HyperMerged: Q Engineering LAME EBA VIII/Industrial Strategies
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impending Trouble
I am not a LAME, but am following your dispute with great interest. I also know QF very, very well (that's all i can say).
Your determination is great to see and there is nothing unreasonable about your claims.
But some friendly hints:-
1) Forget about public support or lack of it. In a dispute the public never support a union engaged in stoppages. Also, remember who owns the media (they are not friends of employees).
2) Those of you who actually think QF will agree to wage rises over 3%, think again. I only hope your elected officials don't actually believe they can achieve more than 3%. If they do, all of you are heading for disaster.
QF will defend the 3% cap at all costs- it has implications for all other QF unions if they were to give you a greater increase. Be sure, they will never agree to beyond a 3% increase.
3) BE ready for a termination of your existing EBA , which is a pre-reform agreement . The AIRC (federal commission) would be bound to grant a termination upon QF application.
4) At that point, QF can go down some very nasty paths. One obvious path is to ask the AIRC to withdraw approval for any further industrial action. Other QF options include locking you out and then deciding if they will even talk to you.
For those of you, who think i am some QF supporter think again. I hope your relatively new union leadership does not miscalculate.
I realise you have other important issues other than a wage increase.
My suggestion is that all of you plus your elected reps concentrate on those, rather than a 5% increase.
If you stake all over 5% there will be disastrous consequences for your membership.
Good luck...... you are a decent group of people !
Your determination is great to see and there is nothing unreasonable about your claims.
But some friendly hints:-
1) Forget about public support or lack of it. In a dispute the public never support a union engaged in stoppages. Also, remember who owns the media (they are not friends of employees).
2) Those of you who actually think QF will agree to wage rises over 3%, think again. I only hope your elected officials don't actually believe they can achieve more than 3%. If they do, all of you are heading for disaster.
QF will defend the 3% cap at all costs- it has implications for all other QF unions if they were to give you a greater increase. Be sure, they will never agree to beyond a 3% increase.
3) BE ready for a termination of your existing EBA , which is a pre-reform agreement . The AIRC (federal commission) would be bound to grant a termination upon QF application.
4) At that point, QF can go down some very nasty paths. One obvious path is to ask the AIRC to withdraw approval for any further industrial action. Other QF options include locking you out and then deciding if they will even talk to you.
For those of you, who think i am some QF supporter think again. I hope your relatively new union leadership does not miscalculate.
I realise you have other important issues other than a wage increase.
My suggestion is that all of you plus your elected reps concentrate on those, rather than a 5% increase.
If you stake all over 5% there will be disastrous consequences for your membership.
Good luck...... you are a decent group of people !
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AIRC (federal commission) would be bound to grant a termination upon QF application.
It's my understanding that the AIRC is far from being bound to grant a termination but will only do so if there is a compelling argument from the company and that argument has to be a very irresistible and persuasive one.
It has to be proven that the case for a termination of the EBA has to be in the public's interest and without it the public would be severely disadvantaged.
Can you give us past examples of a company being successful in this endeavour ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi lowerlobe.
The commission must grant a termination upon application of either party to an EBA unless there are public interest reasons not to grant it.To grant a termination an EBA must have nominally expired, as has the LAME EBA. Also, there is no 90 day notice period required before termination can be granted upon application of a party(as is the case for post reform agreements), as the LAME EBA is a pre-reform agreement.
So, the Company doesn't have to prove that a termination is in the public interest, rather a union would have to demonstrate it's not in the public interest to grant a termination. In other words the onus would be on the union.
Please note that the legislation says the AIRC ( federal Commission) MUST grant a termination, not may.
lowerlobe read the FAAA advice attached to the latest newsletter on its website, it's clearly explained.
By the way merry xmas.
Here is an example :
EBA Expiry Date Upheld Author: Dr Kirk Lovric of Allens Arthur Robinson A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has restricted the discretion of the AIRC when considering termination of expired certified agreements. This article examines the decision and its impact on the AIRC's role when reviewing the public interest.
