Merged: Joe Eakins: Brave?....or....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions unanimously passed the following motion of support this week for Joe and others. As a member of the Executive for 4 years now, it is the first time I have successfully raised a motion. I note that some posters on here don't appear to be too supportive but the entire union movement is behind him.
Executive resolution Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Aviation Industry Support Executive notes that Australian Pilot and union delegate Joe Eakins and six Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Qantas Group companies have recently been dismissed or stood down from duty for raising safety issues on Qantas Group aircraft and activity undertaken as a union delegate. Additionally Qantas is currently seeking damages of up to $4.5 million dollars from nine individual TWU Officials for assisting baggage handlers who objected to working with labour hire employees who had not been given the appropriate AFP/ASIO clearances to work on Australian Airports.
The ACTU is concerned about any punitive action against Australian Aviation workers where they raise legitimate safety and security matters in the Aviation Industry, or because of their important responsibility as a union delegate. Executive resolves to support the Aviation unions in their endeavours to support the rights of workers to raise safety issues, and in particular the right of delegates to actively represent the concerns of members.
Australian unions want a safe, productive and secure aviation industry, and will continue to oppose actions that put airports, aircraft, lives and a billion dollar tourism industry at risk. The ACTU will consult with aviation unions to develop a collective response to these issues.
Executive resolution Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Aviation Industry Support Executive notes that Australian Pilot and union delegate Joe Eakins and six Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Qantas Group companies have recently been dismissed or stood down from duty for raising safety issues on Qantas Group aircraft and activity undertaken as a union delegate. Additionally Qantas is currently seeking damages of up to $4.5 million dollars from nine individual TWU Officials for assisting baggage handlers who objected to working with labour hire employees who had not been given the appropriate AFP/ASIO clearances to work on Australian Airports.
The ACTU is concerned about any punitive action against Australian Aviation workers where they raise legitimate safety and security matters in the Aviation Industry, or because of their important responsibility as a union delegate. Executive resolves to support the Aviation unions in their endeavours to support the rights of workers to raise safety issues, and in particular the right of delegates to actively represent the concerns of members.
Australian unions want a safe, productive and secure aviation industry, and will continue to oppose actions that put airports, aircraft, lives and a billion dollar tourism industry at risk. The ACTU will consult with aviation unions to develop a collective response to these issues.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I refuse to do business with unethical or immoral suppliers. It costs me more in the long run to supply my product and I probably lose some jobs because of it.
I donot take too much notice of economists etc, in the end a lot of people make decisions based on the above, they're the people I want to deal with.
I regularly make airfare decisions based on the values of the company, maintenance and pilot standards. Rarely do I pay the cheapest price. I wont be travelling on Jetstar as I find their corporate values, as reflected by Buchannan, repulsive.
It's a pity that people don't behave with a bit of integrity. Joe did and it will pay off for him, more than likely not in this putrid industry, but it will
I donot take too much notice of economists etc, in the end a lot of people make decisions based on the above, they're the people I want to deal with.
I regularly make airfare decisions based on the values of the company, maintenance and pilot standards. Rarely do I pay the cheapest price. I wont be travelling on Jetstar as I find their corporate values, as reflected by Buchannan, repulsive.
It's a pity that people don't behave with a bit of integrity. Joe did and it will pay off for him, more than likely not in this putrid industry, but it will
Capt. Cloudbuster:
No! No! No! You have got it bass ackwards! That is not how bean counters think!
Let me give you a purely theoretical Profit and Loss Statement:
Revenue..................$200,000,000
Less:
Fuel........................$40,000,000
Pilots and CC............$60,000,000
Maint. + Spares........$25,000,000
Other DOC's............$15,000,000
----------------------------------------
Contribution margin..$60,000,000
----------------------------------------
Corporate + Int. Tax.$48,000,000
----------------------------------------
Profit ......................$12,000,000
-----------------------------------------
Guess which the biggest cost is?
So the chief Muppet goes to the bean counter Muppet and says "If you can cut 10% out of crew costs, we will raise profits 50%!!!!"
.and away they go.....
