Originally Posted by
Rated De
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.