MAM & Dom/Reg FAAA
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casualvermin
mate you have lost me with your last posts but maybe it had something to do with the beers I've drained.Who is going to suit who and who was detained and what has this got to do with the s/h union ?
mate you have lost me with your last posts but maybe it had something to do with the beers I've drained.Who is going to suit who and who was detained and what has this got to do with the s/h union ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a casual our engagement as an employee ends when we sign off. Meaning the EBA has no bearing on us until we are being paid again, on duty whether it be AV Span(home resever), Training, AR or flying duties.
To avoid paying casuals on home reserve, crewing make us NREQ, we are then allowed to amke ourselves AV, but we will not be paid for this reserve. As allowed by our negotiated EBA. Once were are AV we are unable to change this, can only change with 48 hours notice.
It is long winded but...
Under our EBA our engagement ends until offered a new duty($$). When on duty were are then covered by CASA's rules(fitnes to fly). must answer phone, get to work in 120min, EP current etc..
When we're AV, we are not being paid, must answer our phone for whole 24hr day and still must comply with CASA. This means technically were are working for free.
Which means slavery, unlawful dettention as we are unable to go about our own business as were are now on FREE home reserve for QF, even though our engagement is over.
The question is, is it lawful. Being governed by CASA when not activley employed.
Now would you work for free?
Why would a EBA endorsed by the FAAA allow you to work for free?
To avoid paying casuals on home reserve, crewing make us NREQ, we are then allowed to amke ourselves AV, but we will not be paid for this reserve. As allowed by our negotiated EBA. Once were are AV we are unable to change this, can only change with 48 hours notice.
It is long winded but...
Under our EBA our engagement ends until offered a new duty($$). When on duty were are then covered by CASA's rules(fitnes to fly). must answer phone, get to work in 120min, EP current etc..
When we're AV, we are not being paid, must answer our phone for whole 24hr day and still must comply with CASA. This means technically were are working for free.
Which means slavery, unlawful dettention as we are unable to go about our own business as were are now on FREE home reserve for QF, even though our engagement is over.
The question is, is it lawful. Being governed by CASA when not activley employed.
Now would you work for free?
Why would a EBA endorsed by the FAAA allow you to work for free?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casualvermin
Thanks mate for your reply because every airline has its own lingo and I was confused which my wife will tell you doesn't take much.
This all comes down to are you at work or not and if you are not then you should be able to do what you want.the company looks like as if it wants the quinella and have it both ways.they want you to be ready to go to work but not pay you and what if you want to have a beer?
Very interesting
Thanks mate for your reply because every airline has its own lingo and I was confused which my wife will tell you doesn't take much.
This all comes down to are you at work or not and if you are not then you should be able to do what you want.the company looks like as if it wants the quinella and have it both ways.they want you to be ready to go to work but not pay you and what if you want to have a beer?
Very interesting
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve read the paper and done some digging. Here’s what I’ve turned up.
I rang and ex Ansett mate who said Ansett f/a’s knew all about flight force and its connection to the union, it was well publicised to the permanent crew while they were up and running. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister, nothing wrong.. No complaints from these crew at the time, he had no idea what all the fuss is about. In fact he says another mate was working for FF when AN went down and they (FF crew) got paid all their money almost straight away when the doors closed for the last time – just what you’d expect with a union connection.
Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story".
MAM’s EBA tells us
1. They do get 3% increase every year like a full timer ok no increments, but show me a casual who does
2. They can nominate three days off that can’t be touched (c) contract. The company nominate 20 days work, the remaining days are optional and its the f/a's choice to work more or not.
3. Contract (B) nominate 12 days of their choosing as a minimum.
4. They can’t do more than 6 in a row – just like us
5. They are paid at present $27.84 + DTA (same rate as us)
6. They get overtime @ time and a half and double time
7. They have the same duty times as us
8. They have the same rest times as us
9. Yes the B rosters do look more like a RSV line with no pay guarantee, but one can assume thats because they're CASUALS.
I STILL don’t get the (SMH worthy) story in all this. MAM are casual, casual in any industry is not consistent and lawfully set up that way. I could understand if we were talking about minimum wage and conditions, but its not. The issue for the B's has nothing to do with their T&C's its about the lack of work or work guarantee.....I think we can safely say it’s legal otherwise the industrial relations commission wouldn’t have ratified it. Having said that, I’ll stay tuned with interest to any law suit casualvermin manages to bring on.
