MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these posts were started on cabin crew section of prune and then removed 100% from where most crew or people interested in crew stuff would go to find them so for no. 3 times why the removal? why?.... im starting to worry l1a may be onto something in reading those response to my questions cause the moderators say nics! cheers gigs
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
happicampa...Like so many others here you do not answer the relevant issue at the heart of this.
That is simply that an EX union official who by supplying cheap and non permanent labour (therefore downgrading permanent jobs) to the company shares office space with the union who is supposedly trying to protect those same jobs....
However your last line gives it away... "I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason"..
That just about say's it all....Ask the VB crew about the reason why they should support the S/H FAAA when nearly 90% rejected the EBA supported and actively endorsed by the S/H FAAA.
Before you say something about the EBA being a good deal for VB crew why did nearly 90% vote NO..
There had to be something fundamentally wrong with the EBA endorsed by...drum roll please...VB and the SH FAAA
That is simply that an EX union official who by supplying cheap and non permanent labour (therefore downgrading permanent jobs) to the company shares office space with the union who is supposedly trying to protect those same jobs....
However your last line gives it away... "I know that won't go down well, being even remotely supportive of the SH FAAA on here, but they do have lots of supporters, for good reason"..
That just about say's it all....Ask the VB crew about the reason why they should support the S/H FAAA when nearly 90% rejected the EBA supported and actively endorsed by the S/H FAAA.
Before you say something about the EBA being a good deal for VB crew why did nearly 90% vote NO..
There had to be something fundamentally wrong with the EBA endorsed by...drum roll please...VB and the SH FAAA
Last edited by lowerlobe; 19th Apr 2007 at 21:30.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
I've got no idea why VB voted down their EBA, and I don't much care to be honest with you. Quite frankly I have no idea whether it was a good deal or not.
I do support the faaa sh becasue of the work they do for us in our airline (qf). I am one of the members they talked about in their newsletter, I do expect them to negotiate their way through whatever they can for us.
I don't understand the drama about mam, like I said before if it wasn't him it would be someone else. MAM's conditions and money are fine, their hourly rate is $27.00+ p/h, they get the same DTA and they have the same duty and rest times as the full timers. Sure there's no cap on the hours each month, but there isn't if you FWA as a full timer either. If you bother to go digging, other than not being full time and no bands pay, their conditions are the same as ours. And if QF dont' need to make them permanent, they wont.
Drama, Drama, Drama.
I've got no idea why VB voted down their EBA, and I don't much care to be honest with you. Quite frankly I have no idea whether it was a good deal or not.
I do support the faaa sh becasue of the work they do for us in our airline (qf). I am one of the members they talked about in their newsletter, I do expect them to negotiate their way through whatever they can for us.
I don't understand the drama about mam, like I said before if it wasn't him it would be someone else. MAM's conditions and money are fine, their hourly rate is $27.00+ p/h, they get the same DTA and they have the same duty and rest times as the full timers. Sure there's no cap on the hours each month, but there isn't if you FWA as a full timer either. If you bother to go digging, other than not being full time and no bands pay, their conditions are the same as ours. And if QF dont' need to make them permanent, they wont.
Drama, Drama, Drama.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quotes from the FAAA SH…..
Reference has also been made to “cosy relationships” between MAM, Qantas the Domestic/Regional Division
As to “cosy relationships”, if this is “cosy”, then were proud of it and what we have managed to achieve and maintain on behalf of our members.
The FAAA Domestic/Regional Division has always taken the view that it is absolutely necessary and expected by our members, that we negotiate through all issues, before considering any form of action, threatened or otherwise.
The International Division have a different approach to their affairs which is clearly their business and not for us to comment on.
Does this mean that your union just gives the company what they want?
When did the LH FAAA ever just go on strike without any notice and negotiation?
happicampa..I suggest you look at the VB EBA YOUR union endorsed and ask yourself some questions.If 9 out of 10 cabin crew with VB said NO then there had to be something wrong BIG TIME..
Why then did your union support it?
I'm not suggesting any impropiety on by either MAM or the SH FAAA.
But then if you don't much care about other groups it answers my questions ...
Reference has also been made to “cosy relationships” between MAM, Qantas the Domestic/Regional Division
As to “cosy relationships”, if this is “cosy”, then were proud of it and what we have managed to achieve and maintain on behalf of our members.
