Merged: Joe Eakins: Brave?....or....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here & There
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are really trying to be helpful Sloppy, please let your city slicker mates know that other reputable Australian sources are quoting Jetstar’s CEO with
- “The essential role for line pilots was not to just fly an airliner, but be able to save it, when things went wrong.”
At the end of the day we are bound by our Ops manuals which clearly spell's out what we must 'say' or 'not say' to the press.
If there is an industrial issue that we need to raise with the company we use our union as our mouthpiece, as well as our spokesperson to the press.
Our conditions of employment are clear, why do we need to make this person a martyr for his actions? Why can't we use our union to fight these issues, he was a representative why did he speak out as an individual. Why is AIPA with it's large war chest calling for donations?
I will support any individual against an unfair dismissal by their organisation, but was his dismissal UNFAIR?
If there is an industrial issue that we need to raise with the company we use our union as our mouthpiece, as well as our spokesperson to the press.
Our conditions of employment are clear, why do we need to make this person a martyr for his actions? Why can't we use our union to fight these issues, he was a representative why did he speak out as an individual. Why is AIPA with it's large war chest calling for donations?
I will support any individual against an unfair dismissal by their organisation, but was his dismissal UNFAIR?
Last edited by KABOY; 27th Nov 2010 at 02:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Thank you Alan Joyce
For supplying Joe's defence...
From Qrewroom:
"Those statements [from Eakins] we were most concerned about were those that related to the reputation of Jetstar, our pan-Asian strategy, our employment arrangements and other directives around the organisation to ensure the sustained success of Jetstar," Mr Hall said.
"Salaries between Australia and Singapore are comparable. There is no cut to Australian terms and conditions," Mr Hall said.
DAVID HALL, Jetstar Aust & NZ CEO
SMH 26th Nov 2010
If the wages are essentially the same then why did Mr Halls boss say the following, as reported in the same paper 2 months ago:
QANTAS'S chief executive, Alan Joyce, has said its Asian offshoot, Jetstar Asia, needs to pay "Asian rates" to be competitive against low-cost rivals and has accused unions of living in "cloud-cuckoo land".
Mr Joyce told a business lunch in Sydney yesterday that "it was just crazy" to think that it could operate its Singapore-based offshoot, Jetstar Asia, with pilots on Australian conditions because to do so would make it uncompetitive against other low-cost airlines such as Tiger and AirAsia.
ALAN JOYCE, QANTAS CEO
SMH 30th Sept 2010
Thanks Alan, now reinstate this man before this hits the news
From Qrewroom:
"Those statements [from Eakins] we were most concerned about were those that related to the reputation of Jetstar, our pan-Asian strategy, our employment arrangements and other directives around the organisation to ensure the sustained success of Jetstar," Mr Hall said.
"Salaries between Australia and Singapore are comparable. There is no cut to Australian terms and conditions," Mr Hall said.
DAVID HALL, Jetstar Aust & NZ CEO
SMH 26th Nov 2010
If the wages are essentially the same then why did Mr Halls boss say the following, as reported in the same paper 2 months ago:
QANTAS'S chief executive, Alan Joyce, has said its Asian offshoot, Jetstar Asia, needs to pay "Asian rates" to be competitive against low-cost rivals and has accused unions of living in "cloud-cuckoo land".
Mr Joyce told a business lunch in Sydney yesterday that "it was just crazy" to think that it could operate its Singapore-based offshoot, Jetstar Asia, with pilots on Australian conditions because to do so would make it uncompetitive against other low-cost airlines such as Tiger and AirAsia.
ALAN JOYCE, QANTAS CEO
SMH 30th Sept 2010
Thanks Alan, now reinstate this man before this hits the news
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Kremin very good point.
Either Joyce tells the truth...he wants to undercut Australian salaries with lower Asian salaries or..
Hall tells the truth: "Salaries between Australia and Singapore are comparable"
What is the truth and why are 2 people from the same organisation apparently contradicting each other?
Either Joyce tells the truth...he wants to undercut Australian salaries with lower Asian salaries or..
Hall tells the truth: "Salaries between Australia and Singapore are comparable"
What is the truth and why are 2 people from the same organisation apparently contradicting each other?
