DRAGOON_MYTH_SLAYER
February 6, 2003, 12:18 AM
A message from Tom Slade (lenghty but well worth the read)
Glen:
I know that you have always been fair with me and with members. I am also aware that you have passed along bulletins and e-mails that refer directly to me. As you are someone who has always treated others with respect and equality, I write to you to put forward my side of the issue.
I have been misrepresented in statements attributed falsely to me. I would like to set the record straight. The following letter has been sent to members that have sent me e-mail enquiries about my position. They asked for the facts "from the horses mouth." Although you may or may not support my platform or slate, I know that you would not want to be known as someone that does not want to look at or present both sides of issues.
TOM
Dear Member:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond directly to you to recent false statements made in my name. I have been involved in Union work since 1978, a lengthy investment in learning about and influencing the labor movement. My experience has taught me to measure the effects of any negotiated change over the long-term. Before reaching a decision, I consider past mistakes and future goals, and I do not agree with actions that succeed in the short term that harm us for years after they are taken.
I joined a United Team for that reason; to start on a long term purpose to pull the two groups together, to work for long-term success and prosperity for us all.
Both merging groups have divergent ideas about how to continue. To move forward, we need to listen to each other, respect each other, and discover our common ground. Then we can develop the best solutions to our common concerns. It is important to see ourselves as part of a whole rather than perpetuating an agenda of identifying with only one group or base. The power of the majority lies in its willingness to work on behalf of everyone, while still protecting those who are in the minority, such as Reserve, Route language, Purser – regardless of where they come from. A civilized society is measured more on how it takes care of minorities and disadvantaged, not how it’s richer and more powerful take care of themselves.
A recent bulletin has falsely represented my position on some issues that are important to all flight attendants.
Here is my true position on the issues:
1. Integration of the Canadian and Air Canada Seniority lists:
The principles of “Natural Justice” support a members’ right to exhaust all avenues of appeal. A large portion of members feels that we have not done enough to ensure we have pursued all avenues available to us. The former Component Executive Officers of both groups are legally obliged to represent both merging memberships in their appeals. In fact, it is the Air Canada group that has already asked the Arbitrator to reconsider his position, while no official appeal has been filed by any other group or individual. Until the appeal processes are exhausted, appeals will happen, and should not be suspected or treated as an irritant by the ungrateful. Any initiation of appeal of seniority will not be the mandate of this slate of officers.
2. Date of Hire:
This is non-issue, over which future officers will not be mandated to re-open. The Arbitrator rendered a decision that all parties at the time agreed would be binding. Our slate of officers is not going to be responsible to file appeals or attempt to eliminate Burkett’s decision and go back to step one.
Following merger which resulted in Canadian Airlines, the Union conference, where more than 50% of the delegates came from Air Canada, passed a policy motion requiring CUPE Airline Division Components follow “date of hire” for any further seniority mergers. This motion passed with the support of over 90% of the delegates. Unfortunately, the Union democratically set a policy and then ignored it, but only the one to suit the views of original Air Canada members.
Contrary to the policy, the first Air Canada seniority position was end of the list, which then changed to proportional seniority. The final decision of the Arbitrator was a combination of date of hire and proportional. Looking at other possible merger options, I can imagine the negative effects of a proportional seniority merger with junior seniority lists, such as Air Transat or West Jet.
Despite the position taken by Air Canada leadership that merged members should be “thrown at the end” of the seniority list, I personally never supported “end-tailing,” as I wanted our leaders to respect our policies, otherwise why have rules or guidelines? However, as a compromise between supporting the policy and supporting the leadership position in favour of ‘end-tailing”, it has consistently been my position that “TIME SERVED” should be the criterion to merge our two work forces.
“Time Served” recognizes time spent in Initial training, time worked once assigned to the line, and includes accumulated seniority lost by those hired “temporary” whose time was interrupted. It also includes accumulated seniority lost because of lay-off.
Seniority calculations should have leveled the playing field for all, including members who lost accumulated seniority in past mergers. This is now in the past. The Arbitrator has almost finalized the In-Charge seniority, and he is not entertaining further new evidence; that list is all but final.
