|
Post by kylefossett on Feb 14, 2008 21:39:50 GMT -8
originally had posted under new ferries. was half paying attention when posted. now corrected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.C. Ferries tries to get 500 crew to leave union
By Christina Montgomery The Province
Thursday, February 14, 2008
CREDIT: The Province The ill-fated Queen of the North.
B.C. Ferries is trying to force 500 crew members out of their union and into management ranks - a move the union says could lead to a massive loss of scarce workers.
The request has already angered members enough that some might begin turning down overtime shifts critical to keep the fleet sailing on time, one union official told The Province.
The push comes as the company grapples with acute labour shortages, a situation company president David Hahn has publicly bemoaned.
The positions at issue include all captains, chief officers (or mates, on smaller vessels), second officers, chief stewards, second stewards, chief engineers, first engineers, terminal supervisors, terminal operations supervisors and night-shift supervisors - more than 10 per cent of the union's membership.
A letter dated Feb. 12 from Glen Schwarz, vice-president of human resources, to Jackie Miller, president of the ferry workers' union, says the move is needed because the company doesn't have "adequate control" aboard vessels or in terminals.
The letter also says:
. Four reports on the 2006 sinking of the Queen of the North all say that the "current structure and system of management" leaves the company unable to "efficiently and effectively manage its assets and resources." One of the reports cited is the Transportation Safety Board's report on the sinking. It hasn't been released publicly.
The letter fails to note that on the night of the sinking, the captain of the ferry was non-union, as was the marine superintendent who was aboard.
. In 2005 and 2006, there were incidents involving "attendance issues, fitness for work, and performance" and "inconsistent practices and insufficient direction."
The letter refers to several cases involving consumption of alcohol. Last October, the TSB said it was concerned that crew aboard the sunken ferry smoked marijuana.
. As safety and security programs ramp up, the company needs "more tightly controlled and efficient" management. It describes captains as CEOs of their ships while at sea and says they are clearly managers.
The letter says B.C. Ferries would like to negotiate the exemptions with the union but will apply for them if need be to mediator Vince Ready, who has reserved jurisdiction over the contract.
Company communications director Mark Stefanson declined to comment on what he called an internal labour issue.
Gregg Dow, spokesman for the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union, called the push for exemptions misguided, given acute labour shortages and an aging workforce.
Dow, a catering attendant on the Queen of Nanaimo, said at least one sailing a day out of Saltspring had a crew member making double time and working extra hours, a scene he said was common across the fleet.
"It's February and we're already asking catering attendants to work double time. That's a shortage of people. The chief steward on the Queen of Nanaimo is sailing the next two days on their day off just so they can keep the cafeteria open. It's crisis management."
Dow also predicted that many of the people working the jobs that could be reclassified are senior crew - "you have to be to have those jobs" - with large banks of overtime.
The contract allows them the option of a severance package if their jobs are exempted, meaning they could collect large amounts of pay for the banked overtime, a preretirement bonus and as much as a year's pay in severance.
"It's going to be expensive [for the company if it does that] and it's going to be expensive to replace them," Dow said.
He said he wasn't clear what the company hoped to accomplish with mass exclusions - other than create a lot of managers who aren't paid for overtime hours.
cmontgomery@png.canwest.com
|
|
|
Post by Taxman on Feb 14, 2008 22:56:08 GMT -8
This is highly strange, neither the BC LRB or federal Negotech has the current BC Ferries CBA on file. Does anyone know where I could find it?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 15, 2008 7:29:11 GMT -8
I can see Captains being considered as management I suppose. I don't know enough about the duties of all the other positions though to comment on some of them. What I fail to understand is how this will exasperate staff shortages? Moving positions out of the union will impact the union through fewer dues being paid. So will the shortages result from people leaving BC Ferries and getting serverence? I don't understand why people would do that unless the financial rewards for doing so were too good to ignore. If someone is in management what would preclude them from still working overtime? Now that Gregg is on the board maybe he can elaborate further for us.
These days labour laws regarding dismissal are pretty stringent and you have to have cause through the wazzu before you can fire or you risk a constructive dismissal or other labour cases. Labour courts usually err on the workers side as well.
If the TSB (which we haven't seen yet) is indeed critical of BC Ferries structure or management then obviously something has to be done. If so, I wonder what the union solution would be to address the concerns. Time will tell I suppose.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Feb 15, 2008 8:45:29 GMT -8
What I fail to understand is how this will exasperate staff shortages? Moving positions out of the union will impact the union through fewer dues being paid. So will the shortages result from people leaving BC Ferries and getting serverence? I don't understand why people would do that unless the financial rewards for doing so were too good to ignore. I was left pondering this, too. IMO, I think the move would be lateral at worst for the people being asked to leave the union. Without the offer of similar, or better, compensation packages, I can't see anyone voluntarily making the move. In addition, I think I do see where BCFS is trying to go with this. By removing some of the chief policy enforcers from the union, and more under BCFS's direct control, I believe they are hoping to exert pressure on the workforce to "toe the line". A little strong arming to be expected! It shouldn't. I'm reasonably sure that under BC labour laws, management positions are not exempt from overtime in most cases. I do know for a fact that salaried positions are almost never exempt, i.e. if you work more than 40 hours ( typical to a employment contract), you are entitled to the equivalent paycheck add as you would see as a hourly worker. True, but, again IMO, the impression I get is BCFS probably feels it can pit management against the union, and vice versa, therefore bringing more disciplinary action against its staff. This might not result in immediate dismissals, but the cumulative effect would be creating sufficient cause to get rid of the "bad apples" (which I'm sure they think the union is "protecting").
