Interesting parallels

[BE20 Driver]

Just catching up on the news after being away for some time.

I find it interesting that the Occupy Wall Street movement is heading north of the border. Speaking strictly in general terms, our banking system and housing market are much more stable than that of our neighbours to the south. Still, it makes me wonder about the fundamentals of why these people are taking to the street. I see some interesting parallels with what is currently happening at Air Canada.

Essentially, you have a bunch of executives making millions of dollars while the flight attendants and first year pilots etc barely scrape by. It's this disparity between rich and poor that causes a great deal of tension in society and it's not just Big Red. We justify seven ways to sunday how 200 hour wonders have to pay their dues before being able to have a life. Most turbine FO's can't afford brand named mac and cheese while the captains they fly with typically make a comfortable living.

Empires have fallen over these same issues - a major contributing factor of the French Revolution was the monarchy's disconnect with the average citizen who were worked to death trying to keep their heads above water.

I just thought that I would put this out there for discussion.

[straightpilot]

Ok, I'll bite ...

the flight attendants and first year pilots etc barely scrape by

If those people don't like working at that company, why don't they quit and work at some other company that will pay them what they are really worth? Why would they voluntarily work for less money?

There are good companies to work at, and bad companies to work at. I have worked at plenty of both. Don't work at a bad company, for many reasons.

[Beefitarian]

Because you can't make it to the captain position you left out of the quote at the "good company".

[Nark]

I find it more for habitual protesters to simply protest something.

Canada is much more stable, in terms of the market, yet like you said, they're still protesting.

Why?

Not to mention, the Occupy crowd doesn't have a consistent message, simply protesting, for the sake of protesting. What a giant waste of resources on the city of New York.

[sky's the limit]

If those people don't like working at that company, why don't they quit and work at some other company that will pay them what they are really worth? Why would they voluntarily work for less money?

There are good companies to work at, and bad companies to work at. I have worked at plenty of both. Don't work at a bad company, for many reasons.

I find it more for habitual protesters to simply protest something.

Canada is much more stable, in terms of the market, yet like you said, they're still protesting.

Why?

Not to mention, the Occupy crowd doesn't have a consistent message, simply protesting, for the sake of protesting. What a giant waste of resources on the city of New York.

Gold....

Really, great stuff boys....

stl

[straightpilot]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would someone stay at a bad company with awful management that treats them poorly and pays them less than they are worth? Why is this a stupid question?

[Rockie]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would someone stay at a bad company with awful management that treats them poorly and pays them less than they are worth? Why is this a stupid question?

Lots of reasons, but here are a few.

1. Flying jobs don't grow on trees.

2. Don't want to move to China/ME.

3. Already have years invested in a company wrt pension and seniority.

4. Family to support.

5. Would rather fix what's wrong than run away.


Do you have a family straightpilot? A wife with a good job and kids in school? Mortgage perhaps?

If you do then you'll understand some of the considerations that go into quitting a job because you don't like who you work for.

[BE20 Driver]

5. Would rather fix what's wrong than run away.

This is the point I am trying to make. Companies will continue to treat employees poorly because they can. I don't see AC going away any time soon - the government seems hell bent on supporting them. Things won't change unless people protest in one form or another. I used to work for a guy in another industry. He was a great leader and treated his employees exceptionally well. He used to have a little mantra that went something like "if you keep doing the same thing, you'll get the same results." Putting up with sub standard working conditions, pay etc and not doing anything about it is more or less consenting to continue down the same path.

I know that AC isn't the only game in town but the travelling public will continue to use them and therefore all of the jobs are not magically going to shift over to the better employer over night.

If you look at what the Japanese did after WWII, it was their economic policy that everyone should have a good paying stable job. The gap between rich (management) and poor (workers) is much smaller there than in north america. In north america we think about ourselves first and others second. In asian cultures, they think about the collective society. When everyone benefits, you have a happy healthy productive society. Look at how quickly the Japanese economy rebounded and how high it grew in the years after the war. Look at what happened when JAL started loosing money. The boss took a big pay cut, axed most of his corporate perks and buckled down to improve the bottom line.

I agree that the Occupy crowd doesn't have a consistent message or any formal leadership. I was speculating on the root causes that brought people out to protest in the first place; that being the gap between rich and poor. They are protesting (in America anyway) how rich executives continue to give themselves multi-million dollar pay cheques and bonuses worth more than a lifetime of earnings by a common worker, all while making cuts to rank and file employees. This is where I see the parallel at AC. New management solely exists to make cuts and improve bottom line. If he does so, he'll get a huge bonus. Judging by the contract negotiations, management is not going to share a dime with the employees who have made many sacrifices over the last decade and helped turn the company around.

