Flight attendants win case against AC
It is easy to argue that comparing the Skill, Effort, Responsibility, and Working Conditions of Pilots, Mechanics, and Flight Attendants would result in LESS, not more money for Flight Attendants.
Air Canada Pilots' starting pay is about $40,000 per year.
To be hired at Air Canada (or any other major airline), the pilot probably has a University degree, spent $50,000-$100,000 for flight training, and spent 10 years flying for smaller airlines.
Contrast this with a flight attendant who can be hired right out of highschool and be working after a 3 week training program.
....
All of those qualifications are thus because there is a long line of people applying at the majors. They are not requirements of the job.
You must have dexterity and academic skills to pull off a B6 in LAX.
My thesis is that academic skills as shown by a University degree are not required.
If a degree was required there would be a number of my pilot friends that should not be flying left seat with AC right now. There are more that have a degree because it helped bring them ahead of the pack who were applying at the same time. A few became doctors and lawyers after they were hired by the airlines, but academic skills are not a pre-requisite to being a good pilot.
Spatial skills
Situational skills
Hand to eye coordination
Inter personal skills not required. :)
As an employer, when hiring I would demand a higher level of formal education from the flight attendant group than the pilot group. I would expect the flight attendant to be able to carry on a more intelligent level of conversation with the customer. The same is not required of a pilot.
Why not consider another pair of jobs where typically both sides of the pair are male? Train driver and train conductor for example? Or bus driver and bus conductor? One has to move around a lot, interact with customers, settle disputes, and be responsible for money. The other just has to drive. Interestingly the little I was able to find online suggests conductors make up to 50% more than drivers. (Example: starting salary for bus driver 11,000 pounds, for conductor 16,000. For trains both start at 10,000 pounds.) Neither job appears to exist in the world of dollars.
While planes are undoubtedly harder to "drive", I encourage you all to think about what makes a "conductor" different from an "attendant" other than the name and the usual gender of those who do the job.
That aircraft had everything programmed just as you say and then the pilots were removed from the equation. There is only so much that automation can do.
The aircraft can not land itself. The pilots are needed, even for an "autoland". This is because even with todays technology, an autoland system can't account for every situation. It will automatically disconnect for may different reasons.
Sorry.
Take a pen and paper and go down to the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg and ask the following questions:
Do you think that airline pilots should be paid more than the flight attendants?
If the answer is yes, then ask a follow up question... why should pilots be paid more?
I "guesstimate" that over 95% of people polled would have no problem with the fact that pilots are paid more than flight attendants.
When asked why, common sense Winnipegers would say that their jobs are different...
and that a pilots job is more complicated and that it takes longer to train a pilot; being a qualified pilot requires a higher set of skills.
Winnipegers would also add that flight attendants are important in the flight experience and that customer service and ensuring safety are part of their job. However they would be quasi unanimous in replying that becoming a pilot and remaining qualified requires more skill and that pilots are responsible for more...
I return to my original question.... where is common sense in this issue? ;)
That is, new commercial jet liners are vastly easier to drive than your average passenger car. Once the appropriate waypoints are plugged into the flight management computer, the pilot only has to press the "GO" button (metaphorically speaking) and then sit back.
The need for a human pilot stems for the versatility of the human brain in facing unforseen circumstances, which ironically is really the same thing required of flight attendants.
SH:
FYI, I've negotiated in excess of 100 pay equity plans over my career and it is possible to qualtify the 'value' of work and then do a comparison.
The statutory method requires the use of four (4) variables in the assessment of what is comparable work:
1) skill
2) effort
3) responsibility; and,
4) working conditions.
These variables may be further reduced to component parts thus capturing the essential character of the essential skill sets that one uses on the job.
The bottom line, however, is that everything is still negotiated including the strengths of the variables as it relates to the actual functions of the job. A skilled negotiator knows how to exploit these variables in order to raise the value of the subject job to that of the comparator(s).
(negotiator)
It is easy to argue that comparing the Skill, Effort, Responsibility, and Working Conditions of Pilots, Mechanics, and Flight Attendants would result in LESS, not more money for Flight Attendants.
Well, the objective is get paid more.
The whole comparison mechanism is patently absurd.
That is, new commercial jet liners are vastly easier to drive than your average passenger car. Once the appropriate waypoints are plugged into the flight management computer, the pilot only has to press the "GO" button (metaphorically speaking) and then sit back.