Therefore, this election should not be based on "past" positions of Seniority integration. Raised falsely as a smoke screen or a “red herring”, it is raised only to confuse, after the fact, which drags us backwards instead of forward. The former positions of anyone on seniority integration can no longer have any affect on this merge, so why make it an issue. Dwelling in the past is an attempt to keep the issue front and center, to scare members. Instead of voting for progress and moving forward, it is being falsely used to label candidates to stop you from voting for Unity, and it was inaccurately reported. The bottom line is that new officers, from either platform, will not be at liberty to throw out the Burkett award. If appealed by any member, the new officers will legally have to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected and respected.
It is my continual position that Original Air Canada officers should not have asked for “time served” for Pursers while advocating “end of the list” for Flight Attendants. The fairest way would have been to acknowledge the total time served for all; Flight Attendant and In-Charge in both airlines.
Instead, the top part of our merged list for Cabin Attendant list is Date of Hire, while most of the lower part of the list is merged on Proportion, with the In-Charge list merged based only on proportional seniority. It is my perspective that the damage caused by this “split personality” seniority will linger amongst us for many years. Those who will serve longest on this seniority list will have to live with the angst created by the decision. I still believe there would be few or no claims if seniority had been based on “Time Served”.
3. Merger Bonus:
The Union turned down the Bonus because it was tied to extraordinary working condition givebacks, such as longer duty days, more hours per month, change of bidding procedures that would result in lower staff requirements, without a corresponding right to fully bargain.
Most members were not told that the Union then filed a CIRB complaint against Air Canada for attempting to separate the union officers from it members, by withdrawing the bonus. The settlement requested was that the CIRB force the employer to pay us the bonus.
It was also never published that the union lost that complaint. The CIRB decided that our union, sophisticated and experienced, had determined and publicly stated that the deal was simply not worth it. The CIRB would not give the Union what it itself had already turned down, as being too high a price to pay for the bonus. It denied the complaint. The pressure was then on the Union to get it back, some say at any cost.
When on road show tours, the union promised to get back the bonus, thus creating a fear among many that they would only get the bonus back on the table by conceding substantial givebacks. It appears to a majority of members that we avoided givebacks in exchange for the bonus, although, I would argue, Zip working conditions included in our collective Agreement are buried give backs.
Like crewing to load, Zip, in my opinion, will come back to affect all members. We will not work more hours directly because of deal signed for ZIP, but our airline’s B737 aircraft are being sent from Air Canada to ZIP, reducing the number of Air Canada Flight Attendants needed to operate our fleet. This will reduce the available pairings at mainline.
Voluntary Separation Incentive Packages (VSIPs) were also negotiated to off-set the expected 300 jobs lost resulting from aircraft shifting to ZIP. Because it has met the interests of officers and members who want the option to work until the agreement expires, before taking voluntary separation, the VSIPs will likely be less than effective in protecting those 300 jobs, or improving the seniority choices of those who would have been left behind. True VSIPs should be used to encourage seniors to move out of the way immediately, not hang around for up to 30 months.
ZIP employees have lower work standards relative to hours to work per day/month, and cross-union job responsibilities. ZIP flow through appears to give the Company absolute control over who can or cannot return to the main-line based not on seniority but on language and other non-seniority criteria.
During the road-show meetings, we were told that Zip could have no effect on our work or jobs. But, during ZIP mediation, the union submitted a written position that stated emphatically that ZIP would create substantial layoffs and loss of working conditions. Despite no-layoff clauses, there will be increased people on reserve, in some cases double present levels, which will lead to deterioration in pay and working conditions of members, especially at ZIP bases. It appears to be a known concession to me.
People who question how we got the bonus and how it is being paid for are not traitors to the original Air Canada group. Questioning is how we understand the bargaining process and keeps it open and honest. It is how we determine if there might be other better ways to proceed in negotiations, and helps us learn from our experience. And in line with my “road show” questions, we still have not been provided the actual Zip working conditions contract language.
It is reasonable that if our tentative agreement had forced the combined work group to give up working conditions, such as higher duty days and block months, with the bonus as compensation, that all working under the harder conditions should get the same commensurate compensation. You can not legally trade away monthly hours for all members in exchange for a bonus only for some. But, as the bonus was not directly attached to the tentative agreement settlement of current Air Canada members, the payout is not owed to anyone else. Most members have no issue with a “”Merger” or “Loyalty” bonus, but some feel it should not be, or appear to be, tied to bargaining.