[Rockie]

To get really philosophical BE20, what you say is correct and it's a pretty steep hill fixing things. But a society has to work for everybody in it, not just the top few percent. It's a well documented fact that the top percent is pulling away with all the wealth while the bottom majority is falling deeper, and that cannot be sustained. The effort to make society work for everybody has to start somewhere and increasingly it seems that effort is starting now. Not just here, but in many parts of the world where the disparity is not only untenable, but unconscionable.

The "have's" throw around the word "socialism" a great deal and like good trained dogs the right wing hunkers down and growls on cue even though the majority of them are just a bad off.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm not sure I understand. Why would someone stay at a bad company with awful management that treats them poorly and pays them less than they are worth? Why is this a stupid question?

Lots of reasons, but here are a few.

1. Flying jobs don't grow on trees.

2. Don't want to move to China/ME.

3. Already have years invested in a company wrt pension and seniority.

4. Family to support.

5. Would rather fix what's wrong than run away.


Do you have a family straightpilot? A wife with a good job and kids in school? Mortgage perhaps?

If you do then you'll understand some of the considerations that go into quitting a job because you don't like who you work for.

The worst thing is that I find that there's a lot of companies that use this against the workers to improve their bottom line. The whole idea of capitalism isn't just about providing a good product for the consumer at a good price, its also about motivating workers to provide that product at a fair wage as well - which has become a broken part of the system. Rare is becoming the company that works on Henry Ford's model where productivity and profitability is enhanced by empowering their workers. Many companies/corporations find that they can eke that little bit extra short term profit out by using fear tactics and an antagonistic relationship between management and labour. You can get more work out of Boxer for a short ammount of time and increase your margins, but eventually you're going to have to sell him to the glue factory. Its this unsustainable model of a warped capitalism which has been root of a lot of these problems.

In a lot of ways there is very little actual capitalistic companies out there, they work mostly on a feudal model. Workers are essentially pledged to their company - or at least they feel that way. Even in my short term in the work force the ammount of "bosses" I've had attempt to use some sort of fear tactic to get me to do unsafe work, work longer hours, work unpaid overtime or threaten me with a doom of unemployability have been too many to count. Unfortunately though I've seen the tactics work on a majority of my co-workers. Many hold on to th eidea that if they just work harder, accept demands that they will eventually be rewarded by the Gods of capitalism - and theoretically if they were working in a capitalist system they'd be right. But they're not. They're working for their lord who has cowed them with the promise of protection but who in reality is willing to sacrifice them in any means necessary to increase the bottom line.

I know I generally come off as pretty Red here, but really holding true to the tenets of Capitalism are how I put food on the table and make a decent living at it. I don't agree with a lot of the socialist/communist rhetoric, but the I do feel that our governments haven't been doing their job of protecting us from the feudal/corporate lords who would rule us. The best way they could do this is by mandating education about the workplace which is sorely lacking in our system. Knowledgeable workers are empowered to protect themselves. People right now are lashing out but they don't really have the knowledge to do so effectively.

[straightpilot]

I'm honestly sorry that so many people live trapped in such unhappy circumstances. I just can't imagine living that way.

you'll understand some of the considerations that go into quitting a job because you don't like who you work for

Oh, I have a pretty good idea.

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm honestly sorry that so many people live trapped in such unhappy circumstances. I just can't imagine living that way.

They're trapped because they're afraid. They don't know it can be better. Even with only my own work experience in this country I can come up with dozens of examples where I know that hundreds of workers were downtrodden. They didn't even have any will to rebel, to say no, they didn't know what they had to gain. The thing about it is that unfortunately it will have to get a lot more desperate for them before they're angrier enough to do something about it. The chains will have to chafe a lot more before they're fight to lose them.

[Wilbur]

Ah yes, the old NDP/Union/leftist mantra about the "greedy banks," along with demanding their right to a financially secure retirement. What they consistently fail to appreciate is that the greedy banks and other corporatons they most often point fingers at are public companies in which they are share holders through their RRSP's and pension plans. When advocating for smaller corporate profits, they are also advocating for smaller pension payments. Makes no sense to me.