The need for a human pilot stems for the versatility of the human brain in facing unforseen circumstances, which ironically is really the same thing required of flight attendants.
What the hell are you talking about? You seem like the type that sees no issues with electronic voting, or 100 percent automatic transportation systems. :(
Pay equity legislation is a positive thing for 'persons' in female dominated job classifications that have been historically been discriminated against because of their geneder.
I have no problem comparing flight attendents with pilots or the CEO of AC for that matter! In order to determine if the 'female dominated job classifiations' are recieving fair compensation an assessment of 'all' jobs within an 'establishment' must be reviewed using the four job standards (skill, effort, responsibity and working conditions).
It is completely unlikely that a FA would score anywhere near a pilot. But in order to assess their reletative worth within the compensation structure of the 'establishment', such comparisions must be made. It is more probable that FA's would have equal or comparible worth with service orientated classifications.
The legislation only requires that a female dominated job class be upgraded to the compensation levels of the 'lowest' of all the equal or compariable male job classes having the same values. That notwithstanding, the legislation only requires that 1% pf payroll be dedicated, per year, to adjustments, if necessary. Moreover, an employer need not raise the compensation levels when a female job has been found to be of equal or comparable to a male dominated job when the cause of the differences in the compensation is the results of either skills shortages or bargaining strength. Thus, considerations are acknowledged in the law to not pay for inequities for bona fide reasons such as market shortages and for certain skills (pilots). Thus, more superior human capital is, arguably, a defence for not raising compensation levels.
(negotiator)
Apples to wrenches as it were.. :p
I wholly agree with this. Flight Attendants aren't that essential to flying nor are their scholastic requirements anywhere near that of a pilot or a mechanic.
A partial answer:
"Women account for roughly 80 per cent of the 7,000 flight attendants represented by CUPE, said Ms. Sachs, who added that most earn between $20,000 and $80,000, but relatively few are near the top end of the scale. By contrast, most pilots have a starting salary of about $70,000 a year, with veteran captains making in the neighbourhood of $150,000 a year or more."
I lifted that from the Globe. Here's the link to the full story:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060127/RACE27/TPBusiness/TopStories
1) skill
2) effort
3) responsibility; and,
4) working conditions.
I think that one of my (and possibly others) problems with this list is 2 possible variables that could have been included
5) which job the employee chose
6) the level of remuneration that the union agreed to in collective bargaining.
If I choose to be a FA, knowing full well that they make less, and then accept a lower compensated contract through collective bargaining, then I don't understand why this is not appropriate and fair.
Heck, if the courts finally accept the list of 4 completely and wholeheartedly, then you'll be out of a job :).
Thanks,
Dr. PITUK
I disagree!
That like saying that you can't compare apples to oranges yet both are round, they have a peel and also have seeds.
Comparing two jobs obviously doesn't mean saying they are the same.
The field of "pay equity" exists because of the historical fact that female-dominated lines of work paid less than male-dominated lines of work for reasons completely unrelated to the skills required. One hopes that this doesn't happen anymore.
For example, my small-town librarian mother made two thirds of the hourly wage of the guy who cleaned the library. The town library board made no effort to hide their opinion that the women who ran the library were volunteers working in their spare time to be paid a stipend to supplement their husbands' bread-winning wages.
undoubtedly that's one example, but in today's world, you are likely to find plenty of young male flight attendants and CSAs and some female pilots and mechanics. Markets also determine worth, and I can learn how to do a flight attendant's job in three weeks or so - and I can do it better than most - but it would take me years to acquire the academic background, training and flying experience to qualify to fly even a CRJ from Dorval to Mirabel.
FYI, I've negotiated in excess of 100 pay equity plans over my career and it is possible to qualtify the 'value' of work and then do a comparison.
The statutory method requires the use of four (4) variables in the assessment of what is comparable work:
1) skill
2) effort
3) responsibility; and,
4) working conditions.
These variables may be further reduced to component parts thus capturing the essential character of the essential skill sets that one uses on the job.
The bottom line, however, is that everything is still negotiated including the strengths of the variables as it relates to the actual functions of the job. A skilled negotiator knows how to exploit these variables in order to raise the value of the subject job to that of the comparator(s).
(negotiator)
no mention of ACCOUNTABILITY! :confused:
In my industry, we have a joke about the future of ship's crews, particularly on the bridge:
"Have you heard about the bridge of the future? There's just the captain and a dog.
