ELECTION

[ACstew]

This from the Component website:

Election of New Air Canada Component Officers

As I advised in my first report to you, in order to return the administration of the Component to elected Component Officers, an election of new Component Officers must take place. I have now consulted with the candidates and I am pleased to announce that the Component Elections are now ready to proceed. Voting will commence on February 6th at 11:00 EST. and finish February 20th 15:00 EST.

In the next few days you should receive a package in the mail containing a couple of documents. The first document is the ballot statements, which were prepared by the candidates. The second document is a detailed information letter, which outlines the process for casting your vote and provides you with a new temporary PIN number.

The information letter that outlines the voting process has been written as clearly as possible, it explains what you should expect when you call or use the Internet to cast your vote. You should refer to this information letter when you are casting your vote. Elections for local presidents and vice-presidents must occur within 35 days of the completion of the component election. For these elections you will use the same telephone and PIN numbers as those used for the component elections. PLEASE RETAIN THE INFORMATION LETTER WITH THE PIN NUMBER FOR THE LOCAL ELECTIONS.

[Snackpack]

My, my, those ballot statements better be in French this time or I myself am going to have a hissé fit. Here's to hoping all the procedures are followed to a 't' so no one can turn around later and contest the outcome of these elections.

I'll also be counting the number of words on each ballot statement. Pray tell, ACStew, do you know if compound words count as one or two? :tongue_2: :smile_2: :smirk:

[Peanut]

Calgary and Toronto Base had better stuff those "Unity" pamphlets in the members folders quick!

[Was_Moeman]

Mine was sitting there Friday afternoon. What are you talking about Peanut?

[Was_Moeman]

Pamela Sachs, Richard Nolan & Claire Renaud:
Setting the Record Straight

The upcoming election for Air Canada Component Officers scheduled from February 6th to 20th, 2003, offers you a fundamental choice. In order to help you make this choice, we are setting the record straight by giving you further information on the actions we took as union officers on key issues.

The last two years have been challenging, any merger would be. We believe that you will set aside personal attacks circulated in anonymous emails and internet chat rooms, as unfounded “galley gossip” and will look at the record instead.

1. Collective Agreement Bargaining

Our Track Record Other Candidates’ Record
In 1998, the membership of the former Air Canada Component was surveyed to identify their bargaining priorities, in order to guide the Bargaining Committee. In 1999, the Air Canada Component bargained with the support of legal, actuarial and CUPE National expertise. We were members of that bargaining team and negotiated a collective agreement which addressed the priorities as identified in the bargaining survey. In June 2000, XXX(names removed to protect the innocent :grin: ) were members of the bargaining team that negotiated the CAIL collective agreement. That agreement essentially gave up the working conditions from the former CAIL Component in exchange for wage parity with the Air Canada Component.
In 2001, a survey of all members of the combined bargaining unit was completed.In November 2001, negotiations for a combined collective agreement were initiated. The Pension Committee from the former CAIL Component, CUPE National Research and other CUPE resources, legal and actuarial expertise were extensively utilized during the bargaining process. Early in December 2002, we recommended ratification of a new collective agreement. That agreement contained numerous improvements, and achieved job security for all members, allowing us to move forward and fly together.At the end of December 2002, when xxx (names removed to protect the innocent)legal proceedings were launched at the CIRB, we were clear in our message: the members must be given their democratic right to vote on this deal. Our words were heeded and the ratification carried on. Over a seven month period, the Air Canada Component sent a series of draft surveys to the former CAIL Component. No official response was ever received.Shortly after a tentative agreement was reached, XXX(names removed to protect the innocent) contacted CUPE National in an attempt to halt the ratification vote. When CUPE refused to intervene, XXX(you get the point)launched legal proceedings at the CIRB. Had they proved successful, these proceedings could have jeopardized the ZIP letter of understanding, the job security provisions and the bonus agreement. (Full text of their application should be available from your local president).Even though the new collective agreement has now been ratified by almost 70% of the combined membership, these costly legal proceedings have not yet been withdrawn.


2. Seniority Integration Arbitration

The former Air Canada Component signed a “protocol” agreeing to arbitrator Burkett to resolve the seniority integration dispute.As part of the Air Canada Seniority Arbitration Committee, we supported the principle of “no gain, no loss”. The former CAIL Component signed the same “protocol”.As part of the CAIL Seniority Arbitration Committee, XXX supported the date of hire (“DOH”) principle.
It has been the Air Canada Seniority Arbitration Committee’s position throughout the seniority arbitration process that all Air Canada Cabin Personnel hired prior to August 3, 2000 must be considered within the process. This was one of the most hotly debated issues during the course of the mediation. We strongly argued that all Air Canada employees hired up until August 3, 2000 must be included within the seniority integration process. These employees were hired by an expanding Air Canada and deserve to have their career expectations protected through the integration process. XXX, as part of the CAIL Seniority Arbitration Committee, has submitted from the outset that the merger date is January 4, 2000. This would mean that the “pre-merger” bargaining unit consists of cabin personnel regularly employed prior to January 3, 2000 and the relevant period for analyzing pre-merger seniority is 1999. The CAIL Seniority Arbitration Committee submitted that the 925 flight attendants hired after January 3, 2000 should be defined as “post-merger” hires. Their submission made clear they viewed these newer hires as expendable: “These new hires provide a substantial buffer absorbing much of the initial risk of layoff”.
The Burkett award did not give the Air Canada Seniority Arbitration Committee the ratio we proposed. But as part of the Component Executive who signed the “protocol”, we were prepared to accept the Burkett award. The Burkett award did not give the CAIL Seniority Arbitration Committee the Date of Hire it proposed. But as part of the committee, XXX has sought to keep the issue alive by unsuccessfully petitioning CUPE National to quash the Burkett award and impose a DOH solution instead. As Component President, we believe she would continue to support that position.XXX's position is unclear, he seems to support a position based on time served. In our opinion it translates into DOH.XXX's position is unknown to us.
The Burkett award is close to completion with only the I/C list outstanding. We will continue to press for it to move forward and will advise you of the progress.
During the seniority integration arbitration, we supported LOU #1 of the Collective Agreement, as the only venue to integrate the I/C seniority lists. This reflects the position endorsed by the majority of members who filled out the 2001 bargaining survey. XXX's position is in line with the Riddell group. During the seniority integration arbitration, the Riddell group supported quashing LOU #1 of the Collective Agreement and imposing DOH for the I/C seniority list.


3. The Airline Division Conference

We brought forward a motion to delay the 2002 Airline Division Conference in order to ensure that the Toronto Local 4092 members would have the opportunity to elect delegates to the Conference. XXX supported the vote which defeated this motion. This meant that the largest local in the Air Canada Component, a local which has more members than the next largest component, had only one delegate.
We supported the Airline Division President’s ruling that a motion to seat the delegates of the voided September 11, 2002 meeting was irreceivable and would cause the conference to be cancelled. XXX supported a motion to seat delegates at the conference who were not duly elected by Toronto Local 4092 members.

We did not support a motion, deferred from the previous Airline Division Conference, to instate Date of Hire as an Airline Division By-Law for mergers. XXX supported the motion to make date of hire an Airline Division By-Law for future mergers.


4. The Rosemary Brown Decision

As you may recall, the last elections in 2001 were held quickly to meet the tight timelines required in an order from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to merge our bargaining units and negotiate a new collective agreement. The Brown decision found irregularities in the way the election was run, such as the number of words in the ballot statement and whether all material was translated and other issues similar in nature. There were no allegations of wrongdoing regarding the conduct of any of the candidates during the election or our record as your elected officers.Following discussions with CUPE National, we agreed to step down from office so that the ratification vote could proceed without further conflict. The democratic right of the membership to continue the vote became our first priority. Two days after the Brown decision was released, XXX and XXX asked CUPE National: · “To place the Component under administration”.· That “The Bargaining Road Show” and ratification vote with respect to the new contract proposals be immediately halted as those who purported to bargain on behalf of the “New Component” were not properly elected and were not entitled to do so.” They wanted to deny you your democratic right to vote on our proposed contract.· That “a meeting be held immediately, between all affected parties, including the old Air Canada Component Executive and the old CAIL Component Executive, and CUPE National to determine how to proceed.” The full text of the Brown decision is available from all Local Presidents.








5. Our Priorities for the Next Two Years

I. We will guide the Union forward together under one collective agreement and one seniority list.

II. We will petition CUPE National for the Air Canada Component to leave the Airline Division and become an independent Chartered Local of CUPE National. The fiasco of the September 11, 2002 Toronto 4092 meeting, the subsequent meeting that was filibustered on November 13, 2002, and the personal agendas brought to the Airline Division Conference in November 2002, has exposed many of the weaknesses of the Airline Division. The Air Canada Component represents over 85% of the total membership of the Airline Division. The Division is an organization that has outlived it’s usefulness.

Belonging to the Airline Division costs the Air Canada Component membership more than $600,000 yearly with little services in return. With those resources, the Air Canada Component will provide to the membership a level of service the Division has never offered.

III. We will increase the education of union officers to ensure full time local flight releases are used to the fullest in the day to day running of Locals and ensure the continued strength of our Union.

IV. We will continue to educate all members through bulletins.

V. We will continue our attack on the backlogged grievances of the former Air Canada Component and the former CAIL Component.

VI. We will continue the professional administration of our contract with the support of our in-house legal team. Despite lengthy contract negotiations and seniority integration hearings, we have still found the time and resources to process dozens of policy and individual grievances as well as complaints with the CIRB dealing with a wide range of issues including ZIP, per diems, etc. We will enforce arbitrations awards in the Federal Court if the Company refuses to abide by these binding decisions.

VII. We will establish long-term strategies that will continue to benefit members after any future change in leadership.

VIII. We will continue our “Commitment to You” from 1999:

Ø Use a team of professionals, including legal, during bargaining
Ø Consistently and vigorously enforce the collective agreement
Ø Take a strong stand with the Company when they break our collective agreement
Ø Against “lets” in our contract without prior membership approval
Ø Direct our Grievance Committee to act within time limits and bring important decisions to arbitration
Ø Help our Component Health & Safety to be more effective in enforcing our Health & Safety rights


6. The Choice is Clear

We shared our priorities with you for the direction we believe the union needs to follow. Where do you want to be two years from now?

Out of the Airline Division using the additional resources to ensure that the priorities of the majority are respected, OR wasting time and money on an Airline Division that does not properly serve the Air Canada members’ interests?

Do you want to be flying together with a merged seniority list OR waiting for the next appeal(s) to be filed?

Do you want to continue our attack on the huge backlog of grievances, using our legal team already in place OR return to the old system?

Do you want officers negotiating the priorities of the membership as surveyed OR go back to the days when a few decided the priorities to be negotiated without a team of professionals?