Background
On 13 January 2005, the AIRC heard an appeal by Esso contractors KBR and Worley against a commissioner's decision to refuse to terminate an expired certified agreement because this was not in the public interest. In the original application, KBR and Worley applied under s170MH(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) to terminate their certified agreements.[1] Under s170MH(3), the AIRC must terminate a certified agreement after its expiry date, unless that would be contrary to the public interest. The application was made following union opposition to proposed work changes which, in the contractors' view, are necessary for cost and efficiency reasons.
The application failed as the AIRC was concerned about:
From the earliest times, the AIRC and its predecessors approached the issue of public interest from the perspective of the community as a whole, not of the parties involved. In some recent cases, such as Geelong Wool Combing ,[2] the AIRC has adopted a much broader view of the public interest test, considering the interests of the parties and the public. In that case, the AIRC refused to terminate a certified agreement due to concerns over the negative impact on employees if the agreement ceased to apply.
The Esso appeal
KBR and Worley appealed to the Full Bench and argued that Commissioner Whelan's refusal to terminate was incorrect. The Full Bench agreed with KBR and Worley and noted:
In overturning Commissioner Whelan's decision, the Full Bench stated that the public interest does not include the interests of the parties unless the legislation specifically requires this. This narrows the AIRC's application of the test to something more akin to the traditional interpretation.
The significance of the narrow interpretation is that termination of an expired certified agreement becomes a legitimate bargaining strategy during negotiations. Faced with an impasse, employers now know that a successful application to terminate an expired certified agreement will result in terms of employment reverting to the parent award, usually on less beneficial rates of pay and other entitlements. In particular negotiations, this may bring matters to a head and assist resolution of outstanding matters.
[1]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd; Worley ABB Joint Venture; Corke Instrument Engineering Pty Ltd , PR951725, 7 September 2004.
[2]Geelong Wool Combing Ltd re: Geelong Wool Combing Ltd Enterprise Agreement 1993 and Others , PR937499, 5 September 2003.
[3]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd and Others v Esso Australia , PR955357, 31 January 2005.
April, 2005
Terms & Conditions - Privacy - Jobs - About Us - Contact Us - FAQ - Add URL
Copyright© 2000-2007 Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 trading as Thomson's FindLaw Australia
The commission must grant a termination upon application of either party to an EBA unless there are public interest reasons not to grant it.To grant a termination an EBA must have nominally expired, as has the LAME EBA. Also, there is no 90 day notice period required before termination can be granted upon application of a party(as is the case for post reform agreements), as the LAME EBA is a pre-reform agreement.
So, the Company doesn't have to prove that a termination is in the public interest, rather a union would have to demonstrate it's not in the public interest to grant a termination. In other words the onus would be on the union.
Please note that the legislation says the AIRC ( federal Commission) MUST grant a termination, not may.
lowerlobe read the FAAA advice attached to the latest newsletter on its website, it's clearly explained.
By the way merry xmas.
Here is an example :
EBA Expiry Date Upheld Author: Dr Kirk Lovric of Allens Arthur Robinson A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has restricted the discretion of the AIRC when considering termination of expired certified agreements. This article examines the decision and its impact on the AIRC's role when reviewing the public interest.
Background
On 13 January 2005, the AIRC heard an appeal by Esso contractors KBR and Worley against a commissioner's decision to refuse to terminate an expired certified agreement because this was not in the public interest. In the original application, KBR and Worley applied under s170MH(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) to terminate their certified agreements.[1] Under s170MH(3), the AIRC must terminate a certified agreement after its expiry date, unless that would be contrary to the public interest. The application was made following union opposition to proposed work changes which, in the contractors' view, are necessary for cost and efficiency reasons.
The application failed as the AIRC was concerned about:
- the position of Esso to influence negotiations; and
- the impact on employees' families of a change to a 14-day roster under alternative industrial arrangements.
From the earliest times, the AIRC and its predecessors approached the issue of public interest from the perspective of the community as a whole, not of the parties involved. In some recent cases, such as Geelong Wool Combing ,[2] the AIRC has adopted a much broader view of the public interest test, considering the interests of the parties and the public. In that case, the AIRC refused to terminate a certified agreement due to concerns over the negative impact on employees if the agreement ceased to apply.