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 15, 2008 9:41:08 GMT -8
If the one of the reason is that Captains and other supervisors are turning a blind eye to substance abuse and not enforcing rules that impact safety, then yes something serious should be done. If that is what the TSB has observed or concluded then as a member of the traveling public I would demand something be done as I put my life in someone else's hands when I travel. Airline pilots have rules about alcohol consumption a number of hours before a flight. So there are many precidents for these sort of safety issues. What people do in their own time is up to them and no one's business. However, I would have the same opinion for anyone that the public needs to rely on - bus drivers, transit workers, cab drivers etc. I would hope there isn't just a list of minor things behind this.
|
|
|
Post by Taxman on Feb 15, 2008 10:06:08 GMT -8
Regardless of what happens, this situation will be very interesting. I can certainly see Mr. Ready coming back moving some of the shipboard staff from Union to Management, especially the Master. However, the question really is, how much authority do these various crew members have? Can the Captain or Chief Steward reallocate or appoint crew to different positions when the ship is underway?
I wish that I had not lent my textbook to someone for the semester.
Watching this with interest, keep us informed.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 15, 2008 10:18:54 GMT -8
Captains generally are members of management as I understand it, however given the lack of qualified personal there are a number of individuals who stay in the Union and can still be Acting Captains (I am not sure what the official term is, "Acting Captain" is my words).
I know a good family friend of ours often is the Captain of the Queen of Capilano or Queen of Oak Bay but is still a Union member. As a result of staying out of the managment level, however, he will not recieve a full time assignment so bounces between routes and positions.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 22, 2008 23:11:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Apr 24, 2008 15:43:07 GMT -8
The staff which is under attack are not management. This a union busting ploy by management. That is 500 more people not paying union dues and not protected by the union. They will be on their own. It does not take any great imagination to figure out that the most obedient will get any promotions and get the best shifts. I think the ones who stand up for their rights will quickly find themselves out the door. Unfortunately these are usually the most intelligent and best workers.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 24, 2008 15:52:13 GMT -8
Isn't it even more ironic how some apply ten times and do not get a position when they have a shortage?
|
|
|
Post by staffer on Apr 24, 2008 18:30:13 GMT -8
Isn't it even more ironic how some apply ten times and do not get a position when they have a shortage? I always wonder what the powers that be are thinking. Management does not understand what is going on half the time. They appear to act on first thoughts and think later. From what I have heard, not many union employees are taking this request seriously and are happy to be part of a union. I would say that Hahn is somewhat desperate as the summer season is coming up since it looks like many workers will be earning lots of overtime!
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 25, 2008 22:09:39 GMT -8
The reason why the company wants to do that is now they can do anything with the the licensed staff like working them more and no paying them.
It is a bad idea but what do you expect
|
|
|
Post by doctorcad on Apr 28, 2008 14:29:44 GMT -8
Sounds like they are reacting to the TSB report. I guess they see this as a way to get company policy into the wheelhouse and control tower.
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on May 1, 2008 23:34:17 GMT -8
Sounds like they are reacting to the TSB report. I guess they see this as a way to get company policy into the wheelhouse and control tower. True, but it can easily backfire.
|
|
|
Post by doctorcad on May 2, 2008 8:49:57 GMT -8
Sounds like they are reacting to the TSB report. I guess they see this as a way to get company policy into the wheelhouse and control tower. True, but it can easily backfire. What could possibly go wrong? Lol. I think it's too late for management to stick their heads in the sand and pretend there isn't an operational problem. Almost every single accident report since the Alberni rammed the Shinwa Maru has pointed toward lack of discipline. The days of BC Ferries having an immaculate safety record are long gone folks. Time to put the hammer down before more people die.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 17, 2008 15:37:11 GMT -8
This is highly strange, neither the BC LRB or federal Negotech has the current BC Ferries CBA on file. Does anyone know where I could find it? I realise this is an old question, but here is the CBA: www3.telus.net/Tsawwassen/Agreement%2001%20VR.htmIt's on the public portion of the Union's website.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 9, 2010 23:17:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Sept 10, 2010 12:22:51 GMT -8
Flugel when he says "pulled out of the union" does that actually mean that the company can force people out of the union and give them a new contract? There are several unionized Masters floating around BC Ferries.