Then of course there is the "serious money" concept: If I ask to borrow Five dollars off you, you will most likely say "Yes". If instead I asked you for Five Thousand, you would tell me to eff off. The difference is that one amount is trivial in our minds, the other is "serious money".
There would be people in QF who would be thinking: "Why should anyone who is not a board member or senior manager be paid $350,000 per annum? Nobody who is a mere employee should be paid THAT much!" ie: It's "too much" (ie serious) money.
We often see this behaviour in managers who start bonus schemes for employees, usually salesman. They expect that an average salesman will make $50,000 and then get another $30,000 in commissions which they are happy to pay.
The scheme works well until Joe Supersalesman lands a "Whale" of a client and instead of paying out $30,000 as a bonus/commission to Joe he is suddenly paying $500,000. The normal reaction for the boss is to then decide that $500,000 is "serious money", and either welsh on the deal, or cap the scheme or install a sliding scale to the general demoralisation of the sales force.
IBM studied this phenomenon in detail in the 1960's and realised what a danger it was to sales performance. They went against that trend and even organised parties to celebrate handing out million dollar bonuses to successful salesmen.
Lets assume a "fat cat" QF legacy Captain lazily earns $350 000.
$60 000 pa extra divided by 900 hrs = $66 per hour
$66 divided by 250 pax = 26 cents per pax per hour
Is it really your contention our industry depends on lower pilot wages as people will choose not to travel because of an impost of $1.82 per 7 hr flight !
$60 000 pa extra divided by 900 hrs = $66 per hour
$66 divided by 250 pax = 26 cents per pax per hour
Is it really your contention our industry depends on lower pilot wages as people will choose not to travel because of an impost of $1.82 per 7 hr flight !
No! No! No! You have got it bass ackwards! That is not how bean counters think!
Let me give you a purely theoretical Profit and Loss Statement:
Revenue..................$200,000,000
Less:
Fuel........................$40,000,000
Pilots and CC............$60,000,000
Maint. + Spares........$25,000,000
Other DOC's............$15,000,000
----------------------------------------
Contribution margin..$60,000,000
----------------------------------------
Corporate + Int. Tax.$48,000,000
----------------------------------------
Profit ......................$12,000,000
-----------------------------------------
Guess which the biggest cost is?
So the chief Muppet goes to the bean counter Muppet and says "If you can cut 10% out of crew costs, we will raise profits 50%!!!!"
.and away they go.....
Then of course there is the "serious money" concept: If I ask to borrow Five dollars off you, you will most likely say "Yes". If instead I asked you for Five Thousand, you would tell me to eff off. The difference is that one amount is trivial in our minds, the other is "serious money".
There would be people in QF who would be thinking: "Why should anyone who is not a board member or senior manager be paid $350,000 per annum? Nobody who is a mere employee should be paid THAT much!" ie: It's "too much" (ie serious) money.
We often see this behaviour in managers who start bonus schemes for employees, usually salesman. They expect that an average salesman will make $50,000 and then get another $30,000 in commissions which they are happy to pay.
The scheme works well until Joe Supersalesman lands a "Whale" of a client and instead of paying out $30,000 as a bonus/commission to Joe he is suddenly paying $500,000. The normal reaction for the boss is to then decide that $500,000 is "serious money", and either welsh on the deal, or cap the scheme or install a sliding scale to the general demoralisation of the sales force.
IBM studied this phenomenon in detail in the 1960's and realised what a danger it was to sales performance. They went against that trend and even organised parties to celebrate handing out million dollar bonuses to successful salesmen.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar backflips over pilot accusations
Nothings changed since 2006.
Can't be critical of standards with this mob!
Nothings changed since 2006.
Can't be critical of standards with this mob!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Obie, you should be playing the ball not the man 
I have had some private debates with Chuck about this topic, and while I do not quite agree with 100% of what he says, he is mostly correct.
Going public and with your own name published was fecking DUMB. Thats what started this thread.
Another FACT, JQ Captain and F/O jobs are not that bad, and at no point did Joe Eakins say that they were bad, so stop bashing on about that.
It was all about "The future of Aviation Careers in Australia".
The JQ NZ deal is pathetic......... and they got the results, I think we all agree.
