SELF-DESTRUCT -- PRESS

[tbaylx]

Well you can't really bring in military pilots to replace the AC pilots like Reagan did with the ATCO's in the 80's. And do you really think Harper has the same big brass ones Reagan did to pull that off? If pilots don't come to work, they aren't getting replaced any time soon and the flying stops. Really that simple.

I beg to differ. It is not that simple at all. How many pilots do you think will stay off the job and for how long if they face a $10,000 per day fine, or a criminal conviction for contempt of court that could seriously interfere with their ability to subsequently fly into the U.S.A.?

Geez i'm feeling kind of stressed just thinking about it. Guess i should call in sick since i'm not fit to fly. Can't contempt me for that last i checked. Really if the pilots want to bring things to a grinding halt they can without subjecting themselves to any of the above fines etc. I doubt that will actually happen, pilots tend to be quite professional, however if they get too much rammed down their throats by an arbitrator and the government takes away their only legal recourse, I suspect more creative ways of expressing their displeasure will begin to surface.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Unnamed pilots receiving phone calls yesterday encouraging them to book off sick Friday. Some call management to advise them of the plot. Management writes ACPA expressing concern. ACPA this morning denies any knowledge, and issues a letter reminding members of their obligations under the law.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

[Mig29]

Some call management to advise them of the plot

Shows how tight and unified ACPA group is...

[The Hammer]

I beg to differ. It is not that simple at all. How many pilots do you think will stay off the job and for how long if they face a $10,000 per day fine, or a criminal conviction for contempt of court that could seriously interfere with their ability to subsequently fly into the U.S.A.?

Probably no pilots will stay off the job in those circumstances, but do you want that pilot flying your airplane either as a company, passenger or a government?

There is a reason the collective bargaining process exists. It results in a mutually agreed upon contract that both parties can live with resulting in peace for the duration provided one of those parties doesn't violate the contract. This isn't new. Decades of practice have proven it works. But now the conservatives have reversed the clock 150 years and think things are going to get better.

Forced servitude went out a long time ago because it doesn't work. Thinking labour peace is going to be bought by legislation is a mugs game and typical of the sledge hammer approach to governing Harper relies on completely.

You can blame Harper's actions on QANTAS as well. When QANTAS mgmt locked out everyone for 3 days the Aussie government was less than happy and still is unhappy with the airline because of the negative effect/perception on the country. Harper took the pre-emptive strike and prevented both a strike and a lock-out before it affected the rest of the country.

[bcflyer]

I beg to differ. It is not that simple at all. How many pilots do you think will stay off the job and for how long if they face a $10,000 per day fine, or a criminal conviction for contempt of court that could seriously interfere with their ability to subsequently fly into the U.S.A.?

You can only fine them if they are actually breaking the law. Please tell us how you intend to prove that the pilot who booked off wasn't unfit for duty. There is nothing illegal about booking off if you are not capable of flying your aircraft. In fact it is required under the CARS. By the way you don't have to be physically ill to be "unfit"

I can guarantee you that if there was an incident or accident that was proven to be even slightly connected to a pilot who wasn't fit for duty, the company would hang that pilot out to dry and publicly state the he/she violated CARS regulations.

[Flaps 1]

We are now living in a world where people have completely lost their integrity.

[YVRtoYYZ]

And so it begins?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ilots.html

[Pilot X]

We must keep our issue in the spotlight.

[vic777]

We are now living in a world where people have completely lost their integrity.

Whenever faced with a moral dilemma Air Canada Employees must ask themselves, "What would Robert Milton do?"

[vic777]

And so it begins?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ilots.html

There should be an immediate Government Audit to ascertain if these cancellations were due to Pilot Book offs or just for Air Canada's convenience.

[Raymond Hall]

You can only fine them if they are actually breaking the law. Please tell us how you intend to prove that the pilot who booked off wasn't unfit for duty. There is nothing illegal about booking off if you are not capable of flying your aircraft. In fact it is required under the CARS. By the way you don't have to be physically ill to be "unfit".

