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.

[northern_dirt]

Service industry wage..
let them work for tips like other servers..

Id rather have no attendants and a $50 discount..

[sourdick]

The safety check is done by VIDEO now. Set up a vending machine with some booze in it and let flight attendants fade into the past.

[dzuunmod]

I wonder whether there are regulations from the CTSB that would prevent this.

[sourdick]

I know in my specific industry (rail) the amount of human verifications has decreased as requirements for technological monitoring has increased and become mandatory.

Regulations can always be changed once a technology has proven to be sound.

[737_700]

[sourdick]

I do appreciate service workers. I worked retail and service all through highschool and university. I respect the work they do.

That being said, simply because someone has a PHD doesnt make their value to that job any more significant. Thats a choice that person made to do a job that does not use all of their skills.

Nothing changes the fact that the union and airline agree upon: these people are very easily replaced.

[suitablyemoname]

I'd venture if anyone here was actually involved in a actual emergency while flying, they probably would be speaking a different tune.

Flying back from the UK four years ago, the flight attendants were serving coffee and tea. She'd just poured out three cups for the row in front of me, when someone's kid came racing up behind her and smacked right into her.

I took all three cups to my chest and neck.

I'm damn glad that not only did we have airplanes equipped with lovely things like burn gel, but that we had flight attendants who knew how to use them--and that they didn't expect me to give them a tip for the service!

[suitablyemoname]

And to be clear: yes, okay, fine. Applying a burn gel pad and rubbing it over someone's skin is not rocket science.

But there's a difference between someone who instantly knows what to do, where to find the equipment necessary to do it, what steps to take to protect the passenger's safety and dignity while you cut off parts of their clothing, how to identify the precise nature and extent of a burn, which tools to use, how to clean the area, how to best apply the gel, how to dress the area, appropriate after-care (treatment for shock, checking for burns in the throat and mouth, etc.) and how often to re-apply the gel and change the dressing, and someone who has either only been trained as a sky-waitress and who has to constantly flip through a barrage of forms and guidebooks and first aid manuals as she tries to do it all.

It's expensive and difficult to get staff to that level of snap-to-it expertise. Degree, no degree, whatever: once you invest that much in someone's training, it's worth keeping them on.

[suitablyemoname]

Do the flight attendants deserve better than their offer? Is the 46K offered by Air Canada a fair salary for a job that requires only a 7 week internal training given by the airline and no university education?

A job which also:
- Involves 14 to 20-hour days as a matter of routine, and will fuck with your sleep schedule so much that it will take several years off your life. (No, really, they've done studies.)
- Gives you absolutely no control over any aspect of your workplace. Half of your actions are strictly regulated by international law, while the other half are even more closely monitored by the airline. In many cases, flight attendants aren't even allowed to do trivial things like give a free soft drink to an especially helpful passenger. Every second of your time is managed and controlled by someone else, and even if this forces you to do things you find frustrating or distasteful ("No, sir, you can't have a glass of water to take your pills unless you front me the $2 for a bottle."), you just kind of have to suck it up and

[sourdick]

Lots of jobs are shitty: news at 11.

Having a shitty job doesnt necessarily equal a good salary, nor should it be some sort of golden rule. Some shitty jobs get decent pay, others dont. I bet the guy who cleans the toilets at Walmart can fire off some bullet points about his jobs negative points. Or low level employees at any big company.

Nothing changes the fact that these people are 100% completely replaceable. That doesnt mean I hate them, or that they're bad people. Its just supply and demand. Its not realistic to give them a lot of money when the airline can replace anyone displeased with their working conditions.

[suitablyemoname]

No, sorry: you don't get to dismiss it like that. Flight attendants have an unusually shitty job, as I think I've just ably demonstrated. (That guy who cleans the toilets at Walmart? He still works 8-hour days. He still goes home to his own bed every night. He still gets to spend time with his family. He still doesn't get hit on by drunken businessmen. He still has a surprising amount of control over his workplace. On virtually every metric, he comes out miles ahead of the flight attendant.)

And you're right. Flight attendants are 100% completely replaceable. In fact, turnover amongst new flight attendants is a significant problem: turnover within the profession generally is comparatively low (in large part because of those Big Bad Unions), but the newbies get chewed through like hamburger. And every newbie means another two months of training, plus another six to twelve months of junior service. Bearing in mind that it costs about the equivalent of a year's salary to recruit someone to fill a vacant full-time position, the cost of

[sourdick]

Its the airlines choice. If they want to retain people, they can either A) improve working conditions (unlikely by your summarized bullet points) or B) increase their pay (the airline seems unwilling to do so).

Its within the rights of the airline to NOT pay them more, and they're free to walk off the job. The cost of training then is shuffled into the cost of doing business.

What exactly is Air Canada doing wrong here?

Like Crabs in a Bucket

[jamesq]

Quite a few posters in this thread seem almost gleeful that the flight attendants are going to lose. It's like they're getting some vicarious thrill from the fact that someone is going to have a tougher time of it for no good reason. "Hot damn, someone is getting their pay cut!"

When did it become OK to say "We can treat people like dirt, so we should treat people like dirt". When did paying someone a decent wage become objectionable?

Re: Like Crabs in a Bucket

[sourdick]

Not at all. I think people should have a decent wage for appropriate level of work. I think they're overpaid. If the airline has 20-25 qualified people lined up for every job opening, that requires no specific training other than the relatively short training (compared to most professional jobs) that the company offers, then it strongly suggests their salary should be driven downwards. That is lamentable, and perhaps sad; but that's not how economics works.

It was sad when milkmen went away, and when the ice truck drivers had to find work elsewhere, but life goes on. Jobs come and go. You cant fault Air Canada for reacting to changing needs, or reacting to the job market.

Re: Like Crabs in a Bucket

[jamesq]

You still seem hung up on the perception that flight attendants are just customer service reps. They're not going away anytime soon due to some perceived obsoleteness on your part; They're not like milkmen. You're also hung up on the seven weeks of training - Maybe it's seven weeks of watch the slides and fill in the multiple-choice quizzes, maybe it's seven weeks of intensive training that fails out a lot of people because it's demanding. You don't know. You did compare it to helpdesk training at one point, which you subsequently described as "something a monkey could do". Maybe, just maybe, it's a little more intensive than that. Until you have a better idea, maybe you shouldn't keep harping on it