The FAAA Domestic/Regional Division has always taken the view that it is absolutely necessary and expected by our members, that we negotiate through all issues, before considering any form of action, threatened or otherwise.
The International Division have a different approach to their affairs which is clearly their business and not for us to comment on.
Does this mean that your union just gives the company what they want?
When did the LH FAAA ever just go on strike without any notice and negotiation?
happicampa..I suggest you look at the VB EBA YOUR union endorsed and ask yourself some questions.If 9 out of 10 cabin crew with VB said NO then there had to be something wrong BIG TIME..
Why then did your union support it?
I'm not suggesting any impropiety on by either MAM or the SH FAAA.
But then if you don't much care about other groups it answers my questions ...
Last edited by lowerlobe; 20th Apr 2007 at 00:11.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr lowerlobe,,,pls read through the lines of my post on the end of page three regarding ex. faaa person ie faaa deligate and director of labour hire company for flight attendants at the same time...........i guess these three lines of type should sum up 4 pages of debate.........and how any flight attendant in australia from any comapny should be so dissapointed and upset,i know i was after learning this.......miss midnight 63 you may well have a valid point cause why for any known reason would topical posts be removed relating to a labour hire comany ie. not qantas cabin crew talk. cheers gigs fealing a little confused and betrayed.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
When was the last time LH went on strike period ? We often have to read their rantings in the papers about what their going to do to the company but I can't remember the last time they actually did anything ? Not only don't they talk and neogiate their way through anything, they bleat like bleeding lambs while not looking after the best needs of their members. "We will not stand for this" is their normal mantra, but thats it..... they're all talk. The Company knows it and ask any manager worth their salt, your union is truly hated by the Company and that can't possibly be good for the members I just don't see how..... at all. I don't apologise for supporting my union who continues to talk to and be listed to by my employer, that alone, is in the best interests of the members.
Does my union give the company everything they want, I sincerely dobut it. I know for a fact the company wanted to force all excess leave to be taken but after negotiations with MY union the end result was bid for 7 days or you'll be allocated 7 days of annual leave only. How long has YOUR union been allowing forced annual and lsl leave in your division ?...... years that's how long. Sure they complained to the members (and probably the papers) but its still happening isn't it. With SH, meetings happened and a reduced forced leave was achieved, your union cried foul, went blue in the face and still the full forced leave is in place. You tell me whats better ?
I said I didn't care why VB voted down their agreement, not that I didn't care about them. The only thing I can say without asking someone from the union why they put forward the agreement, is they probably thought it was better than the alternatives VB has with WorkChoices. Surely you must agree that an EBA is better for workers ? We all know AWA's are the way of the future (unless Rudd comes up with the goods) and I think protection in an EBA for 5 years should definately count for something with the crew that want a career, even for a short time. Stupidity is believing that any company will offer anything other than what their business has to offer and god knows, our laws don't insist on any worker rights at all........ just the boses.
Unless the f/a's in VB are prepared to go on strike to back up their vote, what power does that leave the union. Its really easy to say "go back and do a better job" to ANY union, but we are told, time and time again, by sh, WE ARE THE UNION. Personally I wouldn't vote NO unless I was willing to put my money where my mouth is and strike, I really would need to feel that strongly about the changes being put forward. Maybe they are planning strike action, but there is no-one on their thread talking about it so it would seem unlikely even from that limited source.
We're a very passive workforce in general terms and I know quite a few crew that would come to work regardless of any strike action, those that wouldn't come to work but would see it as an opportunity to get off to the beauticians/gym and some that would attend a union meeting. This from far more experienced crew (ie:years flying) than those at VB. The younger they are the more they want and less they want to do to get it. Perhaps just perhaps that also had something to do with their vote. Of course this is purely speculation on my part. I'm sure 9 out of 10 people saying no also means there was big changes and clearly not to people's liking. Based on my working experience I don't believe our union were saying take it if it wasn't in their long term best interest. Time will tell that we can be sure of.