The SIN deal no better, and the dodgy company deal failed before it got legs.
So some folk are being a little naive.
Like most things, the truth of the matter is somewhere inbetween the opposite sides of the arguement.
By coming out and making snide remarks about being as good as chuck is nothing more than an admission he is accurate in what he says and you are pissed off you did not get to say it first.
If you can honestly debate his comments, and back them up with facts.....knock ya socks off.
As for me I think JQ did the wrong thing, JE was a bit naive, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. If JQ were smart they would have actually taken him in to study the reality of his story, not sack him.
The sad thing is, JQ/QF management can go public and make contradicting and stupid statements in the media, and one pilot writes a brilliant summary of what many folk are concerned about in the industry and they sack him. The clauses they sack him with are draconian, and I really wonder how they can be legal.
And thats part of what CC and I have debated......not sure who has convinced the other yet.
J
I have had some private debates with Chuck about this topic, and while I do not quite agree with 100% of what he says, he is mostly correct.
Going public and with your own name published was fecking DUMB. Thats what started this thread.
Another FACT, JQ Captain and F/O jobs are not that bad, and at no point did Joe Eakins say that they were bad, so stop bashing on about that.
It was all about "The future of Aviation Careers in Australia".
The JQ NZ deal is pathetic......... and they got the results, I think we all agree.
The SIN deal no better, and the dodgy company deal failed before it got legs.
So some folk are being a little naive.
Like most things, the truth of the matter is somewhere inbetween the opposite sides of the arguement.
By coming out and making snide remarks about being as good as chuck is nothing more than an admission he is accurate in what he says and you are pissed off you did not get to say it first.
If you can honestly debate his comments, and back them up with facts.....knock ya socks off.
As for me I think JQ did the wrong thing, JE was a bit naive, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. If JQ were smart they would have actually taken him in to study the reality of his story, not sack him.
The sad thing is, JQ/QF management can go public and make contradicting and stupid statements in the media, and one pilot writes a brilliant summary of what many folk are concerned about in the industry and they sack him. The clauses they sack him with are draconian, and I really wonder how they can be legal.
And thats part of what CC and I have debated......not sure who has convinced the other yet.
J
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite my best efforts, the particular skill set required to travel back in time still eludes me.
I'm unable to travel back in time to improve the workplace conditions of the post ww1 pilots who started the first Australian Airlines. Or the 1950's pilots.
I exist in the here and now in today’s industry.
I don't accept the general belief that Pilots should be worse off for choosing to live and work in Australia (or elsewhere) for an Australian airline. Nor do I accept that 'pretty good' or 'not too bad' is an acceptable career aspiration, or the best that an Australian pilot should hope for.
But it doesn't matter what I think. Because I don't exist.
I am an anonymous name, on a small thread, read by less than 0.1% of the population, in a cyber world that doesn't really exist. And no matter how long or profound my posts may seem, no matter how pontificating or sanctimonious, the reality is that if you choose to switch off, then my Nett effect is zero.
The Joe Eakins article was accurate and well written. The fact that his name was added has given the article far more credibility in the media and had greater effect than several thousand posts here. Only history will judge whether or not he has flirted with the boundaries of acceptable social etiquette.
Then perhaps you should vote with your feet.
I'm unable to travel back in time to improve the workplace conditions of the post ww1 pilots who started the first Australian Airlines. Or the 1950's pilots.
I exist in the here and now in today’s industry.
I don't accept the general belief that Pilots should be worse off for choosing to live and work in Australia (or elsewhere) for an Australian airline. Nor do I accept that 'pretty good' or 'not too bad' is an acceptable career aspiration, or the best that an Australian pilot should hope for.
But it doesn't matter what I think. Because I don't exist.
I am an anonymous name, on a small thread, read by less than 0.1% of the population, in a cyber world that doesn't really exist. And no matter how long or profound my posts may seem, no matter how pontificating or sanctimonious, the reality is that if you choose to switch off, then my Nett effect is zero.
The Joe Eakins article was accurate and well written. The fact that his name was added has given the article far more credibility in the media and had greater effect than several thousand posts here. Only history will judge whether or not he has flirted with the boundaries of acceptable social etiquette.
