quote:

---

The Canadian Union of Public Employees began the case in 1991, arguing that the airline discriminated because it paid attendants differently "for what it argued was equally valuable work performed by mechanical personnel and pilots."

Air Canada held that the three groups should be treated separately in legal terms because they worked in different establishments. The human rights commission agreed, but two court cases followed, which delivered split decisions.

Air Canada appealed to the top court and lost. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the three groups do work in the same establishment.

With that preliminary question resolved, Section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act comes into play.

The section says it is discriminatory for an employer to pay different wages to male and female employees in the same "establishment" who are performing work of equal value.

---

quote:

---

Canada's top court has given the country's human rights commission the go-ahead to investigate whether flight attendants should be paid the same as pilots and airline mechanics.

---

At first glance it seems a bit unnecessary to ask whether the person flying the plane, with years and years of training and with responsibility for every life on the craft should be paid more than the person who wheels the peanut cart down the aisle and points out the location of the emergency exits. I mean, is that a reasonable comparison?

I wonder how they calculate "value" for the purposes of deciding that two employees add a similar value to the organization and should be equally compensated?

I would think that labor supporters would try and discourage this kind of action as it certainly illustrates some of the unreasonable demands that can come from unions at times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RP.:
The alarming part for me is the knee-jerk reaction people have to even contemplating the question.

---

Air Canada was trying to argue it didn't need to formally make those comparisons when setting wages.

quote:

---

The ruling does not say that flight attendants must be paid the same as pilots and mechanics. It says that the work must be compared to that of pilots and mechanics to see if it of equal value.

---

They've been arguing about whether all three groups work in the same 'establishment'. SC's just said they do. Now the question becomes whether they all do work of equal value.

Look, value determination for work is a non trivial process. It is, however, a management responsibility to do it fairly. Air Canada was trying to cheat. They got ordered not to.

My understanding is that CUPE wants to start a process like the takes place at Mr. Magoo's work place, were they grade the jobs. However, Air Canada said that they wouldn't let any comparison between pilots, mechanical personal and flight attendants because "they all worked in different establishments"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
A potential problem remains: if salary equity is ever achieved between airline pilots, mechanics, and hospitality workers, why in heaven's name would anyone EVER want to go through the expensive and rigorous process of achieving accredition in becoming either a pilot or mechanic when one could simply take the (probably less rigorous) route of becoming a hospitality worker at the same rate of pay?

---

In response, many "techie" types were given "Market Value Adjustments" to bring their pay more in line with what their value to other organizations would be. Oddly, this was protested by the union, who, IIRC, was concerned about other non-techies at the same pay grade who wouldn't be receiving the MVA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by retread:
Flight attendants and pilots the same wages? Wow. Easy enough to test, on alternative flights have the pilots work as attendants and the attendants work as pilots, see whose screwups make more difference.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, if all the union wants to be able to do is compare the positions and say, for example, that Attendants bring 50% of the value that pilots do to the organization and should therefore earn 50% of the salary, that seems reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mersh:
And Gir, what the heck are you still doing here?

---

I wasn't aware that my passport was ever revoked.

But it does seem kind of silly to me to tie flight attendant wages to that of the pilots for the reason I highlighted above. It seems to me that "pay equity" doesn't nessicarily mean people get paid what they deserve, only that they are being paid a certain fraction of someone else's income. Kind of like when a company adopts the ISO9000 standards... they can have absolutely terrible policies, but it's okay as long as they are clearly documented and consistently applied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I wasn't aware that my passport was ever revoked.

---

Well, in this thread you were called on your anti-labour trolling.

Edited to clear up confusion: Ok, you weren't suggesting pay equity would lead to crashes. My bad.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: mersh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

But it does seem kind of silly to me to tie flight attendant wages to that of the pilots for the reason I highlighted above. ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Quote: Yes, that was my understanding of how the process works, too. People who think that flight attendants are going to get "paid the same as pilots" or whatever, are usually confused about what pay equity means.

Well, the subject isn't anything I've read a lot about, so, guilty as charged. Can you steer me to a (hopefully brief) online link on this subject? Thanks.