At the risk of wading into a very delicate legal debate, may I suggest that there is no such legal "certainty." You might want to Google "American Airlines" and "sickout" to see one example of the potential adverse consequences for pilots and their unions, in similar circumstances, namely where the union actually counsels pilots to not engage in a sickout. One such news story shows that a fine of $45 million was levied against the union, in spite of its advice to pilots to not book off sick unless truly ill:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=2955519


Also, because many who read this Forum were not yet commercial pilots in 1986, it bears reminding that the then President of CALPA was fined in court in Quebec for events related to the effective shutdown of all major airlines in Canada for one week in regards to a dispute over bilingualism in air traffic control, even though the union that he represented had issued statements similar to those issued this week by ACPA executives.

[Mig29]

fear mongering and division amongst ACPA ranks as usual. The same ranks who have voted over 95% in favor of a strike action is now breaking the backs of people who simply called sick (due to stress, fatigue, personal problems or simply inability to fly) and even better - is doing overtime at the expense of their own colleagues!

[gpmdud]

One thing you may want to re-discover is the validity of your complaint.
Pilots are compensated for their ability to adapt to elevated levels of stress.
No pun intended.
If a pilot can not compensate for a job related stress inducer,
then why should they be trusted in a flight induced stressor.
I'm surprised that not all Pilots are calling in sick, if their jobs are are more stressful than their duties.

[Rockie]

I'm surprised that not all Pilots are calling in sick, if their jobs are are more stressful than their duties.

Funny, I've just said the same thing myself.

Pilots are paid in part to assess risk and make decisions that ensure the safest possible outcome which many times means simply saying "no". Our goal is to avoid situations as much as possible that cause stress, or be so prepared for those situations that it reduces the unknown and therefore the "stress". However any kind of stress applied over a long period of time can only have undesirable results. We are only human after all.

Many months ago we recognized that Rovinescu is gunning for our very jobs. Not denying us a pay raise...he wants our jobs. Over a long period of time that will take its toll especially when the government has robbed us of any ability to prevent it.

How would you react?

[Morry Bund]

How would you react?

One way that I would not react is by doing anything to turn public opinion seriously against my otherwise legitimate grievance. Nor would I react by giving the employer my head on a platter, as these individuals have done.

Not only has today been an embarrassment for our union, but it has also remarkably set back our contractual objectives. Stupid is not an accurate enough word to describe the inane, uncoordinated, strategically deprived, self-destructive behavior of the few responsible for today's events.

[TheStig]

How would you react?

One way that I would not react is by doing anything to turn public opinion seriously against my otherwise legitimate grievance, including giving the employer my head on a platter, individually or collectively.

Not only has today been an embarrassment for our union, but it has also remarkably set back our contractual objectives. Stupid is not an accurate enough word to describe the inane, uncoordinated, strategically deprived, self-destructive behavior of the few responsible for today's events.

And yet and of the discussion in the media seems to be second guessing the wisdom of Bill C-33 as there have effectively been 2 strikes at AC since it was enacted.

I feel sorry for all of the travellers affected by job action which has been a direct result of our governments inept handling and interference in these matters. If the Federal Government had not interfered, these negotiations would have been settled months ago. Just that simple.

This situation sucks, for Air Canada, for Air Canada's pilots, the other employee groups, for the travelling public, and yes the Feds too.

[vic777]

One way that I would not react is by doing anything to turn public opinion seriously against my otherwise legitimate grievance.

Public Opinion and $1.50 will get you a small coffee at Tim Horton's. Seriously, what good is Public Opinion? What has Public Opinion got us in the last Fifty years of negotiations? When has Public Opinion made a difference?

[Rockie]

One way that I would not react is by doing anything to turn public opinion seriously against my otherwise legitimate grievance. Nor would I react by giving the employer my head on a platter, as these individuals have done.

How has the pilot group been doing on all our other "legitimate" grievances? How many years have we been fighting some of them only to get absolutely nowhere? How much time do we have to fight this one?

Give another alternative that not only works, but works in the very short time we have left thanks to the government and we'll be all over it. If you can't provide another alternative then either join this one or get out of the way.

