I'm annoyed that Air Canada is being let off the hook by the government here. I think the flight attendants have reasonable demands, and as you say, this isn't a crisis. I'm disappointed that the first strike under Carney is being handled this way.
Can't be surprised that a hardcore corpo-capitalist hates unions and is happy to use the power of the federal government to quash them with absolutely no provocation.
Mark Carney who doesn’t even have a Labour Minister (and yes it matters that it’s Jobs, not Labour, he was giving himself away on Labour issues from day one.) But Prime Minister Carney is so Far Corporate Right, no one should be surprised by this. I just wonder when Carney apologists will truly come to terms with the fact that this guy is no Liberal in *almost* any sense of the word.
Entirely correct. It’s astonishingly short-sighted to intervene before an actual problem is evident. The flight attendants have been treated inequitably and their deal must be revised. They are choosing to exercise their right to strike and now is not the time to exercise political authority. This government isn’t t living up the hopes many of us shared a few months ago.
I have to confess, Evan, that I frequently have a different take than you on the topics that you cover. That is just fine with me as I know that I do not a monopoly on common sense. Well, neither do you, but, between you and the many other folks that I read, I do find some logical threads to consider.
However, however, however ....
On this topic, I pretty much agree with you.
I know of folks who simply say that unions are passe and should be abolished. Or some such. I just don't agree with that perspective simply because I believe that unions can be dumb but so can employers. The point of constructive bargaining is to allow things to be worked out. Of course, there still will be strikes and that is to be regretted but it is important that they happen - except where you have a circumstance of essential services or a strike is imposing economic or similar damage to the country.
And, in particular, in this situation, I really oppose this intervention. For God's sake, the employees are required to work some hours for free!
By referring the dispute to arbitration, I forecast that the only real thing that will be dealt with is a modest wage increase but no change to free hours. Intolerable!
> or a strike is imposing economic or similar damage to the country.
In that circumstance, why is it always - always - the union who is forced to fold, and never the company? Companies have complete authority to prevent strikes - they can simply negotiate in good faith and reach a deal acceptable to the union. Strikes only happen due to employer intransigence, but it's always the workers who pay the price.
That it's even framed as "a strike imposing economic damage on the country" and not "an employer imposing economic damage" is so telling to how fucked our national discourse is.
I think that you are - somewhat - correct. There are times that I can recall wherein (at least to me) the union demands were simply outrageous yet the arbitration was imposed and the employer lost out. I absolutely admit that these situations are rare but I have seen it.
Now, I would argue that both companies and unions "have complete authority to prevent strikes - they can simply negotiate in good faith and reach a deal acceptable ..." My point is that either side can be reasonable and either side can be unreasonable; similarly, both sides can be unreasonable or both can be reasonable.
In the case at hand, I think the "right" of things is with the union. After all, slave labor - and that is the phrase for coerced or inadequately paid labor - is simply wrong, illegal and absolutely immoral.
You say that "Strikes only happen due to employer intransigence ..." I respectfully argue that either side can be intransigent.
As for the particular strike/lockout (truly, I know not what this really is), I argue that there are other air carriers so the government should simply keep it's nose out and publicly - very publicly - announce that a) the parties will have to resolve this; b) slave labor is illegal; and c) the federal government will not book any flights on airlines that use slave labor.
It's all well and good that you make assumptions about me. You are correct/incorrect but that is simply irrelevant.
The truth is the truth: sometimes each side is unreasonable. It is my estimation that management is unreasonable more frequently than labor but ...... I still say that labor does get unreasonable from time to time. So, to rephrase, sometimes management does have some severe problems and labor refuses to recognize that: example - the current Canada Post impasse. Truly, the union seems to be clinging to an outmoded business model and simply want the public to finance that but they don't seem (as near as I can tell) to be trying to deal with the changing times.
Allow me to put it yet again differently. If I am a judge (whether in court or simply the court of public opinion) and if you ALWAYS say that labor is pristine and you ALWAYS say that management is evil, then why would I, a judge, listen to you because you don't try to understand the issues but, instead, simply take one side no matter what.
