Just a couple points of information. I find it rather frustrating when people think strikes/lockouts Just happen. It's a loooong road to get to the point of an actual strike/lockout scenario.

Under the CLC notice to bargain can be served upto 4 months in advance of the expiry of the CA - longer if the CA itself says so. That's roughly 120 days for the parties to work it out. Is that really an artifical pressure? Most business deals don't take that long - hell guys get married after dating for less time . But strikes don't just happen...read on.

Once the contract expires or if at any time ONE side thinks it's at impass, either side can apply for Federal Concilliation services. Basically the Gov appoints a guy(s) to come in and help break the loggerhead - if the Gov thinks that worthwhile. The Gov must decide within 15 days of receiving that request what it will do and the concilliator has 60 days from appointment to issue a report (or later but only with mutual agreement between the parties).

If a concilliator is appointed, both sides have the option of being bound by his recomendations. This actually happens quite a bit. The parties then spend their time trying to convince this independant third party that their view is the correct one (careful what you ask for indeed).

21 days must elapse before a strike vote or lockout can be undertaken if either side requested concilliation and the Gov said no, or after a report is issued by the concilliator. This is one cooling off period.

Even once that is met or the CA has expired and impass met (if no mention of concilliation) notice of a strike or lock out must be given at least 72 hours in advance (cooling off #3). If they don't use it within those 72 hours, they have to give another 72 hours notice(cool off #4). The strike vote or lockout vote must be conducted by secret ballot within 60 days of the actual strike or lockout (cool off #2). Go longer and you have to take a new vote. If any member thinks the vote was irregular, they can apply to the board withing 10 days to have another vote taken - rare but has happened.

No self respecting Union will come to the membership unless they have actually reached a true impass and can explain WHY. Most people aren't so stupid as to fall for rhetoric and go without PAY while on strike just because the guy holding the strike meeting is a smooth talker. Plus IF the Union doesn't get the strike mandate (because they didn't do their jobs), the bargaining team is usually TOAST! The company will then usally swoop in like vultures and make easy prey of the carcass - nobody wants that.

Did you also know that under the CLC, the Gov can force a vote on the last company offer - regardless of Union opinon? Rare, but could happen.

There is also "final offer selection" and binding arbitration available to the parties in dispute.

None of this can even happen unless the parties have an maintenance of activities agreement in place.

BTW, there are very stiff fines in place for both Unions and company's if they don't follow the rules. Some are large enough to bankrupt a small Union quickly...a big Union as well if enough members are out on illegal strikes.

Actually, read all about it here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs ... l_I-gb:l_I

Bottom line is that our legistators have enacted some very clear and strict rules surrounding bargaining in good faith, strikes and lockouts.

It's all very civil and organized. This hollywood mentality of guys with bats breaking knee caps really is rather old.

Almost forgot, Union Constitutions cover house keeping issues - who can be appointed to what, how to conduct votes etc. Even if you are a small part of a BIG Union and honour their Constitution, that doesn't mean you have to tow their line during bargaining. You will have your team (normally from within your group) setting your issues and your BATNA's and WATNA's. In fact, I know of one large mother Union that has 2 groups inside the same employer and each side argues amongst themselves freely. There is no hidden mother Russia type agenda.