I think I have put up with about enough vitriol aimed in my direction because I hold a different view to most of you.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We warned all of you that soon your own wages and conditions would be compromised when you engaged in the undercutting of the Qantas EBA years ago with low salaries and pay to play schemes. We told you it would undermine AIPA and their ability to maintain an industry leading and commercially viable negotiation schedule. We warned you that we all could be replaced in a global economy unless pilot groups ALL maintained solidarity.
Now... you complain that it has all come true.
Thanks for screwing over nearly a hundred years of industrial progress!
Welcome back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Now... you complain that it has all come true.
Thanks for screwing over nearly a hundred years of industrial progress!
Welcome back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaberwocky, a certain degree of what Chuckles says is accurate and relevant, a large proportion of it is anecdotal (and I make no judgement about the accuracy because I don't know), and some amount of it is just playing the blame game with zero meaningful contribution to the argument, like Kangaroo Court's comments above.
I'd agree that Joe made a miscalculation, but that doesn't mean I think he should be fed to the lions and we should all just turn our heads in disgust while saying "Oh gee, look at that. A pilot being eaten by lions. Bit gory isn't it? Anyway, I've got places to go & people to see."
It disturbs me greatly that there are pilots come on here (and this bit is not aimed at Chuckles) and their sole contribution is pretty much: "We told you so you bastards. Suffer in ya jocks." That attitude is about what I'd expect from a 4 year old fighting over a Thomas the Tank Engine train set and it appears that there are such minds here prancing around in much older bodies who are happy to actively sabotage even an attempt to get some sort of pilot unity going.
Most poignantly, much, if not all of what Joe said when you read the article appears to be rather close to the truth despite JQ Management's protestations and conflicting statements that it's all a pack of lies. So the question remains unanswered: what are we going to do about?
Judging from the drift of this thread, the answer is: bugger all, we'd much prefer to bicker among ourselves and point back to fond memories of the swinging 60s.
Which simply means in the near future I'll have a bunch more "do not fly with........" airlines to put on my list for friends and relatives, and have to talk yet more kids out of an aviation career. That's in addition to the two recent ones I've done, and the one my wife did by herself the other day - her exact quote to the kid's mum being: "if he's so smart and doing so well at school, why would he want to be a pilot?"
I'd agree that Joe made a miscalculation, but that doesn't mean I think he should be fed to the lions and we should all just turn our heads in disgust while saying "Oh gee, look at that. A pilot being eaten by lions. Bit gory isn't it? Anyway, I've got places to go & people to see."
It disturbs me greatly that there are pilots come on here (and this bit is not aimed at Chuckles) and their sole contribution is pretty much: "We told you so you bastards. Suffer in ya jocks." That attitude is about what I'd expect from a 4 year old fighting over a Thomas the Tank Engine train set and it appears that there are such minds here prancing around in much older bodies who are happy to actively sabotage even an attempt to get some sort of pilot unity going.
Most poignantly, much, if not all of what Joe said when you read the article appears to be rather close to the truth despite JQ Management's protestations and conflicting statements that it's all a pack of lies. So the question remains unanswered: what are we going to do about?
Judging from the drift of this thread, the answer is: bugger all, we'd much prefer to bicker among ourselves and point back to fond memories of the swinging 60s.
Which simply means in the near future I'll have a bunch more "do not fly with........" airlines to put on my list for friends and relatives, and have to talk yet more kids out of an aviation career. That's in addition to the two recent ones I've done, and the one my wife did by herself the other day - her exact quote to the kid's mum being: "if he's so smart and doing so well at school, why would he want to be a pilot?"
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the assumptions that Chuckles makes are obvious and accurate. There would simply NOT be the amount of people using air travel if it wasn't for the LCC's. (i.e. more pilot jobs) I can relate my experiences before deregulation, I NEVER travelled by air, it was simply un-affordable. An airport terminal was like an exclusive club, somewhere you went as a treat. I saved for 2 years for the airfare to go on my backpacking trip.