I was not a member of this bargaining committee, but it is my opinion that inclusion of inferior ZIP working conditions in our collective agreement has a hidden price for resurrecting the bonus. I predict that we will all have to pay later for Zip’s substandard working conditions. I compare it to “B Scale” bargaining, which represents lower salary and reduced working conditions that form part of the same collective agreement, but only apply to some employees (new-hires, who were only made CUPE members and could not vote until after our ratification to take the deal, with them forced to take all the lesser conditions.)
Negotiation of a two-tier work scale has, in the past, seriously harmed all members, and our committee should have acted based on what we learned from past mistakes. If the past is any indicator, we will later pay with mainline working conditions and salary rises to bring working conditions of “B Scale” members (ZIP) in line with those of the mainline. We may feel no immediate “give back” effect tied to ZIP working conditions yet, but the fact remains, we bargained away the working conditions of future members, many yet to be hired. And I challenged this deal as I predict we will be forced to spend future initiatives to improve the sub-standard working conditions.
Members were persuaded to agree to these arrangements, and I intend to follow their directions. However, I have difficulty to understand that the bargaining committee may have sold our future while ignoring the expressed wishes of the members through the survey that made Preferential Bidding a very high priority. This would have saved operating costs to the employer, while respecting the solicited opinions of the members. This is information manipulation. When elected, I intend to put out all the facts to help members make informed decisions, instead of putting selective information to manipulate members to support hidden concessions.
It is now up to all of us to get on with unity and integration: we must get off the “Them and Us” tread mill. It is a sad comment that, we have not made a lot of progress from where we were three years ago. Continuing from a December 1999 meeting, where an offer for joint exploratory meetings was made to set our long term negotiation and communication strategy to avoid being played one off against the other, positive movement was declined only because one committee feared that reaction to members learning about the discussions with the other group would affect their re-election. Some Union candidates and their supporters worry more about getting elected at any cost, not about truly serving the needs of members, or moving forward.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please contact me at any time. Feel free to share my platform with anyone you feel would be interested in hearing my “real” position.
TOM SLADE
Glen:
I know that you have always been fair with me and with members. I am also aware that you have passed along bulletins and e-mails that refer directly to me. As you are someone who has always treated others with respect and equality, I write to you to put forward my side of the issue.
I have been misrepresented in statements attributed falsely to me. I would like to set the record straight. The following letter has been sent to members that have sent me e-mail enquiries about my position. They asked for the facts "from the horses mouth." Although you may or may not support my platform or slate, I know that you would not want to be known as someone that does not want to look at or present both sides of issues.
TOM
Dear Member:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond directly to you to recent false statements made in my name. I have been involved in Union work since 1978, a lengthy investment in learning about and influencing the labor movement. My experience has taught me to measure the effects of any negotiated change over the long-term. Before reaching a decision, I consider past mistakes and future goals, and I do not agree with actions that succeed in the short term that harm us for years after they are taken.
I joined a United Team for that reason; to start on a long term purpose to pull the two groups together, to work for long-term success and prosperity for us all.
Both merging groups have divergent ideas about how to continue. To move forward, we need to listen to each other, respect each other, and discover our common ground. Then we can develop the best solutions to our common concerns. It is important to see ourselves as part of a whole rather than perpetuating an agenda of identifying with only one group or base. The power of the majority lies in its willingness to work on behalf of everyone, while still protecting those who are in the minority, such as Reserve, Route language, Purser – regardless of where they come from. A civilized society is measured more on how it takes care of minorities and disadvantaged, not how it’s richer and more powerful take care of themselves.
A recent bulletin has falsely represented my position on some issues that are important to all flight attendants.
Here is my true position on the issues:
1. Integration of the Canadian and Air Canada Seniority lists:
The principles of “Natural Justice” support a members’ right to exhaust all avenues of appeal. A large portion of members feels that we have not done enough to ensure we have pursued all avenues available to us. The former Component Executive Officers of both groups are legally obliged to represent both merging memberships in their appeals. In fact, it is the Air Canada group that has already asked the Arbitrator to reconsider his position, while no official appeal has been filed by any other group or individual. Until the appeal processes are exhausted, appeals will happen, and should not be suspected or treated as an irritant by the ungrateful. Any initiation of appeal of seniority will not be the mandate of this slate of officers.