The Esso appeal
KBR and Worley appealed to the Full Bench and argued that Commissioner Whelan's refusal to terminate was incorrect. The Full Bench agreed with KBR and Worley and noted:
In overturning Commissioner Whelan's decision, the Full Bench stated that the public interest does not include the interests of the parties unless the legislation specifically requires this. This narrows the AIRC's application of the test to something more akin to the traditional interpretation.
The significance of the narrow interpretation is that termination of an expired certified agreement becomes a legitimate bargaining strategy during negotiations. Faced with an impasse, employers now know that a successful application to terminate an expired certified agreement will result in terms of employment reverting to the parent award, usually on less beneficial rates of pay and other entitlements. In particular negotiations, this may bring matters to a head and assist resolution of outstanding matters.
[1]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd; Worley ABB Joint Venture; Corke Instrument Engineering Pty Ltd , PR951725, 7 September 2004.
[2]Geelong Wool Combing Ltd re: Geelong Wool Combing Ltd Enterprise Agreement 1993 and Others , PR937499, 5 September 2003.
[3]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd and Others v Esso Australia , PR955357, 31 January 2005.
April, 2005
Terms & Conditions - Privacy - Jobs - About Us - Contact Us - FAQ - Add URL
Copyright© 2000-2007 Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 trading as Thomson's FindLaw Australia
Last edited by alpine57; 25th Dec 2007 at 00:55.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: oz
Age: 59
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as I said befour lets work at the margins, not the headline (5%)
if all this can turn to sh## and qantas esculates it so we get locked out and lose our redundacy provisions i will be upset
if all this can turn to sh## and qantas esculates it so we get locked out and lose our redundacy provisions i will be upset
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Cheer
Enjoy your family on this day ,relax life is not just about work. Think about others not only in our country but in third world proverty. We have a good life. If your not happy at QE move on,
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SYDNEY
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont Take It
Excalibur, Sounds like your life is great and your happy as you are. When we get the increase i take it your share will go to the salvos or even better back to the union.That would be a good gesture since you are happy with your pay going backwards!!!Nice first post and all the best for xmas and the new year.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: den pasar
Age: 39
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alpine57
For those of you who don't follow other threads, A-57 is a regular contributor on CC EBA thread. Common wisdom there is that their union FAAA executive all have numbers as part of their pseudonyms, so it may be that A-57 is worth paying attention to.
But remember we are not CC and it takes a lot longer to train some one to replace us that CC (no offence A-57, just a lot of legalities on top of tech training).
I think he/she's right in that the company won't budge from 3%, but I also think there's more to this than an extra 2%.
It's well known that management think of us as an outrageously expensive part of the business. So why not provoke a blue, lock us all out, have the eba terminated and only ask back the ones they want and on their terms....... in the interim.
Then in the mid to long term sell each part of eng off. We might be Smith's Crisps Aero Engineering Ltd Victoria, or Heinz Air Services QLD etc.
No leave for QF to worry about, no uniforms, super, sickies, nothing except a single monthly/weekly/whatever payment to a contract agency.
The downside of this to QF is no company loyalty (if there's any of that left), just the bare legal minimum of on the job effort. MEL's galore, crappy interiors, delays, pissed off pax, deserting pax and finally no pax.
This could turn out to be the most expensive 2% since Adam gave up a rib. But as Adam also found out, it will make life very interesting and definitely unpredictable.
Enjoy the holidays and celebrate new year as if it's your last, because 2008 will not start with a wimper.
But remember we are not CC and it takes a lot longer to train some one to replace us that CC (no offence A-57, just a lot of legalities on top of tech training).
I think he/she's right in that the company won't budge from 3%, but I also think there's more to this than an extra 2%.
It's well known that management think of us as an outrageously expensive part of the business. So why not provoke a blue, lock us all out, have the eba terminated and only ask back the ones they want and on their terms....... in the interim.
Then in the mid to long term sell each part of eng off. We might be Smith's Crisps Aero Engineering Ltd Victoria, or Heinz Air Services QLD etc.