Was Steward already a management position prior to this decision? It could really effect some employees lives, and desires to stay with BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 10, 2010 12:54:15 GMT -8
Flugel when he says "pulled out of the union" does that actually mean that the company can force people out of the union and give them a new contract? There are several unionized Masters floating around BC Ferries. Was Steward already a management position prior to this decision? It could really effect some employees lives, and desires to stay with BC Ferries. I'll defer on this one, as I'm no expert. Neil - over to you....
|
|
|
Post by uricanejack on Sept 10, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -8
No only the Captains on the big ships are manager's all the engineers and the rest of the crew are in the union. There is only the one captain who is a manager on all the smaller ships. none of the rest of the small ships captains or crew are managers they are all in the union.
Or at least they were.
Now All the Captains all the Chief Engineers and All the Stewards have to leave the union and become managers.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 10, 2010 18:59:46 GMT -8
I didn't read the end of the decision but part of the arbiters job is to ensure a transition period/process is in place. BC Ferries can't force someone to join a union nor can they force someone out of a union.
What they can do through either negotiations with a union, or the help of the Labour Relations Board, or in this case with an abitrator, they can classify jobs as management or not. This was done over a period of time, very carefully hearing submissions, and in balance with other industries and existing precedents.
They have moved quite a number of positions out of the union. 70 shore people alone. I think part of the tactic has been to throw out an inflated blue sky wish number, knowing all the positions wouldn't be accepted. This gives the union an out in that they can say we kept x number of positions still in the union.
Normally what happens is during the transition period there are a number of choices for the individuals whose job is being reclassified. Firstly, the person in the position now has the right to keep their job albeit under management rather than union. A negotiation takes place and the person normally doesn't lose benefits and pay to keep their job. Secondly, a buy out can be offered. Usually one month per year of service as a minimum. The person can accept this and leave the company with a good reference and a chunk of cash. Thirdly, the person can refuse the new position and ask for another one that would still be unionized. For example a Master of a Major Vessel move to a Minor Vessel. Sometimes there might be a loss of pay and lower benefits but this can be sometimes negotiated to minimize change. It all comes down sometimes to a person's good will they have built up at the company.
There will be deadlines set for decisions, then a deadline for the actual changes, and then most often a series of training events to bring the individual up to speed with new duties and/or training in duties that weren't being done before.
Should the person refuse the lot of it? It would likely end up badly with someone being given severance and walking papers, or fired outright for cause. This would undoubtedly end up in a labour relations case.
If the employer doesn't do all the steps right, it can end up being something called constructive dismissal. This is the term used when the employer makes an impossible change to a position without proper consultation or due consideration for the person. It happens all the time where an employer changes someone's job hoping they will just leave rather than having to fire them. Courts will order up to 2 months per year of service depending on the individual's situation. The downside is, it can take a long time for a case to come up, 12 to 18 months. Often it is just much better to take whatever settlement or buyout is offered, unless you can live without income. If you get another job right away you will get a much smaller award.
If you are ever fired, or your employer makes arbitrary changes, you should get some legal advice. A good employer will pay for that, and should provide some exit counselling and/or placement services. It never hurts to call your provincial labour relations board or employment ministry if you are in doubt and not part of a union. It is also never a bad thing to read about the basics of labour law and to know your rights. It is mind boggling how badly some companies screw things up.
I read the beginning of the report and skimmed the middle and found it interesting. I will go back and reread what I skimmed and then read the ending, some other time than on a Friday night.
|
|
|
Post by fairwinds on Sept 10, 2010 19:00:42 GMT -8
Dane, "pulled out" isn't the most accurate way to put it. The ruling is a formal decision in favour of the company. It says the positions that those people work are no longer covered, or eligible to be covered, by the collective agreement, ie they are now "excluded". That's why this whole battle has been known as the "exclusion" war. The positions aren't included in the agreement, Ready ruled. So the people who work in them can't be in the union. It's their choice whether to stay on or to leave. But there is no choice about whether they can remain union members once the ruling kicks in, as uricanejack said. I think the wording that says the workers "can be pulled out" of the union means he has granted permission to the company to do what they asked to do, ie "yep, you can pull them out now."
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Mar 28, 2011 13:15:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 28, 2011 13:22:16 GMT -8
Neil posted an update, which I've moved here. - so this is just to tag his update.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 12, 2011 10:54:30 GMT -8
To aggravate those on the forum who have in the past expressed their displeasure with protesters and demonstrators, here's another motley band of malcontents roaming through the streets of downtown Victoria- BC Ferries engineers. In response to the protest, David Hahn has affirmed his determination that the safety of major ferries is too important to be left in the hands of unionized rabble. Only management can keep things running properly, and management the engineers must be. www.timescolonist.com/business/Updated+Ships+officers+with+Ferries+voice+concern+stage+march/4595809/story.html
|
|