2. Date of Hire:
This is non-issue, over which future officers will not be mandated to re-open. The Arbitrator rendered a decision that all parties at the time agreed would be binding. Our slate of officers is not going to be responsible to file appeals or attempt to eliminate Burkett’s decision and go back to step one.
Following merger which resulted in Canadian Airlines, the Union conference, where more than 50% of the delegates came from Air Canada, passed a policy motion requiring CUPE Airline Division Components follow “date of hire” for any further seniority mergers. This motion passed with the support of over 90% of the delegates. Unfortunately, the Union democratically set a policy and then ignored it, but only the one to suit the views of original Air Canada members.
Contrary to the policy, the first Air Canada seniority position was end of the list, which then changed to proportional seniority. The final decision of the Arbitrator was a combination of date of hire and proportional. Looking at other possible merger options, I can imagine the negative effects of a proportional seniority merger with junior seniority lists, such as Air Transat or West Jet.
Despite the position taken by Air Canada leadership that merged members should be “thrown at the end” of the seniority list, I personally never supported “end-tailing,” as I wanted our leaders to respect our policies, otherwise why have rules or guidelines? However, as a compromise between supporting the policy and supporting the leadership position in favour of ‘end-tailing”, it has consistently been my position that “TIME SERVED” should be the criterion to merge our two work forces.
“Time Served” recognizes time spent in Initial training, time worked once assigned to the line, and includes accumulated seniority lost by those hired “temporary” whose time was interrupted. It also includes accumulated seniority lost because of lay-off.
Seniority calculations should have leveled the playing field for all, including members who lost accumulated seniority in past mergers. This is now in the past. The Arbitrator has almost finalized the In-Charge seniority, and he is not entertaining further new evidence; that list is all but final.
Therefore, this election should not be based on "past" positions of Seniority integration. Raised falsely as a smoke screen or a “red herring”, it is raised only to confuse, after the fact, which drags us backwards instead of forward. The former positions of anyone on seniority integration can no longer have any affect on this merge, so why make it an issue. Dwelling in the past is an attempt to keep the issue front and center, to scare members. Instead of voting for progress and moving forward, it is being falsely used to label candidates to stop you from voting for Unity, and it was inaccurately reported. The bottom line is that new officers, from either platform, will not be at liberty to throw out the Burkett award. If appealed by any member, the new officers will legally have to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected and respected.
It is my continual position that Original Air Canada officers should not have asked for “time served” for Pursers while advocating “end of the list” for Flight Attendants. The fairest way would have been to acknowledge the total time served for all; Flight Attendant and In-Charge in both airlines.
Instead, the top part of our merged list for Cabin Attendant list is Date of Hire, while most of the lower part of the list is merged on Proportion, with the In-Charge list merged based only on proportional seniority. It is my perspective that the damage caused by this “split personality” seniority will linger amongst us for many years. Those who will serve longest on this seniority list will have to live with the angst created by the decision. I still believe there would be few or no claims if seniority had been based on “Time Served”.
3. Merger Bonus:
The Union turned down the Bonus because it was tied to extraordinary working condition givebacks, such as longer duty days, more hours per month, change of bidding procedures that would result in lower staff requirements, without a corresponding right to fully bargain.
Most members were not told that the Union then filed a CIRB complaint against Air Canada for attempting to separate the union officers from it members, by withdrawing the bonus. The settlement requested was that the CIRB force the employer to pay us the bonus.
It was also never published that the union lost that complaint. The CIRB decided that our union, sophisticated and experienced, had determined and publicly stated that the deal was simply not worth it. The CIRB would not give the Union what it itself had already turned down, as being too high a price to pay for the bonus. It denied the complaint. The pressure was then on the Union to get it back, some say at any cost.
When on road show tours, the union promised to get back the bonus, thus creating a fear among many that they would only get the bonus back on the table by conceding substantial givebacks. It appears to a majority of members that we avoided givebacks in exchange for the bonus, although, I would argue, Zip working conditions included in our collective Agreement are buried give backs.