Our Track Record is proven and speaks for itself. On many key issues, the positions of other candidates have not been documented. We encourage you to seek written positions from all candidates on issues important to you, and for further information on voting procedures, please check www.accomponent.ca (http://www.accomponent.ca), or call (416) 798-3399 x262.

The choice is yours. We respectfully ask for your active support between February 6th and 20th, 2003.

[flying uke]

If any one had any doubt as to who to vote for this should make it a no brainer. When we have been through all the turmoil it only makes sense to stay with the people who have a proven track record and know what they are doing. Pamela, Richard and Clair have the knowledge, experience and dedication.

[out.of.the.blue]

Isn't it Pam that tried to have the company declare the ex-Cail's "no lay-off" clause null and void after 9/11?

Wonder what kind of precedent did she set? I know I haven't forgotten, do you think management has? That no layoff clause is as solid as she is. As long as she reigns, the clause's weight is proportionate.

[Snackpack]

ootb, it was thought at the time by many OAC's that both ex-CAIL and orig AC's should share some of the pain of layoffs. It didn't happen. Your no layoff clause stuck and paid off. Now we're all covered by a no layoff clause (except for reasons of force majeure .) She also had a big part in negotiating that for all of us, no?

[out.of.the.blue]

When you play with concepts you lose credibility. She had no right to suggest such a thing to the company.

She also had no right to use confidential information from a confidential barganing survey; no matter what it was, and what it was used for. What's next?

You simply cannot trust her!

As for your comment on her negociating for all of us... thanks for the chuckle.

It really doesn't matter who is elected i.e. the Burkett's senority arbitration. If Pam wins, we appeal.. If Sheena wins...we appeal, If anyone wins we appeal. The appeal has nothing to do with this election! It will go ahead!

[BTG1]

Only one thing you have to remember, If Pam wins you pay for the appeal out of your own pockets we'll see if your party faithfull will want to caugh up the money. Go ahead and appeal eveything that moves in Air Canada. The choice is very clear for me. I want to move on and make my living free of any internal bickering between XCND and A/C. I'll support Pam's team knowing that objective is to better all F/A in the New Air Canada.

[Snackpack]

I understand that the appeal will go ahead and feel that you have every right to an appeal.

That having been said, Pam, Richard and Claire really did negotiate the present no layoff clause for all of us. The only no layoff clause that existed post 9/11 had been negotiated by your side and strictly for your side.

And speaking of concepts, at the time there was a prevailing interpretation of the concept of fairness (among OAC'S) which considered sharing the pain of layoffs between both groups as the way to go. Your no layoff clause protected former CAIL's from this pain and now a similar clause, thanks to Pam, Richard and Claire, applies to ALL of us. Reminding us of the no layoff clause business simply serves to remind many OAC's of one more positive part of the current collective agreement which P, R & C successfully negotiated. This clause will no doubt constitute one more reason for many to vote for and re-elect them.

[out.of.the.blue]

Geez I guess when we do collect our money to appeal ....Pam will use her own to defend it ? (she'll probably use the money Leo and Richard got as FSD payoff to do it right?)

It's going to be awhile before the "bickering" is over. As long as Pam's around you're 100% guaranteed it will continue. Why don't you vote for the other air canada person running for Pres? Or find anyone else from the AC side to run for pres?

[flying uke]

I can't believe anyone would not vote for Pam, Richard and Clair. You have to get over silly petty stuff and look at the big picture. These people have always negotiated the best contract for us. We have the proof in the new contract.

[Annie]

Negotiated the best contract for You? Lets just see after next Monday's meeting when the pilots agree to more planes going to Zip, then you'll see what a huge mistake it was signing our jobs away with a blank check to Zip. Milton is laughing his head off. He knows he has to keep the pilots happy and there flying Zip. He DIDN'T want us flying Zip and he got that too. He has a contract until 2008 with Zip with language that still has to be written. He will press to make Zip just as big as West Jet so he can compete. The more they expand the smaller we get and ALL of our jobs are on the line. I don't know why any of you couldn't see it.

[Was_Moeman]

Annie, your post shows that you have no idea what the pilots will do to protect their pay-cheques. Wide-body = big money for pilots. They don't give a rat's ass how big ZIP gets as long as they get more wide-body jets. More wide-body jets = more f/a jobs, regardless of ZIP's size. Why don't we just wait and see what they end up with before you start with the Chicken Little stories again. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and I hope you'll do the same.

[Was_Moeman]

This is a letter I just received that is from a former CAIL Union Rep. It makes for an interesting read. I suppose this person is probably an imposter though, as any REAL ex-CAIL person wouldn't dare speak this sort of blasphemy :wink_2: . I'm not sure who this Sprugnoli person is though. Anybody out there know? Is it Roberto Cesare Sprugnoli?


Below From Sprugnoli - Some issues to consider - Jan/25/2003

Once more the membership is facing a moral crisis in the coming component elections. This is not a vote of AC vs Cdn. This is a vote about who best can represent you against management, regardless of personal feelings. I am not asking or telling you who to vote for. In the end vote for what is best for you, but there is no doubt in my mind that management would like to see Sachs/Nolan replaced by almost anyone.


Do not confuse the elections with the seniority issue as some people would like to convince you.

There are four distinct and separate issues.

1) The seniority arbitration and the appeal. 2) The component/Division elections this Jan/2003

3) The locals elections later in Feb/Mar 2003 4) Negotiations


The following might help you decide:

1) Seniority arbitration and appeal:

If an appeal is in order, then the appeal should already have been done a long time ago by the Cdn Component officers. Delaying the finalizing of the seniority decision and intermingling of F/as is not helping anyone. (I believe the opposite, it would have helped negotiations if it had been over & done). In any case who gets elected to Component has nothing to do with the seniority arbitration or the arbitration appeal.

2) Component elections;

The Component Elections are extremely important for the membership. They will determine who will be representing you against management. From my experience I believe management would be pleased if Sachs/Nolan were not elected. They might even try to influence your vote. It is not the first time that a management tries to influence union voting. They did it at Cdn in 96/97 (we have proof). Is AC different?


Some people are trying to convince you that Sachs/Nolan are the sole people to blame for the loss of the seniority arbitration!! I do not agree, but what a compliment. I heard it many times, "Only Sachs & Nolan are responsible for our seniority arbitration's loss". If these statements were true, it would be the best compliment one could make to Sachs/Nolan. Of course the same people maintain that the quid pro quo of holding the Cdn component officers responsible for the seniority loss does not apply.


Let’s look at it again. The Canadian Component had some of the best labour lawyers on their side and the Division policy, but according to these statements, Sachs/Nolan were able to beat all odds and win the seniority arbitration for AC members !!! Surely it should be easy to decide who will best represent you.


I am not a personal friend of Sachs or Nolan, nor do I see them socially. But I can vouch that, while I was a union officer, I saw them in the office almost every day I was there. While I was not privy to what they did, I saw the hours they put in (& they were not reading the newspapers). On the other hand, I know how the CDN component officers behaved. NO CONTEST. If after we merge Sachs and Nolan represent the ex-AC/Cdn members the same way they represented their Ac members during the seniority merger, that would be the best for all members. This should not be taken as an indication that Sachs/Nolan will solve all the AC or Cdn problems. The way things are going with this industry it is not and it cannot be. From the Cdn side there is such a backlog of grievances, which have been lingering for the last 6 years that it will be difficult to settle them all in favor of the Union (they were left festering for just too long by the Cdn component). But I believe that based on the options you have. It is no contest.


3) Local Elections;

For local elections due in Mar/03, I have different suggestions. I believe it would benefit the membership greatly, if new base presidents were elected at Vancouver and Toronto. (Especially in Yvr). (The main reason for suggesting a Yyz change is because of the convention delegates’ issue & how it was handled).


4) Negotiations and the Ex CDN agreement

One misconception being circulated (mostly amongst AC employees), is that the Canadian officers are better at negotiations because of some of the conditions we had in the Cdn agreement, (DP minus 4,

1 ½ over 14h, SOLO etc..)!!. That is another royal BS which some people would like you to believe. The truth is that most of those wonderful working conditions we had in the Cdn agreement were won a long time ago, prior to any of the present Cdn officers ever getting involved in their negotiations.


I represented yyz in negotiations when we got DP minus 4 (77/78), I represented yyz in negotiations when we got 1½ for drafting, I represented yyz in negotiations when we got 1½ for duty over 14h (77/78), I prepared & presented the arbitration that paid us the draft premium over and above any comparison (93/94), (ie: if you were drafted for a 10h flight and lost a 15h flight, you would get paid 15h+5h draft), I with lots of help from A.Bidlock & JJ.Israel, negotiated the best 36 mths and pension indexing, which gave us long overdue parity with other unions (other unions got it during the WD merger, Cupe did not). We also successfully retained 1.5rrsp, which some unions gave up, etc.. I am sure my memory does not fails me when I say that none of the present Cdn component officers were present &/or involved in any of those negotiations. I strongly believe that if they had been involved, we would not have achieved those gains.


But I do remember most of the present Cdn officers being present (minus Gaetz) when in June/00 in less than a week of pathetic negotiations, we gave up the Cdn agreement (against my recommendations and vote), without even getting the AC agr in full or "SOLO" bidding or pension index. Notwithstanding that one month prior (may 2000), with the assistance of a Cupe national representative, we had all agreed that we would never sign the AC agr without pension parity (which was the biggest monetary item). If we wanted pension parity (and pension indexing and SOLO or anything else), that was the time to get it. Following the ratification vote, I heard some comments that in June/00 we had already negotiated to keep the RRSP even after we crossed over to the AC pension. That is incorrect. Since Aug/00, the company has always maintained that we would not keep the Cdn RRSP once we moved to the AC pension. Of course that RRSP issue has been left outstanding since Aug/00 (& still is?). Why was it not arbitrated?.


I know that the bonus AC got is a sore point to some of you, but personally I disagree mostly with any duty over 16hrs and ZIP, (in the 1990 WD merger a 17hrs duty day was given to CDN and in 93/94 it took the actual walking away from negotiation to get back that 17hrs duty day concession). In any case I strongly believe that if the seniority merger & appeal had been over and done with (which they should have been), these negotiations might have been quite different. All the public confrontation, animosity, tension between the two groups did not help the union in negotiations. What did you expect?


Some of you believe that AC Cupe did not want to negotiate with us and it is their fault we got a lousy deal. That is FALSE. We invited them to negotiate with us in 2000 and they declined because they were not ready. In response they invited us to wait until 2001 for their agreement expiration and to negotiate with them, and we declined to wait (our agreement expired dec/00). There was no pressure for us to give away the Cdn agr unless we got AC agr in full plus some Cdn clauses (we used to say we wanted AC +). Instead promptly (in less then 7days) we sold out the cdn agreement. Specifically agreeing that we would not get the retroactive AC pension parity, & without "SOLO" in the agreement or pension indexing. Now we are trying to blame this new AC negotiating committee for not getting a better deal !! Wake up.


