quote:

---

As part of its restructuring, Air Canada cut roughly $2 billion a year in operating costs, including $1 billion a year in concessions from employees.

---

Which really isnt a argument that works

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

1. Was there any other explanation for the conduct besides scamming pay for hours not worked?

2. How long had the conduct been going on?

3. Had management previously been aware of the conduct and chose not to discipline people for it?

4. If the answer to #3 is YES, why did management decide to start disciplining people now?

5. How severe was the discipline? Are we talking a warning, suspension without pay, termination?

6. Did management follow the principles of progressive discipline?

These are the questions I would want to know the answers to, to better understand whether the strike was really about the "right to cheat on timecards," or whether it was more about something management was doing.

And I am still inclined to think that this strike would not have happened if it hadn't been for the major wage concessions and work restructuring that led up to this point, and left the workers with a lot of pent up frustration and anger towards their employer.

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Scott: do you have personal knowledge of the time card punching issue, or are you just going on the news reports?

---

Yes, I was personally there. I actually live at Terminal 1

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
I think that "labour" got kicked here as much as Air Canada. The union didn't sanction this fight. It trivializes real workers' struggles to stage wildcats over the "right" to go home early and have your buddy punch out for you two hours later.

---

That's exactly what I thought when I heard this story.

quote:

---

I think that "labour" got kicked here as much as Air Canada. The union didn't sanction this fight. It trivializes real workers' struggles to stage wildcats over the "right" to go home early and have your buddy punch out for you two hours later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

That's exactly what I thought when I heard this story.

I know that there are legitimate workers' struggles which call for unionization. But this is one example of slackers who see the union as a tool to protect themselves from being held responsible for their pooch humping. If I ever express any anti-union sentiment, it is that kind of people I am talking about, not workers who just want to be free from unjustified abuse.

---

You mean there's such a thing as justified abuse?

And Big Daddy Bidness can hand it out as He sees fit?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:

You mean there's such a thing as justified abuse?

And Big Daddy Bidness can hand it out as He sees fit?

Workers are, by definition, getting screwed every day by their employers (in technical lingo, their surplus labour gets appropriated by their employer; it's a structural condition of capitalism).

Every bit of malingering, theft, and scamming the employer's system is a minor, mostly microscopic, but palpable victory for the workers.

---

Actually you only got one word of it right on that one. It is simply theft.

Fixed it, thanks for pointing it out.

[ 21 January 2005: Message edited by: C.Morgan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Actually you only got one word of it right on that one. It is simply theft.

---

Heavens! The poor capitalists!

When those employeed agreed to work for Air Canada, they agreed to work for a set wage. To doctor tickets in order to get paid for time that was not worked is simply theft.

I listened to a report on Metro Morning where Andy Barrie interviewed a union spokesperson. His explanation was that this is a problem with with Air Canada's administration (and blaming it on comupters, I suspect, but I digress). His story is that workers get asked to work through lunch time and breaks and get to go home early. Unfortunately the time card system cannot deal with this situation so if they clock out when they leave they get docked pay. The local workaround was to have other people clock out for you. The senior brass are being pointy haired and come leaping down from a great height. The workers get pissed and down tools.

The union CANNOT condone this behaviour. Union officials supporting wildcats get busted.

A key point here is that there will be no disciplinary action. That to me is a major indicator that the original action was quite justified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
And my heart bleeds for thieves.

When those employeed agreed to work for Air Canada, they agreed to work for a set wage. To doctor tickets in order to get paid for time that was not worked is simply theft.

---

A bourgeois definition of theft.

You must be a liberal. You tout that famed "free will" crap.

"The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

And don't start with "They're not poor"; that's not what this quote is about.

quote:

---

If they have a beef with what they are getting paid, then they should direct their labor action at that issue or quit. Stealing is not the answer.

---

Who said it was an "answer"?

Sorry, still have no time for thieves.

Even if by your definition the employees were getting screwed (you havent pointed out how yet), how is stealing from the employer a productive recourse?

quote:

---

it would seem that anybody working for a living is being robbed.

---

Actually, I believe that would be called "expropriation of surplus value," and one can make a fairly compelling argument for it. But that's not really what this thread is about, per se. Like jrootam said, it appears even your suggestion that the workers were "stealing" from the company is a canard.

[ 21 January 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

The bottom line is that they were claiming dollars that did not belong to them.

They were getting paid for time that they did not work and were conciously doing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Call it stealing, call it fraud. Whatever you like.

The bottom line is that they were claiming dollars that did not belong to them.

They were getting paid for time that they did not work and were conciously doing it.

Can't sympathize with that.

