Meanwhile in 'Merica

[RippleRock]

There's a million ways a group can turn up the heat on a reluctant employer without resorting to a full blown strike.
...
I've always been amazed that there is almost no talk, and no suggestion of this.

There's no talk because an airline's default position during labour action (be it big or small) is to lockout it's pilots. No airline will allow it's pilots to chisel away the bottom line and endlessly drag it's name through the mud. They will take the nuclear option every time because they know it puts an extreme amount of pressure on the membership while also forcing the government to get involved. And recent history has the government favoring the corp.

There's no room for half measures. You either strike or you don't. If you want to turn up the heat, fly the contract. No favors.

You've cherry picked a couple of comments that were loosly connected. A bit out of context.

The Corp relies on unionized volunteers. These consist of check pilots and line-indocers. These are "voluntary positions" are necessary for the operation to function. To have these individuals return to the line would freeze the operation immediately. Checkers working voluntarily undermine the entire bargaining body. Full stop.

It is not "job action" for these individuals to return to normal line flying. Its their option.

It's also the bargaining Memberships option to ignore these individuals who work in necessary "voluntary" positions. It's kinda like "ignoring" those who do "voluntary overtime" when other pilots are on the street.

Work as a single cohesive unit, or don't bother at all. There are many other examples of working entirely with a collective agreement that don't necessarily fit the description of illegal work action.

The "hail Mary" pass that is a strike needs to be avoided in this country at all costs. How has it ever worked out well for anyone? No one ever wins when an arbitrator is appointed. No one.

[CaptDukeNukem]

600,000USD a year that is

time to convert those licenses (if only it was that easy)

If you have decent experience it is easy enough. Conversion is easy, and getting an EB2 visa although a lengthy process, is proving successful for many applicants. If you really want it, go for it!

Don't they want like 10000 hrs

Nah. 6000+ with some jet PIC and approx 10 years of aviation experience and letters of recommendations from basically all the employers you ever worked for.

The EB-2 requirements are easy enough to find. It’s a lengthy process, you can even apply on your own or hire an immigration lawyer to help for about $12000 USD.

[JBI]

FWIW, I don't quite understand Westjets "hail Mary" strike threat though. US carriers work sometimes for years on leveraging a new contract, in the meanwhile biding their time "following the existing contract" to the letter. No extras. Sort of a "soft" work to rule. I don't quite get this "all or nothing right now or we'll strike "approach as it almost always ensures some form of government intervention.

Good luck once the Feds are involved.

The reason you hear of US carriers working for years on an expired contract is due to the differences between labour/labor laws in the US and Canada. In the US, it's much harder for airline workers to legally strike than it is in Canada. In the US, in order to strike, the National Labor Relations Board has to rule that the parties are at an impasse (this is actually a pretty difficult test to reach) whereas in Canada, only one party to the negotiation (the union or the employer) is required to apply to the CIRB for conciliation. After meeting with many US ALPA counterparts, I can tell you they would love to have the Canadian test verses the US requirements.

That being said, although the word "Strike" gets used the most, there really are many different types of job action available to both the union and the employer. While in certain situations a strike is by far the most effective, there are other types of job action including, but not limited to, no overtime, rolling strikes, not performing any duties not strictly within the contract etc.

Another quick note though, in the US it's not really a work to rule. There are many instances of union groups trying to force the company's hand and courts rule that its illegal job action. For example, at Spirit Airlines, without the knowledge of ALPA, a large group of pilots were posting names of pilots who picked up open time and then contacting them and suggesting that they don't pick up open time. The company got wind of this and, despite ALPA not knowing nor condoning the action, they union was still fined. So it's a very very fine line, even without a renewed contract.

[tailgunner]

Are you suggesting that the WJ 787 pilots could conceivably stand up to the company only having the CA’s do the takeoffs and landings for a period of time?
Can you imagine the uproar when the WJ CA’s all deem, that in the interest of safety and under their command authority every leg should be theirs. The operation would slowly grind to a halt as the FO’s failed to meet the CARS requirements….
Would WJ flight ops and the head shed get the message??
Work smarter NOT harder!

[TFTMB heavy]

Negotiations, when they get tough is all about courage. The company has their bottom line and rarely wavers while hoping the union does. In my opinion and past experience, at this point in the game Westjet pilots should be doing the strict minimum to not get reprimanded by management, they should vote in favour of the strike, attend assemblies and pub nights. Their MEC seems to be keeping everyone informed and needs to avoid binding arbitration, it rarely works out for unions.

It's time for Westjet pilots to stick together and not turn on the union, the company wants you to loose faith in them. The company wants you to believe that the path the union is taking you on will destroy the company, the doors will close...Hard positional bargaining is ugly and destructive. The company wants you to be afraid to get your worth.

Stick together, have courage because if you don't you will get a bum deal. With courage you will most likely avoid a strike and most likely will not be locked out. The strike or lockout are possible and that's why you need to show some courage. Without it the bum deal is yours.

[cloak]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

[TFTMB heavy]

In my opinion, WestJet has never been just another "regular" airline if that makes any sense, with unique compensation and culture. I believe this is partly why the ALPA transition hasn't fully worked in its favor (yet). Perhaps still its approach ought to be unique and something that fits IT as opposed to other airlines in the past and fierce negotiations, done as "partners"? Food for thought.

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

[JBI]

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

While I definitely agree, it should be noted that for the previous contract, the First Collective Agreement, s. 80 of the Canada Labour Code gives the CIRB more options with respect to forcing binding arbitration. There were less options in avoiding binding arbitration for the previous contract than there will be for this one.

