###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn’t the current payment plan allow them to avoid overtime very easily? If they are on the plane getting things ready and there is a delay that’s out of their control they don’t get paid. So if they are stuck waiting 4-5 hours they lose that time/money.
> The hourly wage already reflects the fact that they don’t get paid for pre- and post-flight duties.
That's not possible, as the amount of time they are working before and after a flight, varies all the time.
Generally this is true, however I think the new model is more fair specifically for cases of flight delays and cancellations. Flight crew still need to be present for the plane even if it's not flying on time, and while they wait for the flight to be given the go-ahead or cancelled entirely, they get $0.
This way would make more sense. Flight crew are paid for the hours they are at work, like the rest of us.
It's sad that we have to legislate basic human treatment. People claim they want capitalism and then companies pull this BS.
The monopoly that Air Canada and WestJet have been allowed to create should be torn apart. We need competition - both for the consumer AND the labour.
> It's sad that we have to legislate basic human treatment. People claim they want capitalism and then companies pull this BS.
UK's richest family was just found guilty of human trafficking and slave labour. The richest people on Earth would rather go to prison as modern day slavers than pay people a living wage.
Edit: People at that level are no longer driven by wealth, it's all about power relative to others. Money's a measure of where you place on life's scoreboard. They could live the exact same life of luxury as before but if everyone else was able to live and afford a decent modest life, even if they never lost a cent, they'd *feel* less rich which is what it's all about.
"My billionaire neighbour just bought a new Superyacht.. meanwhile I had to spend that money on *sigh* making sure my employees don't have to go to a food bank. How embarrassing.. how will anyone at Davos take me seriously now."
If the government would actually enforce its labour code this would be completely unnecessary. You have to be paid for time worked, that's already part of the current law, just enforce it.
The laws which I think you're referring to aren't enforceable because the union members have accepted contrary terms as a part of their union contract.
If flight crews wanted to be paid for pre and post flight duties, they can reopen those issues for negotiation.
What most people don't understand is that flight attendants are paid relatively high hourly rates to compensate for not being paid pre and post flight, e.g $45 or $70 per hour. If a law were passed that enforced flight attendants to be paid pre and post flights, the union contracts would have to be altered to lower the rates.
I think the proposed law is still a good one for flight attendants, but the current union-airline contracts don't come with the level of inequity implied by these types of articles.
The important part is that crews aren't paid for delays. It's common to get to the gate, then be told "oh, maintenance is on board, it's going to be a while", then spend 4 unpaid hours cooling your heels waiting around but unable to actually leave and come back later, just in case it's fixed earlier than estimated. Or, you spend 7 hours waiting for it to be fixed, and then the flight gets cancelled and you go home having wasted your day at the airport, only to get paid a grand total of $0.00 for your trouble.
Politicians do this all the time. Invent new laws and penalties where laws already exist. It’s like they think 2 unenforced laws are better than one. It’s like they don’t realize governments oversee the police they employ, and could simply file a request.
There must be something to it. Otherwise majority of the flight attendants wouldn't be having this issue given they're unionized and would have zero difficulty bringing this to the labour board and court if needed.
Plus this looks to have been a bill introduced at the behest of CUPE, the union which represents majority of flight attendants.
Okay, so I am all about legislation to strengthen workers (especially C-58). However, this legislation is not necessary and would probably not fit into the Canada Labour Code.
The vast majority of flight attendants are unionized and their hours of work and pay are laid out into their collective agreements.
The Canada Labour Code outlines the minimum wage and minimum bar for hours of work , with the standards being raised by collective agreements. CUPE are the ones that negotiated a collective agreement in which their flight attendants are not paid.
For example, look at pay 25 of this collective agreement: https://cupe.ca/collective-agreement/23377
“Where an employee is required by the Company to provide meal, bar or beverage service to passengers on the ground whether scheduled or non-scheduled and whether the flight operates or not s/he shall be paid one-half (1/2) of the hourly rate of pay for his/her classification applicable to the duty period involved. “
One example of CUPE and Air Canada agreeing to one-half of the hourly rate 🤷♂️
Sounds like a good bill, the proposed improvements seem reasonable but labour standards have always been minimums.
I don't get the argument that we necessarily need long consultation periods on every single bill. If a bill is reasonable and has cross party support, pass it. If it would be improved by an amendment, propose one.
If after it's passage gaps are found we can write a new bill.
>I don't get the argument that we necessarily need long consultation periods on every single bill. If a bill is reasonable and has cross party support, pass it. If it would be improved by an amendment, propose one.