It is not a problem to believe that one side is more "virtuous" than the other side MOST of the time but to ALWAYS ignore the flaws in your own side leads to marginalizing your own voice.
Air Canada has a lot to answer for: clearly they haven’t dealt as a company should to keep their employees happy with working conditions and pay, but also, they have provided absolutely unacceptable solutions to problems like overselling flights, cancelling flights, disrupting timelines for passengers, and generally getting rid of small inter-city flights in Canada (Did you know you used to be able to fly London to Toronto, or Ottawa, or Detroit, which was excellent?!).
But I digress. Do we need a national, functional airline? Absolutely. Should Air Canada be that airline - if they can turn their rates and customer service around, I’d say yes. Back to the good old days of TCA!
But this takes time and for our federal government (whom I support fully, in optimism) to intervene this early, without - as far as we know - speaking with the AC exec and setting conditions for the intervention, is daft.
Force Air Canada to negotiate with their employees on a tight timeline. Make it clear you are defending the bargaining rights of workers, and then, maybe, you have leverage if you legislate that they must return to work short term, until things are settled.
The government needs to be OUR government - and that means standing tall economically for the workers of Canada whom we need. Be conservative by all means, let the Liberal stance be far more socially centrist, but don’t set up government vs workers conflicts! It’s not like AC was doing an exemplary job in the first place…
Full disclaimer: I personally have not been subject to AC’s screw ups, and have experienced excellent service, but people I know and trust have, and resolutions with the company have been quite unsatisfactory.
If the government is going to weigh in, they had better do it impartially.
For the thousands of Canadians travelling in August, this is a welcome move. But for many, this will feel premature. Negotiations have been ongoing for eight months, but waiting a wee bit longer would have been a wiser move for labour peace. The Federal government should have shown more respect for the thousands of flight attendants who clearly want some major issues resolved.
Lol dude is a central banker by trade and former Brookfield mucky-muck, if you expected him to be a friend to unions, I have some swampland to sell you...
I believe Carney and the Liberals have misread public sentiment. One way to repair this is to adopt European Union style passenger protection. Air Canada would rather pay their flight attendants a living wage than to be subject to the EU rules on passengers protection.
Mr. Carney's current decision is consistent with the eradication of democracy via coprate capitalism. From its inception, Canada's economy/government was designed to create oligopolies and facilitate extraction of wealth by commandeering land and government influence There is zero competition in Communication Energy and Transportation in the Canadian economy. The Family Compact is alive, think Rogers and Bell. Air Canada is a classic example of patriarchy capitalism. It’s abusive. Its product is inequality. Canada is set up that way.
I agree, this almost immediate intervention feels like a mistake and is certainly a surprise. I expected at least one week of disruption before there would be a legal and political basis to step in. This is premature.
I expect that CUPE will challenge this immediately in court. And they probably have a good case, the question is of course if they can ignore the order while the legal process plays out.
Finally, I am actually a fan of binding abstraction, but only in the form of pendulum arbitration. Both sides make their case and the arbitrator can only choose one option (no mixing of options). This forces both sides to put the most reasonable offer on the table.
I have already commented herein and I stand by what I wrote.
But. This whole topic has tremendously bothered me and I cannot stop thinking about it. So, I thought about it some more.
Yeah, Carney, this, that and the other. Stop and look at matters differently.
As I understand matters, the employees are paid whatever they are paid, but only for hours in the air. There are further hours on the ground that are compulsory but are unpaid. That is what is bothering.
So, after much cogitation, I asked Mr. Google for a definition and he told me the term means, "labor that is coerced and inadequately rewarded, or the people who perform such labor" So, the idea that the employees MUST do the before and after work at no remuneration - or be fired - fits within that definition.
Oh, the term of which that is a definition is "slave labor."
So, Evan, your friend MC could have come out and said that "... a) we (the government) violently disagree with slave labor; b) the fact that Air Canada requires compulsory time for which compensation is not paid sure as hell sounds like slave labor to me; c) we (the government) have today sent a directive to the whole civil service stating that we (the government) will not patronize in any way, shape or form entities that encourage, practice or otherwise support slave labor. If a business fails because it chooses to not fairly pay it's employees then that is not our problem, not whatsoever; that business will fail and we will not assist it whatsoever."