I think Hall said the "take home" salaries are comparable. The big difference is the tax rates between the two countries. Singapore has a competitive advantage because it is not a Pay All You Earn tax system...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Hall said the "take home" salaries are comparable.
There is no cut to Australian terms and conditions
Not to mention, if there was no cut (and therefore no savings) in Australian terms and conditions, why would you bother employing Asian-based pilots?? Hall made it completely clear - the Ts & Cs are the same - according to him.
Mr Hall is full of it, and no doubt he is fully aware of that and hoping the media do not notice.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore has a competitive advantage because it is not a Pay All You Earn tax system...
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Alan, now reinstate this man before this hits the news
J* managers have shot themselves in the foot on this one.... no matter what it says in the contract, its stupid for these mangers to go public and defend what really should be sorted out privately, with a strong reprimand, putting other techies on notice. Like all media stories, people forget unless it is brought to their attention again.
As I see it, legally J* may have a point, but morally J* managers sending a "termination email" and allegedly advising the world of their actions with a "bulk email" (Joe heard the news from a friend) comes over to the general public as below the belt, and only keeps the story alive and well. J* managers appear to have no idea about how the media works...
They have kicked an own goal.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An organisation will continue to repeat it's own mistakes & provoke further discontent within, unless it listens to it's employees.
In this case, the masses did speak in August. A unanimous vote of no confidence in the CEO. Followed by "a September to remember" as termed by those who work within.
This would have (and should have) been a massive wake up call to any reasonable organisation.
So why would an organisation further agitate the situation by the termination of one of the key players from the August meeting?
The organisations plans must be so critical to it's success, that they are willing to consciously provoke further disengagement & reaction amongst the majority of it's present employees.
If I was one of the company individuals managing the situation, I would have considered a substitution type test. That being, would any of my other employees feel the same way as that demonstrated in the published article?
The answer would have been an overwhelming yes. In fact (possibly) the majority of the pilot workforce, as evidenced by the meeting some 3 months earlier.
This has got to be saying something about how the organisation chooses to manage their employees.
The company was in a tough predicament either not commenting or reacting to the publishing of the article & have the momentum of the August meeting gather pace & media attention. Or terminate JE's employment (which they did) & have the employees further support his cause & also gain further media attention in the process.
Either way, it's got the company "heavies" such as DH & MR out in the media defending their actions. As opposed to the normal commentary from SW.
As mentioned by another writer, the company was in a catch 22. I believe the preferred action should have been listening to JE privately & determine if the SYSTEMS or POLICIES within needed fixing.
Who is causing the greater degree of damage to the organisation, an individual or management?
In this case, the masses did speak in August. A unanimous vote of no confidence in the CEO. Followed by "a September to remember" as termed by those who work within.
This would have (and should have) been a massive wake up call to any reasonable organisation.
So why would an organisation further agitate the situation by the termination of one of the key players from the August meeting?
The organisations plans must be so critical to it's success, that they are willing to consciously provoke further disengagement & reaction amongst the majority of it's present employees.
If I was one of the company individuals managing the situation, I would have considered a substitution type test. That being, would any of my other employees feel the same way as that demonstrated in the published article?
The answer would have been an overwhelming yes. In fact (possibly) the majority of the pilot workforce, as evidenced by the meeting some 3 months earlier.
This has got to be saying something about how the organisation chooses to manage their employees.
The company was in a tough predicament either not commenting or reacting to the publishing of the article & have the momentum of the August meeting gather pace & media attention. Or terminate JE's employment (which they did) & have the employees further support his cause & also gain further media attention in the process.
Either way, it's got the company "heavies" such as DH & MR out in the media defending their actions. As opposed to the normal commentary from SW.
As mentioned by another writer, the company was in a catch 22. I believe the preferred action should have been listening to JE privately & determine if the SYSTEMS or POLICIES within needed fixing.
