AMEs Done

[flyinhigh]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

[planenuts]

Really....is that what you think?

It's only over if we like what we see. We have no second thoughts about walking out if we have to. The lockout notice was issued when 95% of whatever deal they have was already done

[flyingcanuck]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

They were already wanting to strike so no... this is not why they got a TA.

[cdnavater]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

Lockout, strike, no difference as the end result is disruption.

[flyinhigh]

Really....is that what you think?

It's only over if we like what we see. We have no second thoughts about walking out if we have to. The lockout notice was issued when 95% of whatever deal they have was already done

I do hope thats true and you definitely met/get the mandate.

I say that as the company took a gamble by locking out the AME's prior to a strike vote being completed. Essentially they gambled to show the group what being on strike will do. They didn't allow the group to see if it was a solid mandate or mediocre mandate.

In the end, a deal was done quite quick after the fact.

Again, I hope this is a great deal for all involved.

[QKZXKV]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

Talking to a friend involved, they were going to walk at 6am before the lockout hit. I don't for one second think the company won outright here.

[JBI]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

Talking to a friend involved, they were going to walk at 6am before the lockout hit. I don't for one second think the company won outright here.

While I don't doubt for a second the willingness of the AME's to take job action as necessary, I was under the impression that the strike authorization vote hadn't even been completed yet. Pretty hard to give 72 hours notice and walk off the job (legally) if the vote hasn't even been completed.

[QKZXKV]

So TA in place.

It would seem (I have no idea) that the companies tactics of locking out the AMEs prior to strike vote dead line worked.

Talking to a friend involved, they were going to walk at 6am before the lockout hit. I don't for one second think the company won outright here.

While I don't doubt for a second the willingness of the AME's to take job action as necessary, I was under the impression that the strike authorization vote hadn't even been completed yet. Pretty hard to give 72 hours notice and walk off the job (legally) if the vote hasn't even been completed.

I was under the impression it was to wrap up on Tuesday. Got my days mixed... either way, I don't agree with the original poster here. They were ready to go for as long as it took. The group was more united than pilot groups.

[YYCAME]

If you vote to reject a TA I think it gives the union an even stronger bargaining position then just a strike mandate. It means you have a decent sized bar that the company now to has to go above to make any further progress. I'm sure there is a lot of money moving around and being renamed so just have to wait and see if it feels worth it to them.

[seriousflyer]

Usually, if you vote down TA, the membership will request a new Union Chair and Negotiating committee to engage with the company which can take 6 months.

It's not as simple as saying/voting "no", and the union immediately sits down and negotiates more money.

A few lengthy processes have to play out, just being realistic.

[C-GGGQ]

Except that does not have to happen. Look to the US. Vote no, back to the table usually with the real offer the next day

[YYCAME]

I've never heard of dropping the union negotiators just because they gave people an offer to vote on unless it was really insulting or you don't trust your union. Take for example just a few months ago when people were striking on the A220 production line. The membership rejected a TA and they worked out a better deal a week or two later. Sometimes you just have to ask people via vote if this is what they want or if they are willing to go further to get more.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 024-05-01/

[digits_]

Usually, if you vote down TA, the membership will request a new Union Chair and Negotiating committee to engage with the company which can take 6 months.

It's not as simple as saying/voting "no", and the union immediately sits down and negotiates more money.

A few lengthy processes have to play out, just being realistic.

That's only the union shooting themselves in the foot, or the union trying to pressure the members into voting yes. A bit akin to what happened in the Westjet podcasts during their roadshow. "If you vote no I will offer my resignation and who knows what will happen then". That's just bullying tactics.

It's perfectly fine to say 'we vote no, but keep going, you're doing a good job'

[CaptDukeNukem]

Usually, if you vote down TA, the membership will request a new Union Chair and Negotiating committee to engage with the company which can take 6 months.

It's not as simple as saying/voting "no", and the union immediately sits down and negotiates more money.

A few lengthy processes have to play out, just being realistic.

That's only the union shooting themselves in the foot, or the union trying to pressure the members into voting yes. A bit akin to what happened in the Westjet podcasts during their roadshow. "If you vote no I will offer my resignation and who knows what will happen then".