---

The details can get very complicated, but here is one overview of Ontario provincial legislation:

Employer's Introduction to Pay Equity

Step 6 seems to me to best clarify what I think the confusion is:

quote:

---

Step 6
Compares the value of the job classes and their job rates

Private sector employers use an initial process called ‘job to job’ comparison. This is a direct comparison between male and female job classes that have similar job values; often, employers will use a point banding system to determine what is comparable. If there are female job classes that cannot find a male comparator under this approach, then they are compared under the proportional value method. This is an indirect method of comparison that looks at the relationship between the value of the work and the pay received by the male job class and applies that same relationship to the female job classes.

---

It is possible under the system that a flight attendant job would be directly compared to, say, a ground crew job and an equivalent rate of pay established for the two. It is unlikely that a flight attendant job would be directly compared to say, a pilot's job because of the difference in skills and training involved. However, if such a comparison needed to be made, it would almost certainly be "proportional" and based on "value," which could mean a flight attendant was determined to contribute 60% of the "value" of a pilot and therefore paid accordingly.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The capitalist system is a car permanently on blocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I believe the discussion here is about airplanes, but I'm sure we all really appareciate your contribution nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I foresee lots and lots of laywers and consultants getting fat fees over the next few years...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
If it is determined to somehow be "work of equal value", can one not assume that equal pay would be pursued?

---

Many would assert that all work is of "equal value". Who is to say that a school teacher, an airline pilot or a well-paid film actor don't all contribute equally to society.

I'm certainly not saying that but there are many that would.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

Yes, most of the time it's not the most difficult job in the world (still worth decent pay though). However, in an emergency the cabin staff suddenly get very important. How much is it worth to be ready for that?

---

My nephew says they cook and read books and crack jokes inbetween maintenance work and collecting for and organizing charity events. They're unionized, and so he makes decent pay. My nephew is a FF in a northern Ontario town, so he's not exposed to so many chemical and industrial fires. I'm glad for that and his future health. They're not so lucky in larger cities where fires often give off toxic gases, and crumbling buildings tend to be larger and more dangerous. FF's in industrial centres tend to suffer higher than average rates of cancer and respiratory ailments.

Too, insurance companies demand that professionally trained firefighters protect billions of dollars worth of assets around the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Quote: And firefighters are incredibly lazy. What do they do when there are no fires?

I was a Volunteer Fire Fighter up north for five years. We weren't lazy. The equipment had to be maintained every day, routines were practiced, our training updated, and the community hydrants checked and re-checked, as were all of the trucks and pumpers. Then there's building inspections. Nothing is ever left to chance - equipment failure at a fire is not an option anyone wants to encounter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I'm sorry. But flight attendants have a relatively simple job. It's silly to even try to make a comparison between what they do and what pilots (or mechanics, for that matter) do.

---

quote:

---

You're absolutely right. Dealing with rude (and sometimes agressive) passengers, having to attend to any medical emergencies that arise 35 000 feet in the air, being responsible for an orderly evacuation should the plane crash and there are survivors, and having to know all sorts of safety protocols isn't that complicated. It's a simple job that anyone can do, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euhemeros:
It's simple with the three to six months of training provided by the company. A pilot has to spend at least $150,000 for his education with many years of training.

---

quote:

---

You're absolutely right. Dealing with rude (and sometimes agressive) passengers, having to attend to any medical emergencies that arise 35 000 feet in the air, being responsible for an orderly evacuation should the plane crash and there are survivors, and having to know all sorts of safety protocols isn't that complicated. It's a simple job that anyone can do, right?

---

Any job can sound difficult if you want it to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I'm not suggesting that the 2 types of positions are equivalent. What I intended to do was to challenge the idea that being a flight attendant is a "simple" job in the sense of being a waiter/waitress or cashier, which Sven seemed to imply.

---

Being an emergency room surgeon or nurse is not a simple job. Being a public defender is not a simple job. Being a teacher is not a simple job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Being a flight attendant is a simple job. Is it as simple as running a cash register? Probably not. But on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most difficult job), I'd say it's about 1.5

---

But the cost of living isn't 1.5, Sven. In fact, the cost of living rarely goes down anywhere I've ever lived.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Until there's an emergency. How many times do I have to say this?