No leave for QF to worry about, no uniforms, super, sickies, nothing except a single monthly/weekly/whatever payment to a contract agency.
The downside of this to QF is no company loyalty (if there's any of that left), just the bare legal minimum of on the job effort. MEL's galore, crappy interiors, delays, pissed off pax, deserting pax and finally no pax.
This could turn out to be the most expensive 2% since Adam gave up a rib. But as Adam also found out, it will make life very interesting and definitely unpredictable.
Enjoy the holidays and celebrate new year as if it's your last, because 2008 will not start with a wimper.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SYDNEY
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update On The Companys Strikebreaking Progress
Sydney interviews have been mostly completed,the remainder will be end of the week and this weeekend. Not too many takers most people disgruntled and worried about the carrer effects in the future.
Melbourne will be finalised at the end of the week.A few ex tn retirees on board.
Brisbane interviews still pending later this week and weekend as in cairns.
Nz has minor intrest but not enough to make a difference.
The company will keep trying to recruit more. Anyone that is thinking of accepting this 100k over 6months offer should ask for a substantial amount of money up front,because if you are no longer required (ie dispute resolved) you will wear the tag of strikebreaker for years.
Aviation is a small industry.
All members it is time to comunicate with you fellow workmates and other ports.
Stick together and ride this out. Remember the majourity voted this in, now its time to back up this vote with action and pay sacrafice.The company is showing how serious it is by the ruthless recruitment drive to get scabs.( some people have even been asked that the management loaths)
We need to learn from the mistakes people have made with previous disputes. I hate to bring it up but the pilots dispute in 1989 was a classic.
The company basically divided and conquered them. Once the company got some people(i would love to name them but i would run into trouble with the moderator) to scab and come back to work,that was the beggining of the end. One of the scab pilots sons is actually a engineering foreman and he would think it is normal for employees to sell each other out because that is the example his father with no integrity has shown him!!!
I have seen this written previously on this thread but i wil say it again UNITED WE BARGAIN DIVIDED WE BEG!!..We need to adhere to this now more than ever,if we do we will ride out the storm and win.
Melbourne will be finalised at the end of the week.A few ex tn retirees on board.
Brisbane interviews still pending later this week and weekend as in cairns.
Nz has minor intrest but not enough to make a difference.
The company will keep trying to recruit more. Anyone that is thinking of accepting this 100k over 6months offer should ask for a substantial amount of money up front,because if you are no longer required (ie dispute resolved) you will wear the tag of strikebreaker for years.
Aviation is a small industry.
All members it is time to comunicate with you fellow workmates and other ports.
Stick together and ride this out. Remember the majourity voted this in, now its time to back up this vote with action and pay sacrafice.The company is showing how serious it is by the ruthless recruitment drive to get scabs.( some people have even been asked that the management loaths)
We need to learn from the mistakes people have made with previous disputes. I hate to bring it up but the pilots dispute in 1989 was a classic.
The company basically divided and conquered them. Once the company got some people(i would love to name them but i would run into trouble with the moderator) to scab and come back to work,that was the beggining of the end. One of the scab pilots sons is actually a engineering foreman and he would think it is normal for employees to sell each other out because that is the example his father with no integrity has shown him!!!
I have seen this written previously on this thread but i wil say it again UNITED WE BARGAIN DIVIDED WE BEG!!..We need to adhere to this now more than ever,if we do we will ride out the storm and win.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SYDNEY
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reflux 3%
Reflux i think you dont know what is achievable until you try.5% on face value is a long shot because of the precedent.But maybee we could bargain for annual bonuses based on company performances,but the payment at the end of 08 should be automatic due to the effect of the industrial action.Also obviously we want the two clauses kicked to the kurb aswell.
The huge enormous underlying assumption made by all Qantas Management is very very simple and very very dangerous to themselves, that is:
AUSTRALIAN LABOUR WILL ALWAYS BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ASIAN LABOUR
I meekly suggest that this is short sighted, but then If I got a bonus every year calculated on my last twelve months performance why would I care?