PM Carney is a former banker & CEO or something w/ Brookfield. They are not even trying to pretend to be Liberal. Carney is a Harper IDU liberal who will be displaced unless something dramatic happens. It also shows, with this decision, he's not a politician
We’re in a tariff war with the US and many Canadians have rightfully chosen to use Canadian businesses and vacation within our own country. Calling for increased competition by courting American airline seems counterproductive. These are not ordinary times and the impact of a strike would have extraordinary effects in these circumstances. We have to get to agreements quicker and work together for the common good. Binding arbitration is a good option when one or both parties are intent on using the circumstances for their leverage at the expense of the greater whole. Just my opinion.
Okay, I have to provide some push back on the unpaid work, slave labour claims.
In 2015 CUPE signed the labour agreement that contains the structure of “credit hours”. The credit hours are based on wheels up - wheels down. The hourly rates for these credit hours do reflect that there is time before and after the flight that is included. This agreement was accepted by CUPE in 2015 for Air Canada and recently for Westjet as well. If the union wants to change the concept of credit hours, fine, but let’s dispense of the claim of unpaid work.
Now, a more honest claim by the union would that in particular junior flight attendants are unable to earn a living wage. That criticism is fair and accurate. But it has little to do with the structure of the compensation (which the union accepted in 2015).
I'm annoyed that Air Canada is being let off the hook by the government here. I think the flight attendants have reasonable demands, and as you say, this isn't a crisis. I'm disappointed that the first strike under Carney is being handled this way.
Can't be surprised that a hardcore corpo-capitalist hates unions and is happy to use the power of the federal government to quash them with absolutely no provocation.
Tending to agree with you on this one E.
The flight attendants have legit concerns.
Just because we are in a “war” patience with Canadian Unions is critical for post war relations. If we get there.
Ditch the command and control style. Consult, collaborate, compromise and consensus.
Otherwise, labour trouble tend to haunt politicians.
Mark Carney who doesn’t even have a Labour Minister (and yes it matters that it’s Jobs, not Labour, he was giving himself away on Labour issues from day one.) But Prime Minister Carney is so Far Corporate Right, no one should be surprised by this. I just wonder when Carney apologists will truly come to terms with the fact that this guy is no Liberal in *almost* any sense of the word.
Liberals: elect an arch-capitalist
Arch-capitalist: does arch-capitalist stuff
Liberals: shocked pikachu face
Entirely correct. It’s astonishingly short-sighted to intervene before an actual problem is evident. The flight attendants have been treated inequitably and their deal must be revised. They are choosing to exercise their right to strike and now is not the time to exercise political authority. This government isn’t t living up the hopes many of us shared a few months ago.
I have to confess, Evan, that I frequently have a different take than you on the topics that you cover. That is just fine with me as I know that I do not a monopoly on common sense. Well, neither do you, but, between you and the many other folks that I read, I do find some logical threads to consider.
However, however, however ....
On this topic, I pretty much agree with you.
I know of folks who simply say that unions are passe and should be abolished. Or some such. I just don't agree with that perspective simply because I believe that unions can be dumb but so can employers. The point of constructive bargaining is to allow things to be worked out. Of course, there still will be strikes and that is to be regretted but it is important that they happen - except where you have a circumstance of essential services or a strike is imposing economic or similar damage to the country.
And, in particular, in this situation, I really oppose this intervention. For God's sake, the employees are required to work some hours for free!
By referring the dispute to arbitration, I forecast that the only real thing that will be dealt with is a modest wage increase but no change to free hours. Intolerable!
> or a strike is imposing economic or similar damage to the country.
In that circumstance, why is it always - always - the union who is forced to fold, and never the company? Companies have complete authority to prevent strikes - they can simply negotiate in good faith and reach a deal acceptable to the union. Strikes only happen due to employer intransigence, but it's always the workers who pay the price.