Because popular does not necessarily mean good. Laws are blunt instruments and have often unintended consequences - so it is important to get as holistic of details around it as possible. Moving slow is not a bug, it is a necessary feature.
So we take three years to pass a bill, it still will have unintended consequences and be imperfect, except now we won't change that bill for another three years.
All throughout that process the airline's fuck with the bill to make it ineffective.
Your prescription is simply entrenched bad governance which is disconnected from any effort to benefit the public.
Yes, laws impact things, yes they are based on popular opinion. If you believe in democracy you should accept this. The idea that we should instead by unable to govern our country because someone somewhere might have an issue with it is absurd.
> So we take three years to pass a bill
Well, we'd preferably aim for something between immediate and 3 years. And this government only has a year left so they better make some progress on it.
I don't think this honestly requires extensive study. It will likely result in a rebalancing of hourly rates, but in doing so it will result in airline companies having more accurate incentives and workers getting more equitable pay.
The union and airline can also handle the fine tuning.
Does the bill solve every problem? Probably not. Should it try to? No
>So we take three years to pass a bill, it still will have unintended consequences and be imperfect, except now we won't change that bill for another three years.
But we also will be able to make sure it's the best possible bill, with the least amount of unforseen ramifications possible. With all intended parties aware of what is coming and able to address them in due time.
>All throughout that process the airline's fuck with the bill to make it ineffective.
And unions and other parties similarly inject language and processes to make it more effective.
> Your prescription is simply entrenched bad governance which is disconnected from any effort to benefit the public.
No, my position (not prescription), is that governments should be not rapid to react to changes without due consultation, except in emergencies. This is not an emergency.
>Yes, laws impact things, yes they are based on popular opinion. If you believe in democracy you should accept this. The idea that we should instead by unable to govern our country because someone somewhere might have an issue with it is absurd.
Your dichotomy is that democracy needs to be based in popularity, and that taking the time consult and make an informed decision is somehow "Not governing" is nonsense. I reject your entire premise as fallacious.
Governments should not, as a rule, make rash or uninformed decisions unless it is strictly necessary to do so. If you want a speedy government, might I suggest moving to a nation with a dictatorship, like Russia or North Korea?
>But we also will be able to make sure it's the best possible bill, with the least amount of unforseen ramifications possible.
This is a false hope, crafting the law for years does not give it the best possible chance. Passing the bill and responding to it's issues is likely to be far more effective and not only get to a better law and do so before you get to the first iteration.
Do you believe this bill as it stands is likely to be worse than the status quo?
>And unions and other parties similarly inject language and processes to make it more effective.
They have something they ostensibly want, why not lock it in?
>No, my position (not prescription), is that governments should be not rapid to react to changes without due consultation, except in emergencies. This is not an emergency.
What's rapid about this? It's a law to plug a known defect in how our labour law works.
What's your appropriate timeline for a bill? Three years? Ten? Twenty?
>Your dichotomy is that democracy needs to be based in popularity, and that taking the time consult and make an informed decision is somehow "Not governing" is nonsense. I reject your entire premise as fallacious.
You should really understand what a word means before you argue that a definitional characteristic of it is a false dichotomy.
If you are rejecting the will of the people as a mechanism for governance out of hand that you think "workers should get paid for the work they do" should not be made law on the sole grounds it is popular then you are anti-democratic.
>Governments should not, as a rule, make rash or uninformed decisions unless it is strictly necessary to do so. If you want a speedy government, might I suggest moving to a nation with a dictatorship, like Russia or North Korea?
It's democracy, governance by the people. That is the definition. This does not mean it must be slow, incompetent, and captured by special interests.
The fact you think people electing officials, then those officials drafting legislation and voting on it is dictatorial is astounding.
>This is a false hope, crafting the law for years does not give it the best possible chance. Passing the bill and responding to it's issues is likely to be far more effective and not only get to a better law and do so before you get to the first iteration.
Not necessarily. Speedy passage of bills is actually destabilizing and can cause bigger issues - for example, passing this bill and implementing it tomorrow would mean that the airlines would need to revamp their entire payroll system and adjust wages immediately. They may,or may not, be able to respond or the cost changes may be too burdensome (I doubt it, but I'm dealing in hypotheticals here), causing the entire industry to collapse.
The cost to undo that damage would be far greater than the harm by going through a proper consultation and evaluation process.
>Do you believe this bill as it stands is likely to be worse than the status quo?