---

IF that is what happened, then I can't really sympathize with that either. But as jrootham pointed out above, the question of whether that was what was happening is in dispute:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
His story is that workers get asked to work through lunch time and breaks and get to go home early. Unfortunately the time card system cannot deal with this situation so if they clock out when they leave they get docked pay. The local workaround was to have other people clock out for you. The senior brass are being pointy haired and come leaping down from a great height. The workers get pissed and down tools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:
You mean there's such a thing as justified abuse?

And Big Daddy Bidness can hand it out as He sees fit?

---

Yes. If an employer hires you to do a job, and your work is substandard or incomplete, then your employer can reprimand, punish, or outright dismiss you depending on the severity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:
Workers are, by definition, getting screwed every day by their employers (in technical lingo, their surplus labour gets appropriated by their employer; it's a structural condition of capitalism).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:
Every bit of malingering, theft, and scamming the employer's system is a minor, mostly microscopic, but palpable victory for the workers.

---

Have you ever heard that old adage "an honest day's work for an honest day's pay"? It means that you EARN money instead of getting by stealing. You earn money by working. I know this must be a foreign concept to someone who thinks he deserves everything for nothing in return, but there are some of us who actually do understand that the concept of work is key to keeping our economy from collapsing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:

A bourgeois definition of theft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Under your extreme view it would seem that anybody working for a living is being robbed. Not even going to try and reason with that.

---

Anybody working for a business is getting their surplus labour appropriated by the owners/rentiers. That's Marxism 101.

Look here under "surplus value":

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

quote:

---

Liberal? Me?

---

If it quacks like a duck . . . .

quote:

---

Sorry, still have no time for thieves.

---

>shrug< Fine. I don't have time for bourgeois, but I'm still talking to you.

quote:

---

Even if by your definition the employees were getting screwed (you havent pointed out how yet), how is stealing from the employer a productive recourse?

---

I explained how very briefly; look at that and the link to the MIA encyclopedia.

And they are.

I never said theft was a productive recourse. I said it was a very minor victory.

If you want workers to get productive, they need to educate themselves, form their own political parties, and move to get rid of capitalism.

quote:

---

Tit for tat is it? Good thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Call it stealing, call it fraud. Whatever you like.

The bottom line is that they were claiming dollars that did not belong to them.

They were getting paid for time that they did not work and were conciously doing it.

Can't sympathize with that.

---

Actually, jrootham does have a point. The workers are entitled to a paid break (lunch, coffee break, whatever you want to call it). If they are asked to work through that break in exchange for going home early, that means that they are getting cheated out of the time they spent working when they should have been on break.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The union CANNOT condone this behaviour. Union officials supporting wildcats get busted.

---

I don't think the officials would, no.

Leaving aside any possible collaborationist ideology on the part of the union leaders, given the tenor of the times, the union leaders are, at the very least, forced to go along for PR reasons.

quote:

---

A key point here is that there will be no disciplinary action. That to me is a major indicator that the original action was quite justified.

---

Whose original action? The workers' or the company's?

quote:

---

As a further clue, the union rep was quoting the bankruptcy judge as saying that AC was violating the collective agreement. Looks like the baggage handlers decided that AC needed a smack upside the head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:

I never said theft was a productive recourse. I said it was a very minor victory.

If you want workers to get productive, they need to educate themselves, form their own political parties, and move to get rid of capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Why not? They're getting screwed; why not take back something of what's theirs? It's better than obeying Big Daddy Bidness like good little proles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:

I agree. Why defend theft then? To be quite honest I can't get too worked up over it, but I can't endorse it either. It seems like a cop-out, a way for workers to feel like they're sticking it to the man without expending the efforts that you yourself have acknowledged are necessary for workers to really get productive.

---

Exactly.

That's why I called these victories "microscopic".

But they're still victories and still better than being good little worker bees.

You offer comfort where you can.

quote:

---

Actually, it's more likely to give Big Daddy Bidness another stick to beat them with. What's so great about that?

---

Like I didn't say: there's nothing that's "great" about it.

It's a question of showing resistance and workers taking back what's theirs.

That's it for me for now; food awaits. Read the link on surplus value I posted.

quote:

---

Whose original action? The workers' or the company's?

---

quote:

---

The union CANNOT condone this behaviour. Union officials supporting wildcats get busted.

A key point here is that there will be no disciplinary action. That to me is a major indicator that the original action was quite justified.