When was the last time LH went on strike period ? We often have to read their rantings in the papers about what their going to do to the company but I can't remember the last time they actually did anything ? Not only don't they talk and neogiate their way through anything, they bleat like bleeding lambs while not looking after the best needs of their members. "We will not stand for this" is their normal mantra, but thats it..... they're all talk. The Company knows it and ask any manager worth their salt, your union is truly hated by the Company and that can't possibly be good for the members I just don't see how..... at all. I don't apologise for supporting my union who continues to talk to and be listed to by my employer, that alone, is in the best interests of the members.
Does my union give the company everything they want, I sincerely dobut it. I know for a fact the company wanted to force all excess leave to be taken but after negotiations with MY union the end result was bid for 7 days or you'll be allocated 7 days of annual leave only. How long has YOUR union been allowing forced annual and lsl leave in your division ?...... years that's how long. Sure they complained to the members (and probably the papers) but its still happening isn't it. With SH, meetings happened and a reduced forced leave was achieved, your union cried foul, went blue in the face and still the full forced leave is in place. You tell me whats better ?
I said I didn't care why VB voted down their agreement, not that I didn't care about them. The only thing I can say without asking someone from the union why they put forward the agreement, is they probably thought it was better than the alternatives VB has with WorkChoices. Surely you must agree that an EBA is better for workers ? We all know AWA's are the way of the future (unless Rudd comes up with the goods) and I think protection in an EBA for 5 years should definately count for something with the crew that want a career, even for a short time. Stupidity is believing that any company will offer anything other than what their business has to offer and god knows, our laws don't insist on any worker rights at all........ just the boses.
Unless the f/a's in VB are prepared to go on strike to back up their vote, what power does that leave the union. Its really easy to say "go back and do a better job" to ANY union, but we are told, time and time again, by sh, WE ARE THE UNION. Personally I wouldn't vote NO unless I was willing to put my money where my mouth is and strike, I really would need to feel that strongly about the changes being put forward. Maybe they are planning strike action, but there is no-one on their thread talking about it so it would seem unlikely even from that limited source.
We're a very passive workforce in general terms and I know quite a few crew that would come to work regardless of any strike action, those that wouldn't come to work but would see it as an opportunity to get off to the beauticians/gym and some that would attend a union meeting. This from far more experienced crew (ie:years flying) than those at VB. The younger they are the more they want and less they want to do to get it. Perhaps just perhaps that also had something to do with their vote. Of course this is purely speculation on my part. I'm sure 9 out of 10 people saying no also means there was big changes and clearly not to people's liking. Based on my working experience I don't believe our union were saying take it if it wasn't in their long term best interest. Time will tell that we can be sure of.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, my two cents worth...
It is in all our interests for more casuals to employed on a permanent basis, as their conditions undermine our own - if for no other reason.
The S/H FAAA have their own agenda and do not appreciate hearing the concerns of its members. They screwed over L/H in a number of ways (reduced band payments, regional flying to name just two) and in turn, drove a massive wedge between the two divisions. Leaving all of us vulnerable (long and short haul).
It's not as simple to say casuals get $27+ DTA and the same rest times. Firstly, our MBT is pathetic anyway, but they get worked like dogs one month and get very little hours the next. If you "dig a little deeper" you will see major inconsistancies with their EBA, as well as their rostering.
Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would.
Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands.
As far as the FAAA and MAM sharing an office, it is completely inappropriate. The reasons behind why they are sharing are irrelevant. I would be equally concerned if they were sharing an office with QANTAS, so why should MAM be any different. It may not have had any affects in previous EBA negs etc, but we will never know for sure either way, but the potential is enough to make the whole situation WRONG.
LL - can you clarify something for me please, in your EBA what is the requirement for horozontal crew rest?
If my memory serves me correctly, 12+hrs planned, 14+hrs Multi-sector and 17+hrs unplanned. Is that right?
And yes, the whole situation between QF, MAM and the S/H FAAA seems very cosy, cosy, cosy....
It is in all our interests for more casuals to employed on a permanent basis, as their conditions undermine our own - if for no other reason.
The S/H FAAA have their own agenda and do not appreciate hearing the concerns of its members. They screwed over L/H in a number of ways (reduced band payments, regional flying to name just two) and in turn, drove a massive wedge between the two divisions. Leaving all of us vulnerable (long and short haul).
It's not as simple to say casuals get $27+ DTA and the same rest times. Firstly, our MBT is pathetic anyway, but they get worked like dogs one month and get very little hours the next. If you "dig a little deeper" you will see major inconsistancies with their EBA, as well as their rostering.
Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would.
Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands.
As far as the FAAA and MAM sharing an office, it is completely inappropriate. The reasons behind why they are sharing are irrelevant. I would be equally concerned if they were sharing an office with QANTAS, so why should MAM be any different. It may not have had any affects in previous EBA negs etc, but we will never know for sure either way, but the potential is enough to make the whole situation WRONG.
LL - can you clarify something for me please, in your EBA what is the requirement for horozontal crew rest?
If my memory serves me correctly, 12+hrs planned, 14+hrs Multi-sector and 17+hrs unplanned. Is that right?
And yes, the whole situation between QF, MAM and the S/H FAAA seems very cosy, cosy, cosy....
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Samford
I disagree with a couple of your points. The wedge was well and truly driven between the two unions long before the lower bands and regional flying came in. Putting that aside, the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after. Reducing the bands, was obviiously a company item and regional flying quite frankly saved a lot of us. In case you missed it, JQ do most of our old flying, so to me its pretty simple, we either got the work or lost our jobs.
Not denying the implications this had on lh, not for a minute I accept it has hurt them that is truly unfortunate and they have ended up with more VR than we have thats for sure. But isn't it THEIR unions job to look after them ? And lifting a ban on their overseas bases certainly didn't help them. JQI should be on an EBA like the vast majority of f/a's in Australia, (covered by sh). Perhaps lh could tell their members why their direct competition is on the WORST international T&C this country has EVER SEEN.
I'm sorry but it is as simple as $27.00 + per hour, DTA and same duty and rest times. They are CASUAL, they are allowed to be employed in unrestricted numbers because the law is written that way. It it wasn't MAM it would be someone else and at least he talks to the union. I have no doubt that adecco doesn't have any relationship with any union, let alone a "cosy" one. Would everyone feel better if it was adecco and the casuals were on individual contracts and not getting anywhere near the $27+ p/h they get now, perhaps the $18.00 an hour JQI get on their AWA's would be more palatable. That's the money my mates son got offered and knocked back a couple of months ago.
Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would........ From what I understand about our roster building, to reduce the D days, the MAM's would have to be included in the runs. If this happens it takes away flying that might be used by the full timers in FWA. Happy to be corrected there, but thats my understanding of it.
Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands........ Again, how do the union stop it ? The redundancies are VOLUNTARY, you know for anyone who wants to go. There were people who wanted to go last time but missed out, I'm sure their not complaining. And the fact that the casuals (B's) are complaining about not enough work, might just be because there is less flying at the moment, which fits with additional leave etc.
In short, if "cosy" keeps my union and my bosses talking at a time where workers have no rights whatsoever, then bring on the cosy cosy cosy. Because the way I see, we are streets ahead on that basis alone and at this stage of the employment game, we need all the help we can get folks, that is the sad reality.
I disagree with a couple of your points. The wedge was well and truly driven between the two unions long before the lower bands and regional flying came in. Putting that aside, the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after. Reducing the bands, was obviiously a company item and regional flying quite frankly saved a lot of us. In case you missed it, JQ do most of our old flying, so to me its pretty simple, we either got the work or lost our jobs.
Not denying the implications this had on lh, not for a minute I accept it has hurt them that is truly unfortunate and they have ended up with more VR than we have thats for sure. But isn't it THEIR unions job to look after them ? And lifting a ban on their overseas bases certainly didn't help them. JQI should be on an EBA like the vast majority of f/a's in Australia, (covered by sh). Perhaps lh could tell their members why their direct competition is on the WORST international T&C this country has EVER SEEN.
I'm sorry but it is as simple as $27.00 + per hour, DTA and same duty and rest times. They are CASUAL, they are allowed to be employed in unrestricted numbers because the law is written that way. It it wasn't MAM it would be someone else and at least he talks to the union. I have no doubt that adecco doesn't have any relationship with any union, let alone a "cosy" one. Would everyone feel better if it was adecco and the casuals were on individual contracts and not getting anywhere near the $27+ p/h they get now, perhaps the $18.00 an hour JQI get on their AWA's would be more palatable. That's the money my mates son got offered and knocked back a couple of months ago.