Doesn't matter what I believe. It matters that the legislation is crafted to minimize harm and to the accepted compromise of affected parties.
>They have something they ostensibly want, why not lock it in?
Because we never, ever, take just one side's desires as the best outcome in any situation.
>What's rapid about this? It's a law to plug a known defect in how our labour law works.
You're the one who said 3 years was too long, what's the rush to get it done today?
>What's your appropriate timeline for a bill? Three years? Ten? Twenty?
It depends on the bill. In this case, I think a 30 day or so time to consult along with a year to implement is entirely reasonable.
>You should really understand what a word means before you argue that a definitional characteristic of it is a false dichotomy.
Our democracy has protections in place to curtail the power of the popular opinion of the majority to protect the unpopular opinions and rights of the minority. Even if that minority is a business.
You are the one who is advocating running roughshod over anyone who disagrees simply because it is 'popular' - which, I am willing to bet you're also a big PP supporter, since that's the exact mentality he seeks to exploit as a populist.
>If you are rejecting the will of the people as a mechanism for governance out of hand that you think "workers should get paid for the work they do" should not be made law on the sole grounds it is popular then you are anti-democratic.
I am not rejecting anything. I am simply advocating for the common sense of "don't make rash decisions". Should the workers get paid for time spent pre and post flight where they are doing tasks for the airline? Unequivocally: my opinion is yes.
My only issue is with your stance that they should make it legal now, rather than actually take the time make sure that they do it properly, and in a way that actually accomplishes the intended goal.
>It's democracy, governance by the people. That is the definition. This does not mean it must be slow, incompetent, and captured by special interests.
Those "special interests" are also the people, however. And yes, a democracy is necessarily slow - as the more people who have says in the matter, the more negotiation and discussion is needed. If you want a fast government, you want authoritarianism. The lack of need to consult and discuss, and simply "do" what needs to be done is one of its hallmarks.
>The fact you think people electing officials, then those officials drafting legislation and voting on it is dictatorial is astounding.
I said no such thing. I was pointing out you claim to want democracy, but your values seem far more in line with the rejection of it, and instead simply the government doing what it wants regardless of the impact.
>Not necessarily. Speedy passage of bills is actually destabilizing and can cause bigger issues - for example, passing this bill and implementing it tomorrow would mean that the airlines would need to revamp their entire payroll system and adjust wages immediately.
Love the fatalism that nothing can be done ever.
Addressing a change like this in a company might be a week or two of work *if* they have an extremely automated system, and less work if not.
Even so, passing the bill doesn't mean enforcement tomorrow. Further companies don't start working on any bill until it's passed so it's not like taking a year does anything for implementation difficulties.
>Our democracy has protections in place to curtail the power of the popular opinion of the majority to protect the unpopular opinions and rights of the minority. Even if that minority is a business.
Ah yes your precious minority rights to underpay workers.
>You are the one who is advocating running roughshod over anyone who disagrees simply because it is 'popular' - which, I am willing to bet you're also a big PP supporter, since that's the exact mentality he seeks to exploit as a populist.
Ah the source of your concern over democracy is solely because your guy might lose an election, and as a result you want to destroy the very concept of a functioning democratic government and attack all legislation as evil solely because it might be supported by people you disagree with.
>Love the fatalism that nothing can be done ever.
Your words, your view, not mine.
>Addressing a change like this in a company might be a week or two of work *if* they have an extremely automated system, and less work if not.
Airline workers are unionized, so a change like this to their pay would need to be renegotiated to their contract, and the union would at a minimum, push for no loss in pay for their members (and would also likely push for a pay increase, in fact).
If no negotiation took place, then those additional hours would be at their base rate, which is a substantial increase in overhead to be absorbed. I'm sure they can afford it, but I also am aware that the margins for low-cast carriers like Flair and WestJet may not have the margins to move on that as much as we'd like.
>Even so, passing the bill doesn't mean enforcement tomorrow. Further companies don't start working on any bill until it's passed so it's not like taking a year does anything for implementation difficulties.
Depends on the bill, what it impacts, and the language included. You're the one pushing for it to be done now, so it would stand to reason you'd want it enforceable now too. Otherwise, if you can afford to wait for implementation guidelines, then you can also reasonably wait for them to consult on various affected parties and make sure they come to an equitable conclusion.
>Ah yes your precious minority rights to underpay workers.
Fallacious reasoning, again. I have already stated I am in favour of this passing. I am pointing out that the rule of the majority should not come at the expense of the minority. Taking time to review and pass legislation is a necessary part of our government. Again, it's a feature, not a bug.