As far as I am concerned since 95/96 the Cdn cex has ceased to be efficient. It is more worried about politics, sticking together & elections than anything else (tried to warn you in 96). I believe that the main duty of an elected officer is not sticking together, but it is to represent members even if it means speaking against the cex majority. Nothing can be worst for the membership than having a clique that sticks together.


Since 1997 almost no technical arbitrations have been done. To management it is worth millions to have such an ineffective cex. I am always amazed at some of the dumb rumours floating around. It is important for the membership to learn not to believe all these useless rumours, to learn how to understand the actual records (consider only what is in writing and signed) and use basic common sense.

Look at the latest developments: Everyone else is to blame for failure to get date of hire (or AC Pension parity, or a better agr or "SOLO"), except the CDN cex of course !! Wake up,

From Sprugnoli: Further Comments if you care or need to read more;


I heard a lot of complaints that AC officers tricked us or broke their word & went against the Division policy etc. etc.!!. Everyone in the Cdn cex should have expected what the AC component did. I do not know how many times I argued with various Component officers that they should publicly and strongly support Onex as soon as we knew about it, BECAUSE ONEX WAS THE BEST DEAL, BECAUSE AC COULD NOT GIVE US A BETTER DEAL. Instead we waited to support onex until it was too late to make a difference.


What could have been a better deal for all employees, than date of hire, wage parity in two years, keep the Cdn agreement and a buy out that made your head spin (basically the onex offer). Instead I was told that there might be "a better deal" and we did not want to upset Air Canada!!!, that we had supporters in the AC ranks, that there was a joint "Grass Root Movement" at certain bases etc..etc..!!!


To me that was all BS. I never expected anyone from AC to support date of hire for all cdn in a way that would make a difference at the arbitration (in the end nobody from AC did). When following another useless cex meeting, out of frustration I published yyz bltn #29/oct/99, explaining that AC would not and could not give us a better deal then Onex, I was berated by some cex member for even saying so and speaking against the cex majority!!. Apparently upsetting their plans. What their plans were I still do not know.


No matter how strongly I disagree or dislike the seniority decision, AC officers were not the one representing the Cdn employees, Cdn officers were. What amazes me most, is the fact that everyone else has been blamed for the results (AC Officers, Cupe National, Division, The Arbitrator etc..etc..), but not the Cdn cex officers. How come the membership does not see though that nonsense?. To me it is a non issue. If blame must be assigned, then you must ask yourself the question: Who in the CDN Component would have claimed "Victory" had date of hire been achieved ?. Should the same people not "claim" responsibility for the loss ?


The Cdn component is certainly not shy at claiming "victories". Look at the transition bulletin of Sept/02, explaining some transition arbitrations they "WON" (Just in time to try to impress you for the elections I guess). The way I see it is: In June/2000 we gave up the Cdn agreement. We did not get full parity with the AC agreement. Full Pension parity the biggest single monetary item (I was told it is worth as much as the AC bonus) was not part of the package nor was the Cdn "SOLO" bidding, nor pension indexing (& the continuation of Altamira rrsp is contested). This in spite of the fact that one month prior, in may 2000, with the assistance of a Cupe national representative, we had all agreed we would never accept the AC agreement without at least AC pension parity, we wanted AC+, (we got AC-). In addition, the wording of the memorandum was so bad (mostly the VSIP) that most of the conditions were violated or denied.


A transition committee of 3 officers was formed and full time releases have been granted since Sept/2000. The committee was personally appointed by Twentyman and of course yyz was refused full time representation. In total it means 90mos (almost 1 full time release for 8years) worth 400/500,000$ approx, plus all the related expenses, plus the hiring of a paralegal to do the actual arbitrations, because no one from the appointed members could present the arbitrations. Over two years later we get some decisions that are less than what we negotiated and it is branded a victory!!


In the meanwhile for the last 6 years no other technical arbitration worth mentioning has been done and the backlog is so huge that Cdn employees will never recoup the losses. Some of the outstanding arbs (dating back years) had the potential to be worth millions for the membership (including refunding part of the wage reduction), but even after the negotiations of 96 were finished, they have been totally ignored.


Let me give you one example; in June/99 the company had offered 1.1 mil (all fig approx) to settle 4/5 grievances, while we were claiming they owed the membership 4.5 mil. You do not need to be a genius to figure out that if management offers 1.1mil to settle, our claim must have some real validity. In Aug/2000 I explained the case to the lawyer who was supposed to do the arbitration and to the 3 component officers and supplied all docs. Later the component president decided to proceed without the lawyer (the case looked so easy !!, almost as easy as the seniority arbitration). Nonetheless since I had prepared the docs & since I had done the original arbitration, I offered to do it but was not allowed. Instead the component did it and only argued one grievance!!. Results; In Sept/00 we ended up with a decision that gave us half of what the company had offered (most of the amount for that 1 griev had been agreed to since 95/96). Of course we claim that the other grievances are still outstanding, but the company claims they are not. The decision was in 2000, 3 yrs later we have not proceeded with follow up meetings to clear this issue. Of course Cdn component officers remain silent about that "victory". Do you understand why it is important to management who gets elected as component officers. It is worth millions.


The Date Of Hire POLICY : The date of hire policy was a Division policy not a National policy. If anyone should have enforced it, it should have been primarily the Division officers. For some time we even had two Cdn employees at the helm of the Division!!. (Both officers were supported by yvr in previous elections). Did it help us? It was all useless. Airline Division has been useless to us. Get rid of it now.


There is also an undercurrent to blame national. That is totally unfair. We chose Cupe over CAW in the 80s because they would not interfere in the internal affairs of the division. (Including the seniority issue). That specific issue is well documented. Some of you might have forgotten that in 1986, at a time when we were discussing Cp/Pwa/Nd merger, CAW (Bob White) published a bltn implying that in case of a merger the national policy was date of hire. I quote from the CAW bulletin:

......the overriding principle will be that a fair seniority system is one that recognizes the equality of one day of seniority whether that time was spent at CP, ND or Pwa ....... ......the principle of "one for one" seniority is the fairest of them all............

As far as I can remember CUPE did not make any defining statements and instead promised autonomy, which is what the majority wanted. Which is why we chose CUPE. Well we got our autonomy. I can find other issues to blame Cupe National, without the need to fabricate. Note also that other unions (incl CAW) went to arbitration to settle the seniority merger regardless of national vues.


Juniors vs Seniors : I heard some junior f/a commenting that once more they got shafted and the seniors got what they wanted, "date of hire". That is another BS. The reason seniors got date of hire, is because a straight ratio would have been better for most of the senior CDN F/as. In other words, we got the worst of two "concepts" (date of hire and ratio). Where "date of hire" would have been in our favor (mostly 1979 onward) we got a ratio. Where a straight ratio would have been in our favor (mostly until 77/78) we got "date of hire". Some employees (mostly in the 70/77 range) lost up to 400 seniority positions with date of hire vs what they would have received with the ratio. To me date of hire is only fair if it is applied to all. As far as I know all seniors F/as were willing to fight for "date of Hire" as a principle for all employees, but not a pick and choose option. Instead we ended up with a worst decision than one could imagine.


I have always been of the opinion that "date of hire" was a must, not because "it is right" as a concept, but because "it was the policy". That was the decision in Cp/Nd/Pwa/Epa merger. It is what we did with WD. The regionals agreed to do it. But the threat of ratio for the seniors (bad for AC) should have been used to get date of hire for the juniors. In other words, from day one, we should have taken the position that "Date of hire is for all or no one", instead of all those convoluted blocking solutions.


To remain silent in this time of moral crisis is unacceptable. I am not asking or telling you who to vote for, it is up yo you. I only hope the above helps. Sprugnoli Jan/25 2003


PS: I saw some disturbing Email from yul about the Cdn merger cmmtt. As far as I know the merger committee was doing what the component officers asked them to do and I assume the cex officers were aware at all times of what the merger cmmtt was doing (or should have been) (I still disagreed with the tactics used). Because of the usual politics the Component officers only wanted certain people involved in the merger. Some people were "In", some were "Not In". As I stated to you in bltn 54, I was not. (This is not criticism. I would have done the same but would accept responsibilities).

[Annie]

That's just it, there is not going to be anymore wide body planes for awhile. Times are changing, people want cheap airline tickets. To give them that you have you have a lower costs. The only way to lower costs is either by concessions or by expanding Zip. There is not going to be any expansion or growth at mainline in the short term. Milton only wants to compete with West Jet right now and he will do whatever it takes to get there. BTW, I am original AC based in YYZ and have 15 years service. I am not Ex. CAIL spouting off. I just happen to think that the Zip deal within our contract was forced upon us and it will come back to haunt us.

[dartagnan]

I also beleive there is a clause in OUR contract limiting the size ZIP can grow. If AC wants to expand they also have to bargain with us... Not just the Pilots!

[dartagnan]

I beleive he is a recently retired fa who was very active in the union and who was instrumental in fighting for real gains in the original CAIL contract.

[ACstew]

For OAC it's a no-brainer, allright. P&R negotiated a good contract for us; DOH-Sheena tried to have it scuttled by seeking an injunction to have the ratification vote suspended. P&R support the Burkett award; DOH-Sheena wants it overturned. P&R negotiated a loyalty bonus for us similar to that which was given to the other AC employee groups; DOH-Sheena doesn't want us to get it, and has filed charges of unfair representation in order to have it withheld from us. Gee, who should we vote for? :confus_2:

Let's get Pam, Richard and Claire re-elected by as wide a margine as they deserve!

[Snackpack]

hey moeman, you rhetorically wondered above if any REAL ex-CAIL person would dare speak this sort of blasphemy. It might be easier if the person was retired.

It sure sounds like this Sprugnoli is the Roberto Sprugnoli formerly active in CAIL CUPE, doesn't it?

The last time I saw Roberto Cesare Sprunoli's name in print was in the March 2002 Horizons listing November 2001 retirements. YYZ Roberto Cesare Sprungoli, Purser (1967). One and the same no doubt. Pretty interesting stuff.

[flyboyyvr]

Being one that went through a lay-off last year, and not with CAIL I might add.....I am very pleased with this new contract and the 'no-layoff' clause that the Pam team created. This may not stick with the present war looming over, but hey, atleast it's there....and to protect us all. This contract has many gains, and for everyone.......and junior or senior, I think we should stick with this team...because they're there for us....when others just bicker, these three get things done, and fight tooth, nail and bone 'till they get there. Pam and the group have my vote! And I'm sure they will continue to make huge gains for us!

[traveler]

Glad you guys are discussing the issues again.

Careful with the name calling .. (in general)

[wombat]

What did Pam and Richard negotiate for us?

