Actually you can ACPA for getting the ball rolling for the government to lower the bar....LeadingEdge wrote:You can thank your Canadian Federal Government for lowering the bar here, ACPA was forced into it against their will...teacher wrote:Wow and the AC folks were accusing Jazz of bringing the bar down when our 757 rate was $155 (status pay aside).
Rouge
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
- Dark Helmet
- Rank 6
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:59 pm
Re: Rouge
Re: Rouge
Do you actually think the government looked at ACPA and said "hey look at them, they got things headed down the crapper so let's accelerate it for them"?Dark Helmet wrote:Actually you can ACPA for getting the ball rolling for the government to lower the bar....
Really?
Re: Rouge
Rockie, with all due respect, is Sky Regional the chicken or the egg?
The odds of AC getting a LCC and LCR in FOS, if Sky wasn't already a reality, are pretty slim. Guess will never know, but I don't think they would've risked it, do you?
The odds of AC getting a LCC and LCR in FOS, if Sky wasn't already a reality, are pretty slim. Guess will never know, but I don't think they would've risked it, do you?
Re: Rouge
There's no doubt SkyRegional is the egg. There's also no doubt that ACPA hasn't exactly helped themselves as you no doubt know, or rather the Air Canada pilots which is completely different than ACPA.mbav8r wrote:Rockie, with all due respect, is Sky Regional the chicken or the egg?
The odds of AC getting a LCC and LCR in FOS, if Sky wasn't already a reality, are pretty slim. Guess will never know, but I don't think they would've risked it, do you?
This government is springloaded to give Canadian corporations whatever they want regarding labour relations, so Air Canada could have asked for the moon (which they did) and gotten it. No rationalization required. If Air Canada says it's good for them and Canada then that's good enough for the government.
We don't help ourselves, but even if we were completely unified (loud guffaw here) and 100% politically competent we still wouldn't have stood a chance with this government.
Re: Rouge
I know it's obviously little late now, but I'm curious what can a government do to 3000+ pilots if they just simply refused to fly??Rockie wrote:We don't help ourselves, but even if we were completely unified (loud guffaw here) and 100% politically competent we still wouldn't have stood a chance with this government
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55 pm
Re: Rouge
Law suit filed by the company against ACPA, Good luck getting everyone on side. Like someone said earlier, we are our own worst enemy.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:00 pm
- Location: YYZ
Re: Rouge
Power in numbers. If everyone that day (when a bunch of pilots called in sick) had called in sick, the message would have been clearly received. Our totalitarian fascist government doesnt help.
Re: Rouge
Flyer, you are being too analytical my friend, I'm just saying this from my heart....what can the Gov't do?? Lock us out? Fine us, jail thousands of pilots for refusing to work?? Unless we live in Nazi state (which we don't).flyer 1492 wrote:Law suit filed by the company against ACPA, Good luck getting everyone on side. Like someone said earlier, we are our own worst enemy.
Re: Rouge
Mig, you did not specify Canadian government, and maybe are a bit young to remember Ronald Regan's term. But spend a little time googling flight controllers in the US....Every single one was fired...They simply thought they were to important and the government would not act. None of them ever went back to work as air traffice controllers, and, I understand had some future difficulties with anything connected withthe government afterwards. I hope I recalled it all correctly.I know it's obviously little late now, but I'm curious what can a government do to 3000+ pilots if they just simply refused to fly??
Reagan fires 11,000 striking air traffic controllers Aug. 5, 1981
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html
And in Canada, they could theoretically be put in jail for contempt..Not sure of the practical or probable chance of that, but the law is there...
It is an interesting scenario.. Air Canada, with its head office legislated to remain in Montreal, and a darling of every stripe of federal government, I would be careful before I decided to ignore legislation..Might just find you dont have a pilots license at the end of it..Or at least enough grief with the proceedings to take you out of the market for a year or two...Pure speculation...when push comes to shove, most Canadians will not defy the government unless they think it is pretty much consequence free.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:55 pm
Re: Rouge
Mig,
All I am saying is if the company can prove a breech of contract, then ACPA and it's members would be held in contempt. The resullting lawsuit would surly bankrupt the union. All they would have to do is read this forum.
All I am saying is if the company can prove a breech of contract, then ACPA and it's members would be held in contempt. The resullting lawsuit would surly bankrupt the union. All they would have to do is read this forum.
- Dark Helmet
- Rank 6
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:59 pm
Re: Rouge
Rockie,Rockie wrote:Do you actually think the government looked at ACPA and said "hey look at them, they got things headed down the crapper so let's accelerate it for them"?Dark Helmet wrote:Actually you can ACPA for getting the ball rolling for the government to lower the bar....
Really?
ACPA was not LR's first victim. This happened to Jazz, Canada Post, and the other labour groups at AC.
I can literaly write an essay and point our were ACPA went wrong in your negotiations campaign (many mistakes were made, not just one.)
To keep it short, arbitration rulings are usually based on precedence. Look at the FAs, Ground handlers, etc. They all got the contract close or identical to the TAs that their MECs initially agreed upon and took it to their members for a vote.
Once ACPA agreed to TA1 and brought it to the membership for a vote, it was basically over....