I thought unions are for the people, why would they ever try and pressure people to vote yes.

[flyinhigh]

Usually, if you vote down TA, the membership will request a new Union Chair and Negotiating committee to engage with the company which can take 6 months.

It's not as simple as saying/voting "no", and the union immediately sits down and negotiates more money.

A few lengthy processes have to play out, just being realistic.

That's only the union shooting themselves in the foot, or the union trying to pressure the members into voting yes. A bit akin to what happened in the Westjet podcasts during their roadshow. "If you vote no I will offer my resignation and who knows what will happen then". That's just bullying tactics.

It's perfectly fine to say 'we vote no, but keep going, you're doing a good job'

A negots team says stuff like this as they bust their arses for the group on a set mandate. If a group turns down an agreement, the negotiators may feel they are out of touch with what the group wants and that it is better for someone else to get it done.

There’s zero bully tactics involved.

[digits_]

Usually, if you vote down TA, the membership will request a new Union Chair and Negotiating committee to engage with the company which can take 6 months.

It's not as simple as saying/voting "no", and the union immediately sits down and negotiates more money.

A few lengthy processes have to play out, just being realistic.

That's only the union shooting themselves in the foot, or the union trying to pressure the members into voting yes. A bit akin to what happened in the Westjet podcasts during their roadshow. "If you vote no I will offer my resignation and who knows what will happen then". That's just bullying tactics.

It's perfectly fine to say 'we vote no, but keep going, you're doing a good job'

A negots team says stuff like this as they bust their arses for the group on a set mandate. If a group turns down an agreement, the negotiators may feel they are out of touch with what the group wants and that it is better for someone else to get it done.

There’s zero bully tactics involved.

I understand the reasoning, but in the end the message is still the same: 'if you don't vote yes, we might delay the negotiations with X months while we elect a new MEC'

Where as the optimal situation would be a negotiation committee that is strengthened by the 'no' vote and goes to the company 'well we honestly tried, but we just can't accept this'. That option seems to be used frequently in other professions, but hardly ever seems to be on the table at Canadian airlines. I find that a bit peculiar.

Can you imagine the same tactics happening on the other side of the table? The CEO resigning because the accountants don't like the agreement the management negotiation team is proposing?

[Bede]

That's only the union shooting themselves in the foot, or the union trying to pressure the members into voting yes. A bit akin to what happened in the Westjet podcasts during their roadshow. "If you vote no I will offer my resignation and who knows what will happen then". That's just bullying tactics.

It's perfectly fine to say 'we vote no, but keep going, you're doing a good job'

Respectfully, I disagree. Calling it bullying tactics is a cheap shot.

ALPA negotiators will not endorse a TA unless it meets the mandate set by the survey's or polling data. If the negotiators endorse a deal and the members fail to ratify, it means that the negotiators got something seriously wrong in their analysis. The no vote is a vote of non-confidence, and I would absolutely resign.

(Some unions have negotiators who are not member volunteers so if something fails, whatever, it's another day at the office and they'll keep doing their job.)

[JBI]

I understand the reasoning, but in the end the message is still the same: 'if you don't vote yes, we might delay the negotiations with X months while we elect a new MEC'

Where as the optimal situation would be a negotiation committee that is strengthened by the 'no' vote and goes to the company 'well we honestly tried, but we just can't accept this'. That option seems to be used frequently in other professions, but hardly ever seems to be on the table at Canadian airlines. I find that a bit peculiar.

Can you imagine the same tactics happening on the other side of the table? The CEO resigning because the accountants don't like the agreement the management negotiation team is proposing?

While I definitely take your point, what else can they say?

When there is a no vote to a TA, there isn't a clear path of what happens next. While I'm sure an MEC/NC would love to be able to say "Thanks for voting no, we're going to meet the company in 2 days time and they're going to offer us something better so more people will vote yes" but they can't say that cause it's not true. While they will likely have a few more meetings with the company, it's delusional to think that the company will suddenly sweeten the pot just cause of a no vote. No doubt both sides are now considering strategy and how to proceed. This isn't a 'threat', this isn't 'bullying', this is reality.