AUSTRALIAN LABOUR WILL ALWAYS BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ASIAN LABOUR
I meekly suggest that this is short sighted, but then If I got a bonus every year calculated on my last twelve months performance why would I care?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: KUALA LUMPUR
Age: 45
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikebreakerbraka 3%
I agree there are ways you can mask an increase.Its called creative accounting im sure the company would be able togive us some advice about that.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SYDNEY
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asian Labour
It all comes down to you pay for what you get.If Q management want to adjust the landscape using one of their alluminium tubes. Keep sending planes overseas and saving money on maint.False economy.There is places you can save money in the airline industry but i think the travelling public would agree its not in maint.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: den pasar
Age: 39
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikebb 3/5%
Mate you're right about what's possible re 3% plus annual bonus. But as one co-worker correctly pointed out, 5% this year then next year it's 5% of current wage + that 5% and so on, ie it compounds. A bonus is a one off (which all qf staff have received over the last 3-5 years). So you are saying we should go along the same lines as s/h techies which is fine, but remember it's also subject to marginal tax. Therefore if 100k is an ave wage (is it?) 3% is an extra 3k p.a. We would need an extra bonus of 2k in the first year and you can work out the rest if you want to compound it. It's not easy is it?
Then there's those clauses: company says they don't mean much, eba committee doesn't want a bar of them. Committe is negotiating on our behalf so I have to believe them (not a case of not trusting the company on principle) that they are very much on the nose. And if the company is digging in heels to keep them then you can bet the mortgage that 'good faith' is a term that is only being paid lip service in these negotiations.
Come what may we have to stick together when it gets nasty - and it will. Have a look at this link to get some historical perspective and check out the 1 person who was there 20 years ago is very much still a player in 2008. http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...9_document.htm
Cheers
Then there's those clauses: company says they don't mean much, eba committee doesn't want a bar of them. Committe is negotiating on our behalf so I have to believe them (not a case of not trusting the company on principle) that they are very much on the nose. And if the company is digging in heels to keep them then you can bet the mortgage that 'good faith' is a term that is only being paid lip service in these negotiations.
Come what may we have to stick together when it gets nasty - and it will. Have a look at this link to get some historical perspective and check out the 1 person who was there 20 years ago is very much still a player in 2008. http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...9_document.htm
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: SYDNEY
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3%
Thanx for the link reflux,
I had a quick look.But it looks like a novel i just finished (war and peace).Ill have to review it later when i get more time. But seriously i think everyone should make themselves familiar with it.
I had a quick look.But it looks like a novel i just finished (war and peace).Ill have to review it later when i get more time. But seriously i think everyone should make themselves familiar with it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: queensland
Age: 54
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Bird In The Hand Is Worth Two In The Bush
The 2% above the offered 3% is worth x to those concerned LAMEs
The pay rates and ultimate ongoing cost will be a concern to the continued operation of any enterprise.
Now it goes without saying that bonuses enjoyed by the executive group supercedes the income of the wage earning group.
A lower paid LAME 5% is considerably less than the Grade 10 character yet are their needs less than his"?
We should perhaps reverse this trend and increase the wage of the lower paid LAME financed by the wage constraint of the highest paid.
People are by nature greedy and would that higher paid LAME forgo increases in their income and allow lower paid people to receive the benefit.
The 2% above the offered 3% is worth x to those concerned LAMEs
The pay rates and ultimate ongoing cost will be a concern to the continued operation of any enterprise.
Now it goes without saying that bonuses enjoyed by the executive group supercedes the income of the wage earning group.
A lower paid LAME 5% is considerably less than the Grade 10 character yet are their needs less than his"?
We should perhaps reverse this trend and increase the wage of the lower paid LAME financed by the wage constraint of the highest paid.
People are by nature greedy and would that higher paid LAME forgo increases in their income and allow lower paid people to receive the benefit.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: den pasar
Age: 39
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STRIKEBB &primethius
Glad to pass on the link. Not a quick read, but save to stick and print out at work. You can read it during the first 4 hour stoppage.
Primethius, you clown. So all higher level lames take a wage freeze and pay the lower levels more? Why not make all level 4s level 8, and all level 12s level 8 and reduce the number of levels? Think about it mate. As I said, it's not easy and all parties want to walk away with no loss of face.