---

Well, in contrast to firefighters, for example, or emergency room docs and nurses, the average flight attendant might see a real emergency once if they are on a million flights (essentially, never for virtually all flight attendants). There are 450,000 flights in and out of just our local Minneapolis airport every year. How many bona fide emergencies have there been here in, say, 20 years? You could probably count them on one hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Does a pilot deserve a roof over his head, food on the table, toiletries and child care more than anybody else, Sven?

---

As a matter of fact, yes. They do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Being a flight attendant is a simple job. Is it as simple as running a cash register? Probably not. But on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being the most difficult job), I'd say it's about 1.5

---

Sven is not an egalitarian. Most of the rest of us here are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Here is the fundamental disagreement.

Sven is not an egalitarian. Most of the rest of us here are.

In fact, some of us consider non egalitarians odious.

---

Some of the posts stating flight attendants have a 'simple' job read like those oafs in the art gallery. Unless you've worked in a job you have no idea what skills are involved. Any flight attendants among you? This thread handily demonstrates the need for jobs to be evaluated more stringently and free of gender bias.

One big example that comes to mind is evaluation of physical demands. Flight attendants stand alot during the flight. Not only does this take a toll on their feet and legs it poses a very real risk of injury during a bumpy flight. Broken bones and head injuries are not unheard of. Pilots don't have to worry much about turbulence-related injuries because they're strapped into a seat far away from that Sword of Damocles we call 'carry on luggage'.

I'd ask my flight attendant friend to weigh in on the debate but he just started a well-earned month off in Hawaii.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
You know, I studied art. I can't tell you how much it burns my ass to hear folks in the gallery say, "My five year old could have painted that."

Some of the posts stating flight attendants have a 'simple' job read like those oafs in the art gallery. Unless you've worked in a job you have no idea what skills are involved.

---

So, your description of the pilots' relatively safe jobs (injury-wise) must mean that you are a pilot? I can only assume that because you are admonishing people for criticizing or commenting on a job that they don't actually do themselves.

One does not need to go to "flight attendant school" to have a pretty good idea of what it takes to be a flight attendant. Being a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter, an electrician, etc., etc. are jobs that are incomparably more difficult to do well than to be a flight attendant. Standing on one's feet all day?? People on assembly lines do that. Store clerks do that. It's just not that big of a deal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

As a matter of fact, yes. They do.

As far as flight attendants, I'm not sure I'm aware of any starving or homeless flight attendants (i.e., they all have a roof over their heads and food on their tables).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
People have a right to exist, whether they can drive a bus or a bus with wings out the side.

---

I never even implied that anyone doesn't have the right to exist.

But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

quote:

---

I can only assume that because you are admonishing people for criticizing or commenting on a job that they don't actually do themselves.

---

In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying Sven - right on the next line I said jobs need to be "evaluated more stringently and free of gender bias." It's not up to me or you to say who's got a 'simple' job. As for the luggage issue - haven't you ever seen those things pop out of the overhead bins? I googled some injury stats from the FAA - if you can find some info off the FAA website that sez being a flight attendant is simple I'd be interested to read it!

quote:

---

As far as art goes, I'll have to say that there is some art that a five year old could do because it's so bad. Just because a person spends years studying art doesn't mean that the work they do is worth anything. Not all art is of equal worth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
Heh. I shoulda been clearer. I have heard such comments at the National Gallery of Canada. Gee, maybe that was you I saw in front of the Picasso exhibit?

---

Lest there be any confusion: No. That couldn't have been me. I don't have any kids (five years old or otherwise).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

---

I understand what you're saying. Pilots should be compensated for their skills with reasonable salaries,and they are. And sometimes pilots go on strike for more pay, too. Why? Usually because corporate profits have also risen in spite of inflation.

In a true democracy, people should be able to bargain with employers for appropriate wages. You mentioned market and what it will bear. Workers sometimes react to the threat of a lower standard of living, and we're not speaking about their ability to buy another car or luxury goods. Scratch the idea off the screen whereby you believe female airline stewardess' are asking for salaries on a par with dentists or physicians or CEO salaries. That's not realistic, and they understand that too.

A large extent of the time, workers are simply scraping by trying to make ends meet with rising costs for food staples, child care, prescription drug prices, rent, car payments, rising utility rates, cost of commuting to and from, etc etc. I think half of working Canadians don't earn $30 thousand a year. The average cost of living in a major Canadian city is estimated to be $34500 or somewhere close for a family of four who rents an apartment. Do you see what I'm getting at?.

What I'm also trying to say is that if this is a free market with market forces acting on everyone in an unequal manner, depending again on their levels of income, workers have a right to react to those market forces in an entirely free market manner - by bargaining for more wages in lockstep with inflation. There is a caveat to this in that wealthy people and their assets, money etc are hurt to a larger degree by modest inflation rates moreso than the population of workers individually. You may find someone who disagrees with that and pointing to examples of runaway inflation in 1920's Germany or Argentina or some other basket case economic scenario, but a healthy economy isn't affected by healthy rates of inflation of anywhere between, say, 3 and 11 percent. Rich people's wealth will be affected moreso, but they would like you and me to believe that inflation, even 1 or 2 percent, is the ruin of us all. And there's more proof that fighting inflation costs more to an economy than does a healthy, bustling economy with more equal distribution of income.

Unions are a natural reaction to market forces, and one of the things unions do for workers is bargain for living wages collectively on their behalves. The big corporation, with its top-down style of management, are examples of command style entities themselves within a larger economy, and especially so in the case of airlines. They often depend on taxpayer handouts to stay afloat in the "free market" with its various market forces acting like a house of cards. If we pull out one of the cards at the bottom of the house, say the Queen of Bitumen, and allow crude capitalists to hang on to it, something bad happens in the free market scheme of things. Have you ever heard of the term "FUBAR" before, Sven?.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

You must admit that there is a lot of "art" that's just crap, no?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
A large extent of the time, workers are simply scraping by trying to make ends meet with rising costs for food staples, child care, prescription drug prices, rent, car payments, rising utility rates, cost of commuting to and from, etc etc. I think half of working Canadians don't earn $30 thousand a year. The average cost of living in a major Canadian city is estimated to be $34500 or somewhere close for a family of four who rents an apartment. Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Median annual earnings of flight attendants were $43,440 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $31,310 and $67,590. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $23,450, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $95,850."

Too, there's a measure of prosperity known as Purchasing Power Parity. It varies from country to country and even city to city. It's estimated that the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in Canada have more of it than the same group on your side of the border. And we live longer on average to enjoy it all, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Those are USD wages. That USD43,440 would be about CND50,000. That's not "scraping by". I would say that "scraping by" is what my mother did in the 1930s.

---

$50K is what I was earning in Ottawa in 1997 entry level wages. I was living single, renting, and I wasn't living too high on the hog. If I'd had a family in tow, the money situation could have been tight without a second income. I'm sure, in fact, I know I couldn't have lived on those wages in San Fran or San Jose. I was making considerably more than $50K a year USDN while living there in San Jose, CA, and I was "scraping by." I couldn't have afforded to buy a house then with housing prices the way they were then and now down there. And those houses were nothing very fancy at the same time. No basements for one thing.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's estimated that the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in Canada have more of it than the same group on your side of the border.

---

Estimated by whom?

Within the company and under pay equity, employees should be paid based on skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

info

Obviously, pilots have more skill and responsibility than flight attendants so they will be paid more, even under pay equity.

The problem is how much of a difference is appropriate. Critics of pay equity point out that many of these comparisons are apples to oranges for any tribunal to consider and that the only objective measure is the market itself, based on supply and demand for the particular skills involved.

Because that's not the issue. Getting the same consideration is the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
The problem is how much of a difference is appropriate. Critics of pay equity point out that many of these comparisons are apples to oranges for any tribunal to consider and that the only objective measure is the market itself, based on supply and demand for the particular skills involved.

---

What's more valuable: An apple or an orange?