If as a pilot you choose to accept the conditions that these LCC's offer, so be it. That you choose to accept conditions that are below what the 'market' rate sets as a result of a shortage of experienced pilots. (An artificial market wage that most of you lot fall for due to the bull**** spun by these LCC's) is your problem.
How do you know what Joe's rationale was for his public comments? Do you know that he may have been willing to risk a career on a principle? For pilots that are willing to accept the immoral and unprincipled actions of certain airlines, so be it, BUT WHAT RIGHT HAVE YOU GOT TO CALL A BLOKE STUPID for standing up for his beliefs?
Kind of ironic isn't it that the group that accept these 'conditions' eventually benefit from actions taken by blokes like Joe? Whereas if people like Joe don't take action you drag everybody down to your level.
If as a pilot you choose to accept the conditions that these LCC's offer, so be it. That you choose to accept conditions that are below what the 'market' rate sets as a result of a shortage of experienced pilots. (An artificial market wage that most of you lot fall for due to the bull**** spun by these LCC's) is your problem.
How do you know what Joe's rationale was for his public comments? Do you know that he may have been willing to risk a career on a principle? For pilots that are willing to accept the immoral and unprincipled actions of certain airlines, so be it, BUT WHAT RIGHT HAVE YOU GOT TO CALL A BLOKE STUPID for standing up for his beliefs?
Kind of ironic isn't it that the group that accept these 'conditions' eventually benefit from actions taken by blokes like Joe? Whereas if people like Joe don't take action you drag everybody down to your level.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
You are missing one very important point, Joe, is not a hero. I'd reckon he's worried about losing pay and conditions, being jumped on the seniority list for a command, you can not be naive enough not to see his motives.
He at some stage looked at one star, applied with stars in his eyes, took a position as a big shiney jet pilot , coughed up for an endorsement, with an organisation offering below industry standard conditions ( particularly compared to that of the mothership ), in doing so under cutting his conditions and the seniority list of many in the mothership.
Now the organsiation is trying to again reduce pay and conditions, in doing so putting his job on shakey ground, so he has decided to kick up a stink, I believe this is purely a self serving act.
Whilst I do not think much of AJ, he is absolutely correct, trying to dress up an industrial issue as a safety issue is stupid, even the general public can read between the lines on that one.
IMHO, Joe is no hero, he's just protecting his interests, raping it with some feel good spin about "We, the industry", these people should have thought about their actions before accepting the job.
And yes I do believe they can suffer in their jocks.
You are missing one very important point, Joe, is not a hero. I'd reckon he's worried about losing pay and conditions, being jumped on the seniority list for a command, you can not be naive enough not to see his motives.
He at some stage looked at one star, applied with stars in his eyes, took a position as a big shiney jet pilot , coughed up for an endorsement, with an organisation offering below industry standard conditions ( particularly compared to that of the mothership ), in doing so under cutting his conditions and the seniority list of many in the mothership.
Now the organsiation is trying to again reduce pay and conditions, in doing so putting his job on shakey ground, so he has decided to kick up a stink, I believe this is purely a self serving act.
Whilst I do not think much of AJ, he is absolutely correct, trying to dress up an industrial issue as a safety issue is stupid, even the general public can read between the lines on that one.
IMHO, Joe is no hero, he's just protecting his interests, raping it with some feel good spin about "We, the industry", these people should have thought about their actions before accepting the job.
And yes I do believe they can suffer in their jocks.
Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 4th Dec 2010 at 03:35.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: oz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economic Realities
I suppose some people here also think bankers should rationalise situations using 'economic reality' and not question rapid changes in ethics and methodologies. Oh thats right, they didn't and now post GFC we face the prospect of 20 years of stagnated economies. A real bummer that there weren't enough Joe's on Wall Street to stop the insanity.
I suggest to some outsiders here that we are no longer in the same old argument about conditions etc. so let the axe grinding stop. QF has stepped over the line in its long push for reform by attempting to disempower pilots and engineers through various methods. They think they are being clever - staff think they are taking extraordinary risks. Anyone who resists or raises concern is apparently industrially motivated. Some of us just see a great business being trashed by Managers who don't really know what they are doing - just trying to do it cheaper!