Nobody's head is on a platter either. The CIRB ruling is just toothless noise and bluster, and completely predictable.

[Morry Bund]

How has the pilot group been doing on all our other "legitimate" grievances? How many years have we been fighting some of them only to get absolutely nowhere? How much time do we have to fight this one? ... Nobody's head is on a platter either. The CIRB ruling is just toothless noise and bluster, and completely predictable.

I believe that it is very dangerous to think that this incident has ended with the CIRB ruling. As I read it, there are two consequences of the CIRB ruling. First, there is an order to stop the action. Second, there is a determination that the action is illegal. The second one is the one that I would be concerned with mostly, for it harbours immense potential consequences from the damages caused to the airline and its customers. And despite the CIRB's limited information in arriving at its conclusion that this action was illegal, there are incontrovertible facts that support that conclusion. You know that, and I know that.

However, the suggestion that this issue has ended with the CIRB ruling severely underestimates the determination and the ability of Air Canada’s management to hold those who organized the illegal action accountable, and/or the ability of the airline to teach its employees a lesson that they won't forget. Discipline, for sure. Personal financial consequences? We do not know.

There is one irony in all of this, namely, a number of those who were actually responsible for organizing the sickout did not themselves book off sick for the simple reason that they were not scheduled to work on Friday. But don’t assume that the airline won’t do its homework to get to the underlying facts leading to this event and to bring them into the ring as well.

For example, in the WestJet competition scandal a few years ago, Air Canada hired forensic analysts to pick up the discarded garbage on the street outside the residence of the (former Air Canada) WestJet employee who was accessing the Air Canada computer reservations system to determine marketing information on competitive routes. Those analysts were then tasked with the job of reconstructing hundreds of shredded documents from the garbage, in order to gain the evidence that was ultimately successful in prosecuting the airline's case.

Three years ago, after the Baggage Handler walk-out in Toronto, when the manager responsible for dealing with the issue agreed to no discipline, provided the employees ceased their actions and returned to work, he was fired the next day.

The President of Air Canada today is not the same, up-from-the-ranks, former sales agent, President of Air Canada of the 1980's. Before coming to Air Canada, the existing CEO was the managing parter of a major law firm in Montreal. Different focus. Different philosophy of human resource management.

I have two points. First, yes, there is a problem with the existing contractual and union relations. Yes, there are a number of means of addressing these problems, legal and illegal. If the latter options are among the ones that are chosen, do not be surprised if there are consequences that flow from those decisions.

Second, whatever option is chosen better have the ability to accomplish its objective. I don’t expect that than an ad hoc, unelected, supposedly anonymous, but uncoordinated and emotionally charged group of frustrated union members acting independently of the union executive could ever be able to reshape this union’s destiny for the better. Nor do I believe that a large number of union members would ever follow their present initiative, given the potential negative legal ramifications of doing so, including discipline up to and including discharge.

If the chosen objective was to embarrass the union, to harm the airline, and to make further progress in the legitimate cause even more difficult, the chosen option was definitely a success. But if the chosen objective was to move the pilots’ legitimate concerns forward by garnering support against the corporation’s and the government’s actions, the option chosen was an abject failure.

[Rockie]

I believe that it is very dangerous to think that this incident has ended with the CIRB ruling. As I read it, there are two consequences of the CIRB ruling. First, there is an order to stop the action. Second, there is a determination that the action is illegal. The second one is the one that I would be concerned with mostly, for it harbours immense potential consequences from the damages caused to the airline and its customers. And despite the CIRB's limited information in arriving at its conclusion that this action was illegal, there are incontrovertible facts that support that conclusion. You know that, and I know that.

However, the suggestion that this issue has ended with the CIRB ruling severely underestimates the determination and the ability of Air Canada’s management to hold those who organized the illegal action accountable, and/or the ability of the airline to teach its employees a lesson that they won't forget. Discipline, for sure. Personal financial consequences? We do not know.

The government and company have to ask themselves why any illegal action they think took place occurred. A 12 year old can figure out that the deplorable state of labour relations at Air Canada and intense employee dissatisfaction is a direct result of the government and company's actions. Labour relations experts across the country certainly have it figured out and the public seems to be getting it as well.

