It's interesting, and entirely predictable, to see old "friends" like eyes wide shut and IB57 etc espousing their tired old wind-up prejudices on us ... every time there's a dispute. Well, guys, unfortunately for you your ignorance has been sharply brought into focus. As has been explained here ad nauseam, ad infinitum, the work to rule currently in effect does not involve anything other than working to the letter of an employment contract. If you want to derive some kind of phony philosophy from that, then keep going - you'll no doubt find something that sits comfortably within the bounds of what you would call "safe morality"
This dispute is both simple and complex. It involves a shonky management, labour laws that fail to direct either party, and a union that has had to take multiple hits in quick succession - that hasn't regrouped as quickly as would have been ideal. But don't blame them for that - nobody's perfect, and under those conditions it is unlikely any labour organisation could have prevented what happened.
Now there is an IFALPA Recruitment Ban in place. I have to say that, for a dispute of this nature, such an action is highly unusual, and introduces a new level of complexity into the situation. Now such an action would be entirely appropriate for a work stoppage or lockout type situation, or something similar, but a work to rule is different, and necessarily so. With a work to rule the workers still (despite appearances here) have some measure of control with respect to the direction the action is taking, in theory at least. Notwithstanding that the sackings have (at least for those immediately affected) a similar industrial effect as a lockout, and therefore a recruitment ban is, at first glance, indicated, I think there is scope for some measure of discretion to be applied. CXWANNABE, I know what you are saying, and I agree with you, but as far as new entrants to the company are concerned, provided they are members in good standing of an IFALPA affiliated organisation, and provided they join the HKAOA on arrival in HK, then I think the more "good guys" you have on board the better. Obviously this goodwill should only extend to those who can show a good track record, which would be no problem for any of them, if indeed they are good guys.
In theory, now none of this would be possible with a recruitment ban in place. OK, for those contemplating applying, fine. They can simply GO AWAY until the dispute is resolved. But what about those who have already commenced the selection process? Should they tell Cathay thanks, but not this time, and have their application binned only to have the dispute work its way to conclusion days later? To effectively kill your career simply because of bad timing doesn't seem right. Of course the HKAOA could take the names of all those who choose not to take up positions and then petition the Company when the dust settles - but would they listen?
Since there is no stoppage in place, and since any new entrants won't be direct entry Capts or FOs, then they aren't scabs, not at least in the traditional sense of the term - my dictionary lists "scab" as "one who works during an industrial dispute" which would, by that definition, make EVERYONE at CX a scab. Now can you see the complexity of the situation?
I believe that this situation does not warrant a recruitment ban, but a message to all IFALPA affiliates to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE anyone from applying would, in my view, have been more equitable. You might say, well, sod that, we need to go as hard as possible. That's all very well, but if working to a document is the hardest you can go, as appears to be the case, then the bargaining position was never that great.
Good luck to the guys and girls in the AOA, to those who have been fired, hang in there, to all those wanting to apply, DON'T, to those who have applied, and get accepted, JOIN THE AOA - that will be the most important thing you will ever do.
DH