Let's see:

The loyalty bonus: that bonus was already set aside for us! It had nothing to do with the contract--Pam and her team love lapping up the praise for something they knew was already in place for the OAC people

No layoff clause: What a joke. Pam is using that clause to persuade the juniors that she is on their side but that clause was rendered COMPLETEY USELESS the minute she let the company slip in the force majeur clause. When Pam and the company (I still can't believe a trade unionist would sidle up to the company on this issue) tried to revoke CAILS no layoff clause in court the only thing that stopped them was the LACK of a force majeur clause. Why would she agree to one in this contract???? I believe it was for propaganda purposes only. The minute the first bomb is dropped in Iraq--the company will invoke the clause and she knows it---Juniors please don't be taken in by her. Did she do anything to improve reserve?? NO!!!! Notice how she did get the FSD bonus though for the creme de la creme on the seniority list.

How about the 'raise' we got? The OAC people got the same raise the the CAIL union reps negotiated last year! Pam did not perform any miracles here.

Why was the Zip issue glossed over in the road shows?? What is Pam hiding--I can't believe it was even legal under Canadian law to vote on a contract in which crucial information was lacking to the general membership.

I was at the YVR road show when Pam was caught in several "innacuracies" eg sharing confidential information from a survey with Burkett. She flatly denied it until some produced written proof. Ughhhh.

The OAC people were amazed (and somewhat resentful) that the Cail negotiating committee was able to get a raise and an iron clad no layoff clause in their last contract. Now is the time we can vote for a combined team that includes people who were instrumental in that CAIL contract as well as people from the OAC side. Why would you vote for people whose only real victory in this new contract was the securing of the FSD bonus for themselves?? It is time for new blood--combined blood--let's move on.

The DOH issue will be appealed whether Pam or Sheena gets in--if you remove that argument from Pam what does she have to offer us? Sheena is relatively junior and is passionate about issues affecting ALL levels of seniority. She has energy to burn and is one of the toughest bargainers around--i saw her once talk circles around a company lawyer--we need her on our side (and I'm talking OAC as well as ex-CAIL)in these difficult days with the company.

[dartagnan]

So we start again with the conspiracy theories and the scare tactics to sway the juniors vote... Sorry not buying it. Read the sprugnoli letter once again... I personnaly like the bit about people trying to pass themselves off as great negotiators when they had nothing to do with the original CP contract. I also like the bit about how they gave up a myriad of hard earned benefits and work conditions during a dismal week of negotiations. Bravo indeed! These are not the people I want to represent me (national reps or local reps alike). Just in case you have not noticed, Air Canada is ruthless with its employees. I strongly beleive that only Pam, Richard and Claire(who have extensive knowledge of company tactics) can well represent us. Furthermore, the local elections will soon follow and I invite everyone to vote in the people that have the most experience dealing with this company!...

[out.of.the.blue]

Who started the conspiracy theories? Who introduced the so call "Sprugnoli" letter? (written in a much better Sprugnolli-style than ever before...maybe Roberto has been taking english language writting courses?)

I do like "his" bit on senority and how he admits the ex-cail got the worst of all scenarios. So much for no gain, no loss.

[wombat]

I agree the company is ruthless and CAIL did have to give up some of its working conditions HOWEVER they did extract a raise and REAL job protection from that same company.
It is not a conspiracy theory to state that Pam was waving the 'no layoff' clause to the juniors (while downplaying the force majeur clause I might add). She certainly wasn't waving it to the seniors who have little to fear in a time of impending layoffs.
I find it hard to believe you would want the same people who negotiated a layoff clause that looks like a piece of swiss cheese, raises negotiated by CAIL people, no improvement to reserve, a ZIP clause that is unfinished and of a dubious nature to say the least (Pat Cheung withdrew her support of the contract when it became obvious Pam was not going to realease all of the deatails of the ZIP clause to the general membership). Go ahead and vote Pam in again--with bargaining skills and integrity like that you can't lose. LOL.

[dartagnan]

oh...let me think... Maybe sprugnoli himself... Why dont u ask him at sympatico.ca :wink_2:

I have removed his e-mail address as it is personal information... but I got his original letter through e-mail and it did come from him....

[dartagnan]

I dont think the no-layoff clause is full of holes since it gives us more bargaining powers than not having one at all. Had we not voted yes on this contract than we would have been in trouble... That is anyone that is OAC because x-cp would have been protected by their own contract (with a no layoff clause I might add). Now everyone is in the same boat! and yes you can be sure I will be voting for Pam again... And richard and claire; and when the time comes, Bruno and all the people I will see fit to become a vp... :wink_2:

[wombat]

Dartagnan,

I am not sure what you mean about bargaining power with the no layoff clause--that clause means nothing to the company with the upcoming war and downturn in the aviation sector. YES, x-cp did have iron protection from layoffs--and THAT"S MY POINT--don't we want a team that can give us that kind of clause as opposed to one which brings us a crippling force majeur clause as well as cloudy and partially written clauses that will have a huge impact down the road (ZIP)? This election should have nothing to do with being x-cp or OAC--it should be about who can give us ALL the best union leadership. This new agreement and what it gives 'ALL'of us speaks for itself--nothing--unless you are senior and OAC. Why not have a team with both sides represented? I am obviosly x-cp but I am very willing to vote for an OAC member if I feel that person ie Tom Slade will take us into a brighter future. If Pam showed strong leadership (I notice she turned to Richard Nolan for guidance when any 'hard' questions were asked of her) and a genuine desire to present ALL of the facts I would vote for her--why not??--like I said it has nothing to do with DOH.

[Snackpack]

wombat and/or ootb,

Would either or both of you please share with us what you think of Sprugnoli's record. ootb, do you think this letter was fabricated? Was he considered an effective or ineffective union officer? Was he considered a good or bad negotiator? Why should we or shouldn't we believe what he has allegedly written? I realize that in politics what one says might be motivated by personal feelings. For example, I'm not so sure that Tanner and Sachs would have very many complimentary things to say about each other. It's just that one or both of you could be in a position to enlighten us and, as someone who tries to keep an open mind, I'd sincerely like to read what either or both of you might have to say on this subject.

[dartagnan]

The term force Majeure is not very precise and could be contested... A downturn in the economy might not necesseraly be force majeure... You also have to prove that the economy was in fact affected by a war in Iraq (Which can be hard to prove or disprove)... Does Canada have to be directly implicated in the war in order to be a force majeure case? Most insurance policies have force majeure clauses... But they relate to a war or disaster physically happening where you reside or travel.

[wombat]

Hi Snackpack,

Yes I believe Roberto was a good union rep. He had a good record at CAIL as far as I am aware. However, I do not believe that letter was actually written by Roberto. You would have no way of seeing Roberto's previous union bulletins but if you did indeed come across one you would notice immediately that this letter was not written by the same person. As I stated in a prior posting--in the letter CAIL is blamed for delaying the seniority award appeal--Roberto would definately know that you cannot appeal something not yet finalized by the CIRB. After reading that blunder I hardly read further because IMHO the letter did not come from his hand. If the letter was to proven genuine--i would of course disagree with several of its key points but I would not condemn him for expressing his opinion. That is what this forum is all about--isn't it?

[wombat]

I do not believe the company would have any difficulties in convincing a judge that a war with Iraq would cause tremendous upset for our airline--a force beyond our control--the meaning of force majeure--by reducing the number of passengers travelling by air. Whether the war was in Iraq or Iqaluit the fact would remain that Air Canada has no control over it and it would most certainly impact our company. Our company is affected by global incidents not just the local variety that may, for example, cause a flood in your basement.
As for downturn in the economy--I am not certain but didn't the clause talk about grounding aircraft etc.--if the company said because of the lack of travellers due to the increasingly competitive nature of todays airline industry--a fact--they do not require all of the a/c in the fleet and as such may choose to invoke the clause?

[out.of.the.blue]

Maybe you have a short memory or just a selective one... Pam tried unsuccessfully to have the ex-Cail no lay-off revoked after 9-11. She has set a precendent with the company that now almost anything can be deemed a "force majeure". We fly to Tel aviv don't we? Couldn't that be considered a force majeure because of the unstable situation there? What about oil prices due to the possible war?

Yes bud, Pammy, she's all yours to be proud of :grin:

[out.of.the.blue]

Hi Snackpac,

The only thing I definetly remember about Roberto Sprugnoli is that it would take you about 3 hours to decipher one pharagraph of what he had written. He had a horrible english.

Also as wombat has pointed out, even I know why the appeal has not yet been started. We have to wait until the CIRB has finalized everything in order to appeal it. I think Roberto would know that also.

I do find it interesting that "wasmoeman" first introduced the "sprugnoli" letter and now "dartagnan" claims to have received it in his emails and transcribe it without using the "sprugnoli@sympatico.ca". Who know maybe "dart" and "was" are having a little sleep together. Sounds kinda fishy to me! Unless they're the same person? Sybil is that you?

And why would someone who retired give a horses ass about what is going in the union now? unless of course for personal gratification or gain? I'm not suggesting someone might be trying to buy his opinion ......(okay I am).

Funny how the first of the letter refers to the company trying anything to sway a vote. Is that a freudian slip or did he mean the union? :grin:

Wish I could tell you more about the man but didn't really know much about him. Stick around tho, I'm sure it'll come to light.

Take care, looking forward to next month !

[Snackpack]

Thanks for the info, wombat. I'm looking forward to next month, too, ootb. Although I remember nothing of import about Sprunoli, I do remember from years ago that his bulletins always had many spelling errors. Of course, that was before aids like Spellcheck were as popular as today.

As far as who would give a horses ass, that takes me back to how personal feelings can come into play. Sounds to me like he was feeling a little (ok a lot) shut out before he retired.

If this was written by him, I agree with you wombat that he has his right to his personal opinions. More importantly, it will also be the first time someone associated with CAIL CUPE is publicly quoted expressing viewpoints that differ so much from the line that we've gotten used to reading and hearing about on this forum in the past.

As you said, ootb, all of this will come to light. I don't think that dart and moeman had a sleep over necessarily though. When I booted up my computer this morning I had two emails containing this letter in my inbox and neither had anything to do with either of them. This letter is spreading like wildfire and has had the effect of a bombshell.

[wombat]

Snackpack,

It is the level of diction in this letter that indicates it was not written by Sprugnoli. I agree he could have used a spellchecker but that would not have added words such as "privy", "festering" and "nonetheless". The more I read that letter the more sure I become that it was not written by him. I also received the letter by email--I am sure whoever fabricated and sent out this letter from the OAC will be happy to see it spread like 'wildfire'-any CAIL person though will see it was not written by him. I also hope that Roberto does not read it as litigation may be in order--Snackpack, just curious,how would you have read any of his bulletins from the past if you are OAC--he was never part of CUPE National and so his bulletins would have been circulated only for CP employees. If you had seen the bulletins you will most certainly understand my doubt over this letter.