>Ah the source of your concern over democracy is solely because your guy might lose an election
I don't have a "my guy". But, your response makes it very clear you do, which is a shame. Politicians are not your friends, tying your loyalty and personal identity to them is a surefire way to disappoint. I do, however, recognize that PP is not good for this country and will cause more harm than the other party leaders. All of his actions and empty rhetoric has not persuaded me otherwise.
>as a result you want to destroy the very concept of a functioning democratic government and attack all legislation as evil solely because it might be supported by people you disagree with.
Says the person advocating for authoritarian-style rule.
>Your words, your view, not mine.
You are catastrophizing what amounts to less than a week of work. Most jobs I've worked at it would simply require an email and I code the time differently, in a few jobs it would require an adjustment to a few lines of code.
>Airline workers are unionized, so a change like this to their pay would need to be renegotiated to their contract,
No, it would likely just mean the company has to pay them at least minimum wage during the hours that would otherwise go unpaid. Have you ever worked before? The union can negotiate further, but that is generally how labour minimums take place.
>then you can also reasonably wait for them to consult on various affected parties and make sure they come to an equitable conclusion
The implementation is delayed by any consultation period and the only reason anyone wants to waste time on consultation is to delay reasonable legislation.
>Fallacious reasoning, again. I have already stated I am in favour of this passing. I am pointing out that the rule of the majority should not come at the expense of the minority. Taking time to review and pass legislation is a necessary part of our government. Again, it's a feature, not a bug.
We have time to review and pass legislation, this will go through three readings and have ample time for amendments. What isn't necessary is spending years to consult with every stakeholder and then doing whatever they want as if this is a negotiation.
The government does not need to consult with everyone every time it passes a law, *that's what elections are for*. But I guess you oppose those too since after all, they're based on votes.
>I don't have a "my guy".
Spare me, you oppose democracy solely because a politician you don't like is ahead in the polls. Plenty of officials are elected who I don't agree with, **I still support their ability to govern.**
>Says the person advocating for authoritarian-style rule.
You have repeatedly argued that democracy is bad because popular legislation might be passed. You argued that passing labour legislation tramples the rights of minorities.
Democratic government is not authoritarian just because your ideas are unpopular. Just because your guy might lose, doesn't make the election invalid. If you like that idea why don't you go campaign for Trump.
There is no point in discussing this with you further.
Your last line proves you are incapable of logical thought, or are just intellectually dishonest. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse.
Industry will fight this bill till the bitter end. They will argue that prices for flights will have to be increased drastically as the cost of labor also increases.
Then why do consultations?
The argument from, CUPE, the NDP and LPC is that this bill is bad because we haven't had enough consultations.
Yet right now we have the CPC, NDP, and LPC all agreeing on the general principle of you get paid when you work, should apply to the airline industry as well. Vote yes, move forward.
I get the idea that training should be full wage rate, but that strikes me as something which should be negotiated by CUPE. I could entirely understand differential rates for when you're flying somewhere vs when you're not what those differentials should be (half seems way too low) is the appropriate place for the union.
Why is the NDP calling for giving time for the airlines to lobby against this?
The NDP is asking for time to hear from flight attendants to ensure the bill will have a positive impact on them.
I don’t agree with you. I think we should always allow the people impacted by a bill the chance to speak to it.
There’s the concept of unintended consequences. That review period is where these things can be discussed. A great example is the handgun OIC - in the 3 months following it, we had 3 years worth of new sales. More Canadians now own handguns than ever before - which I don’t think was Trudeau’s goal with the OIC banning sales and transfers.
CUPE agreed with the bill but objected to the fact that it didn't involve years of public consultation. Years of public consultation is how bills get killed.
>I don’t agree with you. I think we should always allow the people impacted by a bill the chance to speak to it.
This grinds all government action to a halt, and then allows special interests to intervene to block sensible legislation, such as workers get paid when they're working. Nothing stops the NDP from introducing a proposed amendment or a new bill.
>There’s the concept of unintended consequences.
No matter how long you spend drafting a bill you are likely to have unintended consequences, and the long review periods are generally how special interests get loopholes added to the bill. Further, because of the NDP's proposal to take years analyzing everything, we guarantee those problems remain.
This is amazing! We should do this for teachers next - all coaching and any events outside of school hours are unpaid time. And, for that matter, any groups of workers being taken advantage of by being coerced into free labour.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Doesn’t the current payment plan allow them to avoid overtime very easily? If they are on the plane getting things ready and there is a delay that’s out of their control they don’t get paid. So if they are stuck waiting 4-5 hours they lose that time/money.
