Your manifesto seems to offer only an interest in
JS people, so again, your motives are, to protect them at any cost?
Anyone who wants representation will have it from any member of the board. There is a cross section of representatives. Some from the more senior pilots (the majority) and two from the junior end of the list. The more senior guys have plenty of voices to speak for them, both from outreach and within SS. The junior reps on outreach will of course ensure that the junior voices are heard with as much vigour as the senior ones. Not only those on
JS. That stance comes from the seeming position of SS that the redundancy protection for jobshare/LTLOA be ignored in the case of cuts and LIFO be applied regardless. Attempts to get clarification on this issue from SS have had no response other than the idea that it is something that we should not be discussing . Obviously this is a major concern to those actually on jobshare/LTLOA. Those at the bottom have the most to loose and are generally the most likely to loose it. What is wrong with ensuring a fair hearing for them?
Can you see how it might seem divisive since you want to represent only a particular section of the crew, ie those on
JS, so your interests are not necessarily for everyone, but for those on
JS.
Possible threats to the interests of those on
JS/LTLOA (over 300 crew) is of itself pretty divisive. So maybe your interests are not for everyone, but perhaps those who are least affected by cuts or lack of opportunity. Once again, a voice for those with the most to loose. Why is that so objectionable to you? Those at the top have plenty of representation so they will hardly be missing out.
we all had choices to make regarding our jobs, so can you see the irony in wanting to be part of a process which is set up and run by those who caused your 'suffering' as you called it.
Indeed we did have to make the choice. Those that chose
JS have made a large sacrifice in terms of salary and lifestyle in order to be protected from any cuts. Those that chose not to did so in the full knowledge that they could be vulnerable. No one tried to hide that. As far as I recall it was the company who proposed the voluntary options, not the union. In fact the union appear to be threatening the position of those who did take an option, the company have stated that they will stand by the agreement. So who exactly is causing any potential suffering?
Any clarification from SS will be most welcome and I am certain the junior outreach members will be happy to amend their position in the light of a concrete assurance that SS will support those on voluntary options.
As long as SS give the impression that they are posing a threat to the voluntary options agreement on ringfencing, they will be treated as a threat by those directly affected. And rightly so.
6 out of 7 might as well be appointed by divine right.
How so? they will have been elected by secret ballot. Everyone had the chance to stand and everyone has a vote and if they object to anyone then they have the opportunity to vote for another candidate. If people choose not to stand or use that vote, then how can they subsequently complain that the result did not reflect their wishes?
I do not remember ever being asked to vote for the SS board. They just happened. If they put themselves up for election in the future then all to the good. Sadly it may be a bit late for many of the potential electors by then. Had the issue been put to a democratic ballot from the outset, then there would have been a lot less opposition. I certainly would have viewed SS in a more favourable light.
A. How can you be our voice if we will not know how representative of us you are because vote numbers will not be published.
See above. You have a vote. Use it. If you do not then you deny yourself a say in the proceedings. Get involved. Firing bullets from the touchline will not get you very far.
SEA is by no means perfect, but I have more faith in it it than Out.
Fine by me, that is your choice and your right and I respect that. I have more faith in outreach for the reasons argued above. That is my right and I expect that to be respected in turn.