MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA

[Happicampa]

I’ve read the paper and done some digging. Here’s what I’ve turned up.

I rang and ex Ansett mate who said Ansett f/a’s knew all about flight force and its connection to the union, it was well publicised to the permanent crew while they were up and running. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister, nothing wrong.. No complaints from these crew at the time, he had no idea what all the fuss is about. In fact he says another mate was working for FF when AN went down and they (FF crew) got paid all their money almost straight away when the doors closed for the last time – just what you’d expect with a union connection.

Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story".
MAM’s EBA tells us
1. They do get 3% increase every year like a full timer ok no increments, but show me a casual who does
2. They can nominate three days off that can’t be touched (c) contract. The company nominate 20 days work, the remaining days are optional and its the f/a's choice to work more or not.
3. Contract (B) nominate 12 days of their choosing as a minimum.
4. They can’t do more than 6 in a row – just like us
5. They are paid at present $27.84 + DTA (same rate as us)
6. They get overtime @ time and a half and double time
7. They have the same duty times as us
8. They have the same rest times as us
9. Yes the B rosters do look more like a RSV line with no pay guarantee, but one can assume thats because they're CASUALS.

I STILL don’t get the (SMH worthy) story in all this. MAM are casual, casual in any industry is not consistent and lawfully set up that way. I could understand if we were talking about minimum wage and conditions, but its not. The issue for the B's has nothing to do with their T&C's its about the lack of work or work guarantee.....I think we can safely say it’s legal otherwise the industrial relations commission wouldn’t have ratified it. Having said that, I’ll stay tuned with interest to any law suit casualvermin manages to bring on.

Yesterday my crew and I said it was obviously LH feeding the press and wouldn't you know it, we were right on the money. We now know (thanks to Edens post) their spoiling for "joint ticket" in the delegate elections. One union would be better to look after everyone, but one union headed up by the likes of MM and SR would be a living nightmare. Management hate them and quite frankly the crew at SH aren't far behind that, yes there are a few impressed with their "tough talk", yet EVERYONE AGREES, they actually ACHIEVE NOTHING where sh faaa at least do. Whether you prefer that approach, to cosy or not, most flight attendants want a union that can negotiate and talk to their employer and that’s not anyone at the LH FAAA. They have none and bucklies of getting SH crew to believe they are the better option. The reality is they wouldn't be able to cap or control the number of casuals, for the same reason sh faaa cant, because its illegal to do so. Thats right, ILLEGAL to restrict the use of a casual workforce - (thanks again Johnny) nor can anyone force Qantas to make them permanent.

In a pathetic attempt to talk up their abilities Eden says himself ….The extraordinary attack by Qantas on L/H FAAA , by press release further demonstrates the effectiveness of the L/H FAAA attack over the whole issue…. Exactly what effectiveness was that ? MM got his name in the paper and EFFECTIVELY pi$$ed off a senior exec to the point of press release, BUT THAT’S IT, the redundancies are still going ahead are they not ? More bleating, more bone pointing but nothing changing. Do they honestly think people are stupid enough to believe they’ve actually DONE anything????. These are not the people to look after our future that’s for sure, quite apart from Edens assertion here, they are completely ineffective and we all know it. At the end of the day we want results and its obvious the only thing LH FAAA ever produce is a whole lot of bluff and bull$hit along their name and latest rant in the paper.