Then they complain about executive salaries. Again, they don't appreciate that people at that level in these large corps are essentially free agents in the business world. They go to whichever company will pay them the most, and they are not easily replaced. Without competent management you won't have a profitable company, dividends and increased value on your shares, and hence, a secure pension. Paradoxically, these same protesters aren't outside their local sports arena or movie theater protesting the outrageous salaries pro-atheletes, actors and various other entertainers recieve. Those are costs passed directly to the spectators who get nothing in return but a couple hours of entertainment. They quite happily pay the ticket price to cheer on their favorite athelete making thousands of dollars per minute while sitting on the bench doing nothing but helping his team rack up a losing record. Again, makes no sense to me.

[Beefitarian]

Your example using pensions is a good one. Pensions typically lose money on the stock market. Golly, where did that money go?

[Beefitarian]

I like the concept of peaceful protest but think they should be carefull what they wish for. Go live in a tent for a while then try to go home to find some banker reposessed their house and changed the locks.

Isn't a tent city where the 1% want you to live?

[Wilbur]

Beef, do you actually have any proof to back up your claim that "pensions" lose money in the stock markets? I've been a member of a large public service pension plan for 3 decades that has most of it's money in equities, has done very well through the years, doesn't require extra money from governemnt, and until recently was able to maintain a "surplus slush fund" that allowed it to pay for a number of optional benefits. Personnally, I've also done alright with my own self directed RRSP which is 100% in equities, including through the recent economic downturn.

Pension plans that loose money over the long term are poorly run plans, not an indication that equities are bad investments.

[Beefitarian]

I don't care enough to find proof. For all I know the people running the pensions perported to have lost significant amounts spent the money and made the stock market story up.

Ontario teachers is one of the examples told to me in one of the whine sessions.

Supposedly the union pension plan I am vested in has done well. I guess I find out for sure when I try to collect from it.

[Wilbur]

A tent city is fine accomodation for people who seem to have endless time for protesting rather than working. If they own a house and are in fear of having it repossessed, perhaps they should try making the payments they promised to make when they were loaned the money. If they don't have the money to make paymetns, then I suggest they should make less time for protesting and more time for working, finding work, or finding renters/roomates so that they can make their payments.

As both an invester in, and depositer with banks, I have certain expectations. I expect a small interest payment on my deposits, I expect the bank to take my deposit and make investments with it (loans, mortgages, etc), and I expect to recieve a dividend payment on my shares. I also hope they will continue to grow the business so that the value of my shares also increases. When those evil, greedy bankers make a mistake and loan my money to someone who can't or won't pay it back, I at least expect them to take action to cut my losses and recover as much as they can. If that means taking over title on a house used as equity to secure a mortgage, kicking the people out and selling it, so be it. I didn't invest and deposit my money in a bank as a charitable undertaking.

I'm pretty sure the greedy bankers do not want to see the working massess living in tent cities. There is much more money to be made in mortgages for building and buying homes, and consumer loans to buy big screen TV's so people can happily watch 20 year olds "earning" millions of dollars playing children's games.

[Beefitarian]

People probably should not take out a mortgage for 150% of the apprased value of the property they buy either. I've heard that happened too. Much like yourself I'm not a part of any of it, I just find it interesting.

I have had some connection to unions for my whole life. First I find it amusing when people think they are taking all the money for their members, and second don't see any examples of where they could have in the last twenty years.

If people are jealous of nurses and teachers for being over paid, they should go to school and become one.

My opinion of professional sports. Pretty much the modern colosseum, sedate and distract the masses with entertainment.

[Shiny Side Up]

A tent city is fine accomodation for people who seem to have endless time for protesting rather than working. If they own a house and are in fear of having it repossessed, perhaps they should try making the payments they promised to make when they were loaned the money. If they don't have the money to make payments, then I suggest they should make less time for protesting and more time for working, finding work, or finding renters/roomates so that they can make their payments.

The problem is, most of them promised to make the payments on their loans, often because they were also working in good faith that they themselves had secure jobs, that they were also participating in a fair trade for their labour for their own bit of capital. They've been robbed. Who in their right mind would consider working in a job marketplace which puts so low of a premium on their labour?

Here's how it works. While the banks do make money on investing small time, the dreams of the working folk, so they can have houses, have cars or give their kids an education. Their big business really is investing in other businesses, in other ventures. Something to think about when a business fails and the bank takes all the capital back to recover their investment, what happened to the profit that the business made? Ever notice that when a business fails its the wages that get paid out last? So who in the end is left holding the bag? You see it small scal and large scale all the time. Canada 3000? Jetsgo Anyone? I got one of these scams even next door. Big business scheme, bank takes it all back, those who provided the labour get screwed. You see it happen over and over again.