Virgin CSS
Just read your post, lots of stuff in there, some of it I agree with and other bits I do not (but you wouldn't expect me to agree with it all - right
)
I would just like to add that the recent meetings and the information you have relayed seems nothing more than a "sales" exercise by the company to the senior roles in a hope to change the message that was coming from the senior ranks - however as mentioned I am just one person and that was my personal take on it.
In response to a couple of your points;
We can't compare ourselves to BA we are VS not BA. Lets look at the facts.
You listed several reason below this statement, I agree with them all, I dont however think the fact that BA used to be a state airline has any bearing. They are suffering in some areas and there will come a point when they need to start drawing in strings - they tried earlier this year and this nearly led to strike because the crew/unions have a large membership.
At present I believe we have circa 60-70% membership, it's not bad but more would be better but this is certainly enough to make an impact.
My argument to this statement, "we cant compare ourselves with BA" would be - "why did the pilots union use this argument successfully that their counterparts who had served in BA after X years were earning considerably more than the Virgin equivalent". That would imply double standards - the company conceded to their requests/demands based on this amongst other arguments hence the argument stands for cabin crew also.
If we strike VS will not survive if the strike goes on for more than 7 days. We will run out of cash. In other words we all loose our jobs.
- Agreed that is why it is imperative that both parties sit around the table and hammer out a better deal - we have something to lose - however so does everyone else- the company losing e.g. £15M p.a. increasing our packages is cheaper than the company going under.
VK will have been more than likely expected to lose money, especially in it's first 2 years of trading, I very much expect this was budgeted for, to what extent though I am not sure, though given the increasing revenue and pax figures I would not be surprised to see those loses reduce or turn to profit within the next 2 years.
If we vote no to this offer they can't offer anything else there is nothing else to offer.
Ahem - Trying to curb my tongue here, sounds very much like B*&$ox - of course there is revenue available to commit to ensuring a smooth outcome of these negotiations - I'm sure there is a pot set aside for the flight crew negotiations true which are pending too albeit a different budget. The same was said that after the 1st and 2nd offer too - so tell me why you have any belief that the company is telling the truth and not just spinning another sob story here - heck if it's prepared write off £20M on VK last year - yet not on it's loyal crew.
If we then vote no to the strike VS can and will then come back to us with the 2% that the rest of the company was given.
This has not been communicated by the union, so where on earth this has come from or even soundly be believed to be the outcome of a no vote is just not comprehendible - at minimum it would reqire another vote and I wonder what the result of that would be !!
I'm sure I'm not the only one that would see this would lead to mayhem if the company even tried it, so lets see hypothetically the current vote is rejected, the vote to strike is NO because people would like the 2 parties to negotiate further rather than an aggressive strike - defies all logic other than to scare the crew into voting yes. Statements like this from the company push me more towards ticking the YES box on strike if the ballot is sent - not something I would do likely but because it's the kind of underhand statements like this that boils my blood and demonstrates the company has learnt nothing from its' crew and union dealings on these negotiations !!
What they don't understand is that recently they went and spoke to crew and what we the crew were saying we wanted they have given us now and were still not happy.
Because people believe in little back books - ah yes Mr/Mrs Manager I will be voting against the pay deal - name noted glass ceiling etc etc no one, or very few are going to tell a manager the truth... or believe for that matter that feedback via Ifly after logging in is anonymous !! Ties into V69's post about facebook, the group mentioned - I heard on the underground that the managers duly noted the names of each and every member of that group - so why would they do that if there is no little black book !
They know they have spent money on the base and the clubhouse and A/C but we all know that we need to spend to keep up with the the rest out there.
The rest also recognise that their crew are an important area to spend on without them having to fight tooth and nail to get an inflationary rise at the cost of more standby !
Openskies - yep going to affect everyone - then again everyone will have to deal with higher wages - so it's not just a battle virgin has every carrier will be subject to this threat.
Finally
Grab what we can now and then we can all get on with the jobs we love and look forward to the many years of enjoyment of working at VS.
My counter to that would be, look how far we have come from the companies initial offers, does the current offer fulfil the aspirations you had when this started ? We, The union members have achieved so much in this offer only to throw it away now would be foolhardy.
We work 900 hours a year. How many hours does your average person work a year. A lot more than 900
I;ve hear this before somewhere - ah yes I remember a Travel editor did an article in the summer about how pilots have an easy life and only work 900 hours a year, I think it was the telegraph. Well if you think this then either you are wired to the moon (I'm sorry I know it's personal but that argument is off this planet !!) the backlash the editor received was intense - Probably on prune too - you need to add duty, fatigue, time away from home, jet lag - you cant be serious about that argument can you ??
But just to entertain it - yep other crews have this as you say "only working 900 hours a year" - yet for the same position they are better rewarded.
We work a hell of a lot more than 900 hours a year (that's about as you need to add duty time -pre flight, post flight time away from home, when you do the maths and consider time you are human, not Jet lagged it isn't far off 8 days off a month - same as a regular jo bloggs has 4 weekends a month
If you don't like that idea then maybe you need to look at other airlines/jobs.
This old chestnut.... It's a historical argument but no one person should be forced out of a job by diminishing terms and conditions - it is what unions were designed to protect - and that's what we are trying to do - protect ourselves.
If the company believes it will have a much better offer next time round put it in writing to us with a new offer...if it isn't prepared to do that then it's flannel in my opinion.
Well The defence rest your honour - no offence intended but it just feels like the "sales team" is still in Play. I know I sound like a Die Hard I just strongly (really really really strongly) believe we are worth more and any promises and words from the company are empty at this point.