That it's even framed as "a strike imposing economic damage on the country" and not "an employer imposing economic damage" is so telling to how fucked our national discourse is.
I think that you are - somewhat - correct. There are times that I can recall wherein (at least to me) the union demands were simply outrageous yet the arbitration was imposed and the employer lost out. I absolutely admit that these situations are rare but I have seen it.
Now, I would argue that both companies and unions "have complete authority to prevent strikes - they can simply negotiate in good faith and reach a deal acceptable ..." My point is that either side can be reasonable and either side can be unreasonable; similarly, both sides can be unreasonable or both can be reasonable.
In the case at hand, I think the "right" of things is with the union. After all, slave labor - and that is the phrase for coerced or inadequately paid labor - is simply wrong, illegal and absolutely immoral.
You say that "Strikes only happen due to employer intransigence ..." I respectfully argue that either side can be intransigent.
As for the particular strike/lockout (truly, I know not what this really is), I argue that there are other air carriers so the government should simply keep it's nose out and publicly - very publicly - announce that a) the parties will have to resolve this; b) slave labor is illegal; and c) the federal government will not book any flights on airlines that use slave labor.
I have to assume that you're a worker/working-class. Why are you carrying water for the capitalists? Why not have solidarity with fellow workers?
It's all well and good that you make assumptions about me. You are correct/incorrect but that is simply irrelevant.
The truth is the truth: sometimes each side is unreasonable. It is my estimation that management is unreasonable more frequently than labor but ...... I still say that labor does get unreasonable from time to time. So, to rephrase, sometimes management does have some severe problems and labor refuses to recognize that: example - the current Canada Post impasse. Truly, the union seems to be clinging to an outmoded business model and simply want the public to finance that but they don't seem (as near as I can tell) to be trying to deal with the changing times.
Allow me to put it yet again differently. If I am a judge (whether in court or simply the court of public opinion) and if you ALWAYS say that labor is pristine and you ALWAYS say that management is evil, then why would I, a judge, listen to you because you don't try to understand the issues but, instead, simply take one side no matter what.
It is not a problem to believe that one side is more "virtuous" than the other side MOST of the time but to ALWAYS ignore the flaws in your own side leads to marginalizing your own voice.
Air Canada has a lot to answer for: clearly they haven’t dealt as a company should to keep their employees happy with working conditions and pay, but also, they have provided absolutely unacceptable solutions to problems like overselling flights, cancelling flights, disrupting timelines for passengers, and generally getting rid of small inter-city flights in Canada (Did you know you used to be able to fly London to Toronto, or Ottawa, or Detroit, which was excellent?!).
But I digress. Do we need a national, functional airline? Absolutely. Should Air Canada be that airline - if they can turn their rates and customer service around, I’d say yes. Back to the good old days of TCA!
But this takes time and for our federal government (whom I support fully, in optimism) to intervene this early, without - as far as we know - speaking with the AC exec and setting conditions for the intervention, is daft.
Force Air Canada to negotiate with their employees on a tight timeline. Make it clear you are defending the bargaining rights of workers, and then, maybe, you have leverage if you legislate that they must return to work short term, until things are settled.
The government needs to be OUR government - and that means standing tall economically for the workers of Canada whom we need. Be conservative by all means, let the Liberal stance be far more socially centrist, but don’t set up government vs workers conflicts! It’s not like AC was doing an exemplary job in the first place…
Full disclaimer: I personally have not been subject to AC’s screw ups, and have experienced excellent service, but people I know and trust have, and resolutions with the company have been quite unsatisfactory.
If the government is going to weigh in, they had better do it impartially.
For the thousands of Canadians travelling in August, this is a welcome move. But for many, this will feel premature. Negotiations have been ongoing for eight months, but waiting a wee bit longer would have been a wiser move for labour peace. The Federal government should have shown more respect for the thousands of flight attendants who clearly want some major issues resolved.
This is a betrayal of what liberal voters wanted from Carney.
Lol dude is a central banker by trade and former Brookfield mucky-muck, if you expected him to be a friend to unions, I have some swampland to sell you...