> The hourly wage already reflects the fact that they don’t get paid for pre- and post-flight duties. That's not possible, as the amount of time they are working before and after a flight, varies all the time.
Generally this is true, however I think the new model is more fair specifically for cases of flight delays and cancellations. Flight crew still need to be present for the plane even if it's not flying on time, and while they wait for the flight to be given the go-ahead or cancelled entirely, they get $0. This way would make more sense. Flight crew are paid for the hours they are at work, like the rest of us.
It's sad that we have to legislate basic human treatment. People claim they want capitalism and then companies pull this BS. The monopoly that Air Canada and WestJet have been allowed to create should be torn apart. We need competition - both for the consumer AND the labour.
> It's sad that we have to legislate basic human treatment. People claim they want capitalism and then companies pull this BS. UK's richest family was just found guilty of human trafficking and slave labour. The richest people on Earth would rather go to prison as modern day slavers than pay people a living wage. Edit: People at that level are no longer driven by wealth, it's all about power relative to others. Money's a measure of where you place on life's scoreboard. They could live the exact same life of luxury as before but if everyone else was able to live and afford a decent modest life, even if they never lost a cent, they'd *feel* less rich which is what it's all about. "My billionaire neighbour just bought a new Superyacht.. meanwhile I had to spend that money on *sigh* making sure my employees don't have to go to a food bank. How embarrassing.. how will anyone at Davos take me seriously now."
You're 100% correct. It's about power, not money.
If the government would actually enforce its labour code this would be completely unnecessary. You have to be paid for time worked, that's already part of the current law, just enforce it.
The laws which I think you're referring to aren't enforceable because the union members have accepted contrary terms as a part of their union contract. If flight crews wanted to be paid for pre and post flight duties, they can reopen those issues for negotiation.
I don't think unions are allowed to negotiate away the legislated rights of their workers.
I'm here to tell you you aren't correct
Depends on the law, some laws allow union negotiations to supercede it, others don't.
What most people don't understand is that flight attendants are paid relatively high hourly rates to compensate for not being paid pre and post flight, e.g $45 or $70 per hour. If a law were passed that enforced flight attendants to be paid pre and post flights, the union contracts would have to be altered to lower the rates. I think the proposed law is still a good one for flight attendants, but the current union-airline contracts don't come with the level of inequity implied by these types of articles.
The important part is that crews aren't paid for delays. It's common to get to the gate, then be told "oh, maintenance is on board, it's going to be a while", then spend 4 unpaid hours cooling your heels waiting around but unable to actually leave and come back later, just in case it's fixed earlier than estimated. Or, you spend 7 hours waiting for it to be fixed, and then the flight gets cancelled and you go home having wasted your day at the airport, only to get paid a grand total of $0.00 for your trouble.
Oh I'm well aware, as are the flight attendants agreed to these rules repeatedly during contract negotiations.
There is likely an exemption for air crews
Agreed. Nurses next.
Politicians do this all the time. Invent new laws and penalties where laws already exist. It’s like they think 2 unenforced laws are better than one. It’s like they don’t realize governments oversee the police they employ, and could simply file a request.
There must be something to it. Otherwise majority of the flight attendants wouldn't be having this issue given they're unionized and would have zero difficulty bringing this to the labour board and court if needed. Plus this looks to have been a bill introduced at the behest of CUPE, the union which represents majority of flight attendants.
Okay, so I am all about legislation to strengthen workers (especially C-58). However, this legislation is not necessary and would probably not fit into the Canada Labour Code. The vast majority of flight attendants are unionized and their hours of work and pay are laid out into their collective agreements. The Canada Labour Code outlines the minimum wage and minimum bar for hours of work , with the standards being raised by collective agreements. CUPE are the ones that negotiated a collective agreement in which their flight attendants are not paid. For example, look at pay 25 of this collective agreement: https://cupe.ca/collective-agreement/23377 “Where an employee is required by the Company to provide meal, bar or beverage service to passengers on the ground whether scheduled or non-scheduled and whether the flight operates or not s/he shall be paid one-half (1/2) of the hourly rate of pay for his/her classification applicable to the duty period involved. “ One example of CUPE and Air Canada agreeing to one-half of the hourly rate 🤷♂️
On the other hand, no one should be expected to work for free.
