Keg,
Whilst you and I share a desire to see the company prosper, as our collective future depends on it, I disagree with your post.
Many of us are only too aware that the current environment is very adversarial, the intimidation less than subtle on many occassions.
One of the chief proponents of this tactic is senior management, ably assisted by elements in Flight operations. Whilst it would appear that "work choices" is something the company would love to use, the legislation makes clear any threats, intimidation or harassment will not be toleratred. Depsite targeting unions overtly the legislation is clear in that you cannot threaten a person due their association with/or representation of a labour organisation.
The punches aren't being telegraphed anymore, which is why some of the players in QCC and indeed corporate are a little annoyed. I believe the direction being taken by the union is consistent and appropriate with respect to the industrial climate and indeed the way the company conducts(and by definition-her managers) itself.
For me, I do not trust management intention. I know the identity of the person making the compliant against( as IW said) the "company" not the individual. I have no doubt that the incident occured and it occured in the way it is alleged. I am aware of the facts.
I have no confidence in the ethics of managment, I belive they have and do use "performance in the simulator" as a tool to control those they deem "loose cannons". As such I will not post on Crew room anything that I believe is legitimate, not personal or defamatory comment about the way the company conducts itself for fear of harassment.
We do control the destiny of the company in our pilot hands. It is management that set a deisred direction, but ultimately we control the execution of that policy. I am sick of the implied threats, the divisive aggressive tactics that ultimately hurt us all in the collective future. Removing elements from the midst that harm our collective desire to see our company prosper is I beleive legitimate. Whilst I continue to fly professionally, I have no belief in the way these uneducated "sheltered workshop" experts conduct themselves. That such behaviour has the tacit approval of management is the scary bit.
Hence the court action. If it is proven that an individual or group did behave as is alleged, then managment in failing to act is liable. It presents an interesting decision should the case be proven. Senior management failing to act implies they not only approve of the conduct, but support it.
To be able to comment on thse matters, without slander and fear of intimidation is a case for optimism, which at our workplace is a long time coming.. Fortunately for us freedom of expression still exists. The rest of the process will be handled in due course by the appropriate entity to handdle such assertions, the legal system.
If the process results in more respect for the contribution to our companies success of the flight crew, excellent. If it removes from our workplace harassment then fantastic. If individuals are held accountable for their conduct and removed from their post, then I believe all the better for all of us