Casuals were supposed to reduce our demand days significantly - well this certainly hasn't happened the way the company said it would........ From what I understand about our roster building, to reduce the D days, the MAM's would have to be included in the runs. If this happens it takes away flying that might be used by the full timers in FWA. Happy to be corrected there, but thats my understanding of it.
Meanwhile we are being offered VR and additional leave slots and all the while S/H FAAA sit on their hands........ Again, how do the union stop it ? The redundancies are VOLUNTARY, you know for anyone who wants to go. There were people who wanted to go last time but missed out, I'm sure their not complaining. And the fact that the casuals (B's) are complaining about not enough work, might just be because there is less flying at the moment, which fits with additional leave etc.
In short, if "cosy" keeps my union and my bosses talking at a time where workers have no rights whatsoever, then bring on the cosy cosy cosy. Because the way I see, we are streets ahead on that basis alone and at this stage of the employment game, we need all the help we can get folks, that is the sad reality.
Last edited by Happicampa; 20th Apr 2007 at 08:22.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happicampa -
There are caps on monthly hours for both MAM and FWA... Difference is with FWA you choose what your cap is up to the max (162?). MAM casuals do not get that choice.
I think that use of casuals is being expoited and abused. And I do believe their over all conditions to be inferior to those afforded to permenant crew. How Qantas can be saying there is a surplus yet recruit and grow the number of casuals is beyond me. The reason Demand Days is so out of control is proof there are too many casuals compared to permanent. I personally believe the EBA is being breeched in a number of areas relating to the use of labour hire. (This is my own opinion based on my understanding of the relevant clauses. My opinion obviously differs to that of the SH FAAA).
I also disagree with the MAM office sharing the same physical location. Though this has been the situation for a while. Why has it only now become a issue? Perhaps because of the bigger picture - which is what we should focus on. I do agree with the FAAAs position that it was financially up the creek after the collapse of AN. The decision to share space with MAM was a sound business decision, if not an ethical one. I still prefer that to no union at all.
I do agree with Happicampa in that I DO support the FAAA as it is the only resource we have in maintaining our conditions. I am upset about a few things such as the degredation of crew meals, accomodation and crew rest facilities. And the abuse of the casual system as I mention above. I am getting off track. What I mean is that despite my being unhappy with some recent goings on at the FAAA I support them as the only vehicle we have in the protection of our conditions. Where I am not happy I make sure that the union I pay to represent me knows about it and I pursue the matter vigourously. I do not sit in the galley or on Pprune whining without directing my concerns to the one unfit who are able to affect change.
Like it or not the FAAA is OUR union and only as strong as what we make it through unity and support. I know it sounds corny but it's the truth. If the SH cabin crew community put half as much effort into supporting* the FAAA as we do whining about it you'd be amazed at what could be achieved. Who else other than the FAAA is going to maintain or improve our conditions.
*by 'support' I do not mean agree with everything they do or decide. I mean becoming more involved and telling them our concerns in a positive and constructive manner.
Optomistic rant - over!
There are caps on monthly hours for both MAM and FWA... Difference is with FWA you choose what your cap is up to the max (162?). MAM casuals do not get that choice.
I think that use of casuals is being expoited and abused. And I do believe their over all conditions to be inferior to those afforded to permenant crew. How Qantas can be saying there is a surplus yet recruit and grow the number of casuals is beyond me. The reason Demand Days is so out of control is proof there are too many casuals compared to permanent. I personally believe the EBA is being breeched in a number of areas relating to the use of labour hire. (This is my own opinion based on my understanding of the relevant clauses. My opinion obviously differs to that of the SH FAAA).
I also disagree with the MAM office sharing the same physical location. Though this has been the situation for a while. Why has it only now become a issue? Perhaps because of the bigger picture - which is what we should focus on. I do agree with the FAAAs position that it was financially up the creek after the collapse of AN. The decision to share space with MAM was a sound business decision, if not an ethical one. I still prefer that to no union at all.
I do agree with Happicampa in that I DO support the FAAA as it is the only resource we have in maintaining our conditions. I am upset about a few things such as the degredation of crew meals, accomodation and crew rest facilities. And the abuse of the casual system as I mention above. I am getting off track. What I mean is that despite my being unhappy with some recent goings on at the FAAA I support them as the only vehicle we have in the protection of our conditions. Where I am not happy I make sure that the union I pay to represent me knows about it and I pursue the matter vigourously. I do not sit in the galley or on Pprune whining without directing my concerns to the one unfit who are able to affect change.