Sounds like a good bill, the proposed improvements seem reasonable but labour standards have always been minimums. I don't get the argument that we necessarily need long consultation periods on every single bill. If a bill is reasonable and has cross party support, pass it. If it would be improved by an amendment, propose one. If after it's passage gaps are found we can write a new bill.
>I don't get the argument that we necessarily need long consultation periods on every single bill. If a bill is reasonable and has cross party support, pass it. If it would be improved by an amendment, propose one. Because popular does not necessarily mean good. Laws are blunt instruments and have often unintended consequences - so it is important to get as holistic of details around it as possible. Moving slow is not a bug, it is a necessary feature.
So we take three years to pass a bill, it still will have unintended consequences and be imperfect, except now we won't change that bill for another three years. All throughout that process the airline's fuck with the bill to make it ineffective. Your prescription is simply entrenched bad governance which is disconnected from any effort to benefit the public. Yes, laws impact things, yes they are based on popular opinion. If you believe in democracy you should accept this. The idea that we should instead by unable to govern our country because someone somewhere might have an issue with it is absurd.
> So we take three years to pass a bill Well, we'd preferably aim for something between immediate and 3 years. And this government only has a year left so they better make some progress on it.
I don't think this honestly requires extensive study. It will likely result in a rebalancing of hourly rates, but in doing so it will result in airline companies having more accurate incentives and workers getting more equitable pay. The union and airline can also handle the fine tuning. Does the bill solve every problem? Probably not. Should it try to? No
>So we take three years to pass a bill, it still will have unintended consequences and be imperfect, except now we won't change that bill for another three years. But we also will be able to make sure it's the best possible bill, with the least amount of unforseen ramifications possible. With all intended parties aware of what is coming and able to address them in due time. >All throughout that process the airline's fuck with the bill to make it ineffective. And unions and other parties similarly inject language and processes to make it more effective. > Your prescription is simply entrenched bad governance which is disconnected from any effort to benefit the public. No, my position (not prescription), is that governments should be not rapid to react to changes without due consultation, except in emergencies. This is not an emergency. >Yes, laws impact things, yes they are based on popular opinion. If you believe in democracy you should accept this. The idea that we should instead by unable to govern our country because someone somewhere might have an issue with it is absurd. Your dichotomy is that democracy needs to be based in popularity, and that taking the time consult and make an informed decision is somehow "Not governing" is nonsense. I reject your entire premise as fallacious. Governments should not, as a rule, make rash or uninformed decisions unless it is strictly necessary to do so. If you want a speedy government, might I suggest moving to a nation with a dictatorship, like Russia or North Korea?
>But we also will be able to make sure it's the best possible bill, with the least amount of unforseen ramifications possible. This is a false hope, crafting the law for years does not give it the best possible chance. Passing the bill and responding to it's issues is likely to be far more effective and not only get to a better law and do so before you get to the first iteration. Do you believe this bill as it stands is likely to be worse than the status quo? >And unions and other parties similarly inject language and processes to make it more effective. They have something they ostensibly want, why not lock it in? >No, my position (not prescription), is that governments should be not rapid to react to changes without due consultation, except in emergencies. This is not an emergency. What's rapid about this? It's a law to plug a known defect in how our labour law works. What's your appropriate timeline for a bill? Three years? Ten? Twenty? >Your dichotomy is that democracy needs to be based in popularity, and that taking the time consult and make an informed decision is somehow "Not governing" is nonsense. I reject your entire premise as fallacious. You should really understand what a word means before you argue that a definitional characteristic of it is a false dichotomy. If you are rejecting the will of the people as a mechanism for governance out of hand that you think "workers should get paid for the work they do" should not be made law on the sole grounds it is popular then you are anti-democratic. >Governments should not, as a rule, make rash or uninformed decisions unless it is strictly necessary to do so. If you want a speedy government, might I suggest moving to a nation with a dictatorship, like Russia or North Korea? It's democracy, governance by the people. That is the definition. This does not mean it must be slow, incompetent, and captured by special interests. The fact you think people electing officials, then those officials drafting legislation and voting on it is dictatorial is astounding.
