AC has stranded us in Athens … advice?

[peter12]

I know everybody wants to see some kind of just outcome for flight attendants (FWIW, managements' offer is very fair), but do they want to see those prices filter down to them, which they inevitably will?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

I know everybody wants to see some kind of just outcome for flight attendants (FWIW, managements' offer is very fair), but do they want to see those prices filter down to them, which they inevitably will?

The prices would likely be going up anyways. If I can’t afford a service without someone being unfairly compensated then maybe I don’t need to use that service. After all flying is a privilege, not a right.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Parallex

This is basically my opinion. Governments shouldn't be intervening in labour disputes (especially private sector labour disputes). If the national interest is so high that they feel they need to then the national interest should dictate that it be nationalized.

If the private companies knew they couldn’t rely on the government to bail them out by legislating employees back to work then there would actually be some incentive for them to negotiate in good faith.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The prices would likely be going up anyways. If I can’t afford a service without someone being unfairly compensated then maybe I don’t need to use that service. After all flying is a privilege, not a right.

I'm not really sympathetic with labour in this case. Flight attendants are a relatively low-skill job requiring a modicum of safety training etc... but something that most people can do without a college degree.

I think a 38% wage increase is more than fair, but I would be curious about how other airlines pay in comparison.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If the private companies knew they couldn’t rely on the government to bail them out by legislating employees back to work then there would actually be some incentive for them to negotiate in good faith.

I think this criticism is more than fair. The airline industry is a protected market here in Canada.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think this criticism is more than fair. The airline industry is a protected market here in Canada.

Lately the government seems to be doing its best to make every industry protected.

It’d be one thing if they ordered employees back to provide minimal services for say flights that no other airlines provide but to force everyone back is a joke and yet another violation of the charter rights of these employees.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not really sympathetic with labour in this case. Flight attendants are a relatively low-skill job requiring a modicum of safety training etc... but something that most people can do without a college degree.

I think a 38% wage increase is more than fair, but I would be curious about how other airlines pay in comparison.

You don’t need a degree to start a business nor to invest in one either. Are you going to start arguing that business owners or investors who didn’t go to post secondary should have their profits capped because anyone can start a business or do you realize the hypocrisy of your position?

Why don’t you tell me what you do for a living and how much you make so that I can play the same game using cookie cutter rhetorical arguments.

Even without that information I highly doubt when your employer offers you a raise that you decline it because you don’t want the customers to have to pay more for your employer’s products and services. So again maybe tone down the hypocrisy a touch.

[btimbit]

Everyone's going to have different opinions on what wage is fair for the perceived skill level or qualifications a job requires, personally I think if you work full time you should be able to afford rent in the city you work in.

Obviously there are a dozen factors that go into that that isn't just your wage, but I still strongly feel that way

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Everyone's going to have different opinions on what wage is fair for the perceived skill level or qualifications a job requires, personally I think if you work full time you should be able to afford rent in the city you work in.

Obviously there are a dozen factors that go into that that isn't just your wage, but I still strongly feel that way

How would you quantify or mandate wages in line with that position?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

How would you quantify or mandate wages in line with that position?

What the market will pay?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You don’t need a degree to start a business nor to invest in one either. Are you going to start arguing that business owners or investors who didn’t go to post secondary should have their profits capped because anyone can start a business or do you realize the hypocrisy of your position?

Why don’t you tell me what you do for a living and how much you make so that I can play the same game using cookie cutter rhetorical arguments.

Even without that information I highly doubt when your employer offers you a raise that you decline it because you don’t want the customers to have to pay more for your employer’s products and services. So again maybe tone down the hypocrisy a touch.

The market does a decent job of determining how much value should be placed on a certain line of work.

A business owner or investor takes on all the risk and therefore deserves all the profits they can make.

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by peter12

What the market will pay?

The market already pays what it will pay. btimbit's position, while a nice thought, is sunshine and rainbows.

It's always going to be more difficult to afford life in a major city like Toronto if you work in an unskilled position, as compared to living in the burbs or a rural area. Simple capitalism.

I worked in fast food and retail for close to ten years because I was lazy and not motivated to earn more money. But I never felt entitled to anything, even though it can be hard work at times.

[cam_calderon]

I think we're more or less on the same page, peter. I was questioning btimbit on how you would create a relationship between rent prices and wages.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

The market already pays what it will pay. btimbit's position, while a nice thought, is sunshine and rainbows.

It's always going to be more difficult to afford life in a major city like Toronto if you work in an unskilled position, as compared to living in the burbs or a rural area. Simple capitalism.

I worked in fast food and retail for close to ten years because I was lazy and not motivated to earn more money. But I never felt entitled to anything, even though it can be hard work at times.

These jobs were also never intended to be anything more than stop-gaps for young, low-skilled workers. It is extremely rare for people to stay in these roles for longer than it takes to for them to up-skill.

[cam_calderon]

Yeah, people typically get promoted or find better paying jobs, as I did.

I don't think you're entitled to "afford" rent on a minimum wage job. I'm assuming that would mean you would follow the 50-30-20 rule, with rent comprising 25-35 per cent of your income?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

The market does a decent job of determining how much value should be placed on a certain line of work.

Classic.

A business owner or investor takes on all the risk and therefore deserves all the profits they can make.

I wasn’t aware that employees get their time spent trying to help a business that flounders despite the employee’s best efforts back.

I get that you’ve been away for a while and are clearly in need of attention but you can do a little better than this, no?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

How would you quantify or mandate wages in line with that position?

Somehow tying them directly to rent, no, that doesn't work. I mean, I am pro Recovery UBI, but that's a different discussion entirely. I was more saying that if you pay that little for a full time job, you don't pay enough. You can't argue this is what the market is willing to pay if they're being forced back to work by the Government, that kind of negates any fair bargaining and doesn't make it comparable to a part time burger flipping job. If your business can't survive without under paying people then it probably shouldn't keep going, and you shouldn't require government subsidies and labor rules in your favour to continue.

Edit: I should add, I'm not interested in turning this into the classic 'at what arbitrary skill level should people be able to afford rent and groceries' discussion that we've had a million times on CP because that's a rabbit hole for another thread.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Classic.



I wasn’t aware that employees get their time spent trying to help a business that flounders despite the employee’s best efforts back.

I get that you’ve been away for a while and are clearly in need of attention but you can do a little better than this, no?

Employees don't work for free.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by peter12

Employees don't work for free.

Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were talking about not for profit businesses.

[cam_calderon]

The strike will end at some point and we'll know what the market is willing to pay. Do you really think they're getting everything they ask for? They're shooting for the moon.