Now, what's more valuable and, even more importantly, how do you appropriately quantify the difference in the value between:

The work of a classics professor who went to school for 20+ year and then has taught college for 20 more years OR the work of a high school drop-out who invented something that is used by millions of people?

The work of general practice physician OR the work of a small animal veterinarian? Side Bar: This question is not for deep ecologists, for whom the answer is obvious.

The work of a brilliant artist whose work is loved by many OR the work of a dedicated social worker who helps single moms?

The work of a hack musician (who will be forgotten forever in a dozen years but who is fawned over and adored by millions of teenagers through their music store and concert ticket purchases) OR the work of a small string ensemble musician who is unappreciated in the tiny local venues she plays at but is absolutely a brilliant musician?

And this novel comparison: The work of a flight attendant or the work of an airline pilot?

There is really no fair and logical way to quantitatively compare that work. Let the market determine the answer.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
There is really no fair and logical way to quantitatively compare that work. Let the market determine the answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Do you mean market like when the invisible hand of the market place shovels taxpayer handouts to privately owned and operated airlines to insulate them from free market forces, Sven ?.

---

I think giving corporate handouts is generally inefficient.

Back to labor, how would you make a value comparison in the examples I gave you, Fidel?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

I think giving corporate handouts is generally inefficient.

Back to labor, how would you make a value comparison in the examples I gave you, Fidel?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

That depends on the annual amount of taxpayer-funded handed-offs to the airline, presumably to maintain jobs and a smooth running economy rather than pad the pockets of multi-billionaire friends of "the party", Sven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, I am saying that flight attendants' work isn't even comparable to a pilot's work.

---

I don't understand the negative reaction here to the fact that a pay equity scheme imposes that kind of obligation. The scheme demands that some effort go into analyzing different jobs so that we avoid falling into easy characterizations of what has been female-dominated work. Pay equity is imposing a certain PROCESS in determining salary levels, so that sex inequality is minimized. I think that's a good thing.

Pointing to extreme examples doesn't add much to the analysis; it just comes off as dimissive.

Having said that, pay equity is a tough thing to achieve; sometimes those comparisons will be damned hard. But, again, I think it's a positive thing that certain employers are expected to at least try.

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
If you've actually read and understood this thread (which you obviously haven't), you'd realise that the whole question of whether or not flight attendants should automatically be paid the same as pilots has already been addressed. The whole question of determining how much "value" someone's work is, in case you missed it, has been at the heart of this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
Having said that, pay equity is a tough thing to achieve; sometimes those comparisons will be damned hard. But, again, I think it's a positive thing that certain employers are expected to at least try.

---

Trying and doing are fundamentally different.

Pay equity is pretty narrowly focussed on workplaces, so the examples are inapt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Rather than brush off my examples as "extreme", perhaps you can try and outline basic foundation principles for making a quantitative comparison between those kinds of jobs.

---

I just explained why I think the comparisons are inapt.

Here's one of your examples:

The work of a classics professor who went to school for 20+ year and then has taught college for 20 more years OR the work of a high school drop-out who invented something that is used by millions of people?

Give me the sitch in which the current regime requires pay equity between these two, and then we can talk.

You also said: "Tyring is not the same as doing."

Are you really saying that in order to support progressive change we need a 100% ironclad guarantee that the regime by which it is governed, works perfectly? Have you taken a look at the human rights complaint process in this country?

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

"In general, the most important role of a Flight Attendant (Cabin Crew) is to assist in ensuring the safety and comfort of airlines passengers Other Flight Attendant duties include in-flight announcements, safety demonstrations, serving meals and beverages. Most of all, the Flight Attendant's role is to anticipate the needs of their passengers, and offer these services in a friendly, courteous and willing manner. In the air, helping passengers in the event of an emergency is the most important responsibility of a flight attendant."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Do you mean market like when the invisible hand of the market place shovels taxpayer handouts to privately owned and operated airlines to insulate them from free market forces, Sven ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlawBlaw:

Handouts to individual companies will go into the pockets of the investors. Handouts to an industry will, for the most part, end up in the pockets of the workers.

---