Who is causing the greater degree of damage to the organisation, an individual or management?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 14
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AoA,
I do not disagree with what Joe said; what he said is what we all know. HOWEVER, the way in which he did it left him with no where to go. You know that and I know that. Once again it is in the FAM in black and white. How much more explicit does it need to be? AIPA didn't sanction the statement. Joe did this off his own bat, and that is the issue the Co has. And stop with your condescending monotone. I know very well that this is being pursued VIGOUROUSLY by AIPA, and I do not need to be reminded by you.
ps have a beer on me too Joe
I do not disagree with what Joe said; what he said is what we all know. HOWEVER, the way in which he did it left him with no where to go. You know that and I know that. Once again it is in the FAM in black and white. How much more explicit does it need to be? AIPA didn't sanction the statement. Joe did this off his own bat, and that is the issue the Co has. And stop with your condescending monotone. I know very well that this is being pursued VIGOUROUSLY by AIPA, and I do not need to be reminded by you.
ps have a beer on me too Joe
The Good Fight
Last time I noticed we still live in a democracy?! One of the wonderful things about a democracy is the freedom of speach, so Joe exercised his freedom of speach as the union rep for Jet* pilots. He was in an enviable position to speak his mind (and conscience) on behalf of all Jet* pilots and (may I say) on behalf of all Ozzie pilots!
Now the company is exercising its right to crucify him under what is no more than a 'gag' agreement, because all their worried about is their 'bottom line'! This clause is administered by nearly all reasonable sized Aviation companies but yet is contrary to what is our legal right in living in a democracy.
John Howard was recently quoted in ABC's Q&A program when David Hicks asked a question via recorded webcam that is a 'wonderful thing that we live in a democracy where this sort of thing can happen' (not quoted exactly but you get the point). So why is it being questioned in Joe's case that he has exercised his right to the freedom of speach?
I believe that this, along with the current senate inquiry, is a watershed moment in Australian Aviation. If you need any more convincing than Joe's fight then you only need read Mr Urquhart's submission Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received in the Senate Inquiry to see where Australian Aviation is heading!
I wish I could contribute to Joe's cause but I am fighting my own battles with another Aviation company that is a fair bit of a struggle financially! So Joe fight the good fight and I hope all pilots back you to the hilt!
Now the company is exercising its right to crucify him under what is no more than a 'gag' agreement, because all their worried about is their 'bottom line'! This clause is administered by nearly all reasonable sized Aviation companies but yet is contrary to what is our legal right in living in a democracy.
John Howard was recently quoted in ABC's Q&A program when David Hicks asked a question via recorded webcam that is a 'wonderful thing that we live in a democracy where this sort of thing can happen' (not quoted exactly but you get the point). So why is it being questioned in Joe's case that he has exercised his right to the freedom of speach?
I believe that this, along with the current senate inquiry, is a watershed moment in Australian Aviation. If you need any more convincing than Joe's fight then you only need read Mr Urquhart's submission Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Rural Affairs and Transport Committee: Pilot training and airline safety including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010: Submissions Received in the Senate Inquiry to see where Australian Aviation is heading!
I wish I could contribute to Joe's cause but I am fighting my own battles with another Aviation company that is a fair bit of a struggle financially! So Joe fight the good fight and I hope all pilots back you to the hilt!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normasars
You might want to be a bit careful in your defence of the company. In the radio interview available on this website, JE states that AIPA was involved (in that they vetted the article). Furthermore, the issue the company has is that they don't want people airing their dirty laundry- nothing to do with the manner in which they do it. If JE had've written an article praising the company and it's management, do you think they would have fired him? It's about the CONTENT- that's what upsets them.
AIPA didn't sanction the statement. Joe did this off his own bat, and that is the issue the Co has.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I tend to agree that falling back on the FAM wording is a bit of a distraction. The FAM clause is there specifically to assist Jetstar in enforcing a double-standard: namely that they couldn't care less if someone publicly praised the company without permission, but stating a few uncomfortable home truths is an entirely different matter.
Virtual summary dismissal for a single administrative FAM breach might be considered by many as an extreme over-reaction, and I hope that's the way the courts see it too.
Then we have the problem that Jetstar have now all but publicly accused him of lying (which is just CEOs shooting from the hip without any thought for what they're saying to the media in their attempt at damage-control). That may open a can of worms in court which Jetstar could come to regret. Counter-suit for defamation, anybody? That I'd love to see!
Virtual summary dismissal for a single administrative FAM breach might be considered by many as an extreme over-reaction, and I hope that's the way the courts see it too.