---

quote:

---

I listened to a report on Metro Morning where Andy Barrie interviewed a union spokesperson. His explanation was that this is a problem with with Air Canada's administration (and blaming it on comupters, I suspect, but I digress). His story is that workers get asked to work through lunch time and breaks and get to go home early. Unfortunately the time card system cannot deal with this situation so if they clock out when they leave they get docked pay. The local workaround was to have other people clock out for you. The senior brass are being pointy haired and come leaping down from a great height. The workers get pissed and down tools.

---

Actually this sounds like a very plausible explanation for what was going on. I once worked in a place with a computerized time clock system that was every bit as inflexible as the system being described at Air Canada.

The result was that workers were constantly getting errors on their paycheques. One thing that you do expect is that your paycheque is correct.

If the system Air Canada is using is 20 years old, it may very well be the same system that was in place where I used to work. (The system was finally scrapped after about a decade).

So I can very much understand the anger and frustration of Air Canada workers especially considering all of the other crap that they've had to put up with in recent years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:

It's a question of showing resistance and workers taking back what's theirs.

---

Ah, the crux of the matter...

IT'S NOT THEIRS!!! Unless they own shares, the workers DO NOT OWN THE COMPANY. This is what socialists like you fail to understand. It's "Big Daddy Bidness'" company and money, not yours. You do his work, he gives you a piece. You are only entitled to that piece if you work for it. You have no inherent right to his property.

Never mind big Daddy Bidness, Air Canada is hanging by a thread. All they did was make their own jobs, and those of the thousands of others who work there (including members of my family) less secure.

Collective agreements are very valuable, and worth fighting for. Going outside that agreement is foolish, and counterproductive to the whole point of the thing (which is to keep the company and employees dealing with each other fairly and openly).

quote:

---

If you want to be the owner, do the work and put in the investment to make your own company.

---

Or if you have no desire to become the capitalist, simply work for yourself.

Whenever discussions end up talking about labour and management, there's are a few underlying assumptions that I don't believe to be valid:

1. the world owes you a "job". When you're old enough to work, you should only have to fill out an application and a position shall be created for you in a factory that somebody else built.

2. you cannot work for yourself. Even though you believe yourself to be a talented, hard-working, intelligent person, your work must be for someone else.

3. since, in this fallacy, you are obligated to work for someone else, there is now a tension between you and your employer. You believe that you should keep the entire value of your work, even though you're using your employer's tools, facilities, financing, etc. Obviously your employer is not going to consider your use of his/her tools without compensation to be a sensible deal.

4. if your employer retains some of the value of your labour in exchange for the use of his/her tools, that is "theft".

Here are a few suggestions for Marxists or others, who'd like to keep the entire value of their labour:

- choose an occupation that will allow you to work for yourself, such as an accountant, a musician or artist, a consultant, a freelance journalist, or for that matter, a doctor, a lawyer, an architect or a atreet busker. There are thousands of careers that do not involve this "theft" you speak of by this "capitalist" you speak of. Pick one. If you can't find one you like, make one up. Such is the beauty of a free society.

- if you aren't the self-motivated type, if you don't wish to gamble on your own success, if you don't want the hassle of having to manage your own affairs in their entirety, or if you just prefer working in a factory, ask your employer before you agree to work for them "Are you a capitalist? Will your company be earning a profit ?". If the answer is "yes", don't accept an offer of employment from them.

- if you are unable to find a company which will allow you to keep the entire value of your labour, recognize that no company owes you this. Your freedom to NOT work for them is their sole obligation to you. As you are equally free to accept the terms of employment with them or to reject those terms, you aren't being hard done by.

- if it's too late, and you're already working for a company and they spring the news on you that they're turning a profit, revisit the concept of an agreement or contract. Your employer has an obligation to uphold his/her end of any agreement or contract, and you have every right to withhold your labour to enforce this, but the corollary of this is that you are similarly obligated to uphold your end of the agreement. Unless you can demonstrate that you are mentally unfit to enter into a legal agreement, or that the agreement was made under duress, you're on the hook. Please note that as you have every right to work for yourself (and since you believe your labour to have value) there's no sense in arguing that your financial position (namely: wanting a "job") is a form of duress.

quote:

---

ALl I know of this action is what I've read on this board. I agree with what Scott said: Striking for the 'right' to rip off time from the company is not acceptable.

---

The Air Canada workers weren't ripping anyone off.
They were making sure that they got paid their proper paycheques.

They had a real world "arrangement" to deal with an inflexible computerized punch clock system that had been going on for 20 years and management had known about it and tolerated it.

Then management decided to be assholes about it and given all the crap that Air Canada workers have gone through they decided that they'd had enough and walked out.

I have a number of years of personal experience with the kind of computer punchclock system used at Air Canada and when I saw jrootham's post about the Andy Barrie interview with the union official I instantly recognized what was going on.