The captain is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to make sure the captain doesn't screw around with the controls."
As a former Turkish Navy Admiral once told me: "These days, if I wanted real power in the navy, I'd become a technician."
I wholly agree with this. Flight Attendants aren't that essential to flying nor are their scholastic requirements anywhere near that of a pilot or a mechanic.
And therefore the flight attendants will make much less money.
Comparing two jobs obviously doesn't mean saying they are the same.
The field of "pay equity" exists because of the historical fact that female-dominated lines of work paid less than male-dominated lines of work for reasons completely unrelated to the skills required. One hopes that this doesn't happen anymore.
For example, my small-town librarian mother made two thirds of the hourly wage of the guy who cleaned the library. The town library board made no effort to hide their opinion that the women who ran the library were volunteers working in their spare time to be paid a stipend to supplement their husbands' bread-winning wages.
FYI, I've negotiated in excess of 100 pay equity plans over my career and it is possible to qualtify the 'value' of work and then do a comparison.
The statutory method requires the use of four (4) variables in the assessment of what is comparable work:
1) skill
2) effort
3) responsibility; and,
4) working conditions.
These variables may be further reduced to component parts thus capturing the essential character of the essential skill sets that one uses on the job.
The bottom line, however, is that everything is still negotiated including the strengths of the variables as it relates to the actual functions of the job. A skilled negotiator knows how to exploit these variables in order to raise the value of the subject job to that of the comparator(s).
(negotiator)
Your explanation, while probably correct, is a sign of how much bullsh!t passes for common sense in this world. There is one easy solution. Give a flight attendant the controls of an airplane and allow him or her to fly it. Give the pilot an apron, and have him or her serve drinks and start the safety announcement on the inflight video system. Odds are, within 60 seconds, they'll both be dead.
The ability to learn the systems of each aircraft you are trained on. Retain and understand that knowledge for a written test and a check ride every six months. Retain that knowledge so you can save the lives of your passengers when the sh!t hits the fan. On top of academic skills, you must have the dexterity to handle your aircraft in the most adverse weather conditions so you don't end up like AC in YFC, WS in YHZ, AF in YYZ and the list goes on.
You must have dexterity and academic skills to pull off a B6 in LAX.
He's not a diplomat thats for sure! ;)
That presumes there are no untoward events along the way, but that was the point I was making about the versatility of the human brain.
I used to install navigation systems on ships, primarily warships. But recently that description has expanded to installing "situational awareness" systems on military craft of all types. The systems now do a lot more than just "navigate" and they are being installed on more than just ships.
That is, new commercial jet liners are vastly easier to drive than your average passenger car. Once the appropriate waypoints are plugged into the flight management computer, the pilot only has to press the "GO" button (metaphorically speaking) and then sit back.
The need for a human pilot stems for the versatility of the human brain in facing unforseen circumstances, which ironically is really the same thing required of flight attendants.
After I get back from watching the beautiful Hawaiian sunset I will respond. But before I do sir respectfully what business are you in?
Roll-x:
I agree with your comment!
I think that we should all chip in and get him a one (1) hour flight simulator ride. The deal is that if he crashes the aircraft, even once, he has to pony up and get everyone who offered points a one (1) hour ride as well. ;)
Exactly what I was thinking! Also, weight should be given to the fact that in 99.99% of flights it is the impression the cabin crew leaves on the passenger that can influence the pax perception of the company (good or bad).
Initially, Air Canada won two rulings on the complaint. Both the Tribunal and the Federal Court Trial Division dismissed CUPE's complaint, saying flight attendants, pilots and mechanics are not part of the same establishment because they were not subject to a common personnel and wage policy.
However, CUPE subsequently won at the FCA, which ruled the focus should not be on collective agreements but on whether the employer treated employees as part of a “single, integrated business.” The FCA said collective agreements can never be wage and personnel policies. It sent the case back to the Tribunal and Air Canada launched an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court has reversed this ruling on the basis that collective agreements play a relatively minor role in the determination of wage and personnel policies. The decision sends CUPE’s complaint back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for further investigation. The company believes any investigation of these claims will show that the wages negotiated by the unions representing pilots, flight attendants and technical operations personnel at Air Canada meet equal pay standards.
Granted and these are taught as part of the licencing process.
Many years ago I used to teach teenagers these subjects.
What academic background is really needed.
Granted the companies demand more than grade 10 education because there is a long line of people that can do the job. But, what academic skills are really needed?
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |