Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

Chl Ems


Recommended Posts

Without a voice, Certified under the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, this company paid lip service to our concerns and simply dismissed them. If you want to make improvement in areas of safety, wages, working conditions etc. then organize. If you don't want any improvements, just stay the way you are - That's EXACTLY what your company wants.

 

We've been fighting against the low FO standards and repeated lowering of Capt standards. We are now taking our concerns DIRECTLY to our main customer the Ontario Air Ambulance Services Corp. and bypassing CHL in the process. A professional body has a chance to force change, a company will only do so if it pleases their customer. Now, our customer may start forcing from their end to.

 

For full support organizing your association, contact me directly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest plumber

I thought CHL's major share holder was the Quebec teachers union. If this is the case would'nt that be union brother screwing union brother. My apologies in advance if I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions enable the employees to have binding contracts with their employers. Why the employer should be so against this is surprising. Few operators will enter into an agreement to provide helicopter services without a written contract. Without a written contract, the employee is employed at will. He can be fired for no reason.

 

Unions have at least one advantage for the employer. They can deal with all of their employees at once rather than individually in matters such as wages.

 

Those who think that unions form just so that its members can strike are wrong. No one wants to strike. It costs the employee money and it is stressful.

 

Those who think that unions make demands so unreasonable that the employer will suffer financial hardship are wrong. The union has a vested interest in the success of the company. The well-being of the employees depends on the well-being of the company.

 

There are cases of unions taking wage reductions to help companies through hard times. One of these cases involved a union of airline pilots in the States in which they collectively took a reduction in wages to assist the company through hard times. The company survived and when financial hardiness was reestablished, the pilot’s wages were raised to the pre-reduction level.

 

To the silly individual who makes the claim that unions are formed by culls, try telling that to the unions of airline pilots. You just made a whole bunch of enemies there my friend.

 

To the shortsighted individual who claims that unhappy employees should just move on, the unfortunate truth is that the grass is rarely greener. The culture in helicopter companies across the country is alarmingly similar. Those pilots with families and established social ties where they live are loathe to move. It is easier to work towards an improved situation where they are.

 

The laws of Canada provide for the existence of unions. Workers have every right to form them. Unions are good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said John, This group of pilots didn't take the step of organizing lightly. We did it because the company just would not listen to rational argument about improving the division overall. The last thing anyone wants to do is "just move on"

 

The only way a group of pilots can engage improvement is by a legally recognized association/union, call it whatever you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Unions are so good, then why don't they give me a choice to join them or not when i get a job?

 

 

the unions i was part of gave you no choice when you became employed. you were automatically enrolled and subject to the union dues regardless of whether you wanted to be a part of their group or not. To me that's wrong.....you should have the choice at all times to be union or not. As it stands many people are forced to become union members when they do not want to be. But if that happened, then the numbers game would fail, and so would the union....hence the strong arming to force you to join. Personally, I would walk if a union entered my palce of employment, because I call the shots on my future, not the other emplyees.

The CHL EMS situation is unique and does not fit the industry as a whole, so it may work for you guys, but it won't work for everyone.

I will refrain to comment further until the first contract talks come up, thats where the men will be separated from the boys.

 

T5limit....there is nothing wrong with a little incentive is there? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the unions i was part of gave you no choice when you became employed. you were automatically enrolled and subject to the union dues regardless of whether you wanted to be a part of their group or not. To me that's wrong.....you should have the choice at all times to be union or not. As it stands many people are forced to become union members when they do not want to be. But if that happened, then the numbers game would fail, and so would the union....hence the strong arming to force you to join. Personally, I would walk if a union entered my palce of employment, because I call the shots on my future, not the other emplyees.

The CHL EMS situation is unique and does not fit the industry as a whole, so it may work for you guys, but it won't work for everyone.

I will refrain to comment further until the first contract talks come up, thats where the men will be separated from the boys.

 

T5limit....there is nothing wrong with a little incentive is there? :blink:

 

 

To answer your post: The Federal Law says if a union is voted it, all are members upon certification.

 

Nobody was forced to join, coerced or strong-armed, we even said join or don't join its you choice. In our case over 88% of the pilots signed union cards, another 5% did later past the cut-off date for sending the documents to the CIRB.... so 93% of the pilots cannot be wrong. This was a major indictment of the lousy management within EMS, much stronger numbers than even the medics which traditionally come from union backgrounds. The CIRB told us this was one of the strongest shows of union support in years at the federal level.

 

Your comment about "first contract talks" ... far too late, the contract is negotiated and in effect. Major wage gains in the first year etc etc... so it looks like all us MEN in EMS stood up and took action.... what's your excuse.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 7% that did not sign the cards are union right? they lost their choice because 93% forced them. To me those 7% should be able to avoid being part of the union and negotiate as they see fit.

 

Like i said before CHL EMS is unique in itself, thats why 93% were unhappy and needed change....you'll never find those number outside your box.

 

And I was actually referring to when this contract period is up. this was your initial contract. it very well could have been made to get the ball rolling, once things settle down and every gets their positions set, then the fur will fly. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets ugly at some point. Hope you're all prepared for that.

 

To me, I don't need an excuse to even look at a union.....there is no basis for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 7% that did not sign the cards are union right? they lost their choice because 93% forced them. To me those 7% should be able to avoid being part of the union and negotiate as they see fit.

 

So then would it stand to reason that any "benefits" negotiated by the union would not apply to the individuals that chose not to participate? And if they could not negotiate the "same deal" on their own, would they then have to just live with it?

 

I'm not a big union fan, have never belonged to one, but if the masses or majority at a place see the need and make it happen, then it got to be all or none.

 

What kind of mess and working conditions would there be in a workplace that had a division of the work force? Who would have the most bargaining power?

 

I'm thinkin' that the only solution would be to move on, which some of us do, but by doing so, haven't really fixed anything or made anything better....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...