Syntax, I am affraid you might have been misinterpreting certain privileges we have been receiving in the past as rights promised to you by contract.
So before I delve into this, I would like you to know that theoretically I can sympathise with your position because any regression of working conditions is not something that I personally view positively. However, I am affraid that many of the things that you mention, if not all, were things that were in fact not promised to you in the contract itself. My contract has never mentioned a 6/4 rostering system, nor does my contract mention any rights for stafftravel or concessionary travel for friends and family. It just doesn't, so as things stand it's a privilege I am getting from my employer which they contractually are not obliged to provide me. Now whether that is right, wrong or fair is is a completely different discussion, but things are as they are at the moment.
Furthermore, you are discussing a service provider contract. That means you are legally not even a direct WZZ employee but subcontracted through one of the agencies. So if we discuss the morality of the situation; I am receiving on my local polish contract, in gross and more or less, the same salary you are receiving. From this, I have to pay my social contributions and taxes just as much as you do. So from which argumentation can you argue that you should receive that 8% and I should not? Of course, if it should have gone any direction I am of the opinion that we all should have received 8% more, but it is difficult for me to understand a reasoning where one group who is not even employed by the airline would receive a higher gross salary than the group that actually has direct contracts locally. To me, that just does not make sense. Especially if you have a choice to choose a local contract, but for tax reasons many expats choose differently.
Furthermore, all the things that were adjusted were adjusted for contract pilots because this firm wants to focus more on local employees. That means that if they want the flexibility of unpaid leave, they will try to incorporate it in any new contractor contract. The strategy and the reasoning behind it is pretty obvious when we discuss the seasonality of the operation and the flexibility they want to have in BUD. Whether this should be allowed or not is a completely different matter and something that I do not necessarily endorse. However, the nature of the EU and the lack of regulation in this regard is the exact reason RYR can operate the way they do and consequently WZZ is operating the way they do. If something may be morally questionable, it does not make it illegal. The reasoning being that you don't have to sign that new captain upgrade contract ... (!).
I am not exactly endorsing any of this, but I am affraid to say that I am getting exactly what is in my contract. Whether it is morally right or wrong or anything, I do not see as relevant. The EU allows these practises and we as a a piloting profession have failed to address these issues properly through the likes of the ECA or other bodies on a regulatory level. The RPG are now starting to make a stand, but it will be alot of water under the bridge before anything gets done. So before you take me as a WZZ apologist remember that I am not, there are plenty of things in this company that could be better and my personal experience with our flight operationss management is that, within their constraints, they try to do what they can. But stop listing me all the things you don't agree with, I may very well agree with you that I would like to see these things improved, however in this particular debate it is not the point.
The point is that it is too late for us to complain now after we have fully read and agreed to sign these contracts. That's the way I view this situation, and trust me I need all the dosh I can get. However, this is a true capitalist situation which does give the employer alot of power. So before we all make our case at the EP through ECA etc. to get laws changed and incorporate some protection for ourselves, it is a losing battle. This is something that the RPG fully understands and that is why they are battling a difficult battle via the ECA to get things done. It is my prediction that if anything is to change on a regulatory level, it will be due to them. But who am I, but a lowly first officer.
Your claim that these contracts are getting changed by no consultation and through one way communication ofcourse is false. A contract cannot legally be changed without your permission and signature. By signing you agree just as much as they do to these new conditions. For the almost two years that I have been here my conditions are still exactly the same, as I did not change my contract or agree to any modification nor did anyone try to impose any on me.
Last edited by drfaust; 29th Oct 2013 at 15:57.