I concur wholeheartedly with both of the previous posts.
To return the compliment and quote parabellum:
"I believe SIA's big mistake was to separate the Cargo from the Pax so early before they had a recognisable cargo pattern to work with and from which they could forecast a realistic monthly package."
Agreed. But SIA
did state a monthly expected package. They advertised it and many people were enticed into signing on the dotted line on the "expect $7000 pcm in allowances" advertising. My average monthly allowances for 2007 are a shade over $4000 and my legitimate expectations have therefore not been satisfied. There has been a deafening silence from the company over this, and that slience, even more than the loss of advertised benefits, is what I find so disheartening and demoralising.
Wrt roster disruption - fine, I have no problem with disruption. What I do object to is consistently achieving 30 hours a month less than I was originally rostered for. The ad said expect $7k pcm in allowances so I expect it. Whats wrong with that?
An employer that values its employees and realises the effect that bad morale can have on the bottom line would have acted differently. Or maybe they just haven't got around to doing something about it yet. If so, may I suggest:
1. Guaranteed minimum monthly allowance of $6k and/or;
2. Reduction in term and amount of bond equal to %age that allowances have fallen short of the company advertised expectation.
Dreaming? Yes I know!