Yesterday my crew and I said it was obviously LH feeding the press and wouldn't you know it, we were right on the money. We now know (thanks to Edens post) their spoiling for "joint ticket" in the delegate elections. One union would be better to look after everyone, but one union headed up by the likes of MM and SR would be a living nightmare. Management hate them and quite frankly the crew at SH aren't far behind that, yes there are a few impressed with their "tough talk", yet EVERYONE AGREES, they actually ACHIEVE NOTHING where sh faaa at least do. Whether you prefer that approach, to cosy or not, most flight attendants want a union that can negotiate and talk to their employer and that’s not anyone at the LH FAAA. They have none and bucklies of getting SH crew to believe they are the better option. The reality is they wouldn't be able to cap or control the number of casuals, for the same reason sh faaa cant, because its illegal to do so. Thats right, ILLEGAL to restrict the use of a casual workforce - (thanks again Johnny) nor can anyone force Qantas to make them permanent.
In a pathetic attempt to talk up their abilities Eden says himself ….The extraordinary attack by Qantas on L/H FAAA , by press release further demonstrates the effectiveness of the L/H FAAA attack over the whole issue…. Exactly what effectiveness was that ? MM got his name in the paper and EFFECTIVELY pi$$ed off a senior exec to the point of press release, BUT THAT’S IT, the redundancies are still going ahead are they not ? More bleating, more bone pointing but nothing changing. Do they honestly think people are stupid enough to believe they’ve actually DONE anything????. These are not the people to look after our future that’s for sure, quite apart from Edens assertion here, they are completely ineffective and we all know it. At the end of the day we want results and its obvious the only thing LH FAAA ever produce is a whole lot of bluff and bull$hit along their name and latest rant in the paper.
I rang and ex Ansett mate who said Ansett f/a’s knew all about flight force and its connection to the union, it was well publicised to the permanent crew while they were up and running. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister, nothing wrong.. No complaints from these crew at the time, he had no idea what all the fuss is about. In fact he says another mate was working for FF when AN went down and they (FF crew) got paid all their money almost straight away when the doors closed for the last time – just what you’d expect with a union connection.
Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story".
MAM’s EBA tells us
1. They do get 3% increase every year like a full timer ok no increments, but show me a casual who does
2. They can nominate three days off that can’t be touched (c) contract. The company nominate 20 days work, the remaining days are optional and its the f/a's choice to work more or not.
3. Contract (B) nominate 12 days of their choosing as a minimum.
4. They can’t do more than 6 in a row – just like us
5. They are paid at present $27.84 + DTA (same rate as us)
6. They get overtime @ time and a half and double time
7. They have the same duty times as us
8. They have the same rest times as us
9. Yes the B rosters do look more like a RSV line with no pay guarantee, but one can assume thats because they're CASUALS.
I STILL don’t get the (SMH worthy) story in all this. MAM are casual, casual in any industry is not consistent and lawfully set up that way. I could understand if we were talking about minimum wage and conditions, but its not. The issue for the B's has nothing to do with their T&C's its about the lack of work or work guarantee.....I think we can safely say it’s legal otherwise the industrial relations commission wouldn’t have ratified it. Having said that, I’ll stay tuned with interest to any law suit casualvermin manages to bring on.
Yesterday my crew and I said it was obviously LH feeding the press and wouldn't you know it, we were right on the money. We now know (thanks to Edens post) their spoiling for "joint ticket" in the delegate elections. One union would be better to look after everyone, but one union headed up by the likes of MM and SR would be a living nightmare. Management hate them and quite frankly the crew at SH aren't far behind that, yes there are a few impressed with their "tough talk", yet EVERYONE AGREES, they actually ACHIEVE NOTHING where sh faaa at least do. Whether you prefer that approach, to cosy or not, most flight attendants want a union that can negotiate and talk to their employer and that’s not anyone at the LH FAAA. They have none and bucklies of getting SH crew to believe they are the better option. The reality is they wouldn't be able to cap or control the number of casuals, for the same reason sh faaa cant, because its illegal to do so. Thats right, ILLEGAL to restrict the use of a casual workforce - (thanks again Johnny) nor can anyone force Qantas to make them permanent.
In a pathetic attempt to talk up their abilities Eden says himself ….The extraordinary attack by Qantas on L/H FAAA , by press release further demonstrates the effectiveness of the L/H FAAA attack over the whole issue…. Exactly what effectiveness was that ? MM got his name in the paper and EFFECTIVELY pi$$ed off a senior exec to the point of press release, BUT THAT’S IT, the redundancies are still going ahead are they not ? More bleating, more bone pointing but nothing changing. Do they honestly think people are stupid enough to believe they’ve actually DONE anything????. These are not the people to look after our future that’s for sure, quite apart from Edens assertion here, they are completely ineffective and we all know it. At the end of the day we want results and its obvious the only thing LH FAAA ever produce is a whole lot of bluff and bull$hit along their name and latest rant in the paper.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cancun
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy I think you've taken this a little to heart, this is just a forum where anybody can post.
