How many would do an instant runner if they weren't forced into being in the AFAP for the MBF?
Just when you thought nobody would turn up to defend the indefensible....
One thing to bear in mind, Bloggsy, is that nobody at the AFAP or MBF is holding a gun to the Bloggs head. You can resign from either or both, any time you like. It is all quite gentlemanly too. When I decided to discontinue being 'double ticketed' at NJS and resigned my TWU membership, the TWU was most ungracious about it. I would be surprised if you received anything less than a courteous acknowledgement from the AFAP or the MBF, should you choose to resign your membership of either or both.
Lets shoot down this bullish!t argument that the unions and their associated mutual funds are somehow commercial organisations operating on a fee-for-service bases. They are NOT and never have been. Folks like Bloggs may be entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.
When you join a union you are not going into a showroom to buy a car or walking into a bank to get a loan.
You cannot walk into a Porsche showroom and demand that they sell you the Pirelli "P Zero" special order tyres without the attached 911 Carrera, simply because you want the tyres and not the car.
You can not walk up to the gate at Flemington for the Cup next Tuesday and demand that you be offered a ticket to the Members Area for the great race, if you are not a Member.
And good luck trying to get a mortgage from an australian bank without having to pay mortgage insurance that protects the bank, if your deposit is minimal!
It is a fact of life that organisations are free to structure themselves as required, within the regulations, to best suit the task.
In the case of the AFAP and the MBF, they are. They are associated organisations, and you can be a member of one, or of both.
Coming back to Bloggsys one liner -- what is your point?
There are (I stand corrected)
4,100+ pilots in the AFAP
There are
2,600+ pilots in the MBF.
Pilots are free to join the AFAP.
Pilots are free to join the MBF
provided they are AFAP members.
The organisations complement each other and it is a sensible arrangement, because often, Loss of Licence difficulties come hand in hand with Industrial and Welfare difficulties. Thats not a @#$%^&* policy as Bloggsy put it -- it is a very
sensible policy.
Folks like Bloggs may make a lot of noise about having to pay be AFAP members to have AAPMBF loss of licence coverage. It is interesting though to note that such folk often use the 'unnecessary' AFAP industrial services they said they'd prefer not to pay for!
The fact is, the two organisations are associated and complement each other's activities. The policy makes sense, has done for years, and continues to make sense.
Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head, and nobody is 'running a mile' - the numbers above (4,100 AFAP, 2,600 MBF) show that 65% members do have MBF, and 35% do not. Mr Bloggs might be entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
What Mr Bloggs might be able to enlighten us though is, his position on how an industrial rep ought to carry out their task?
Should one take the democratic approach, seeking input from the pilots they represent, ensuring they are abiding with the wishes of the majority?
Or is being an industrial rep, an opportunity to gain and exercise power, denied to the individual by other means?
Should all deals be done 'in the open', or does 'father know best?'
I raise this, because I see a pattern at Cobham.
In 2012 the Cobham group put an offer on the table to all three pilot bodies for Loss of Licence reimbursement. The paltry $300k would be replaced by pilots being able to access any commercial or otherwise fund and be reimbursed $1500-$3500 per annum on presentation of tax invoice for the premium.
That deal was supported by the
majority of pilots and the
majority of business units. All that remained was to put it to the 717 pilots. When the company put it on the table for the 717 pilots the AFAP and TWU reps agreed to put out a poll in the next few days and get their results. The AFAP reps found out that the TWU reps subsequently ran their own poll without involving the AFAP. No, it said. The proposal was sunk, by a minority.
As a result, Cobham pilots don't have anywhere near what Virgin, Tiger, Qantas, QLink, Rex pilots enjoy by way of LoL. Whether that is good or not is a moot point, but the inescapable part is - when it came to a crucial point calling for collaboration, the TWU did their own thing in December 2012 without telling the AFAP reps that were sitting right next to them.
Bloggs might also note, there is a Temporary Revision in the 717 Ops manual where reduced signon times were recently traded for nothing in return. Despite a pilot body that said No, the Company took a Maybe from a TWU rep as a Yes. Instead of showing some bottle and standing ground on the No, the TWU rep has.... disappeared!
Now we discover another secret deal, undercutting pilot wages, presented to the Fair Work Commission, and who is applying to be a party to that agreement because they were involved in the secret deal..... the TWU!
What the hell?