CHAIRMAN CUTTING A DEAL - it gets better
This is going around fast, I don't know who started or who wrote it to 'Paul' but it is obviously someone on the GC...just in case you still trust your union!
Hi Paul, thanks for your balanced comments as always. This isn’t aimed at you or Tim or Brad or anyone else that remains neutral, but there is much more to it than to say “we don’t know what they were up against”.
What I’m about to say is factual, not biased, and this is where Tim etc, and most positive voters from the GC, took on a poisoned chalice.... but this is exactly why the buck stops with the senior GC and is exactly why the company have been allowed to play hardball.
In March, the Chairman and I dare say only 2-3 others, met with Management to discuss the items for resolution. It was agreed to only discuss 4x issues initially. That meeting was an utter secret from the rest of the GC. Nobody knew about that for about 6 months when the DFO sent the GC an email saying “it is not fair that you keep promising the Members things like VBS. you called the March meeting and you agreed the agenda, so stop making promises in the background the company haven’t agreed to resolve. The main 4 are the priority and we will get to everything else later”. (That is the gist of the letter, you should have access to it online somewhere). Let me reiterate that the GC main were utterly oblivious to this agreement and the Chairman and the others that did know about it watched as the GC developed a Box of inclusions for talks (but they said nothing for months and months).
To put that as simply as possible: Both GC’s old and new thought that they could achieve far more things, but for the reality that a secret group had already agreed Otherwise with management.
I understand the GFBFA protocol and the need to serve notice on agenda items and the wider audience must understand that the old GC, having drawn a list of Box items, assumed due process would follow and all items would be included. Subsequently notice should have been served by the NC and administrative personnel to ensure all the ancillaries would be sorted. In fact, let me crystal clear (standby for denial) the old GC stipulated that as a precursor to talking about the main 4 items, all the small stuff should be resolved FIRST so that they wouldn’t be lost after inevitable peace clauses bound the Union in the future).
Now fast forward many months to the end of the summer and and draw down of negotiations.
You have a new GC formed who inherit the fast developing framework of agreements already made. The old GC resolutely rejected what had started to form the package, with vigour and anger, because it is not what they expected from a box that they developed. The Chairman and his little group always knew of course the deal would be limited but never once shared that with the GC and we only became aware when we read that DFO email/letter. But at this time, the GC switched over.
Now a new GC stand up and are told from the offset that they cannot change the AIPs that have gone before them. This includes aspects of utter contempt like MDC.... the new GC tried to effect change on 1:1 being voluntary and against the COS of many. Maybe a few of you should reread the grammar about that: “if you don’t accept 1:1 these RPs don’t apply to you”. So the New GC were bound by what had been agreed before them. The old GC didn’t even see these either the ARAPA or RPs AIPs for comments and suggestions until the final drafts were released.... but that’s because the ARAPA AIP would never have gotten past guys like Craig Bramley and Trevor Gribble.... so they were declared AIPs and the members were informed as much. But the new GC couldn’t change them.
This meant that the new GC saw a package that they didn’t like. When it became apparent that the new GC were also going to reject the deal, magic started to happen.
I think you ALL need to read that MDC thing again because you are not simply getting 4.5 hours for your 90min jet Airways PT (which I note Alex McGowan commented on MDC but the actual application of MDC is not “what it says on the tin”.)....
When I say magic, I mean that this snowball went ballistic. Motions appeared and 1% magically appeared and before you could say boo to a goose, this was all wrapped up and bundled together.
To my perspective, once a select few people knew that “we were at a wall”, they made their YES recommendations. What they don’t understand is that we hit a wall because of how no strategy was applied before the new GC formed, and every time the old GC tried to control the ship and say “WTF” then guys like the Chairman and Vice would go offline and be incommunicado for up to a week at a time, and would allow no authorisation of amendments to take place. They might magically appear to back each other up, but would then disappear again for days or more until the next fire needed putting out. This is just plain reality of how this all worked, to me it was engineered.
Promises were made in March and I believe we unwittingly facilitated setting lower expectations to the management than the members expected, and certainly lower than the old GC expected. The company stuck to the agreements and we promised more than we could provide.