If the casuals were going to do anything about their conditions, luv they would have done it long ago.
By your over reaction you are giving credit to it all.
By the way the 3% is in line with CPI, it is not really a pay increase.
When publicized(back to AN) do you mean like the 90day cap on VR?
If the casuals were going to do anything about their conditions, luv they would have done it long ago.
By your over reaction you are giving credit to it all.
By the way the 3% is in line with CPI, it is not really a pay increase.
When publicized(back to AN) do you mean like the 90day cap on VR?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roamingwolf.......please read my post 73. its all about changing your mind and at that time that you dont want to play you are then being deprived of youre liberty. its conditional....no drinking per 24 hour period.......120 mins from airport to be sent anywhere in the world with the understanding that it may and has been less....24 hours ie you could be called at 0300 or 2130 at night,,both of which have happened.....at the time of not being willing to do this but have to still comply means these conditions of being casa compliant,,,company compliant,,,,rested every hour of the clock(as if thats possible),,,packed for canberra or india,,,,close to work on max ready mode,,,all for free against youre will. YOU ARE WORKING FOR FREE NOTHING! please ask some questions if you have any because id like your thoughts and not miss hiccup whos gunna say this is a happy happy joy joy fun fun thing casuals have lived for for years...please! and you fly??? thanks gigs.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
galleyslag
You say over-reaction ... perhaps...... but if the discussion centers around colluson and illegal work conditions all of which are apparently newsworthy etc.... I thought some facts might be interesting. I take your point though.
I don't have any idea what the AN 90 day cap on VR thing is ....
You say over-reaction ... perhaps...... but if the discussion centers around colluson and illegal work conditions all of which are apparently newsworthy etc.... I thought some facts might be interesting. I take your point though.
I don't have any idea what the AN 90 day cap on VR thing is ....
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No gigs, not at all, I can't remember once saying that any of this was ideal, but then again, don't let the truth get in the way of good post. What I will say is once the company make them not required it is then their CHOICE to stay available under all the conditions you so rightly explain...........The alternative is to stay unavailable to Qantas and do what you like !
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why aren't we pushing for a united union?
Why aren't we having more say? Why isn't our opinion being taken seriously by the union?
Posts on Pprune and individual phone calls and emails are not going to achieve much.
There is just too much indifference and putting things in the too hard basket - especially at Short Haul. How will things ever change with the current attitude? They won't. And the above is pure optimism.
Why aren't we having more say? Why isn't our opinion being taken seriously by the union?
Posts on Pprune and individual phone calls and emails are not going to achieve much.
There is just too much indifference and putting things in the too hard basket - especially at Short Haul. How will things ever change with the current attitude? They won't. And the above is pure optimism.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my post levitates toward when as a free person in our society not covered by youre eba by definition of youre status as a casual you exercise youre CHIOCE to not be available when you have made yourself available after being nreq. and then qantas wont allow you to change that status by threat of the security and sability of youre employment as a casual employee...........thats what i invite comment on only miss hiccup....please excuse any spealling errors n typing thanks gigs Would you work for free its a genuine question and concerns me as qantas are achieving a percentile of free reserve by this. cheers and any help would be great gigs
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe miss hiccup has a thinking cap on for a while to reply to the above..DITZY would you work for free ? LOWERLOBE i know casuals seem to not count to you but would you work for free? cause they wont wont you on standby if some kid will do it for free! miss hiccup is still thinking about it! its not personal guys not trying to offend only to find out! thanks gigs
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
miss hiccup you write a post to compare the conditions for employment that the casuals get compared to full time........casuals earn about 10-12000 less by comparison for the same full time roster if you can comare the absence of sick leave 6 weeks paid holiday and work structure/security and stability makes in my book no comparison its just a nice job for those guys and a weekly wage if they can get it. thanks gigs
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gigs, there you go again misquoting me.
Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story" ... were my exact words not a comparison between there's and ours.
And I might respond to your other post if I understood it ! Do you drink ?
Just a couple of inaccuracies or better still, minor details that should not get in the way of this "good story" ... were my exact words not a comparison between there's and ours.
