Lots more leave forced down CX's throat

[Iron Skillet]

It's not just Aussies getting extra leave. The UK rules force CXUK to hand over nice chunks of unpaid parental leave to everyone with young kids, lots of it, year after year, if that suits you.

Who has the details?

[quadspeed]

Here's a detail.

Another nail in the coffin of permanent basings.

Be careful what you wish for.

[cxorcist]

It's going to take a lot of leave and on-shore employer costs (taxes/admin) to be more expensive than HKG allowances. This is to mention nothing of the serious retention problem created if bases were to go away. Seems like retaining pilots might be important right now as the company attempts to grow and cannot seem to recruit sufficient NJers. The contract market is pretty rich at the moment for experienced drivers. That might make CX think twice before doing away with bases. I'm curious why anyone thinks the company has any choice but to maintain the bases.

[The Messiah]

Yes they wouldn't be throwing all this money to sort out the bases problems if they were just going to close them anyway.

[quadspeed]

They're 'throwing all this money' towards avoiding paying the indemnity, not 'sorting out the bases.'

As for sorting out the bases, perhaps the DFO's letter to the AOA president dated March 3rd 2011 might shed some light on the matter:

"It would perhaps also be appropriate to point out that the Company is examining the overall concept and execution of bases from a strategic perspective. This has particularly been occasioned by the significant costs incurred of late."

(filed as basings/letters/Response DFO Joint Basings Work Group on the AOA website)

Fronting increased costs as a deterrent to base closures makes the assumption that expat housing remains in effect indefinitely, when in fact getting rid of both neutralises the whole argument. A thin wedge approach to closures coupled with cash salaries paid as a percentage of the old housing system would allow the company to maintain positive turnover rates while returning to the comfort of good, old HK legislation.

but I could be wrong.

[spannersatcx]

If you have a child aged under five, (or under 18 if your child is disabled), you may have the right to parental leave. To qualify you must be an employee and have at least one year's continuous service where you work.

You must also either be the parent:

•named on the child's birth certificate
•named on the child's adoption certificate
•with legal parental responsibility for a child under five (under 18 if the child is disabled)
If you are separated and you don't live with your children, you have the right to parental leave if you keep formal parental responsibility for the children.

If you are self-employed or a worker (eg agency worker, contractor etc) then you are not entitled to parental leave.

Foster parents do not have rights to parental leave but may be able to request a flexible working pattern.

Your employer could ask for evidence that you are entitled to parental leave. This could be:

•your child's birth certificate
•papers confirming your child's adoption or the date of placement in adoption cases
•the award of disability living allowance for your child

How much parental leave can you take?
Each parent can take a total of up to 13 weeks' parental leave for each of your children up to their fifth birthday.

[stillalbatross]

Wouldn't it be easiest for the company to say "we can't afford this, so unless you sign something to say while on a base you don't request it (the leave), you've forced us to close the base"

The more senior guys who most likely didn't have young kids would say sign while the newer younger guys most likely with kids would be opposed.

[quadspeed]

Wouldn't it be easiest for the company to say "we can't afford this, so unless you sign something to say while on a base you don't request it (the leave), you've forced us to close the base"

umm. which part of

"It would perhaps also be appropriate to point out that the Company is examining the overall concept and execution of bases from a strategic perspective. This has particularly been occasioned by the significant costs incurred of late."

don't you understand? That is exactly what they're saying.

[cxorcist]

Quad,

... But is that a bluff?

[quadspeed]

Your call. Depends on what you've got to lose I suppose.

[SloppyJoe]

Of course its a bluff. Lets take UK for example. Have a look at the CoSUK, can get it out of crew direct. Not only is the basic salary lower but a HKG based guy is getting TWICE as much when you look at basic salary and housing, well over twice if they are taking the rental ceiling after 8 years. For a junior CN, I know there are not many, if any, on UK base but a HKG based CN taking the rental ceiling again is on over twice a UK based CN. Factor in education for hkg based, up to 20K GBP per year for each child attending a boarding school.

Even if CX had to pay all the tax and hire extra guys to cover all the mandatory holidays they would be better off than having everyone returning to HKG. I believe HKG expat housing will die then maybe bases will close but we have a while left before that happens.

[main_dog]

The UK rules force CXUK to hand over nice chunks of unpaid parental leave to everyone with young kids, lots of it, year after year

It's not quite as disadvantageous to the company as you make it out to be.

Remember that it is essentially unpaid leave, costing the company ZERO while you're on parental leave. Most Officers can't afford the loss of income and don't take much of it, if any.

As far as the company having to hire extra people to cover the leave, I don't think anywhere near enough parental leave is being taken to warrant this, especially when we've been assured time and again there is no crewing problem ;).