[cloak]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

[TFTMB heavy]

Binding arbitration is what got them a bum deal in their first contract under ALPA. ALPA offers support and makes recommendations, ultimately the MEC has the final word. If you go against the recommendations then you get what you get.

Never take the binding option, ever. Keep the final decision in the hands of membership, let the membership vote on their contract.

While I definitely agree, it should be noted that for the previous contract, the First Collective Agreement, s. 80 of the Canada Labour Code gives the CIRB more options with respect to forcing binding arbitration. There were less options in avoiding binding arbitration for the previous contract than there will be for this one.

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

[TFTMB heavy]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

The strike vote is usually used to measure the support behind the union. A strong participation and vote in favour show the company what they are up against. Nobody in their right mind wants to go on strike or be locked out. But once you commit to it you can't flinch or you get a bum deal.

[JBI]

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration.

With the caveat that I wasn't at the table for those negotiations, it is important to understand the position that the previous ALPA MEC/Negotiating Committee was in during CA1. Saying that they agreed not to strike is a little like saying Gregg voluntarily chose to retire. It's not untrue per se, but when you look at the facts surrounding the situation, most of us believe Gregg really didn't have a choice about retiring and neither did the union have a choice of avoiding arbitration.

Section 80 of the Canada Labour code gives the CIRB a codified right to force mediation, but only for a first collective agreement. So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

This is different than the current situation where ALPA now has a constitutional right to strike if need be. While there is always some risk of the Federal Gov't getting involved, ALPA's legal counsel did a great job explaining the situation on the most recent podcast on why that may not be too likely. While I do expect some communication with various federal ministers, I'm hopeful that they are less likely to interfere and permit the parties to negotiate a contract on their own. I truly hope we can reach an agreement without a strike, but in my experience over the last 6 years of being involved at various stages of negotiations, the Company will generally only resolves things at the last minute or when they are forced.

[TFTMB heavy]

True but I think they voluntarily gave up the right to strike and agreed to binding arbitration.

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration.

With the caveat that I wasn't at the table for those negotiations, it is important to understand the position that the previous ALPA MEC/Negotiating Committee was in during CA1. Saying that they agreed not to strike is a little like saying Gregg voluntarily chose to retire. It's not untrue per se, but when you look at the facts surrounding the situation, most of us believe Gregg really didn't have a choice about retiring and neither did the union have a choice of avoiding arbitration.

Section 80 of the Canada Labour code gives the CIRB a codified right to force mediation, but only for a first collective agreement. So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

This is different than the current situation where ALPA now has a constitutional right to strike if need be. While there is always some risk of the Federal Gov't getting involved, ALPA's legal counsel did a great job explaining the situation on the most recent podcast on why that may not be too likely. While I do expect some communication with various federal ministers, I'm hopeful that they are less likely to interfere and permit the parties to negotiate a contract on their own. I truly hope we can reach an agreement without a strike, but in my experience over the last 6 years of being involved at various stages of negotiations, the Company will generally only resolves things at the last minute or when they are forced.

You're quoting me on a reply agreeing to the Section 80 info. I just added that I don't recall the CIRB forcing binding arbitration. I don't hold it against them either, it's done. Now is the time to right some wrongs for them though. Westjet pilots have a lot of momentum right now and with a strong vote in favour of a strike can put pressure on the company.

[FurHat]

So, facing likely forced arbitration, the union attempted to still negotiate to put itself in the best position possible while covering its mandate (one of which was trying to prevent the company moving too much flying to lower wages at Swoop). Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with every decision that they made, but I'm not going to armchair quarterback 5 years later and criticize because I wasn't at the table.

The Companies position at the time was "Lock-out or Final Offer Selection Arbitration". The outcome of locking down Swoop flying and non-FOS arbitration was a way better outcome. Letting the CIRB decide down the road may have been a risky choice.

[sarg]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

People change things, sure. Sometimes you need to change the people the union has done that maybe it's time the company took a look at its people.

[kiaszceski]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

People change things, sure. Sometimes you need to change the people the union has done that maybe it's time the company took a look at its people.

They did. They put in charge someone that is going to make the company profitable.

[5degrees]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

[digits_]

Take a look at the countries that have the most employee friendly laws. The ones with 36 hour work weeks, months of pregnancy leave, 6 weeks vacation, etc.
And look at their strike history....

Strikes work. Illegal (non-violent) strikes work even better.

That doesn't mean people like them. But they work.

[cloak]

I believe during previous negotiations the union agreed to abandon strike ambitions in return for company voluntarily ceding Swoop representation to the same bargaining unit and both agreed to binding arbitration. Some seem to assume that a strike is the panacea to all their ills and life will grand after! More than likely not unfortunately! A strike will likely damage both sides financially, damage company potential (and by extension employee potential) going forward, sour relationship even more, and quite likely end up in arbitration anyway! Unions or strikes don't change things; PEOPLE change things!

Unions and strikes don't change things??? That's an absolute asinine statement, historically unions are responsible for the implementation of what we now consider basic work rules eg the 8 hour work day. The relationship between management and employees can't get much worse. Your posts give the impression that you're more concerned with your personal situation than what's good for the pilot group.

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

[averageatbest]

Unions, as organizations on papers and buildings in which they are housed don't change a thing, rather it is the people, hence the saying a union is as good (or bad) as the people on it. Your 19th century shibboleth no longer applies as we are not dealing with tyrant mining companies who force workers underground with no safety measures. It's generally safe now! Next time read the comments before going off on a rehearsed union incantation reply!

You've made me feel uneducated with words such as shibboleth, incantation, and "the".