When it became apparent that the (old) LEPS in particular were not going to back down, a few senior GC really started to panic. “Please don’t jeopardise this over 1-2k in HKPA” started to be banded about. With the new GC online there was an opportunity to exploit fresh enthusiasm. It only needed one or 2 to believe the Execs rather than believe the predecessors experiences and the recommendation balance waivered. 1% magically appeared and suddenly people accept to recommend the deal.
We hit a wall because of the stuff that went before and I’m not surprised the company didn’t budge. So this deal stands on the basis of GC leadership, not because of a company wall, and that is what we are really bailing out. The Chairman and his Execs. And the members pay with a substandard deal.
This is nothing new. It’s all been out there before and those guys have heard it from my lips before.
Why the hell would an NC of 2x receive backing to keep talking even after an HKPA and pay impasse. Don’t forget you guys were told pay was at an impasse too!!!!! 🤬. But no, keep talking, and when one or 2 new GC nodded quiet Agreement, everything is done and dusted within days.
People voted Yes because they don’t think that they can change what happened before they got here. That is an absolutely absurd basis to vote YES is it not?
I don’t think there is any magic anywhere, just an under estimation of what the minimum was the GC could agree with the company over. The path of least resistance. That was what was agreed and it is becoming very clear that the minimum considered necessary isn’t good enough and that backlash is now being felt.
That is what happened and I’m bored of those that hear different opinions that were not there. We set up a stall of lesser value and then strategically we were pathetic, and continuing to talk was the death sentence. The GC/NC mistakes allows the Company to say “financial limit” and I for one don’t see our cock-ups as being a reason to recommend a substandard package to the members.
End of rant. And going off Comms. Please THINK about what I am TRYING to say.
Well you need to get more than my version of events from others that were there.
You’re voting on this because a few people bit of more than they could chew. Strategically, we played a very low bar (the old GC didn’t know it at the time) and much of our “Box” was never even introduced to talks- but also because of agendas like external-from-the-GC-ideas like ANC Reserve (which I believe the source actually intended to be temp bases).
I think that as far back as March and this secret meeting, EXPECTATIONS were unwittingly (not maliciously) set and the company worked from there. Because the old GC didn’t know about that meeting, we were blind to amend our strategy. On day 1 to ENDEX, HKPA barely shifted. That’s what the company offered and only minor tweaks took place.
Let me ask you all this: why do you think the Union, on day 1, didn’t quit if they knew HKPA was at a limit the old GC didn’t accept?!!!!! Because a select few people thought it would be good enough and that the LEPS would cave when everything else was agreed. Just think about that strategically. We could have stopped very early on but even when down to 2x people, we kept going. Do you really think the old GC were happy with that? The old GC rejected this yet still we stayed in the room until finality.
The recommendation comes because we kept going and now the company can legitimately say “financial limit”. Because they’ve said the same thing for most of the year. And we never gave them reason to amend it. 🤬
One last point to try and reassure you of my version of events.
I kept pace with things as and when they were unfolding and I could sense where this was going. That is why we held an EGCM whereby the counter proposal for HKPA was agreed.
However, those select few knew privately that this was already over and that an HKPA counter was pointless... but this gave the perfect opportunity to close the door on this. The fallout of that EGCM was a loosely worded motion that nodded towards the counter but grammatically allowed for an escape plan for the PnP (Policy Procedure) issues of 2 crew NC, it allowed peace clauses to be negotiated and it allowed for dealings to be concluded. With that motion done, lip service was paid to HKPA counter proposal and what actually came about was the 1% backstop that appeared OUT OF NOWHERE, but coincidentally allowed for a third TA and therefore a publicly better achievement from the GC/NC. Certainly enough to change the recommendation opinion of 2 or 3 individuals. I don’t think that was coincidence. In fact, the week before, these were the words of the NC Lead and confirmation from Darryl: “the company have sworn blind that this is their financial limit”. Then they found 1% to sway the vote.
The NC did try and put that 1% in the HKPA pot, but they were denied.
At the end of the day, I don’t think the company was going to budge and I think many of the GC lost appetite for engagement long ago, which is why they didn’t stop when HKPA was at impasse. But I think “best interests”, “honest and accurate accounts” and so on are all personal and subjective. My version of both differed from colleagues so I resigned, because I was doing more harm than good. This is a democratic vote so you guys choose if you accept it or not.