I believe Carney and the Liberals have misread public sentiment. One way to repair this is to adopt European Union style passenger protection. Air Canada would rather pay their flight attendants a living wage than to be subject to the EU rules on passengers protection.
Mr. Carney's current decision is consistent with the eradication of democracy via coprate capitalism. From its inception, Canada's economy/government was designed to create oligopolies and facilitate extraction of wealth by commandeering land and government influence There is zero competition in Communication Energy and Transportation in the Canadian economy. The Family Compact is alive, think Rogers and Bell. Air Canada is a classic example of patriarchy capitalism. It’s abusive. Its product is inequality. Canada is set up that way.
I agree, this almost immediate intervention feels like a mistake and is certainly a surprise. I expected at least one week of disruption before there would be a legal and political basis to step in. This is premature.
I expect that CUPE will challenge this immediately in court. And they probably have a good case, the question is of course if they can ignore the order while the legal process plays out.
Finally, I am actually a fan of binding abstraction, but only in the form of pendulum arbitration. Both sides make their case and the arbitrator can only choose one option (no mixing of options). This forces both sides to put the most reasonable offer on the table.
> is certainly a surprise
Why are you surprised that arch-capitalist Mark Carney moved quickly to crush a union? Dude is basically the living embodiment of corpo-capitalism...
I have already commented herein and I stand by what I wrote.
But. This whole topic has tremendously bothered me and I cannot stop thinking about it. So, I thought about it some more.
Yeah, Carney, this, that and the other. Stop and look at matters differently.
As I understand matters, the employees are paid whatever they are paid, but only for hours in the air. There are further hours on the ground that are compulsory but are unpaid. That is what is bothering.
So, after much cogitation, I asked Mr. Google for a definition and he told me the term means, "labor that is coerced and inadequately rewarded, or the people who perform such labor" So, the idea that the employees MUST do the before and after work at no remuneration - or be fired - fits within that definition.
Oh, the term of which that is a definition is "slave labor."
So, Evan, your friend MC could have come out and said that "... a) we (the government) violently disagree with slave labor; b) the fact that Air Canada requires compulsory time for which compensation is not paid sure as hell sounds like slave labor to me; c) we (the government) have today sent a directive to the whole civil service stating that we (the government) will not patronize in any way, shape or form entities that encourage, practice or otherwise support slave labor. If a business fails because it chooses to not fairly pay it's employees then that is not our problem, not whatsoever; that business will fail and we will not assist it whatsoever."
THAT is what MC could and should have done.
PM Carney is a former banker & CEO or something w/ Brookfield. They are not even trying to pretend to be Liberal. Carney is a Harper IDU liberal who will be displaced unless something dramatic happens. It also shows, with this decision, he's not a politician
We’re in a tariff war with the US and many Canadians have rightfully chosen to use Canadian businesses and vacation within our own country. Calling for increased competition by courting American airline seems counterproductive. These are not ordinary times and the impact of a strike would have extraordinary effects in these circumstances. We have to get to agreements quicker and work together for the common good. Binding arbitration is a good option when one or both parties are intent on using the circumstances for their leverage at the expense of the greater whole. Just my opinion.
Does air travel and airlines in Canada not fall under the responsibility of the Transport minister?
Where is the Minister of Transport in all this? Patty Hajdu looked like a deer in the headlights at today’s presser.
Transport deals with regulations, safety issues, etc. This is a labour dispute.
Okay, I have to provide some push back on the unpaid work, slave labour claims.
In 2015 CUPE signed the labour agreement that contains the structure of “credit hours”. The credit hours are based on wheels up - wheels down. The hourly rates for these credit hours do reflect that there is time before and after the flight that is included. This agreement was accepted by CUPE in 2015 for Air Canada and recently for Westjet as well. If the union wants to change the concept of credit hours, fine, but let’s dispense of the claim of unpaid work.
Now, a more honest claim by the union would that in particular junior flight attendants are unable to earn a living wage. That criticism is fair and accurate. But it has little to do with the structure of the compensation (which the union accepted in 2015).