Globe: Flying into the two-tier wage world

[sourdick]

AirCanada is having labour problems. After unions representing their flight attendants failed to secure a ratified vote on (a second) agreed upon deals with the airline, the attendants were ready to walk. Federal Labour Minister Lisa Raitt asked the Canada Industrial Relations Board to review stalled contract talks at the airline. In so doing, she

Comments

[jamesq]

It's not so much that unions are corrupt or have eroded in service, it's that pro-business/anti-union forces have become much more powerful in the last two generations. Part of this power has come from legislation targeted against the union's methods. If you legislate them back to work, or prevent them from striking, then you have an environment where they've been effectively neutered. That's where America is right now and Canada has been following suit. The Conservative party certainly isn't interested in helping unions.

Frankly even the most powerful union, with lily-white intentions and a leadership made up only of perfectly honest people, would have a hard time getting their membership what they want under present conditions.

Also, I note a factual error in your description of Flight Attendant education. Here is a quote from Air Canada's own web page:"To become a Flight Attendant, the candidate undergoes an intensive full time paid training for seven (7) weeks. Training includes pre-course assignments as well as written and

[sourdick]

7 weeks of training isnt that much. The Helpdesk where I work is given 8 weeks of training, and a monkey could do their job (I know because it was my entry level position for my first year at my company a decade ago

[firemelon]

I dont see 7 weeks and a highschool diploma being much of a barrier for entry into the job.

holy fucking shit

[sourdick]

The article itself says as much, so does the airline and even the union. Its an easy job and anyone can do it. The position is extremely easy to restaff.

[firemelon]

I just can't believe that's all they need @___@

[mijopo]

So you're saying that they're jobs are really really important but it's cool that they're paid sub-poverty level wages.

[sourdick]

Is the retail industry important? Holy shit, yes. Am I cool with Walmart cashiers making minimum wage? Absolutely.

Simply because a job provides an important service to an important industry does not necessarily make them an important part of the economic machinery of that industry.

[mijopo]

Holy shit, yes.

Really, so you'd support back to work legislation on the retail industry too then?

Simply because a job provides an important service to an important industry does not necessarily make them an important part of the economic machinery of that industry.

I don't really understand what you're claiming here, but yeah if role A is an important part of an important industry, then role A is important, pretty much by definition.

[sourdick]

Absolutely not. Are you saying highschool dropout cashiers working at Burger King deserve 100K/year simply by the virtue that the fast food industry makes billions? Thats absurd and you know it.

you'd support back to work legislation on the retail industry too then?
If a single company that had as much market share in retail as Air Canada does in Canadian passenger flights, then yes. Retail is widely diversified so theres no threat that Canadians would go without retail service.

[mijopo]

Absolutely not. Are you saying highschool dropout cashiers working at Burger King deserve 100K/year simply by the virtue that the fast food industry makes billions?

Huh? Why would you think I was claiming that?

[sourdick]

I dont know WHAT you're claiming. I do not think an important role means they are important. If they were they would be paid as such.

[mijopo]

Well, if you're simply going to define importance in terms of the amount of money they make, then things get circular, no?

[sourdick]

Im really not sure the point youre trying to make here. Do you think 46K for their job is underpaid?

[mijopo]

My point is that there's a tension in simultaneously claiming that they're so essential to the economy that we have to force them back to work and arguing that it's fine that they make a starting salary of $18K.

If you're going to take away someone's right to strike, it's only fair that they be compensated to reflect the removal of one of the few tools that they have to get better wages and it's only reasonable to do so insofar as their importance to the economy has been acknowledged.

(note that Air Canada doesn't offer $46K to someone with 7 weeks of training, that's the top of the pay range, and presumably requires a great deal of experience.)

[jamesq]

I'd argue that they're safety reps, with a customer service twist. They could meet Transport Canada's requirements without serving a single drink.

There's a difference between "essential service" and just plain "It's inconvenient when they strike". I frankly don't think they provide an essential service, since we have alternate carriers and alternate modes of transportation in this country. They're not like fireman, where there are no other alternatives for service and the lack of that service can be deadly

[harry_beast]

Do you think that union leadership might have better luck winning concessions out of companies if they were more willing to look at ways of increasing the value of the labour that they provide?
I remember visiting a GM plant in Oshawa years ago on an industrial tour. I asked one of the people working there if they had looked at things like job rotation. Of course they hadn't; the union wouldn't allow it.
Anyway, an offer to take steps to improve safety, quality and productivity in exchange for wages increases might be more persuasive than the threat of labour disruptions, violence, sabotage, etc.