What do you think pursuing and punishing employees for an alleged illegal work action that is impossible to prove would do to our already dismal relationship with Air Canada management? What do you think it would do from a flight safety perspective to have pilots going to work unfit in violation of CAR's out of fear of discipline?

I'm not saying our management isn't that stupid because they clearly are (what else explains their single minded drive to destroy this airline), but it would be another public relations disaster for Air Canada and quite possibly worse. How does that fit into our vaunted swiss cheese model?

[vic777]

The government and company have to ask themselves why any illegal action they think took place occurred.

Certainly there would have to be a Government Audit to ascertain the true cause of each cancelled flight and see if anyone is lying.

[Morry Bund]

The government and company have to ask themselves why any illegal action they think took place occurred. A 12 year old can figure out that the deplorable state of labour relations at Air Canada and intense employee dissatisfaction is a direct result of the government and company's actions. Labour relations experts across the country certainly have it figured out and the public seems to be getting it as well.

Much too rational a conclusion. Your logic may not apply, in the existing circumstances. I don’t think that you yet have a complete grasp of the current government’s manner of imposing its agenda. According to its perspective, it is not required to ask anybody anything. Protect the public. Protect the economy. Think no further, no matter how the cards fall.

What do you think pursuing and punishing employees for an alleged illegal work action that is impossible to prove would do to our already dismal relationship with Air Canada management? What do you think it would do from a flight safety perspective to have pilots going to work unfit in violation of CAR's out of fear of discipline?

What it will do and whether it will happen are two separate questions, the latter question which will be answered sooner that we might expect. With regard to the former question, it will have a further debilitating effect on the relation, but it will also continue to divide the union, adding fear of personal reprisal to the mix of consequences. Don’t underestimate this management’s willingness to assert its muscle.

I'm not saying our management isn't that stupid because they clearly are (what else explains their single minded drive to destroy this airline), but it would be another public relations disaster for Air Canada and quite possibly worse. How does that fit into our vaunted swiss cheese model?

Can’t agree. Watch for the spin put on this, stemming from the airline’s portrayed motivation to protect its brand and to protect the interests of its customers against further actions of the type that have already been declared by the appropriate authority to be illegal.

[Rockie]

I don’t think that you yet have a complete grasp of the current government’s manner of imposing its agenda. According to its perspective, it is not required to ask anybody anything. Protect the public. Protect the economy. Think no further, no matter how the cards fall.

I think I do. Rather than use their brains and finesse they use a sledge hammer to pound a 3" square peg into a 2" round hole and then marvel at how well it fits. Works in literally all situations so far.

Does that sound about right?

[Mig29]

Rockie wrote:
The government and company have to ask themselves why any illegal action they think took place occurred. A 12 year old can figure out that the deplorable state of labour relations at Air Canada and intense employee dissatisfaction is a direct result of the government and company's actions. Labour relations experts across the country certainly have it figured out and the public seems to be getting it as well.


Much too rational a conclusion. Your logic may not apply, in the existing circumstances. I don’t think that you yet have a complete grasp of the current government’s manner of imposing its agenda. According to its perspective, it is not required to ask anybody anything. Protect the public. Protect the economy. Think no further, no matter how the cards fall.

Protect the public and economy???! Really? Then I guess over 2,000 AVEOS employees do not count as part of our economy and I presume the governments of Botswana or Kazakhstan are going to support these people over the next year or so on employment insurance? Right?

If our gov't really wanted to protect the public and interests of everyone at Air Canada, then they would set up a round of negotiations (not forced lockouts, legislation and threats) between both unions in question and the management. They would implement a deadline, monitor the progress and make sure no side is stalling, while giving everyone a fair chance to voice their issues or suggestions on creating the new contract that will work for both sides. This upcoming binding arbitration sounds more like an ultimatum that Germans gave to countries in WW2 that did want to be occupied...

[Martin Tamme]

Protect the public and economy???! Really?

Wasn't there someone else in history who had to do what ever it took in order to protect the public & the economy?


"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison.
We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike."

- Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933