To be clear, the ALPA staff lawyers, Economic and Financial Analysis employees will stay in their positions. But the volunteer positions are different, a TA is brought to the pilot group because the MEC/NC feels it meets the mandate given to them by the pilots. If it's a No vote, then what the MEC/NC thought the mandate was and what the pilot group felt the mandate should have been are at odds. Maybe there's an easy way to gain clarity, maybe not.

[digits_]

While I definitely take your point, what else can they say?

When there is a no vote to a TA, there isn't a clear path of what happens next. While I'm sure an MEC/NC would love to be able to say "Thanks for voting no, we're going to meet the company in 2 days time and they're going to offer us something better so more people will vote yes" but they can't say that cause it's not true. While they will likely have a few more meetings with the company, it's delusional to think that the company will suddenly sweeten the pot just cause of a no vote. No doubt both sides are now considering strategy and how to proceed. This isn't a 'threat', this isn't 'bullying', this is reality.

Maybe, maybe not. But having the negotiators resign, or starting up MEC elections because the TA has been voted down, seems pointless and only delays the process. You don't give people the option to truly vote on the TA. And it's completely self inflicted. The company doesn't require the MEC to step down if the TA fails. It seems like a self inflicted handicap. You're weakening your own position.

If it's voted down, why would you send a new team to the negotiating table? Use the knowledge that the current team has gathered, and let them finish the job.

To be clear, the ALPA staff lawyers, Economic and Financial Analysis employees will stay in their positions. But the volunteer positions are different, a TA is brought to the pilot group because the MEC/NC feels it meets the mandate given to them by the pilots. If it's a No vote, then what the MEC/NC thought the mandate was and what the pilot group felt the mandate should have been are at odds. Maybe there's an easy way to gain clarity, maybe not.

ALPA negotiators will not endorse a TA unless it meets the mandate set by the survey's or polling data. If the negotiators endorse a deal and the members fail to ratify, it means that the negotiators got something seriously wrong in their analysis. The no vote is a vote of non-confidence, and I would absolutely resign.

Not necessarily. I can easily imagine that after spending months in negotiations, that your initial 'what does the membership wants' gets a bit clouded, and goal posts may shift a bit. That doesn't mean the negotiators are doing a bad job. Another factor to consider is the time between the survey 'what do you want' and the current TA vote. What might have been acceptable X months ago, might not be acceptable anymore (inflation, competitor's pay scale, ...). That doesn't mean the negotiators are doing a bad job. It could be, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. That lack of distinction is, IMO, a problem.

A pilot shouldn't worry about 'oh my, I hope my NO vote doesn't piss off the union so they all quit'

[planenuts]

Really....is that what you think?

It's only over if we like what we see. We have no second thoughts about walking out if we have to. The lockout notice was issued when 95% of whatever deal they have was already done

I do hope thats true and you definitely met/get the mandate.

I say that as the company took a gamble by locking out the AME's prior to a strike vote being completed. Essentially they gambled to show the group what being on strike will do. They didn't allow the group to see if it was a solid mandate or mediocre mandate.

In the end, a deal was done quite quick after the fact.

Again, I hope this is a great deal for all involved.

It's a horrible TA.....high likelihood of a no vote, but that wont be done till next month.

[Zanzibar]

When does the vote conclude

[CaptDukeNukem]

When does the vote conclude

You know….. I hate to call out avcanada posters who literally post 1 sentence long questions as 100% of their posts. But this is you.

Troll or not, make us not think you are one them them and use some actual language to throw in a decent question.

[Zanzibar]

Sorry I don’t write longer sentences for you.

[dontcallmeshirley]

When does the vote conclude

June 11

[Charlie Taylor]

From what I hear, the TA is going to be voted down by a large margin.

This shows that either the Union are out of touch with what the membership wants or they're really bad at negotiating.

Either way, along with the no vote, maybe think of voting in a new bargaining team. The one you have are full of promises and have no clue what they're doing.