[M&M]

:laugh: Perhaps he wrote it in his first language and THEN had someone translate it into proper English ? :smirk: :smile_2:

[dartagnan]

I am not so sure about that... but who knows... I am not a lawer or a judge. Maybe you are one though... A lot of people are speculating right now but the fact remains that no one knows for sure. There will be a war either Irak North Korea or both. The world will have to come together if it is to survive... Same goes with us as airline employees. I think Pam's team are the ones who will be able to bring us together because they put both groups on an equal footing (I know some of u dont think so but it is my opinion).

[dartagnan]

You know exactly why she tried to have your no layoff clause revoked; And it was not on the basis of a force majeure... It was on the basis of the unfairness of laying off only oac employees. Anyhow, like you said she was unsuccessfull, The company might just have the same difficulties... Afterall, I think the attack on the WTC and the events that followed were more or just as devastating as a possible war in irak. Afterall they were unprecedented attacks on North American soil which brought to a halt the whole airline industry in less than an hour. I dont recall any war doing the same thing.

[dartagnan]

Or maybe sprugnoli used his spell checker just like my friends with double and triple identity from the old forum :wink_2:

[dartagnan]

With online thesauruses these days... Who knows... Maybe it is not him... Maybe it is!

[flyboyyvr]

Can I just say this....if I can interject for a second.

I WAS laid off after 9/11, and no CAIL employee lost their job with me. And at the time, I have to say, that ticked me off, but I'm over it because there's nothing really I could of done about it.

But let me say this......I would have been gone again with the 300 ramp guys from YYZ, only 9 mos from being back, if it wasn't for this no-layoff clause. It may have it's conditions, but hey, I'm still here Thank God. I have only Pam and the team to thank for that! This clause may have it's conditions, but it also has room to contest these conditions, which can keep things running for a while. I try very hard to stay optomistic these days.....and I've personally talked to these three together, and one on one. And I feel hopefull. Certainly more than if there was no clause at all! It's definately a gain for juniors like me, and being one of them, I'm voting for the Sachs team. Because I do believe they have MY best interests at heart as well as the seniors. This contract had gains for all groups. And just a footnote Wombat, there were gains to reserve because I've been on reserve basically for the past 4 months. Not changing C days to R days because there's no flights is a huge gain for us! It changes the rank if which flights are assigned, and when your'e in my boat and having to warm up to the fact of being on reserve for the next 10 years, it's a great thing!

I just wanted to plug in a voice of one of the juniors who's been through everything that's been mentioned....so thanx...

[out.of.the.blue]

Hey flyboy,

Did you notice that after 9/11 there were no pilots, no mechanincs, and mostly none of the other unions that were laid off? Funny isn't it? Or could it be that their union leadership had the know how and the smarts to include a no lay-ff clause that isn't full of holes?

I guess as long as your happy with being the scapegoat of the company and shouldering the woes of the collective ( I know you can I've seen your pic... nice deltoids BTW) it's all right.

The reason no "CAIL" employess loss their job, as well as most of the other unions, is that we weren't so easily to dispose of. How many management positions were reduced after 9/11?

The reason that your in a "boat" and could be on reserve for a while is ZIP. But then again Pam helped with that one. Notice the pilots, the mechanics, the ramp, the agents still have their "people" doing the footwork at ZIP. Ah the scapegoat thing again. Is it me or is this hunting season on the fa group? I guess the warden here is Pam and she has given out licences to whoever wants to take a shot.

I do hope you don't get laid off, at the same time I hope you at least give the other candidates a chance by listening to what they have to offer.

Keeping Pam here will do nothing but keep dividing us. I know as long as she's here you can expect me to despise her and your union; because as long as she's at the helm...I don't consider myself part of the family.

It's your choice... a new begining with a mix slate of representatives representing the old, the new and something borrowed (are those bells I hear?) or keeping alive the negative sentiments that Pam,Dick and "what's-her-name" will bring.

Good luck!

[dartagnan]

I hear you brother... I also have been laid off in the past and I know what you went through... Hang in there, things look bad but in this industry things are cyclical. I was also quite mad when I saw you guys laid off and People on the CP side were protected.

[ACstew]

Hi there, O.o.t.b. I wasn't very happy with Pam&Co., either, way back when when she failed to negotiate a no-layoff agreement with AC and when, as a result, a number of our F/A's were laid off while the jobs of most other AC employees were protected.

The situation today, however, is entirely different. Most of the membership (me included) is of the opinion that P&R did an excellent job under very difficult conditions both during the seniority arbitration and during our recent negotiations. What planet are those who criticise the ZIP deal living on? Was it a concession on our part? I guess so. Was there an alternative? Nope. Westjet (the airline that put CAIL out of business despite what many of you think) is expanding, and is doing so profitably. Under our current cost structure, we cannot compete with them--it's that simple. The choices for AC are to get its costs down on short-hauls where it competes with WJ and similar carriers, or to withdraw from routes one-by-one as WJ enters them. The Date-of-hire-Sheena/Tom/Martin team completely fails to understand that, and would lead us down a path where we'd end up like United Airlines whose employees (if they're even lucky enough to keep their jobs in the first place) are likely to see their Collective Agreements dictated by a bankruptcy judge. Pam's approach of allowing AC to launch a low-fare carrier with certain conditions is far more prudent.

[out.of.the.blue]

So I guess AcStew that having the fa's as the only group taking the brunt of concessions is the only right thing to do?

What about the mechanics? the ground agents? the pilots?

I guess you don't have much to worry about because of your senority. I guess the juniors at AC are the ones that are going to pay for Pam's deal with the devil.


i understand the need for a low cost alternative...but why are we the only union being so screwed?

By electing P,D, and what's-her-name your continue to fuel the discontent of at least 2700 fa's. I really think the company would love that. Do you honestly think that anyone of them will ever support anything she puts forward?

It time for a change in the right direction!

SACK SACHS

p.s. unravel,unravel, unravel LOL

[out.of.the.blue]

Oh and by the way... the other unions still all have iron clad no layoff clauses still good till 2004; with no loopholes.

Better have wide shoulders fellow stews.

[flying uke]

You have to lose a little of your bitterness and focus on the positve. Just ask someone from Canada 3000

[dartagnan]

Read Robert Milton's New message to employees. I dont think any group would be spared this time around. I dont think Sheena's team has any clues where the world airline industry is heading for. Milton is right when he says no one wants to pay full fare and high fare tickets anymore. We will have to adapt. Sheena's platform is so radically the opposite of airline trend restructuring that I fear she would seriously hurt AC in the short and long term. I will not let CP's mentality kill AC. Comments removed by Moderator due to nature of comment. Vote Pam everyone... Their team is more balanced, fair, and not as adversarial!

[out.of.the.blue]

Hey uke,

Why should I be bitter? I have well over 3400 fa's under me, a great personal life and wonderful friends.

Just because I do not like Pam and dick doesn't mean I'm bitter.


Dumaj pered tym shcho rishajesh tomu shcho PAM ne je dobra ljudyna na tsju robotu!


Take care and tsiom,

OOTB

[dartagnan]

So if you have such a wonderful life why do you sound so mean and condescending all the time...? :confus_2:

[out.of.the.blue]

Ready to sacrifice the juniors already Dart?

LOL

Maybe you change your motto

All for one and all for one!

[out.of.the.blue]

If you think the truth is condescending that's your opinion.

Pam is the wrong person for the job! Is that so condescending?

Sorry if you cannot take someone else point of view without feeling belittle, perhaps you should work on your self-esteem. :grin:

[dartagnan]

I am not ready to speculate and elaborate empty theories until I hear exactly what Milton is to ask of the Unions. There is many ways to mitigate layoffs. I would rather work with the company if they are willing to work with us in good faith than fight them at every turn. One thing is for sure... If we adopt your type of mentality(The cp way) we will kill this airline!

[ACstew]

I guess the reason that we are the only union being (as you put it) "so screwed", is timing. ZIP was only created a few months ago. We then happened to be in negots. You're correct when you point out that the CAW and the IAM haven't yet made any concessions where ZIP is concerned, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't end up making them. In UA's case, some of the unions made concessions and some didn't. The UA F/A's reached agreement with UA on an interim contract, and the courts have left that deal intact. The UA mechanics refused to deal with the company on concessions, and the bankcuptcy court slapped their union with concessions much heftier than those agreed to by the F/A's. Such a situation could unfold here, too. I'm glad that you understand the need for a low cost alternative, but the campaign literature put out by Sheena makes it pretty clear that she doesn't.

[dartagnan]

Sorry OOTB I forgot you were at one with the all mighty and that you held the wand of thruth in your hand. Groveling, groveling... I am your humble servant. Please tell God to spare all of us we dont deserve this. Please also tell God to help Sheena, Tom and Martin get back on their feet when they loose their elections...

[out.of.the.blue]

Not a problem my poor little lost sheep! :grin:

Love thy neighboor...

Do unto others...

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

Flying Uke...That's just it! We are focusing on the positive - The Unity Team - There will never be solidarity with P $ R and What's-her-name at the helm.

You really have no clue as to what happened with C3000, have you? Other than the fact that they went the way of the DODO bird. It adds the weight of a feather to most arguments presented here; keep throwing it in here and there when the argument is difficult to make, I guess it sounds good to some; I prefer my herrings pickled rather than just plain old red.

[dartagnan]

CP also should have gone to way of the DoDo but you were furtunate enough to survive in another form. You are fast to put down Quebec's government (read e-bay airline for sale) but when another government protects your interest you dont complain too much... Sorry DMS Just voted 3 minutes ago... and not in favor of Sheena I might add...

[out.of.the.blue]

Dart has just added another nail in our juniors futur.

WTG Dart

[yulpurser]

OOTB,

I do not think this time that only FAs will be bearing the brunt. What happens to passenger agents or maintenance personnel, for example, when AC sells its ground handling ? Remember how Bell sold the operators to another company just a few years back? It is important to look at the issues before voting, but in my view,the real important issues are no longer about seniority or who said what, when. The merger is all but finished, with crews intermingling next month. From the word go, ZIP was a threat to us I think all of us had to realize that. We must stay vigilant about its development and consequences on our collective, but I think that the writing was on the wall, and there was nothing that we could have done to stop it. The economic problems of the airline- and the industry in general- suggest that while we must do all in our power to maintain the best possible working conditions, we also have to be realistic. There will be real choices to be made, and if we are totally inflexible, these choices will be made for us, and I am afraid it will be even more drastic.
We deal with our employer on a collective basis, which means that once we have elected an executive to speak on our behalf, we expect them to consult us on the major issues ,and then tell our employer about what we want. We should also be able to expect them to explain to us the airline's position. I want to see people there who have a broad understanding of the big picture. My vote will go to the people who make me the most confident that they will be able to limit the damage. What's done is done. I do not want to hear anymore about the past. I am hoping there will be a future to salvage.