I suggest to some outsiders here that we are no longer in the same old argument about conditions etc. so let the axe grinding stop. QF has stepped over the line in its long push for reform by attempting to disempower pilots and engineers through various methods. They think they are being clever - staff think they are taking extraordinary risks. Anyone who resists or raises concern is apparently industrially motivated. Some of us just see a great business being trashed by Managers who don't really know what they are doing - just trying to do it cheaper!
.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: oz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tosser,
Seems you are quite bitter and confused. Maybe you have been in a sheltered workshop too long to remember how the real world works. All acts, especially in career, are self serving. What is wrong with that and why cant you come to terms with it? Or have you never behaved in a self serving manner?
Whether this is IR dressed up or not doesn't change the fact that these are real issues that concern many. Some of us are relieved that they are now in the public arena. I don't pretend to know or care what Joes agenda is - why are you so sure about it?
Seems you are quite bitter and confused. Maybe you have been in a sheltered workshop too long to remember how the real world works. All acts, especially in career, are self serving. What is wrong with that and why cant you come to terms with it? Or have you never behaved in a self serving manner?
Whether this is IR dressed up or not doesn't change the fact that these are real issues that concern many. Some of us are relieved that they are now in the public arena. I don't pretend to know or care what Joes agenda is - why are you so sure about it?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fridge Magnet,
I am neither bitter or confused.
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, well it is probably a duck.
Never have I claimed to know with any certainty what anyone is thinking, but apply the above statement to someones action and it kind of narrows it down.
Real issues, to whom ? One star pilots ?, well the way I see it they really do not run as a collective too well.
Self serving, yes ( me and my family ), certainly, but not at the cost of another ( and their family ) and never without considering the long term consequence of my actions.
If you work in a brothel you're going to see some dick. ( work for a LCC and LCC is the imperative ).
I really detest emotional black mailing through misinformation and spin.
This is not an industry issue, it is a one star issue.
One star pilots do not see them selves as a part of the "group", if they did, why did they accept worse terms and conditions than the "group" ?, and now bitch about using the "we, the industry" banner.
Add something unemotional and intelligent and I'll respond.
I am neither bitter or confused.
When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, well it is probably a duck.
Never have I claimed to know with any certainty what anyone is thinking, but apply the above statement to someones action and it kind of narrows it down.
Real issues, to whom ? One star pilots ?, well the way I see it they really do not run as a collective too well.
Self serving, yes ( me and my family ), certainly, but not at the cost of another ( and their family ) and never without considering the long term consequence of my actions.
If you work in a brothel you're going to see some dick. ( work for a LCC and LCC is the imperative ).
I really detest emotional black mailing through misinformation and spin.
This is not an industry issue, it is a one star issue.
One star pilots do not see them selves as a part of the "group", if they did, why did they accept worse terms and conditions than the "group" ?, and now bitch about using the "we, the industry" banner.
Add something unemotional and intelligent and I'll respond.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: oz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep the debate alive
Wow Tosser, The J* thing really got under your skin - Others self interested decisions must have cost your family dearly. My family are fine and healthy and in the greater scheme of things, have forgotten about my imminent left seat that dissapeared when J* expanded.
The issues on the agenda are worth a debate more so than views about past history. Past history does nothing to help me look after No 1 and failing to support Joe in word or action is the quickest way for the debate to prematurely die.
We need to get to the bottom of the issues about QFs attraction to thin employment contracts without seniority etc. QF apparently just bought another Australian AOC that comes with a thin (much thinner than J*) employment contract.
Focus on what Joe has raised, whether you like the way he did it or not, and debate it. We need to keep this debate alive, become as informed as possible and stay on subject.
The issues on the agenda are worth a debate more so than views about past history. Past history does nothing to help me look after No 1 and failing to support Joe in word or action is the quickest way for the debate to prematurely die.
We need to get to the bottom of the issues about QFs attraction to thin employment contracts without seniority etc. QF apparently just bought another Australian AOC that comes with a thin (much thinner than J*) employment contract.
Focus on what Joe has raised, whether you like the way he did it or not, and debate it. We need to keep this debate alive, become as informed as possible and stay on subject.