And I might respond to your other post if I understood it ! Do you drink ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anybody else not understand my posts? good political response miss hiccup may i ask the question are you a union rep s/h? i fly i drink no more or less than any other chicky babe! cheers lov the spin gigs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i havent posted for quite some time as i have been content to watch the goings on in here with some amusement and interest.
Its dissappoiting that the LH/SH FAAA debate rages on while rome burns. The real issue here is that while we squabble the company drives a wedge between the workers in Qantas.
Its easy to point the bone and try to see where "original sin" started but that is not going to solve the problems.
As h/campa or DM from the FAAA domestic division says.. The company hate the LOng Haul FAAA. The reality is..they hate all unions. They probably just hate the Long HAul FAAA more than most.
I guess its a bit like being a KAPO in a concentration camp being an FAAA official that constantly agrees with anything to keep the peace with Qantas or to be Liked.
The reality is that the current FAAA LH officials were elected on a platfrom of reversing the failures of the previous EBA and that is what they have done.
Whether there is deception or duplicity of the part of SH official is moot, the reality is NOW and we they must do jointly to protect the working conditions of ALL Qantas group flight attendants.
As someone who has been around a while i have heard the internal bickering from ALL unions for years. Its not just common to the FAAA all unions have internal flights over direction and policies. Some are more pragmatic than others.
At the moment the SH crew have the advantage of being cheaper and more productive that LH crew as the LH FAAA have pointed out. The only way that LH could effectively fight back would be to undercut SH as they did to LH.
I recall being at a meeting last year where MM said that was not a sensible strategy for any union as it would just end up in a spiral to the bottom.
For LH crew its about making ourselves more effecient and trying to hang on to core conditions without resorting to screwing over other flight attendants in the Qantas group.
Thats the essence of the dilemna for LH crew. So when i see the LH FAAA make media comment about the outrage of what qantas is doing i dont criticize them. I understand their frustration.
I dont critisize Doug Cameron, Or Greg Combet or even Kevin Rudd either for critisizing Qantas. But clearly the FAAA domestic division believe thats just grandstanding and achieves nothing.
Just like those that didnt speak up in NAZI germany when they came for their neighbours , when the NAZI's came for them there was no one to speak up.
If the FAAA SH strategy is just to be the last standing when they come for them then at least i understand that strategy. I dont agree with it but i understand.
For my part as a crew member with 15 years service who would like to get to 20, i would like to think that we could stand together.
Thats why despite the obvious differences between the FAAA SH and LH i dont care who heads a united union. I only care that we are united because devided we will fail.
Dont let the rhetoric about who is leaking what to the media distract you. The SMH does its own investigations i would imagine. I would suggest that if there is nothing to hide then the FAAA domestic will come out of it as clean as a whistle.
For what its worth Maurice Alexander was an outstanding union official and many of the conditions that SH and LH crew enjoy were as a result of the work he did for years working with former unions officials. John Playford and other LH and SH officials and employess have workder tirelessly for the collective good of all crew.
Their involvment in business either conected with the SH FAAA or not will not make a bit of difference to me to be quite honest. What the Media prints makes entertaining and thought provoking reading but at the end of the day i am only interested in the working conditions and job security of myself and other Qantas Cabin Crew.
a word of advice to FAAA officials of both divisions. Get of the cross we need the wood!!!!!!
get on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants job security. YOUR loyalties should be with the members not the current employess or officials. You are all replaceable and no one is indespensible.
Get your acts together fast OUR livelihoods depend on it. We will not be patient forever
Its dissappoiting that the LH/SH FAAA debate rages on while rome burns. The real issue here is that while we squabble the company drives a wedge between the workers in Qantas.
Its easy to point the bone and try to see where "original sin" started but that is not going to solve the problems.
As h/campa or DM from the FAAA domestic division says.. The company hate the LOng Haul FAAA. The reality is..they hate all unions. They probably just hate the Long HAul FAAA more than most.
I guess its a bit like being a KAPO in a concentration camp being an FAAA official that constantly agrees with anything to keep the peace with Qantas or to be Liked.
The reality is that the current FAAA LH officials were elected on a platfrom of reversing the failures of the previous EBA and that is what they have done.
Whether there is deception or duplicity of the part of SH official is moot, the reality is NOW and we they must do jointly to protect the working conditions of ALL Qantas group flight attendants.
As someone who has been around a while i have heard the internal bickering from ALL unions for years. Its not just common to the FAAA all unions have internal flights over direction and policies. Some are more pragmatic than others.