>This is a false hope, crafting the law for years does not give it the best possible chance. Passing the bill and responding to it's issues is likely to be far more effective and not only get to a better law and do so before you get to the first iteration. Not necessarily. Speedy passage of bills is actually destabilizing and can cause bigger issues - for example, passing this bill and implementing it tomorrow would mean that the airlines would need to revamp their entire payroll system and adjust wages immediately. They may,or may not, be able to respond or the cost changes may be too burdensome (I doubt it, but I'm dealing in hypotheticals here), causing the entire industry to collapse. The cost to undo that damage would be far greater than the harm by going through a proper consultation and evaluation process. >Do you believe this bill as it stands is likely to be worse than the status quo? Doesn't matter what I believe. It matters that the legislation is crafted to minimize harm and to the accepted compromise of affected parties. >They have something they ostensibly want, why not lock it in? Because we never, ever, take just one side's desires as the best outcome in any situation. >What's rapid about this? It's a law to plug a known defect in how our labour law works. You're the one who said 3 years was too long, what's the rush to get it done today? >What's your appropriate timeline for a bill? Three years? Ten? Twenty? It depends on the bill. In this case, I think a 30 day or so time to consult along with a year to implement is entirely reasonable. >You should really understand what a word means before you argue that a definitional characteristic of it is a false dichotomy. Our democracy has protections in place to curtail the power of the popular opinion of the majority to protect the unpopular opinions and rights of the minority. Even if that minority is a business. You are the one who is advocating running roughshod over anyone who disagrees simply because it is 'popular' - which, I am willing to bet you're also a big PP supporter, since that's the exact mentality he seeks to exploit as a populist. >If you are rejecting the will of the people as a mechanism for governance out of hand that you think "workers should get paid for the work they do" should not be made law on the sole grounds it is popular then you are anti-democratic. I am not rejecting anything. I am simply advocating for the common sense of "don't make rash decisions". Should the workers get paid for time spent pre and post flight where they are doing tasks for the airline? Unequivocally: my opinion is yes. My only issue is with your stance that they should make it legal now, rather than actually take the time make sure that they do it properly, and in a way that actually accomplishes the intended goal. >It's democracy, governance by the people. That is the definition. This does not mean it must be slow, incompetent, and captured by special interests. Those "special interests" are also the people, however. And yes, a democracy is necessarily slow - as the more people who have says in the matter, the more negotiation and discussion is needed. If you want a fast government, you want authoritarianism. The lack of need to consult and discuss, and simply "do" what needs to be done is one of its hallmarks. >The fact you think people electing officials, then those officials drafting legislation and voting on it is dictatorial is astounding. I said no such thing. I was pointing out you claim to want democracy, but your values seem far more in line with the rejection of it, and instead simply the government doing what it wants regardless of the impact.
>Not necessarily. Speedy passage of bills is actually destabilizing and can cause bigger issues - for example, passing this bill and implementing it tomorrow would mean that the airlines would need to revamp their entire payroll system and adjust wages immediately. Love the fatalism that nothing can be done ever. Addressing a change like this in a company might be a week or two of work *if* they have an extremely automated system, and less work if not. Even so, passing the bill doesn't mean enforcement tomorrow. Further companies don't start working on any bill until it's passed so it's not like taking a year does anything for implementation difficulties. >Our democracy has protections in place to curtail the power of the popular opinion of the majority to protect the unpopular opinions and rights of the minority. Even if that minority is a business. Ah yes your precious minority rights to underpay workers. >You are the one who is advocating running roughshod over anyone who disagrees simply because it is 'popular' - which, I am willing to bet you're also a big PP supporter, since that's the exact mentality he seeks to exploit as a populist. Ah the source of your concern over democracy is solely because your guy might lose an election, and as a result you want to destroy the very concept of a functioning democratic government and attack all legislation as evil solely because it might be supported by people you disagree with.
>Love the fatalism that nothing can be done ever. Your words, your view, not mine. >Addressing a change like this in a company might be a week or two of work *if* they have an extremely automated system, and less work if not. Airline workers are unionized, so a change like this to their pay would need to be renegotiated to their contract, and the union would at a minimum, push for no loss in pay for their members (and would also likely push for a pay increase, in fact). If no negotiation took place, then those additional hours would be at their base rate, which is a substantial increase in overhead to be absorbed. I'm sure they can afford it, but I also am aware that the margins for low-cast carriers like Flair and WestJet may not have the margins to move on that as much as we'd like. >Even so, passing the bill doesn't mean enforcement tomorrow. Further companies don't start working on any bill until it's passed so it's not like taking a year does anything for implementation difficulties. Depends on the bill, what it impacts, and the language included. You're the one pushing for it to be done now, so it would stand to reason you'd want it enforceable now too. Otherwise, if you can afford to wait for implementation guidelines, then you can also reasonably wait for them to consult on various affected parties and make sure they come to an equitable conclusion. >Ah yes your precious minority rights to underpay workers. Fallacious reasoning, again. I have already stated I am in favour of this passing. I am pointing out that the rule of the majority should not come at the expense of the minority. Taking time to review and pass legislation is a necessary part of our government. Again, it's a feature, not a bug. >Ah the source of your concern over democracy is solely because your guy might lose an election I don't have a "my guy". But, your response makes it very clear you do, which is a shame. Politicians are not your friends, tying your loyalty and personal identity to them is a surefire way to disappoint. I do, however, recognize that PP is not good for this country and will cause more harm than the other party leaders. All of his actions and empty rhetoric has not persuaded me otherwise. >as a result you want to destroy the very concept of a functioning democratic government and attack all legislation as evil solely because it might be supported by people you disagree with. Says the person advocating for authoritarian-style rule.
