Cover Story

I made my way into the operations area, trying to move with firm resolution but not to rush. It wasn't a good thing to be late where I work, even a measly five minutes. Damn the idiot driver that stalled at McPhillips and Inkster. Concentrate, firm resolution - nearly there, risk a glance at the shift managers desk, keep the face neutral. Curse it, the Shift Optimisation Manager was writing in the great tome of scheduling. Was it because of me or was it just one of those 'efficiency adjustments' that make trying to understand the schedule so ... challenging.
Nothing for it but to try an old trick. Some times it works, though more often it doesn't. Who was on shift today, who wouldn't mind being the straight man for my conversation. Lets see; "Yes, I was reading the company vision statement and it hit me, if I just take five minutes of my break time a day (should I say "generous break time", no that was putting it on a bit too thick) and use it to reflect on our accountabilities and responsibilities, I could improve the way the company and I get along." Good possibilities with that line.
Perhaps I should just come back from break five minutes early, no the guys wouldn't like that. Last time one of us tried that trick we were all interviewed and asked why we weren't doing more for the company. What about taking fifteen minutes off my first break and looking something up in the unit library? No, definitely no, been there - done that and I was researching a complaint. Don't want them reminded of that, at least not now.
Maybe doing nothing is the best action. It's only the second time I've been late, so that should only be a verbal warning. Besides if I don't draw attention to myself by acting out of place then maybe I'll get away with it. Not like those guys who went home early, theft of time the company called it. Heaven knows I need my pension, no way I want to get fired on one of their 'just cause' dismissals. I sure hope the union wins that one in court, but the arbiter was so strongly in favour of the company.
All signed in, I have an operational proficiency check today? Great, just bloody well great! Later, I'll think about it later. Christmas is coming- I can't afford a sep loss. What am I taking over here? The supervisors have been real bastards on efficiency during the over the shoulder checks.
"Foxtrot Papa X-ray Delta, seven thousand, altimeter two niner niner five". Which is nothing to the way those two thousand dollar fines get handed out by Regulatory Enforcement. "ATC clears Foxtrot Mike Papa Bravo to The Pas airport via direct, maintain eight thousand while in controlled airspace, enter controlled airspace at eight thousand, squawk two two five six, go ahead the read back". Why is it a "performance meter" or an "administrative error" when the company does it but my licence or job if I have a momentary lapse. "Say again the altitude ... ... read back correct let me have his report level eight thousand with his estimate for The Pas". Concentrate, concentrate!
Being a member on that Fact Finding Board was a real eye opener, lucky it wasn't an administrative enquiry I hear they are worse than a Salem witch hunt. "Flight level four one zero, wrong way, check able higher at two one zero zero, what's the reason for the wrong way?" The Shift Manager, what's he doing here, not for me I hope. Is it because I was late or is he checking me for that new training team. Now that's serious bucks for a successful check out. Shit, where has PXD gone, check the coast list. "Papa X-ray Delta I've lost your transponder signal, squawk ident". Hey they are relieving Henry, that cannot be good - last time they walked a guy right off the floor, to his locker and out the door. "Papa X-ray Delta, Radar identified at seven thousand altimeter two niner niner five, no problem". 'Fat fingers' my arse!
When is it my turn for a break I could use a coffee. I used to love working here, now I'm beginning to twitch and even the social stuff is a drudgery of bitching. "MPB level eight thousand, check the estimate. Have him contact ........." (to be continued).
Sound a bit far fetched? Perhaps, however the available evidence indicates it's is well within the bounds of possibility. Take the speaking notes for Elizabeth Kriegler, the Vice-President of Human Resources, in addressing the 1998 Conference of The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. She gives four guidelines for managing employee expectations in a time of transition;
1. Don't take it for granted that employees will automatically understand what is to be expected of them in a private sector environment, as distinct from the public sector.
2. Don't take it for granted that your employees will automatically understand and accept the organisation's new role.
3. Do take it for granted that expectations will exceed reality.
4. Do take it for granted that major personnel challenges will result from those unmet expectations.
I'll deal with number 2 first. According to Elizabeth Kriegler, in the same speech, "Our mission, first and foremost, is to provide services to our customers -- the people who pay the bills. For NAV CANADA, that means the airlines."
As for item 1 I'm still waiting for a decent briefing on the Canadian Aviation regulations (CARs) and the impact they have on my job.
I have no clue what is really meant by 3 and 4. I expect the company to live up to the words it uses. I continue to be amazed by the numerous similarities to the public service that NAV CANADA displays; "We have an interpretation on that ...". Usually one which defies the dictionary and common sense. I would expect major personnel challenges when dissimulation is the major communication tool with the workforce.
With the blackout for our negotiations having been lifted we have all seen a list of articles that have been 'signed off'. I suspect that, no matter how the new contract is settled, these articles will form part of it. As it stands I hesitate to call it an agreement.
Article 3.02: "The management rights of the company shall not be restricted in any way by any practice, custom or past agreement not specifically renewed." Read the whole of article 3, then repeat the above narrative again, and tell me that I'm wrong.
Even better read the new ATSAMM, paragraph 115 is my favourite:
"subject to receipt of a written request which outlines the reason for the request, permit the RCMP, Provincial or Municipal Police, TC, TSB, DND or FAA access to unit operational records as required in the performance of their duties."
And: "Transport Canada inspectors may request an informal interview with ATS personnel alleged to have contravened the Aeronautics Act or the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Such interviews shall not normally be held while the employee is on duty nor on NAV CANADA premises. The employee is not obliged to attend such an interview and will not be reimbursed by the employer for any expenses incurred."
Perhaps you would prefer article 5, parts of which reads: "... no employee or authorised Association representative will leave his or her work during working hours to discuss complaints or grievances without first obtaining the permission of the authorised Management representative."
Does this mean we can come to work on the compulsory one day off, to discuss a complaint or grievance, provided the authorised Management representative happens to be there?
And: "When a discussion or meeting on a complaint or grievance takes place during the employee's normal working hours, but at a location outside the employee's headquarters area, the employee shall not be entitled to be paid.".
Article 5 also indicates that grievances are answered by the Regional Director, currently resident in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Edmonton (not that we are strangers to anonymous decisions but they used to come from the east!).
What am I trying to say? This time we have been caught half way down the field by an employer in the end zone saying "you still have to meet us half way" and by a regulator rubbing his hands in glee. From now on I suggest we give nothing; everything (except our professional integrity) has a price, and until my company is prepared to stand beside me in front of the regulator - I'm not going to allow the faintest possibility of a separation loss, no matter how inefficient that may appear!
I'm coming to work armed with knowledge and if 'it is written' then I'll know where and I'll challenge it, or comply or ask questions. But I did not spend 10 years in God forsaken holes and five years in the north to keel over when the going gets contentious. Like Sir Winston Churchill said; "Never, never, never, never give in, in anything big or small, save for matters of common sense."
May this season bless us all.