NorthSteyne, what a silly name, but thanks for the support. Go to the interview and waste their time, and if you do sign, wear a hard hat, cos there's sure to be some heavy sockets 'falling off the top of engines' and landing on some scab's head.
Enjoy what's left of Xmas.
R
Primethius, you clown. So all higher level lames take a wage freeze and pay the lower levels more? Why not make all level 4s level 8, and all level 12s level 8 and reduce the number of levels? Think about it mate. As I said, it's not easy and all parties want to walk away with no loss of face.
NorthSteyne, what a silly name, but thanks for the support. Go to the interview and waste their time, and if you do sign, wear a hard hat, cos there's sure to be some heavy sockets 'falling off the top of engines' and landing on some scab's head.
Enjoy what's left of Xmas.
R
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reflux,
Just a thought,
What if we get 20 good ex employees who know how to inspect aircraft,snag the sh#t out of them every night, go home without completing rectfication as they may be fatigued,work 6 months and donate all earnings to the ALAEA.or even better take the 100k and go and use a ladder where it's not approved and be stood down,or put a cartoon up on the wall in a smoko room of some tossa and also be stood down,I wunder if the policy book will be used for the scabs???
What if we get 20 good ex employees who know how to inspect aircraft,snag the sh#t out of them every night, go home without completing rectfication as they may be fatigued,work 6 months and donate all earnings to the ALAEA.or even better take the 100k and go and use a ladder where it's not approved and be stood down,or put a cartoon up on the wall in a smoko room of some tossa and also be stood down,I wunder if the policy book will be used for the scabs???
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3% is going backwards for anybody in this day and age. The outside world has already past the aviation industry in many ways over the past 5 years.
If you just compare simply management wage increases to yours it is an out right insult and a 5% increase is nothing to request. But as said before 3% is the gate keeper for QF and if they give it to eng, every other union will battle for it aswell. It will be a massive defeat that will be dodged at every corner and angle known to man kind.
I believe engineering should battle like hell for it though, they deserve it for all **** they go through on a daily basis. Every QF employee will support them because they are battleing not just for themselves but for the whole industry, they are in the best position out of the QF group to go for what is well deserved, after the destruction and mess and crappy desicion making that has gone on above them, they have nothing to loose now.
The outside world will be not happy about about delays for these periods but if it goes on long enough, those who no what your fighting for and compare figures will no doubt think your requests are out of question, it will make management look like the crooks that they are.
The more you desturb, the more angry the public will get and questions to what is happening will hit the media which will help make mangement look like crooks and help get what you want.
Outside of Qantas there are aviation engineering companys that EBA's follow almost parellel to QF but are smaller, QF's actions directly result as outcomes for their employees too. So don't believe people are not supporting you they maybe small groups but they are and have been watching closely and are seeing the curuption unfolding by your seniors actions.
Its time to simply just go oldschool and give it to them hard.
EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE!!!
If you just compare simply management wage increases to yours it is an out right insult and a 5% increase is nothing to request. But as said before 3% is the gate keeper for QF and if they give it to eng, every other union will battle for it aswell. It will be a massive defeat that will be dodged at every corner and angle known to man kind.
I believe engineering should battle like hell for it though, they deserve it for all **** they go through on a daily basis. Every QF employee will support them because they are battleing not just for themselves but for the whole industry, they are in the best position out of the QF group to go for what is well deserved, after the destruction and mess and crappy desicion making that has gone on above them, they have nothing to loose now.
The outside world will be not happy about about delays for these periods but if it goes on long enough, those who no what your fighting for and compare figures will no doubt think your requests are out of question, it will make management look like the crooks that they are.
The more you desturb, the more angry the public will get and questions to what is happening will hit the media which will help make mangement look like crooks and help get what you want.
Outside of Qantas there are aviation engineering companys that EBA's follow almost parellel to QF but are smaller, QF's actions directly result as outcomes for their employees too. So don't believe people are not supporting you they maybe small groups but they are and have been watching closely and are seeing the curuption unfolding by your seniors actions.
Its time to simply just go oldschool and give it to them hard.
EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE!!!