There's no theft going on here...just management being jerks.

quote:

---

They had a real world "arrangement" to deal with an inflexible computerized punch clock system that had been going on for 20 years and management had known about it and tolerated it.

---

The key word here seems to be tolerated. Any place I've ever worked with time clocks it was generally regarded as a firing offense to touch anyone else's card.

quote:

---

There's no theft going on here...just management being jerks.

---

While I disagree with the statement that there's no theft going on here I expect that things could have been handled better by both sides.

First, a statement from management to the effect that this will no longer be tolerated and a short notice period so that nobody gets nailed because they've already done something "this" shift makes it a lot harder for either side to be complain. Then enforce it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
ALl I know of this action is what I've read on this board. I agree with what Scott said: Striking for the 'right' to rip off time from the company is not acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

While I disagree with the statement that there's no theft going on here

---

If you have someone punch your card for you, so as to be paid for more hours than you actually worked, that's theft.

If you have someone punch your card for you, so as to be paid for the hours you actually worked, because the software fails to take into account the fact that you didn't get your break, that's not theft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Sorry, you are using Marxist terms for a country that is not Marxist. It is still called profit around here and that is still the property of the company for the time being.

I believe enough nations have tried and failed with Marxism. How many times must one bang their head on a wall?

---

Forget it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
That's right Gir Draxon....besides one of the world's wealthiest men started out with relatively little. Despite what certain leftists think, not all corporations/businesses or elite are greedy. Unions and union leaders can be just as guilty. Look how non-unionized workers have been treated by unions and their members at times. Socialists think they are entitled to money that someone else worked for. Why can't they start their own ventures and redistribute the profits to the people they feel deserve it, instead of relying on entrepreneurs/venture capitalists to do the work, while they reap the benefits? Are they admitting they aren't as business savvy as non-socialists? That must be it, which explains why most successful businesses
are run by people who aren't socialists.

---

quote:

---

Instead, rather than following the legal path (there is a grievance procedure) they break the law and make headlines all over.

---

True there is a grievance procedure...but sometimes as they say "the law is an ass". Resolving the issue through the grievance procedure may have taken a year or two...and a year or two of screwed-up paycheques. Walking out solved the problem instantly.

quote:

---

Walking out solved the problem instantly.

---

I confess, as someone that used to log a couple of hundred thousand miles of air travel a year, I used to work very hard to fly Air Canada. After all, with no first class their business class was better than just about anyone else's and you were treated extremely well. Then they "merged" with Canadian and it was all over. Add the disaster called Terminal One in Toronto and I now go out of my way to avoid that nonsense. Just not worth it. Add a wildcat to it and the only question I can ask is "Why would I use that airline??'" By the way, same goes for Useless Air.

quote:

---

And pissed the public off sufficiently that AC is that much closer to the edge.

---

Relax will you!

It was a bloody four hour work stoppage...four lousy hours that's all. It wasn't a week, a month...sheesh...the snowstorm that's going on this weekend in southern Ontario will mess things up a whole lot more than the wildcat strike.

And by the way, after my last post I heard from a source much closer to the situation and found out that after the four hour wildcat, the maintenance workers who'd walked out went back to work and finished off the jobs they were working on...off the bloody clock...in otherwords gave Air Canada free labour to get things moving again.

Also that it wasn't the local management at Pearson Airport that created this situation...it was the shitheads at AC head office in Montreal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

And pissed the public off sufficiently that AC is that much closer to the edge.
...
Now, unless you fully believe that the public (most of whom rarely fly) will actually bail out your employer, why would you do your best to put them out of business?

---

This argument is made so frequently in terms of labour/employer relation but somehow every time I hear it I feel as if I received an electric shock. Why is it that the labour is expected to take abuse from employer in order for the employer to keep the profit up so workers don't loose their jobs. how about asking the employers to view teh workers as the valuble tools that they are to keep up the profit or run an organization and treat them fairly and with respect, so theri profit won't be jeopardized. Why is it that workers suppose to take responsiblity for teh profit of employer?

You know I have heard this argument from union bosses as well in context of concers of racism at work place and specially when racism perpatuated by another union member. Union bosses just refuse to greive it and among various obsurt reasons that they bring for not greivng racism, one is that it makes people un-comfortable and the employer can't deal with it and it effect the ... and you all will loose your jobs. Waht about the target of racism does anyoen care about how they feel? No if the target go ahead and file a compliant then they will be viewed as a union breaker. why not stop those who commit racism so the union wouldn't break. why not put the responsibilty on those who are oblivious to other peopel's rights and not on the shoulder of their targets.