Like crewing to load, Zip, in my opinion, will come back to affect all members. We will not work more hours directly because of deal signed for ZIP, but our airline’s B737 aircraft are being sent from Air Canada to ZIP, reducing the number of Air Canada Flight Attendants needed to operate our fleet. This will reduce the available pairings at mainline.
Voluntary Separation Incentive Packages (VSIPs) were also negotiated to off-set the expected 300 jobs lost resulting from aircraft shifting to ZIP. Because it has met the interests of officers and members who want the option to work until the agreement expires, before taking voluntary separation, the VSIPs will likely be less than effective in protecting those 300 jobs, or improving the seniority choices of those who would have been left behind. True VSIPs should be used to encourage seniors to move out of the way immediately, not hang around for up to 30 months.
ZIP employees have lower work standards relative to hours to work per day/month, and cross-union job responsibilities. ZIP flow through appears to give the Company absolute control over who can or cannot return to the main-line based not on seniority but on language and other non-seniority criteria.
During the road-show meetings, we were told that Zip could have no effect on our work or jobs. But, during ZIP mediation, the union submitted a written position that stated emphatically that ZIP would create substantial layoffs and loss of working conditions. Despite no-layoff clauses, there will be increased people on reserve, in some cases double present levels, which will lead to deterioration in pay and working conditions of members, especially at ZIP bases. It appears to be a known concession to me.
People who question how we got the bonus and how it is being paid for are not traitors to the original Air Canada group. Questioning is how we understand the bargaining process and keeps it open and honest. It is how we determine if there might be other better ways to proceed in negotiations, and helps us learn from our experience. And in line with my “road show” questions, we still have not been provided the actual Zip working conditions contract language.
It is reasonable that if our tentative agreement had forced the combined work group to give up working conditions, such as higher duty days and block months, with the bonus as compensation, that all working under the harder conditions should get the same commensurate compensation. You can not legally trade away monthly hours for all members in exchange for a bonus only for some. But, as the bonus was not directly attached to the tentative agreement settlement of current Air Canada members, the payout is not owed to anyone else. Most members have no issue with a “”Merger” or “Loyalty” bonus, but some feel it should not be, or appear to be, tied to bargaining.
I was not a member of this bargaining committee, but it is my opinion that inclusion of inferior ZIP working conditions in our collective agreement has a hidden price for resurrecting the bonus. I predict that we will all have to pay later for Zip’s substandard working conditions. I compare it to “B Scale” bargaining, which represents lower salary and reduced working conditions that form part of the same collective agreement, but only apply to some employees (new-hires, who were only made CUPE members and could not vote until after our ratification to take the deal, with them forced to take all the lesser conditions.)
Negotiation of a two-tier work scale has, in the past, seriously harmed all members, and our committee should have acted based on what we learned from past mistakes. If the past is any indicator, we will later pay with mainline working conditions and salary rises to bring working conditions of “B Scale” members (ZIP) in line with those of the mainline. We may feel no immediate “give back” effect tied to ZIP working conditions yet, but the fact remains, we bargained away the working conditions of future members, many yet to be hired. And I challenged this deal as I predict we will be forced to spend future initiatives to improve the sub-standard working conditions.
Members were persuaded to agree to these arrangements, and I intend to follow their directions. However, I have difficulty to understand that the bargaining committee may have sold our future while ignoring the expressed wishes of the members through the survey that made Preferential Bidding a very high priority. This would have saved operating costs to the employer, while respecting the solicited opinions of the members. This is information manipulation. When elected, I intend to put out all the facts to help members make informed decisions, instead of putting selective information to manipulate members to support hidden concessions.
It is now up to all of us to get on with unity and integration: we must get off the “Them and Us” tread mill. It is a sad comment that, we have not made a lot of progress from where we were three years ago. Continuing from a December 1999 meeting, where an offer for joint exploratory meetings was made to set our long term negotiation and communication strategy to avoid being played one off against the other, positive movement was declined only because one committee feared that reaction to members learning about the discussions with the other group would affect their re-election. Some Union candidates and their supporters worry more about getting elected at any cost, not about truly serving the needs of members, or moving forward.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please contact me at any time. Feel free to share my platform with anyone you feel would be interested in hearing my “real” position.
TOM SLADE