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Rouge
Dark Helmet wrote:Rockie,Rockie wrote:Do you actually think the government looked at ACPA and said "hey look at them, they got things headed down the crapper so let's accelerate it for them"?Dark Helmet wrote:Actually you can ACPA for getting the ball rolling for the government to lower the bar....
Really?
ACPA was not LR's first victim. This happened to Jazz, Canada Post, and the other labour groups at AC.
I can literaly write an essay and point our were ACPA went wrong in your negotiations campaign (many mistakes were made, not just one.)
To keep it short, arbitration rulings are usually based on precedence. Look at the FAs, Ground handlers, etc. They all got the contract close or identical to the TAs that their MECs initially agreed upon and took it to their members for a vote.
Once ACPA agreed to TA1 and brought it to the membership for a vote, it was basically over....
Nope. You are getting your groups wrong. Negotiating Committee 1 (NC1) presented the TA to the MEC. The MEC then put it out for ratification to the membership (ACPA) WITHOUT AN MEC RECOMMENDATION where it was defeated.
ACPA never agreed to anything. Only a NC1 agreed to the TA with the company. Basically the government is now of the opinion that the ratification process of collective bargaining is irrelevant. In retrospect, you are right. Once NC1 agreed to bring the failed TA to the membership it was game over.
Re: Rouge
Your thinking is still pre-Conservative. Harper is rewriting the laws in Canada stripping away labour rights and precedents are now irrelevant. This is a new world order so forget the words "usual", "normal" and "precedent" because they don't apply anymore.Dark Helmet wrote:To keep it short, arbitration rulings are usually based on precedence.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2486
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
Re: Rouge
Question . Can anybody tell me(as a paying passenger) what the new AC Rouge will do for me that I can’t have on mainline AC. I am on the AC web distribution list for destination sales and there are some very good deals floating about……. Is Rouge gonna beat those.
Re: Rouge
WestJet Captain hourly rate - pay step 1 as of May 2012 - $132.61.
Our contract is up in May and people like Teacher suggest that the downward pressure on WS wages will come from Encore. I think any downward pressure has been adequately discussed in this thread and it doesn't come internally at WS.
JJJ
Our contract is up in May and people like Teacher suggest that the downward pressure on WS wages will come from Encore. I think any downward pressure has been adequately discussed in this thread and it doesn't come internally at WS.
JJJ
Re: Rouge
Your contract being due in May is irrelevant at this point since Encore will barely have started. It's in a few years after WJE is up and running full steam that these pressures will come. You're a proud Westjetter JJJ and there's nothing wrong with that, but GS has begun bending you over and you haven't even noticed.
Re: Rouge
Rockie, my question is a thread shift but I value your opinion. With the re-election of Obama and his penchant for Quantitative Easing, do you think this will lead to Hyper Inflation and an American default on debts? How would this affect Canadian Investors? What will happen to the Canadian Dollar, will it remain at Par with the US Dollar? In a similar vein, with the shrinkage of the US Military is our North Secure? How do we defend Canada without American Support?Rockie wrote:Your thinking is still pre-Conservative. Harper is rewriting the laws in Canada stripping away labour rights and precedents are now irrelevant. This is a new world order so forget the words "usual", "normal" and "precedent" because they don't apply anymore.Dark Helmet wrote:To keep it short, arbitration rulings are usually based on precedence.
- Takeoff OK
- Rank 4
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:21 am
Re: Rouge
Do you ever post anything worth reading, vic?vic777 wrote:Rockie, my question is a thread shift but I value your opinion. With the re-election of Obama and his penchant for Quantitative Easing, do you think this will lead to Hyper Inflation and an American default on debts? How would this affect Canadian Investors? What will happen to the Canadian Dollar, will it remain at Par with the US Dollar? In a similar vein, with the shrinkage of the US Military is our North Secure? How do we defend Canada without American Support?Rockie wrote:Your thinking is still pre-Conservative. Harper is rewriting the laws in Canada stripping away labour rights and precedents are now irrelevant. This is a new world order so forget the words "usual", "normal" and "precedent" because they don't apply anymore.Dark Helmet wrote:To keep it short, arbitration rulings are usually based on precedence.
Re: Rouge
Fly guy,yycflyguy wrote:Dark Helmet wrote:
Once ACPA agreed to TA1 and brought it to the membership for a vote, it was basically over....
Nope. You are getting your groups wrong. Negotiating Committee 1 (NC1) presented the TA to the MEC. The MEC then put it out for ratification to the membership (ACPA) WITHOUT AN MEC RECOMMENDATION where it was defeated.
ACPA never agreed to anything. Only a NC1 agreed to the TA with the company. Basically the government is now of the opinion that the ratification process of collective bargaining is irrelevant. In retrospect, you are right. Once NC1 agreed to bring the failed TA to the membership it was game over.
Dark helmet is correct. Read the CUPE arbitration for the correct precedence. An MOA. A memorandum of agreement by the negotiating committee becomes the benchmark in arbitration. Negotiating committee. Not the MEC. Not the membership.
It was done the SECOND NC1 recommended TA1.
The only hope was avoid arbitration.