[traveler]

<font color="brown"> Okay people .. Warning !

You’ve already stated that your opinions differ.
There is no need to post again just to belittle.
You know who I’m talking about.
You don’t want your group banned do you ? </font color>

[out.of.the.blue]

Hi Yulpurser,

I'm glad to see that finally someone can see things from a different perspective.

I agree with what you say about the importance of having an elected executive that keeps us totally informed on issues that are a concern to us. Did you ever get the nitty-gritty on the ZIP deal? Where you ever consulted on major issues? Did Pam ask you guys how you wanted to merge the senority list? When the bonus was presented the first time did you get to vote on it? Was accepting a 19 139$ immediate payout to FSD's really that important to the collective?

I realise it is time to unite and go forward in this ever changing industry. Keeping Pam and Dick where they presently are will not allow us to do that. They evoke way too many ill feelings amongst the ex-Cail and lots of OAC's.

If you really want to move forward you have no choice but to vote them out. It's time to eradicate the source of miscontent.

Please tell me what positive (notice no "s" as I honestly don't think there could be...) you see in keeping them? Oh and skip the "great" contract that they negociated. It's full of holes and will not stand up to this downturn.

Like I've said... at least we still have the 19:30 duty day. That we can thank Pam and Dick for!

Please people... think about it. Is this really the person you want ? You will never have any unity with her at the helm, that's one guarantee.

You are right this has nothing to do with senority but on who can bring together the group as a whole. Pam has proven that she cannot.

[Was_Moeman]

It's interesting that they say they have to chop up to 10,000 jobs and then announce that they're selling Jazz, Maintenance, Ground Handling and possibly the cargo divisions. Now Jazz has 4000 employees and they plan on selling 100% of that. So we're left with 6000 cuts. They've already announced a bunch of layoffs at the I.A.M. , they will cut (mis)management by over 1000, from what I hear. So we're down to 4000 or so. Now, by making the Maintenance Division into a separate company from the Ground Handlers and selling them off separately, they effectively sever the mechanics from the ground handlers as far as the union goes. I don't begrudge the ground handlers from making a good income, but we all know that the only reason they have any bargaining power is because they outnumber the mechanics by a large number so if they're not happy and they vote to strike, the mechanics have no choice in the matter and have to go too, thus shutting the airline down. By severing them, the ground handlers have no more bargaining power as they can be replaced much easier than mechanics, so it would be much easier to cut staff, change work rules, and make pay cuts that way. Also, I don't think the mechanics like being led by the rampies and whatever interests they have. I suspect that they would like to have a little autonomy. So, I wonder if the company plans on selling off the ground handlers to someone like Hudson General who would buy the company, it's employees, and a nice little chunk of debt to allow it to sever the "rampies" from the mechanics? They say that there are 8500 ground staff across the system. They could keep those outside of Canada and calve off the rest, chopping another 5000 or so jobs from the payroll, or if they keep a controlling interest in the company, they could then dictate exactly what the new work rules are going to be because if they don't like it, too bad. They no longer can shut the airline down because the mechanics are separate from them. I'm just guessing, trying to figure out their motives. We all know Milty is a smart cookie and would probably give Kasparov a hard time if they ever played chess, so I'm guessing that he has plans to bring some sanity to the cost structure by doing a little union busting or something.

Anybody else hazard a guess?

[dartagnan]

Because I voted for Pam and Richard? Dont be like that and stop passing yourself off as the savior of juniors. You dont care much about the juniors with your DOH, being against the no layoff clause negotiated by P&amp;R. You also laugh in the juniors faces when you say the layoffs will not affect you because you have 2000 + people under you seniority wise. I am certain the juniors know that Pam's team has everyones best interests in mind... Including the juniors!

[dartagnan]

And there will be no unity with Murdoch and Slade at the helm either... So I choose P&amp;R.

[out.of.the.blue]

I am not against the no lay off clause. I'm just stating the fact that if Pam is re-elected then the clause will carry less weight as it is she who tried to null and void a similar clause not too long ago!

The unified team would have more credibility vis-a-vis the company. It would be hard for the company to say to them that they were in favor of using a "let" when in fact it was Pam who tried!

P.S. get your facts straight i have over 3400 fa's under me. My view on DOH has nothing to do with the well being of the latest group of juniors (the 900+ post 2000) they'd be below me one way or another.

And remember ... we still get to keep our 19:30 duty day :grin:

[ACstew]

Thanks for the interesting post, Moeman. I don't have all that many guesses of my own as to whom or what may be cut, but I can point out what I see as an excess or two. Ever notice a few differences in the way things are done south of the border when you operate a transborder flight? Do we really need a Rampie to open/close the aircraft door? In the US, the Agents do it. How about wheelchairs? Down there, they're pushed by Skycaps rather than by Agents. As our Agents often seem to hate dealing with wheelchairs ("Can they walk up the bridge?"), why not put them out of their misery and contract the work out? How about the 123? It must cost the earth. Why spend fortunes on a publication that is of no use to Flight Attendants (or for that matter, anybody else)? J-Class training, if it must continue, could be taught in a half-day rather than over 3 days.

I wonder if Milton's letter is meant to be pitched more at the other unions than at us. After all, we have already extended a concession to AC that considerably lowers crew costs for ZIP; the other unions haven't. While we need to be realistic about the fact that some things are probably going to have to change, AC should be talking to its other employees about arrangements for ZIP similar to the one that we have made before they ask us for further concessions.

And yes, O.o.t.b., I expect that we will be able to keep our 19:30 duty day--you know.....the thing that nearly all intercontinental airlines have that will allow us to fly YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD nonstop, and without which we won't get that work?

[out.of.the.blue]

Hi ACStew,

Please tell me which airlines have 19:30 duty? From what I remember recently most don't and some even staged one day walk outs to protest 18:00 duty days (Air France I think).
I think I'll do a little round of forums and ask them all what their absolute max is. Should be interesting and of course the details on extra crew/crew rest guarantee/ etc. Will get back to you on that one!

At Cail we use to open our own doors ( I know some of you will probably try to blame our demise on that too...) Couldn't we do that here?

Cail had also introduced a program of recognition that gave "points" to employees that would suggest cost-savings; these points were then exchanged for merchandise etc. The savings were in the millions $$$$$$. ( I know too little too late...) It was called "Ideas Plus".

I agree that 8300 copies of the 1-2-3 sent out each month must cost a fortune. Is it really necessary? What about the labor cost involved?

[flyboyyvr]

Thank you Dartagan, I too find it offensive to see o.o.t.b. state that he's quite comfortable because he has all of us below him to sacrifice first. Personally that's a little offensive.

So anyways, the meeting's today, between Milton and Sachs. And I'm sure he's gonna ask for wage cuts, but will he take one himself? And my question to the more senior people with experience is this.....with wage cuts, does that cut out the threat of layoffs? Or will the company layoff and expect wage cuts from the rest? Is there any history of this before?

Please enlighten a junior....

P.S. I wanna say I appreciate ALL points of view and am glad there are two side to every story here, because it gives people like me the chance to hear both and choose for myself......so thank you!

[Annie]

First off, Pam will not be at the meeting today. She was removed a few months ago after the component was put under administration for voting irregularities, where have you been?. Ken Hopper is now our representative and will be there along with another cupe official.

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

flyboyyvr,
The Cail union officers were very good at negociating mini-blocks and LOA's in order to mitigate lay-offs. I would invite you to contact Sheena and find out what she will do to protect your job. She's a sharp woman and will stand her ground to ensure no one is layed off until the last stone has been over-turned. There are myriad of options out there to reduce the job loss numbers. Take a look at the history of lay-offs with Pam and Richard at the helm. What did they achieve in the order of mini's and leaves. A dismal record in my opinion.

[out.of.the.blue]

I'm just trying to point out flyboy that if you guys want to hang onto your jobs you have to make yourselves heard.

I do have over 3400 fa's under me; you don't... so it's up to you and your peers to get out and inform yourselves and vote.

Again I believe that keeping Pam, with her precedent-set view on the importance and validity of a lay-off clause, is not a smart move. The thing is ... you have to decide if it is.

Get out and vote.

By the way I really do like dart; he offered me a lovely olive branch bouquet a while back. Wasn't that sweet?

[dartagnan]

That's why I wrote 2000+ ! :smirk:

Murdoch and company have no credibility to my eyes. They say they want to represent me however they advocate DOH. Until all your appeals are exhausted I do not want anyone at the helm of my union who would love to see date of hire become a reality!

[dartagnan]

As I recalled you never accepted my olive branch! :smirk: It's still there but you are still not strong enough to pick it up...

[ACstew]

My point, O.o.t.b., is that the staff of all airlines who operate ultra-longhaul intercontinental routes have labour agreements that require them to work longer duty days than ours did until the ratification of our new CA. Many airlines already operate or have operated sectors longer than those to which our 19:30 hour duty time limitation will apply. NYC-HKG, JNB-ATL, ORD-DEL are a few examples. The UA contract, for eg., stipulates that the absolute maximum duty period is flight time+check in/post duty period+3 hours. Take a JFK-HKG sector with a flying time of 16 hours, and their absolute maximum would be greater than our 19:30. There are other US carriers with "absolute maximums" of 19 hours, except that "absolute maximum" doesn't mean absolute maximum as we would understand it. Under some contracts, even an "absolute maximum" can be extended if a flight that was supposed to operate non-stop has to land in the middle of nowhere for mechanical or weather reasons. What's with the sudden concern of yours about duty days, anyway? Until this contract was reached and when AC was proposing its "position by merit" thing (which you favoured), I distinctly remember you stating that as AC said that it would provide what it considered to be adequate provisions for augmentation and for on-board crew rest, you had no problem with it. Why the abrupt about-face?

[Flying_None]

Of course we have to make ourselves heard so that maybe, just maybe the powers that be will work to mitigate lay-offs. However, a little help from those of you who do have 3,400 under you would be greatly appreciated. As far as I understand the concept of a union is that we are all in this together. Hearing someone say that we need to make our voices heard when it comes to job losses as it affect us, sounds a little like they won't fight something that doesn't directly affect them. Too bad, we can use all the help we can get...

Please everyone, keep posting you opinions. I haven't been around long enough to know what anyone's 'track record' is so I need as much info as I can to make a decision on this election.

[Was_Moeman]

Don't pay any attention to ootb. He's just trying to scare you into voting for DOH Sheena the same way he tried to scare you into voting against the present CA. He knows that without the vast resources available to her from CUPE National, their chances of a successful appeal of the seniority arb. are quite slim. Also, if Pam, Richard and Claire are re-elected, the door is slammed shut on their pending appeal based on everything being negotiated by people who weren't elected to do so, and so all of it should be tossed out. They're running out of options, so they're getting desperate.