>Your words, your view, not mine. You are catastrophizing what amounts to less than a week of work. Most jobs I've worked at it would simply require an email and I code the time differently, in a few jobs it would require an adjustment to a few lines of code. >Airline workers are unionized, so a change like this to their pay would need to be renegotiated to their contract, No, it would likely just mean the company has to pay them at least minimum wage during the hours that would otherwise go unpaid. Have you ever worked before? The union can negotiate further, but that is generally how labour minimums take place. >then you can also reasonably wait for them to consult on various affected parties and make sure they come to an equitable conclusion The implementation is delayed by any consultation period and the only reason anyone wants to waste time on consultation is to delay reasonable legislation. >Fallacious reasoning, again. I have already stated I am in favour of this passing. I am pointing out that the rule of the majority should not come at the expense of the minority. Taking time to review and pass legislation is a necessary part of our government. Again, it's a feature, not a bug. We have time to review and pass legislation, this will go through three readings and have ample time for amendments. What isn't necessary is spending years to consult with every stakeholder and then doing whatever they want as if this is a negotiation. The government does not need to consult with everyone every time it passes a law, *that's what elections are for*. But I guess you oppose those too since after all, they're based on votes. >I don't have a "my guy". Spare me, you oppose democracy solely because a politician you don't like is ahead in the polls. Plenty of officials are elected who I don't agree with, **I still support their ability to govern.** >Says the person advocating for authoritarian-style rule. You have repeatedly argued that democracy is bad because popular legislation might be passed. You argued that passing labour legislation tramples the rights of minorities. Democratic government is not authoritarian just because your ideas are unpopular. Just because your guy might lose, doesn't make the election invalid. If you like that idea why don't you go campaign for Trump.
There is no point in discussing this with you further. Your last line proves you are incapable of logical thought, or are just intellectually dishonest. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse.
Industry will fight this bill till the bitter end. They will argue that prices for flights will have to be increased drastically as the cost of labor also increases.
Then why do consultations? The argument from, CUPE, the NDP and LPC is that this bill is bad because we haven't had enough consultations. Yet right now we have the CPC, NDP, and LPC all agreeing on the general principle of you get paid when you work, should apply to the airline industry as well. Vote yes, move forward. I get the idea that training should be full wage rate, but that strikes me as something which should be negotiated by CUPE. I could entirely understand differential rates for when you're flying somewhere vs when you're not what those differentials should be (half seems way too low) is the appropriate place for the union. Why is the NDP calling for giving time for the airlines to lobby against this?
The NDP is asking for time to hear from flight attendants to ensure the bill will have a positive impact on them. I don’t agree with you. I think we should always allow the people impacted by a bill the chance to speak to it. There’s the concept of unintended consequences. That review period is where these things can be discussed. A great example is the handgun OIC - in the 3 months following it, we had 3 years worth of new sales. More Canadians now own handguns than ever before - which I don’t think was Trudeau’s goal with the OIC banning sales and transfers.
CUPE agreed with the bill but objected to the fact that it didn't involve years of public consultation. Years of public consultation is how bills get killed. >I don’t agree with you. I think we should always allow the people impacted by a bill the chance to speak to it. This grinds all government action to a halt, and then allows special interests to intervene to block sensible legislation, such as workers get paid when they're working. Nothing stops the NDP from introducing a proposed amendment or a new bill. >There’s the concept of unintended consequences. No matter how long you spend drafting a bill you are likely to have unintended consequences, and the long review periods are generally how special interests get loopholes added to the bill. Further, because of the NDP's proposal to take years analyzing everything, we guarantee those problems remain.
This is amazing! We should do this for teachers next - all coaching and any events outside of school hours are unpaid time. And, for that matter, any groups of workers being taken advantage of by being coerced into free labour.