Reagan, Thatcher, Harper?

The rights and responsibilities of Labour are and should be clear. And the issues at stake in the Air Canada pilot “situation” seem to have become confused, even in the minds of some of its on frontline workers. This dispute isn’t about the rights of labour.

Unions have an important place in society, and can play a very positive role in the lives of individual workers. A century ago, children were working in Southern wollen mills; now they aren’t. Corporations and their owners can’t always be trusted to do the right thing on behalf of their employee base, as has been evident on and off for decades. That’s why the government regulates workplace safety, for example. It is also responsible for the health of our economy and society, as several employee groups are prevented from striking due to the impact a work stoppage would have on the rest of society: police, fire, EMS, etc.

Hesitant as I am to wade into the Air Canada labour debate, our family just suffered from hiccups at every stage of our March Break trip, totally 25.5 hours of aggregate flights delays on March 10th and 17th. Naturally, we feel like we are experts on the topic at this point.

When the Feds announced that Air Canada’s pilots and machinists couldn’t just shut down the airline given the impact this would have on the economy, I had a sense of forboding. There are just so many ways for individuals in the “airline system” to undermine a route schedule. “Forcing” people to work is straightforward in some situations, where the individual knows that not responding to a 911 call could lead to an unnecessary death, for example.

But if you’re an angry pilot or repair jockey, all that you’re doing when you take subversive job action is making people late for the beach, or sending your customer base to another airline: either way, you’ve made your point. If the airline goes under, you assume that you’ll just apply to work at the new company that starts in its place. Planes can’t fly without trained pilots, after all; no matter who owns them.

When asked a question about Air Canada at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport 10 days ago, Prime Minister Harper reminded the media of a simple point: during the financial crisis, Air Canada came to the government and asked for $250 million because of its essential role in the Canadian economy. That was the summer of 2009. Having granted a TSX-listed company taxpayer funds to avoid insolvency less than 3 years ago, how do we now pretend the airline isn’t still essential?

The legislation that passed the House and Senate last week was designed to prevent the general disruption that had been scheduled by the Pilot’s Association for last weekend. As much as Air Canada management announced a “lock-out”, it is pretty clear that tactic was AC’s attempt to prevent that type of wildcat actions we suffered from over the past few days.

Now that the Conservative government has discovered that enough pilots and machinists can band together to thwart the will of Parliamentary legislation, what’s the next step?

The first step has to be an agreement on the facts. A well-meaning Ottawa-based Air Canada gate agent described the “problem” to me in wonderfully straightforward, if naïve, terms: “this is what happens when government gets involved.”

She sounds like my kind of person. Yes, let’s keep the government out. Agreed. But for one thing.

I reminded her that every Air Canada job was saved in 2009 when AC asked the government for a $250 million bailout; there would have been no job, no severance, no pension, had AC gone under in 2009. Which would have happened if not for we taxpayer/customers. You can’t come to us when you need us in 2009, and then tell the government to get lost three years later. Particularly to someone unintentionally in Ottawa in the middle of a 17.5 hour combined flight delay, maintenance delay, re-route, unscheduled overnight ($90 in taxis, $275 in hotels; mitigated by $10 meal vouchers), maintenance delay, baggage delay all on AC1245.

Her response was delightfully Realpolitik: “well, we’re all in this together.” Arrgghh! But that’s not the point, is it?!?!

But, maybe it is.

If “we’re all in this together”, then the question is simple. I assume by “We” she means Canada. Is Canada ready for its own version of Ronald Reagan’s 1981 firing of 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers, or Margaret Thatcher’s defeat of the UK Coal Miners in 1985. The parallels are there. U.S. air traffic controllers staged “sick-outs” in 1969 and 1970, despite 1955 federal legislation that prevented them from striking. The walkout in 1981 put it over the top.

With Montreal-based Air Canada pilots calling in sick on Saturday, followed by unusually-high illness rates for Vancouver-based pilots the following day, no traveller believes this is all just a coincidence. Even when the pilots show up for work, some still screw around. AC planes had a “mechanical” issue on four separate, consecutive legs during our recent trip. All seemed to involve the cockpit. Is the fleet really that old? It didn’t seem so last year when I flew more than 35,000 status miles.

I have no idea who is right or wrong: the staff or the management of Air Canada. According to my Twitter inbasket, Air Canada pilots have gone 12 years with no pay raise, and are being asked to wait two more before being given a 2% bump. Is that true? Who knew? Doesn’t seem fair. I’m also told that AC Execs received “$5 million in bonuses and are flying this Airline directly bankrupt through waste and greed”.

The AC Pilot “message” has not been effectively relayed to we passengers, and by intentionally attacking the travel plans of thousands of families on a short holiday, they blew their chance to build sympathy within the Aeroplan membership for their plight against what should be a very easy target: AC management.

The core fact is a simple one at this point. Parliament is being spurned, just as the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization thumbed its nose at Congress in 1981. What happened last week has forced the government’s hand to disband the Pilot’s Association.

No one wins under that scenario, but Ottawa really isn’t left with another option. And this from someone who supports unions. But this battle isn’t about “unions” and the “right to strike”, and my sisters and brothers must know that. It’s about trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

You can’t take $250 million from taxpayers during the 2009 economic and financial crisis on the basis the airline’s essential, and then try to implement the right to strike / or lock-out — while the economy is still recovering from that same crisis — less than three years later.

Once essential, always essential.

MRM
(disclosure: this blog, as always, reflects a personal view and is not meant to represent the views of the TPA, its Board/Staff or the federal government)