What will Air Canada pilots do with their $0 bonus?

[flieslikeachicken]

Yes. At what point does being unionized matter if the union has no ability to enforce a contract and the company only follows the articles it feels like?

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

There are many benefits to being unionized.

In other words: what has ALPA forced the company to do, that it didn't want to?

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

If penalties cannot be integrated there at least needs to be hard lines drawn where if the company does not implement or is not following a part of the contract, there is some immediate recourse for us. They can't be allowed to say "vendor dependent" indefinitely or milk the grievance process for years to their advantage.

Penalties can be negotiated, but they usually come with a cost associated. WestJet Encore had a penalty in the initial flow agreement where, for every pilot that did not flow, around $14,000 would be split among the pilot group as compensation.

If the grievance process in this country is broken why is ALPA Canada doing nothing about it? Why are they doing nothing about labour laws that favour corporations? This is where there is a disconnect from the dues I'm paying and the (lack of) action I'm seeing. I hear a lot of talk but when it counts we are not getting the representation we need, when we need it.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

[Bingo Fuel]

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

Prove it. Show us that you're paying more in union fees than the pay raises the union has negotiated. The burden of proof is on you, show us the numbers behind your claim.

[thepoors]

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

There are many benefits to being unionized.

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

You need to expand on these points. Sure there is more to it than just these things, but accomplishing these things is a fundamental function of the union. Why do you think they are not responsible for making the company do things it doesn't want to? The basic purpose of a union is to protect and enforce our labour rights which the company would not respect left to its own devices. Even with a union, the company is persistently violating them.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

This is a very optimistic and altruistic view. And also very naive. The company does not respect us, the negotiation process, or the grievance process. They have proven over and over that they will play dirty games to get what they want. If one party is behaving that way and the other is being "honourable" and playing by the rules, the latter will lose every time. Would I like for it to function as you're describing? Yes. But that's not how it works in reality.

We are losing and people need to realize it's because ALPA is stuck playing by the rules while the company acts in bad faith with little to no consequences. They will continue to do so until they are held accountable. We need to stop playing nice.

[thepoors]

We are all paying thousands in union dues every year, what is the return?

Prove it. Show us that you're paying more in union fees than the pay raises the union has negotiated. The burden of proof is on you, show us the numbers behind your claim.

Cost and value are not the same thing.

[flieslikeachicken]

Being unionized is more than enforcing a contract.

There are many benefits to being unionized.

ALPA is not there to force the company to do something that it doesn't want to do.

You need to expand on these points. Sure there is more to it than just these things, but accomplishing these things is a fundamental function of the union. Why do you think they are not responsible for making the company do things it doesn't want to? The basic purpose of a union is to protect and enforce our labour rights which the company would not respect left to its own devices. Even with a union, the company is persistently violating them.

The grievance process is negotiated to allow for an agreeable resolution for issues that are either not covered in the contract, or for disagreements as to the meaning of items within the contract. Contract violations are usually disagreements in interpretation. As adults, we should all try to see the other parties' viewpoints as it allows us all to reduce conflict.

This is a very optimistic and altruistic view. And also very naive. The company does not respect us, the negotiation process, or the grievance process. They have proven over and over that they will play dirty games to get what they want. If one party is behaving that way and the other is being "honourable" and playing by the rules, the latter will lose every time. Would I like for it to function as you're describing? Yes. But that's not how it works in reality.

We are losing and people need to realize it's because ALPA is stuck playing by the rules while the company acts in bad faith with little to no consequences. They will continue to do so until they are held accountable. We need to stop playing nice.

I chose not to dive into the first few items because I think that any of us can easily find the benefits of a union by doing a google search or reading the comms sent out by them. As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

I understand that my argument feels altruistic and optimistic, but I've been down the hole of feeling like everything is a personal attack and I came to realize that a shift in mindset can change everything and nothing all at once.

[piedpiper]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

[flieslikeachicken]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

Try being at an ALPA airline without a grievance process. The thing with grievances is that it's there to protect all parties while ensuring a predictable way to navigate conflict. If one or more of the parties is looking to fight, that is a different story altogether.

[thepoors]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

[piedpiper]

Did bro really make it sound like the greiveance process is some amazing tool to resolve disputes? I mean maybe originally that was it's intent.

It's now turned into an process that allowed the corp to delay implementation or delay proper implementation (while disputing language THEY negotiated) to save money. Nothing more.

Try being at an ALPA airline without a grievance process. The thing with grievances is that it's there to protect all parties while ensuring a predictable way to navigate conflict. If one or more of the parties is looking to fight, that is a different story altogether.

A greivance process exists via the labour code. There is no ALPA carrier "without a greivance process".

[piedpiper]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

This next round we better just file conciliation the day we legally can. And start the clock. I don't want another 2 year drawn out negotiating cycle. It's fatiguing on everyone.

[thepoors]

As far as "forcing the company to do things that they don't want to do," it is an irrelevant concept because it doesn't matter if they want to do it or not, it's whether they have an obligation to do them in law or in the contract.

Man are you serious? How is it irrelevant when you have the company doing exactly that and violating the contract/purposefully dragging its feet on it's obligations?

Sure in a negotiating environment forcing them to agree to certain things might be wishful thinking. But we are talking about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the current contract. Again: we are playing far too nice and they are exploiting it.

This next round we better just file conciliation the day we legally can. And start the clock. I don't want another 2 year drawn out negotiating cycle. It's fatiguing on everyone.

2 years of negotiation (aka the company refusing to negotiate for 18 months), then 2 years to implement anything, then it's time to (not) negotiate again... but but pAtTeRn BaRgAiNiNg. Exactly the pattern the company wants.