As for who looks out for the juniors, here's an interesting little tidbit for you taken directly from the seniority arbitration hearings:


2000 Hires AC v. CDN

ACC – SENIORITY POSITION

It has been the Air Canada Component’s position throughout this arbitration that all Air Canada cabin personnel hired prior to August 3, 2000 must be considered an integral part of the seniority arbitration process. This was one of the most hotly debated issues during the course of the mediation. The Air Canada Component strongly argued that all Air Canada employees hired up until August 3, 2000 must be included in the seniority integration. These employees were hired by an expanding Air Canada and deserve to have their career expectations protected through the integration process .--Final Submissions of the ACC, October 24, 2001 Pgs. 27, 28
The Air Canada Component has consistently shown that prior to the merger, Air Canada had a substantial shortage of cabin personnel and that the size of Canadian’s bargaining unit was surplus to its flying needs.On August 3, 2000 Air Canada had 5,268 cabin personnel. 445 were inactive as of that date. Even the most junior of these 5,268 cabin personnel had been hired to cover the 1999 planned growth of Air Canada and to crew the new aircraft delivered in 2000. -- Air Canada Component Submissions (July 16, 2001) pg. 11
It is submitted that for the purposes of labour relations the merger date of Air Canada and Canadian was no sooner than August 3, 2000, the date of the CIRB decision. Therefore, any reasonable person applying for a position as a cabin personnel in winter or spring of 2000 would have no reason to assume that the employees of the two airlines would actually merge for at least 12 months.--ACC submissions to Burkett, May 8, 2001
We have recently learned that members of the CAIL Component who have retired come back to work for the company for the summer and Christmas periods. These persons appear on company’s August 3, 2000 records as employees and as CAIL members. This artificially inflates the actual numbers of CAIL employees.If these CAIL retirees are to be counted as pre-merger employees, then the flight attendants who worked at Air Canada as temporary employees in 1998 and 1999 must also be considered as pre-merger employees. -- ACC Seniority Submissions, July 16, 2001, pg. 3
In proposing the date of the CIRB August 3, 2000 declaration that Air Canada and Canadian Airlines constituted a single employer in respect of its cabin personnel as the effective date of the merger, Air Canada relies not only on the legal effect of this declaration but as well on: the January 5, 2000 statement by Robert Milton that the “two airlines will remain separate for an indefinite period of time...It is submitted that until the approval was obtained, the merger was nothing more than a proposal and that until this time, neither the employer nor the porspective employees of Air Canada could reasonably be considered to have had notice that there would be a full merger of operations and integration of the seniority lists. -- Interim Award: ACC and CDN, Kevin Burkett, August 7th, 2001, pgs. 2, 3


CDN – SENIORITY POSITION CDC has submitted from the outset that the merger date for purposes of seniority integration is January 4, 2000, i.e. that the “pre-merger” bargaining unit consists of cabin personnel regularly employed as of January 3, 2000 and the relevant period for analyzing pre-merger seniority is 1999.In opening submissions in these seniority integration proceedings ACC still took the position that the merger had not yet happened and that all cabin personnel hired up to the date of the arbitration award might well be considered pre-merger hires. It was only at the end of March 2001 that ACC advised CDC that it might accept the August 3 date of the CIRB’s single employer declaration as the merger date.--CDC Submission Re: Impacts Analysis, July 16. 2001, pgs. 10, 11
Management hired an additional 925 post-merger (“Green”) flight attendants during 2000, almost entirely on the Air Canada side. Once the Greens are appropriately defined as “post-merger” hires, these employees provide a massive boost in relative position for the true pre-merger cabin personnel, providing employment security and a greater power to bid working conditions. -- Canadian Submission re: Assumption for Impacts Analysis (July 16, 2001) pg. 4
Review of the seniority lists as of October 2001 showed that Flight Attendants hired since January 4, 2000 make up 11% of the combined total list. Because layoffs occur in reverse order of seniority, these new hires provide a substantial buffer absorbing much of the initial risk of layoff. Weighing the risk of layoff by the probability of layoff would further emphasize the importance of the new hires as a buffer.-- Analysis of the Integration of Seniority Lists, prepared by Tom Walker for Canadian Airlines Component in the Matter of a Seniority Integration Arbitration. November 2001, pg. 16
New Hiring by Air Canada has provided a significant group of very junior ‘New Air Canada’ Cabin Personnel who, assuming they are merged on date-based principles, will provide a significant boost to the relative seniority of both the Air Canada and Canadian groups and a cushion against downside risks of forced reduction or layoff.-- Canadian Component Opening Brief, February 1, 2001, pg. 56
We have noted in earlier correspondence that Air Canada Component’s opening position was unclear about treatment of persons we would describe as ‘new hires’ (flight attendants hired by either carrier on or after the merge date of January 4, 2000). Air Canada has in fact hired hundreds of flight attendants since then and it continues to do so. New Hires do not present a problem for the Canadian Component’s proposal insofar as they simply take their place at the bottom of the merged Air Canada Cabin Personnel List. -- Canadian Component Opening Brief, February 1, 2001, pg. 64


Unfortunately Arbitrator Burkett did not agree with the ACC stating at page 4 of his interim decision:

· For the purposes of the integration of the respective seniority lists, January 4, 2000 be considered the effective date of the merger. Accordingly, anyone hired after that date must be considered as having been hired into the new Air Canada and anyone transferred between the merging airlines after that date must be considered as an employee of the airline to which he/she was attached as of January 4, 2000.

Also, on July 24, 2002, our legal counsel wrote to Kevin Burkett regarding
Paul Lorden's (Chair of CIRB) decision that OCTOBER 2000 was the pilot's
DATE Of INTEGRATION. If that is upheld, our date would be AUGUST 2000 and the 2000 hires would be included. .

So, who has been looking out for the juniors at AC and who has been trying to stick it to them since this whole mess began? It's pretty obvious that Pam and Richard have been, and are still, trying to help out the juniors. Terry and Sheena just want to ensure that they protect the f/a's from CAIL from having any of them ahead of their most junior f/a's in order to use them as a buffer in case of layoff.

[Snackpack]

wombat, in a former life many years ago I read Sprugnoli's bulletins but as I said, I remember nothing about him except that he needed a good proofreader.

Annie, you wrote above "she (P. Sachs) was removed a few months ago after the Component was put under administration." I recently read that she and her team " agreed to step down from office so that the ratfication vote could proceed without further conflict." Just a minor nuance. BTW, Hopper is not our rep, he's our administrator.

Puff my magic Dragon, what mists have you been frolicking in lately? You say that in the past "the Cail union officers were very good at negociating mini-blocks and LOA's in order to mitigate lay-offs." I suppose that could have been true part of the time. You seem to forget the few hundreds laid off after the Gulf War who were assured that they had 4 year recall rights but were left out to dry. Oddly enough, at the same time AC had laid off f/a's also. Those who so desired worked at Aeroplan, on the ground or elsewhere in the meantime up until all laid off f/a's were called back. DMS, you're slipping. Normally you wouldn't have overlooked such facts, but ,oh yeah, that wouldn't have supported your efforts at trying to sway the juniors to vote for Sheena instead of Pam.

And finally, ootb, you wrote "By electing P,D, and what's-her-name your continue to fuel the discontent of at least 2700 fa's. Do you honestly think that anyone of them will ever support anything she puts forward?" The total of no votes in the recent ratification vote was 2037. Let's see, do you figure the other approx 700 former CAIL didn't vote at all or could a few of them have supported the t.a. P &amp; R were putting forward? How sure are you that all former CAIL will vote en masse for Sheena? Don't any of them share what are allegedly Sprugnoli's opinions above?

[out.of.the.blue]

Hey Moe,

You must be getting desperate because now you are spewing lies.

There will be an appeal on the senority integration one way or another. Anyone individual can launch an appeal. I happen to know close to 2700 that are just waiting for the CIRB to finalize the documents so the appeal can be lauched.

So if Pam wins..... we appeal the Burkett award...we've already started collecting monies to do so... and Pam will have to spend your money to defend it again.

Electing Pam will do nothing but further divide the two sides.

I'm not trying to scare the juniors into anything. Let them look for themsleves!

Who worked hard and introduced mini-blocks? leaves?

Who has a history of laying-off and on and off? and on? Sounds like the Colonel's "original" recipe....Why hasn't your wonderful reps sought to do something? Because they really do not care. Only to get back in do they seem to care. How convenient.

"Door slammed shut" my A$$. There will be an appeal!

[out.of.the.blue]

Hey Snacky,

I tought this whole election was about finding a leader that could "unite" the OAC and the ex-Cail in order to form a strong union.

If this is turning into a pissing contest than be my guest. Piss all you want, but remember when you pee in the wind it sometimes comes back at you!

I'm just stating that be re-electing a person that is so distruted by so many people you will not attain your goal.

It is up to everyone to decide for themselves if they really want to move forward or just sit in this sh*t and go nowhere.

He said, she said doesn't mean much anymore. It's rather who can achieve the goal of moving forward.

IMHO that's not Pam.

[Snackpack]

OK, ootb, one more question before I get some of those piss droplets in my eyes. In conclusion to his last post Moe wrote above "Terry and Sheena just want to ensure that they protect the f/a's from CAIL from having any of them ahead of their most junior f/a's in order to use them as a buffer in case of layoff." Do you agree with that or do you think that's not the case??

[ACstew]

Then who is it, O.o.t.b.? Date-of-hire-Sheena? Please! Sheena who completely fails to recognize that a low cost alternative is necessary for us and who would lead us in marching into oblivion? Sheena who wants to scuttle the contract that we recently ratified? AC's financial situation has taken a big turn for the worse since we reached the TA with AC yet she still wants to scrub the thing and start all over again? The woman is in lah-lah land!!!

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

That is quite simply a ridiculous statement. Think about it....

[Snackpack]

Moe's conclusion or what I said to you above? Trying to think about it.

[out.of.the.blue]

Hey Snacky,

This is the part your leader is so good at:

You've been mis-informed....

Let's go back to square one.


Pam wanted us on the bottom of the list.

We wanted DOH.

Burkett came up with arbitration.

It is Burkett who decided which date was to be used for a cut off. I totally agree that the guy was way off on his arbitration. It should have been DOH then the merger date wouldn't have mattered much. Funny I've been wearing my little "spruce blue" uniform and receiving an AC paycheck since that January, thus I must have been "merged" with mothercorp no?

You guys even borrowed over 100 of our stews then. Remember?

Pam is just trying to get the post 2000 people thinking that they were hired prior to a merge. Grasping for votes I guess; but then again with so many fu%$ ups to her name she has to grasp wherever she can.

Let me ask you this Snacky, do you believe that the post 2000 were originals? And if so, why are they not considered for the bonus payments?

