I would have thought someone who has been badly affected by such things previously would want to make sure their voice was heard and they were part of pushing the union in the direction they wanted rather than leaving it to others.
I've done that three times and have been less than impressed with the results on each occasion. Three redundancies. Thats quite enough for one lifetime thank you.
Imagine your worst nightmare came true and the union voted in favour of selling out the people on
JS,
but frankly did you really believe that Netjets will fire senior crew and recall
JS junior crew to replace them with associate training cost..and the legality issue that it will trigger in UK !! Seriously , they will claim that this was done by a different management, that those clauses are not legaly sustainable
So which is it to be then?
I would imagine tearing up a signed contract as was issued to
JS/LTLOA volunteers would trigger a few legal problems by itself. As far as the UK goes I would have to ask a lawyer for the fine details but if you have a contract signed by the company, present management or not, that guarantees protection from redundancy for a fixed period then the company would be liable for breach of contract if it then made you redundant. The only way around it would be to dissolve the company on Friday and start all over again on the Monday with a new company and set of rules. (Which may of course be the plan.)
Probably outweigh the cost of retraining and as NJ's parent company own the training organization in the first place.....
If option 2 is to be adopted then how on earth would you expect those affected to offer themselves up willingly for sacrifice and pay 55 euros for the privilege?
I really do think that the plans for further cuts, should they be needed, are already in place and that the workforce or their representatives will have little or no say in it. Breaking a written contract , affecting 300 odd employees would have a far greater long term impact than redundancy for those who chose not or did not need to "volunteer" , in the full knowledge that they would not have protection should further cuts be needed.
There are already two different points of view here. Not easy is it?