Then we have the problem that Jetstar have now all but publicly accused him of lying (which is just CEOs shooting from the hip without any thought for what they're saying to the media in their attempt at damage-control). That may open a can of worms in court which Jetstar could come to regret. Counter-suit for defamation, anybody? That I'd love to see!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JE did not "do this off his own bat". The letter was passed through AIPA and they were aware of its content and intention. Why they now choose to stand on the back foot in admitting knowledge of this im not sure.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I am certainly not heartless and feel for Joe and his family, I also hope there is a positive outcome for him and his fellow pilots, I believe it important that the truth is also spoken above all this emotional chest beating.
The race to the bottom,,,, was it not a requirement to pay for your endorsement / borrow the money to obtain the job ?.
In the time, and still in my mind, taking a position within one star would be a morally wrong decision, so as suggested, I voted with my feet and never applied.
In the mean while many ran at the opportunity, selling off their grand mothers body organs for the privledge of having the much loved jet job, at any cost.....
So, do you really have the right to bitch and moan, what did you think was going to happen ?, when they found pilots they could employ for less cost, they went for it, just like you numpties did to the rest of us not that long ago.
I hope there is a positive outcome from this event for your group, but I doubt it very much.
Why is AIPA asking for donations ?, they should already have the battle armour on ?, what exactly have you guys been paying your membership for ?.
Sure I've heard all the bleating, "If I didn't someone else would have", "I needed to get out of GA", " Paying, its the way of the future". Save it, I'm not listening.
So save the poor "one star pilots" routine, you can not be stupid enough to have not known what you were accepting, what your actions would do to the expectation of many organisation in the after math of your actions.
I wish you well, but would not fart in your general direction, you made the decision, now accept the consequences of that decision.
The race to the bottom,,,, was it not a requirement to pay for your endorsement / borrow the money to obtain the job ?.
In the time, and still in my mind, taking a position within one star would be a morally wrong decision, so as suggested, I voted with my feet and never applied.
In the mean while many ran at the opportunity, selling off their grand mothers body organs for the privledge of having the much loved jet job, at any cost.....
So, do you really have the right to bitch and moan, what did you think was going to happen ?, when they found pilots they could employ for less cost, they went for it, just like you numpties did to the rest of us not that long ago.
I hope there is a positive outcome from this event for your group, but I doubt it very much.
Why is AIPA asking for donations ?, they should already have the battle armour on ?, what exactly have you guys been paying your membership for ?.
Sure I've heard all the bleating, "If I didn't someone else would have", "I needed to get out of GA", " Paying, its the way of the future". Save it, I'm not listening.
So save the poor "one star pilots" routine, you can not be stupid enough to have not known what you were accepting, what your actions would do to the expectation of many organisation in the after math of your actions.
I wish you well, but would not fart in your general direction, you made the decision, now accept the consequences of that decision.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now i see where you got the last part of your name from. Nice to see people cracking that old chestnut and moving forward. What Joe was stating and fighting for has the future potenial to affect us all. Take that anti J* to another forum. Im sure its been done to death.
What does that have to do with anything??? He made the decision to stand up for what was right. He made the decision to speak up when others wouldnt and say what we all were thinking.... You might not agree with the establishment of J*,, but this is not about that.....
AS far as farting in our general direction......well... im sure no-one here would piss on u if u were on fire..
wish you well, but would not fart in your general direction, you made the decision, now accept the consequences of that decision.
AS far as farting in our general direction......well... im sure no-one here would piss on u if u were on fire..
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened before the published article?
JE spoke at a gathering of pilots in August this year.
The thrust of his arguement was delivered in a speech to the wider pilot audience & no different to that published in the later article.
Media were in attendance, I assume invited by AIPA & recorded his speech in full. Infact there were "grabs" of his speech televised following the meeting of pilots.
Why is it the company is so critical of the published article, when the same arguement was presented to a wider group of pilots organsised by AIPA in which media were also present.
Wasn't the published article just a re-hash of what had already took place?
MC
JE spoke at a gathering of pilots in August this year.
The thrust of his arguement was delivered in a speech to the wider pilot audience & no different to that published in the later article.
Media were in attendance, I assume invited by AIPA & recorded his speech in full. Infact there were "grabs" of his speech televised following the meeting of pilots.
Why is it the company is so critical of the published article, when the same arguement was presented to a wider group of pilots organsised by AIPA in which media were also present.
Wasn't the published article just a re-hash of what had already took place?
MC