Like it or not the FAAA is OUR union and only as strong as what we make it through unity and support. I know it sounds corny but it's the truth. If the SH cabin crew community put half as much effort into supporting* the FAAA as we do whining about it you'd be amazed at what could be achieved. Who else other than the FAAA is going to maintain or improve our conditions.
*by 'support' I do not mean agree with everything they do or decide. I mean becoming more involved and telling them our concerns in a positive and constructive manner.
Optomistic rant - over!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the SH FAAA…sorry happicamper..
“ the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after.
As I said earlier you typify the SH FAAA ..”we’re OK guys..who cares about anyone else”
So if LH undercut you guys you would be happy with that and who wins out of that…THE COMPANY and DARTH…..
With that sort of attitude to others I can understand why you don’t mind Maurice and think everything is cosy.No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...
As for lifting the ban on overseas bases....ask your boss how the LHR base was!!!!!
Look up the definition of mercenary.....
“ the lower bands and regional flying came in during EBA neogiations. Neither of which hurt the current membership of the sh faaa. Funny that..... thats who we pay them to look after.
As I said earlier you typify the SH FAAA ..”we’re OK guys..who cares about anyone else”
So if LH undercut you guys you would be happy with that and who wins out of that…THE COMPANY and DARTH…..
With that sort of attitude to others I can understand why you don’t mind Maurice and think everything is cosy.No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...
As for lifting the ban on overseas bases....ask your boss how the LHR base was!!!!!
Look up the definition of mercenary.....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is a riddle for you...as a casual employee under a casual eba you are terminated at the end of each duty . that is, not employed until invited back by your employer.....under contract b eba you can be made not required to attend work because you as a casual are not needed......if you want to try to work you can make your self available on a non paid 24 hour call out....to comply with qantas and casa you can not drink etc....if you are called for a duty you can not decline the duty.....if you whilst on the 24 hour non paid call out which you cant decline a duty on and cant drink on well rested etc,you wish to take your self off the available status ,qantas will not allow you to take your self off this status without 48 hours notice.....my question is at that time you have changed your mind is it legal to have this conditional detention for 48 hours with no pay at all????..............if while covered by an eba provision as a casual whilst not being paid is this legal??? any ideas by clued up ppruners would be great cause many contract b folk have been made not required for 30% or so of this month whilst contract c racks up the hours and new hire of cantract c is still in swing.......thought casual was seasonal only???????? thanks gigs
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowerlobe
Who wins in the undercutting........ Your right mate the Company and Darth, you got it in one. But where did the undercutting start..... JQ undercut SH, MAM undercut SH, SH undercut LH, o/s bases undercut LH and now JQI undercut LH. Yes the company wins, big time, everytime, but unless the law changes and makes it illegal for them to do any of this, we'd all better get used to being undercut. The big difference between our guys and your guys, is that ours just gets on with business call it "cosy" call it what you like, meanwhile your guys scream and carry on in the papers pointing the bone at whoever they can, but don't end up any better off for it.
But if agreeing to the regional flying saved my job by guaranteeing flying for us then I'm thankful for that. I'm not saying its a perfect situation but I've still got my job and so has everyone who still WANTS a job as far as I can see. We've all only been OFFERED VR haven't we ? If there's been forced redundancies anywhere I'll stand corrected.
I'm not saying "we're alright Jack, stuff the rest of you", but the harsh reality is life is not the same as 10 years ago..... Cast your mind back, we had two dom airlines and one Qantas international. I reckon saying we had the best conditions in the world wouldn't be far off the mark either. But then life changed and the o/s bases started for you guys and we got the LCC's. God knows what the new guys will do when they get here, but thats another story. Its been a downhill slide for roughly 10 years but it is what it is - and thats a $hitfight.
While I don't have to like the decisions my union makes, I can honestly say, in the end they have been in the best interest of keeping us all in a job and I am happy with that. And just because I openly support and understand where my union is coming from, doesn't mean I'm on the union, god knows I haven't got the time or the patience. There are plenty of us that support what sh have done for us and fully understand why it had to be done.
Quote" No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...