At the moment the SH crew have the advantage of being cheaper and more productive that LH crew as the LH FAAA have pointed out. The only way that LH could effectively fight back would be to undercut SH as they did to LH.
I recall being at a meeting last year where MM said that was not a sensible strategy for any union as it would just end up in a spiral to the bottom.
For LH crew its about making ourselves more effecient and trying to hang on to core conditions without resorting to screwing over other flight attendants in the Qantas group.
Thats the essence of the dilemna for LH crew. So when i see the LH FAAA make media comment about the outrage of what qantas is doing i dont criticize them. I understand their frustration.
I dont critisize Doug Cameron, Or Greg Combet or even Kevin Rudd either for critisizing Qantas. But clearly the FAAA domestic division believe thats just grandstanding and achieves nothing.
Just like those that didnt speak up in NAZI germany when they came for their neighbours , when the NAZI's came for them there was no one to speak up.
If the FAAA SH strategy is just to be the last standing when they come for them then at least i understand that strategy. I dont agree with it but i understand.
For my part as a crew member with 15 years service who would like to get to 20, i would like to think that we could stand together.
Thats why despite the obvious differences between the FAAA SH and LH i dont care who heads a united union. I only care that we are united because devided we will fail.
Dont let the rhetoric about who is leaking what to the media distract you. The SMH does its own investigations i would imagine. I would suggest that if there is nothing to hide then the FAAA domestic will come out of it as clean as a whistle.
For what its worth Maurice Alexander was an outstanding union official and many of the conditions that SH and LH crew enjoy were as a result of the work he did for years working with former unions officials. John Playford and other LH and SH officials and employess have workder tirelessly for the collective good of all crew.
Their involvment in business either conected with the SH FAAA or not will not make a bit of difference to me to be quite honest. What the Media prints makes entertaining and thought provoking reading but at the end of the day i am only interested in the working conditions and job security of myself and other Qantas Cabin Crew.
a word of advice to FAAA officials of both divisions. Get of the cross we need the wood!!!!!!
get on with the job of protecting ALL flight attendants job security. YOUR loyalties should be with the members not the current employess or officials. You are all replaceable and no one is indespensible.
Get your acts together fast OUR livelihoods depend on it. We will not be patient forever
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: syd/aust
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for your post peg. news articles are aways interestig to someone and embarassing to others even flight attendants. however facts are facts and the article has printed facts so why hasnt qantas mam or short haul people from the faaa said much? why? i myself dont like press on qantas to much attention to close to home for this girl but if i was publicly accused of something i guess i would need to defend myself in public! thanks for posting gigs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3000
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attention Short Haul and Long Haul FA's & CSM's
Whilst the two unions don't actually seemed to be interested in the casual conditions, you should be if you want your job:
1. a casual earn $15000 less per annum on same hours(at least)
2. the NREQ change to AV means casuals are doing FREE home reserve, something some of you get paid $600 a week for (1:3 for 12 hour home reserve)
3. Casuals do favors to get good flying
4. Casuals are getting trip that are not in open time or in Bid book
5. casuals are so compliant they will do anything for mam/qf
6. 700+ casuals coupled with o/s bases- we are pretty good strike breakers and we'll probably sign anything if it meant getting paid this month
Your Safety:
1. sitting on block of AV days does not give adequet rest
2. high hours and back to back earlies and BOC
Does anybody still no get it?
Our EBA does not end until 2009 and can have amendments made.
1. a casual earn $15000 less per annum on same hours(at least)
2. the NREQ change to AV means casuals are doing FREE home reserve, something some of you get paid $600 a week for (1:3 for 12 hour home reserve)
3. Casuals do favors to get good flying
4. Casuals are getting trip that are not in open time or in Bid book
5. casuals are so compliant they will do anything for mam/qf
6. 700+ casuals coupled with o/s bases- we are pretty good strike breakers and we'll probably sign anything if it meant getting paid this month
Your Safety:
1. sitting on block of AV days does not give adequet rest
2. high hours and back to back earlies and BOC
Does anybody still no get it?
Our EBA does not end until 2009 and can have amendments made.
Last edited by casualvermin; 22nd Apr 2007 at 08:29. Reason: misleading typo
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casualvermin....I could not agree more about the conditions for casuals being atrocious.However the part that I find particularly nauseating are the people allowing it.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pegasus 747 & Casualvermin 2003 stop work for QANTAS long haul......MAM f/as released to do long haul contracts MAM says ok, FAAA says scabs, 
Problem seems that its the same office ie.
Union and employer same person????? 
Problem seems that its the same office ie.
Union and employer same person?????