I have an extra umbrella here if you need.

Take care.

[out.of.the.blue]

Hi AcStew,

I'm confused...in one hand you try to blame Sheena for a contract that was negociated almost solely for your benefit (I'm thinking big fat 26,800,000 bonus and 19,139 FSD buyout here ... if you know what i mean)

then

you tell me that the events have drastically changed and that we have to change the way we think and do business and support low cost? ( Do you think that the company just figured out that they were 12.5 Billion dollar in debt?)

Milton did say that Tango was profitable; that, operated with fa's not having given concessions. Unless he wasn't telling the truth?

Voting Pam in will not help in getting the 2 sides any closer. She has done everything in her power to make us distrust and hate her. That's one thing she's done well.

[ACstew]

So many fu%$ ups to Pam's name? That's a hot one! Was it not St. Terry and Date-of-hire-Sheena who negotiated the work rules about which you guys have done nothing but whine since you had to start working for a living? Boo-hoo.....no more crews of 5 F/A's on A-320's with loads of 14 pax! Most of us OAC's, on the other hand, are pretty happy with our working conditions. Most of us are happy with the case that P&amp;R made before arbitrator Burkett, and we like the outcome of that one, too. As only ex-CAIL seem to be unhappy about it, perhaps you should attribute a big fu%$ to Terry and Sheena for that one. The fact that you're never happy doesn't mean that Pam has fu%$'d up.

I'm not sure what you mean about me trying to "blame Sheena for a contract that was negotiated almost solely for OAC's benefit". I'm simply giving P&amp;R&amp;Myrna credit for negotiating it for us. I gave Pat credit for it, too, until her about-face on the deal left me wondering if she knows whether she's coming or going.

[out.of.the.blue]

Hi ACStew,

My my

It is Pam who refused the bonus at first...with the financial conditions announced today...well ummmm... time will tell

It is Pam who refused to negociate a common contract way-bak-when ... we could all be already in the sandbox enjoying ourselves

It is Pam who used confidential informatin during the arbitration process... it doesn't matter what she used the fact is that she did...

It is Pam who mostly negociated this wonderful new contract that is just about to fall apart.. there is that 19:30 hour duty that so far no other airline has admited to having but I'm still waiting for answers

It is Pam who asked the company to declare a legal clause from the former Cail membership to be null and void thus making her credibility on the latest no lay off clause shaky at best

It is Pam who wanted us on the bottom of the list... for that I'll never forget.

It is Pam by just being Pam that will ensure that we keep us divide as long as she's at the helm

I'm sure I'm missing a few .. and thanks I almost forgot that we had 5 on the airbus then I guess my cries have dried up a long time ago... wonder why you'd bring it up now?

Breathe sweetie, breathe.


P.S. I'm very happy that I have a job!

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

In reply to:<hr />
"Terry and Sheena just want to ensure that they protect the f/a's from CAIL from having any of them ahead of their most junior f/a's in order to use them as a buffer in case of layoff."

Layoffs are given in reverse order of seniority, are they not? Why then should someone with more seniority than another be laid off first. Am I going to hear the same old "you're not worthy" argument? It's one thing to fight for something because it is the right thing to do; it is entirely another when you fight for something that inherently you have no right to have, and are just grasping to take what ever you can grab from someone else with more time served than yourself.

Sheena et al are not trying to create buffers etc., they are seeking what are commonly accepted trade unionist principles and what is the right thing to do. Pam and Richard don't have the courage nor the belief that their membership would support them in doing the right thing, so they have chosen a well trod on path of deception, non-disclosure, and bullying.

Sheena is beyond guile, you can trust her and she's very smart; Tom is one of the most intelligent union reps I have ever met; Martin, is keen, dedicated, and learning the ropes fast...he's cute too girls.

I've had the privelege of witnessing one of the many tantrumic displays performed by the 'Holy One' I've seen Richard engaged in his bullying. They want to protect the kingdom they have created for themselves at all costs. Ask Pam why she hasn't established a budget in over two years. Isn't that a bylaw infraction? Those that are still unsure of who to vote for, I implore you to dig deeper and try and find out the truth. Not an easy task when I read some of what I've read on this forum in particular, by those who claim to be in the "know" yet are really charlatans cloaked in revisionist history, fed to them by the King and Queen.

Change is generally a good thing...vote for change...vote for Unity!

SACK SACHS!!!

[Snackpack]

I have to hand it to you ootb. This single empoyer date business has its contradictions. And the temps. And the retirees.

I've also been thinking about this that you wrote above: "I'm just stating that be re-electing a person that is so distruted by so many people you will not attain your goal."

Sheena is equally distrusted by many people so that by electing her the unity goal won't be acheived any more. Sad but true.

There, my bladder's almost empty. You can put away your umbrella now. Unless you...oh never mind. :shocked:

[wombat]

ACSTEW,

Pat did an "about-face" on her recommendation of the TA when it became apparent to her that Pam and her gang were not being totally 'forthcoming' (to put it politely) with regards to the ZIP clause. She could not watch people vote on this contract in a climate of ignorance. How could you vote for a union rep (Pam) who would ask you to take a leap of faith and vote for something that is partially complete and obscured?? It is beyond me--and that is not because I am ex-cp or OAC--I would not trust this person no matter which component spawned her.

[out.of.the.blue]

Oh Snackpack I almost choked on that last comment. Visual. :blush: :grin:

Could that leave the other fa running in yyz?

Got to go and take a shower now...

[ACstew]

Yep, it was Pam who refused the bonus when it was first offered. At the time, I too thought that she had blundered. I no longer do. As things now stand, we're to receive the bonus by giving less in return than we'd have given had we received it back in 2000. That may change given our current financial situation, but it won't be Pam's fault if it does.

It may have been Pam who refused to negotiate a common contract way back when, or it may have been Terry and Sheena who were impossible to deal with. It all depends on which version of history you believe. At any rate, I'm happy with the contract that we recently negotiated, and I doubt whether we'd have done any better a couple of years ago. You claim that our current contract is about to fall apart. If that's the case, then so would the one with which we'd all have been enjoying ourselves in the sandbox over the past 2 years or so.

It was Pam whose opening position on the issue of seniority was bottom of the list for CAIL. She quickly moved away from that position, and instead tried to reach a compromise. It was Date-of-hire-Sheena whose position was....well.....DOH--a "solution" that would effectively have placed a huge chunk of the OAC membership at the bottom of the list, and Sheena never moved from that position.

Yes, the contract includes extended duty days. Whee!!!!!!! HKG and SYD here I come! As you've previously mentioned not being keen on overseas flying, I'm sure that you're not pleased with that. Then again, I have also read your whine about doing YQT's. Are you sure you're really cut out to be a F/A? :wink_2:

As for your 5 F/A's on the 320 deal, I only bring it up because it was Date-of-hire-Sheena and St. Terry who gave that away for you. I'm happy with my lot, and you needn't worry about me. If you're not happy with yours, then perhaps you should check your own backyard for Union Officers who have screwed up.

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

In reply to:<hr />
Sheena is equally distrusted by many people so that by electing her the unity goal won't be acheived any more. Sad but true.


What reason do you have not to trust Sheena? Because she is ex-Cail? She has an impecable record for being honest and forthright. Is it raining out? euwwww! :blush:

[dartagnan]

No... Your appeal would only divide this membership further... Not electing Pam... You are the ones creating animosity!

[dartagnan]

Again as long as you travel on a war path for DOH we will not be united... You are to ones killing us and doing the distrusting. The majority of us trust Pam...

[dartagnan]

Sorry my friend but he is right on the money!

[ACstew]

Sheena also has an impeccable record of trying to screw everything up for OAC's. She wants DOH. She tried to sabotage the recently negotiated contract. She had our Union Executive ousted on technicalities. She is now trying to prevent us from receiving our loyalty bonus.

Furthermore, she's in lah-lah land. Westjet is creaming us on more and more routes. The choice for us is to come up with a low-cost carrier to compete effectively, or to withdraw from all markets in which we compete with WJ. Good old Sheena, however, promises "Zero Tolerance for dismembering the mainline", and to use "every legal barrier available to prevent........this craze". Yeah, Sheena. Let's march into oblivion!! Let's bankrupt AC and then see what kind of working conditions the courts impose on those of us lucky enough to remain employed here.

And is she not running on a slate with Martin? Yes DMS, I'm happy that he's cute, but I also remember the masquerade on this forum in which he pretended to be somebody he wasn't. That isn't exactly honest. Maybe Sheena knew about it; maybe she didn't.

[wombat]

****BRAINSTORM****

I wonder how many f/a layoffs can be averted if the OAC's were to give their bonus?? Maybe since you care so much for the juniors you all wouldn't mind chipping in to help them. Why don't we mention this to the company??---I am sure crew planning would give us an estimate right away as to the number of people that would be spared that march on into the EI office. By George I think I've got it!
And don't worry,us ex-cp people will use what perks we got in the new contract to help out our juniors---let me think----oh that's right we got NOTHING--sorry but I guess it's up to you newly rich OAC's to come to the rescue of those poor unfortunates whose collective fates now rest in your hands.

[dartagnan]

No, change is not good at this time. We need someone in place who knows exactly how the company thinks and actually has some experience dealing with them. Murdoch's team is not up for the challenge... They would in my opinion fail miserably just like they will lose their election!

[dartagnan]

Because she supports DOH, Because she tried to prevent us from voting on the TA... If you were pro-choice would you vote for someone who is pro-life... I dont think so!

[flying uke]

God are you people obsessed with our bonus. Hey we picked the right company to work for and we worked real hard. You guys just want to see AC go down cause it would make you feelbetter about putting CP under.

[DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER]

In reply to:<hr />
Sheena also has an impeccable record of trying to screw everything up for OAC's. She wants DOH. She tried to sabotage the recently negotiated contract. She had our Union Executive ousted on technicalities. She is now trying to prevent us from receiving our loyalty bonus.



That's a pretty wide bow you are trying to wrap around your version of events. Sheena's intentions are transparent and have nothing to do with trying to "screw things up for the OAC's".

She did not try to sabotage the newly negociated contract. She identified deficiencies and tried to encourage improvments. She does not begrudge anyone their bonus, it should not have been inside our contract.

The union exect were not ousted because of mere "technicalities" (another attempt to minimize the Brown decision to those who have not taken the time to read it).

Just how is she trying to keep you from receiving your bonus?

Sheez, I know this will be a difficult vote, however, resorting to falsehoods and hyperbole will only serve to discredit the argument.

Have you read the DFR? The election was declared invalid. We did not have representation at the same level of P&amp;R during negots which was guaranteed in the protocol. Pam wasn't looking after my interests...she doesn't hide her allegience and makes little attempt at that. You would want fair representation too...wouldn't you. The union culture they have created is sickening.

Sheena