I'll ask again mate, how does anyone stop it ? Johnny wrote them a step by step guide on how to screw the worker while their hands are tied behind their backs........ its about 10 years old and recently updated...... its now called WorkChoices.
Who wins in the undercutting........ Your right mate the Company and Darth, you got it in one. But where did the undercutting start..... JQ undercut SH, MAM undercut SH, SH undercut LH, o/s bases undercut LH and now JQI undercut LH. Yes the company wins, big time, everytime, but unless the law changes and makes it illegal for them to do any of this, we'd all better get used to being undercut. The big difference between our guys and your guys, is that ours just gets on with business call it "cosy" call it what you like, meanwhile your guys scream and carry on in the papers pointing the bone at whoever they can, but don't end up any better off for it.
But if agreeing to the regional flying saved my job by guaranteeing flying for us then I'm thankful for that. I'm not saying its a perfect situation but I've still got my job and so has everyone who still WANTS a job as far as I can see. We've all only been OFFERED VR haven't we ? If there's been forced redundancies anywhere I'll stand corrected.
I'm not saying "we're alright Jack, stuff the rest of you", but the harsh reality is life is not the same as 10 years ago..... Cast your mind back, we had two dom airlines and one Qantas international. I reckon saying we had the best conditions in the world wouldn't be far off the mark either. But then life changed and the o/s bases started for you guys and we got the LCC's. God knows what the new guys will do when they get here, but thats another story. Its been a downhill slide for roughly 10 years but it is what it is - and thats a $hitfight.
While I don't have to like the decisions my union makes, I can honestly say, in the end they have been in the best interest of keeping us all in a job and I am happy with that. And just because I openly support and understand where my union is coming from, doesn't mean I'm on the union, god knows I haven't got the time or the patience. There are plenty of us that support what sh have done for us and fully understand why it had to be done.
Quote" No wonder the company is getting away with all of this...
I'll ask again mate, how does anyone stop it ? Johnny wrote them a step by step guide on how to screw the worker while their hands are tied behind their backs........ its about 10 years old and recently updated...... its now called WorkChoices.
Last edited by Happicampa; 20th Apr 2007 at 10:11.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard’s work choices in Australian aviation willingly aided and abetted by SH FAAA and it’s members…
You ask "How do you stop it MATE"....I'll tell you...... You don't shaft your fellow cabin crew in Australia.The new crew applying for J* and VB do not know what is happening and just want to work.It's the existing crew that knew full well what was going down...
You ask "How do you stop it MATE"....I'll tell you...... You don't shaft your fellow cabin crew in Australia.The new crew applying for J* and VB do not know what is happening and just want to work.It's the existing crew that knew full well what was going down...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr or miss lowerlobe many sh cabin crew had no choice in voting because they were casual so,work choice maybe means no choice!.....i think youd find most casuals would like full time employment......have you not read some of the conditions they work under as in my posts?.....have you no compasion...thanks cheers gigs
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: Do you really trust the FAAA? ...........Not I, worse than John Howard & No Choosy . 
OH! FAAA (who we pay fees) How is the holiday house, the Mercedes, the private school (for the kids) going ? ....
OH! FAAA (who we pay fees) How is the holiday house, the Mercedes, the private school (for the kids) going ? ....
Last edited by L1A; 20th Apr 2007 at 11:56.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr ditzyboy what are your thoughts on l1a post.in relation to my posts... im not being an a/hole id really like to know as a member of a union and i really like your previous post it was informative..thanks gigs
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go MAM..we love you...Yea Right !
Dear Ms.or Mr. Gigs
I can confirm 100% that the FAAA allow the free reserve for it’s SH members. Maybe they are gearing up to use you as strike breakers, as LH as they did in 2003 stop work dispute…
All administrated from the same office …Hmmmmmmmmm!
We love Geoff, Go Morris ……we trust you, and love you 100%
I can confirm 100% that the FAAA allow the free reserve for it’s SH members. Maybe they are gearing up to use you as strike breakers, as LH as they did in 2003 stop work dispute…
All administrated from the same office …Hmmmmmmmmm!
We love Geoff, Go Morris ……we trust you, and love you 100%
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr or miss l1a i do know that to be a union person in authority with sh/faaa its to be like your stilll paid like a flight attendant or csm or whatever although i could be wrong....can some person clarify rhis?????? thanks gigs