Merged: Joe Eakins: Brave?....or....
Grandpa Aerotart
but maybe Chimbu Chuck is right, just bend over and say thank you sir may I have another, thank you sir may I have another.
The point of my posts on this issue were to try and point out what is worth fighting against and what is not. If you think you can or should fight against your, or any, employer creating a perfectly legal entity in another country then you will be severely disappointed every time. It will only stop hurting when you stop banging your head against that wall.
If on the other hand your employer tries to create an illegal/quasi legal entity within Australia in an effort to destroy your contractually agreed T&Cs then by all means deploy every legal recourse you have to stop that from happening. That very thing was mooted recently and stopped dead in its tracks in very short order because it flouted FWA regulations.
It didn't require any martyrs to do so.
I am REALLY happy Joe got his job back. After such a public affair it was his ONLY option to continue in the career he clearly loves.
Rail against the public statement of contrition? No - that is just how these things are done in the real world. Its that simple. If you don't like it well, ok - no statement would have bordered on managerial incompetence - its an utterly unrealistic expectation.
To suggest that 599 other J* pilots should have downed tools in support of JE is simply to deny reality. On what grounds - J* Singapore T&Cs?
You'd have to be joking.
I see no one suggesting JE's fellow AIPA members - all of them - should have walked off the job in support of JE in his brave crusade against this alleged serious safety issue.
Isn't that interesting.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The fact of the matter is....the points he raised, and we are told were being ignored internally hence his article, were actually genuine and serious.
How are they being dealt with now?
His printed article never said JQ were unsafe, it was more about the general trends in Industry. I did hear him on a radio interview explaining the issues of "promotion by means other than seniority" and how that can have a negative impact on safety culture.
So now the dust has settled and they have kissed and made up, will these genuine concerns/issues be openly dealt with by JQ?
As an outsider looking in, it seems that their internal process may not have been working hence his actions.
Be interesting to see what comes out of it all. Maybe....just maybe it was all worth it?
How are they being dealt with now?
His printed article never said JQ were unsafe, it was more about the general trends in Industry. I did hear him on a radio interview explaining the issues of "promotion by means other than seniority" and how that can have a negative impact on safety culture.
So now the dust has settled and they have kissed and made up, will these genuine concerns/issues be openly dealt with by JQ?
As an outsider looking in, it seems that their internal process may not have been working hence his actions.
Be interesting to see what comes out of it all. Maybe....just maybe it was all worth it?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
My sentence construction was probably a bit off in my previous post, I wasn't so much having a go at you personally or what you had argued but more so as to where I feel employment T & C are heading in this industry.
Additionally when I read your posts on the matter it took me a while to digest and really understand where you were coming from. As a result my own thinking on the matter changed slightly. I cannot say that I agree with you completely but certainly you have provided well written and thought provoking counter points.
My view remains that it is an act of corporate bastardry by Jetstar. As you rightly argue what Jetstar are proposing is within Jetstars rights. I still view it as an Australian Company attempting to improve profits by moving Australian jobs offshore and driving down salaries. In any industry workers would be up in arms and you would expect trade unions to be jumping all over the issue.
On a recent trip I did have a very good discussion on this matter with a Captain I respect and your posts were specifically mentioned. He, like you pointed out to that I am naive in matters of industrial relations and I accept that this is maybe the case.
As I said earlier certainly nothing personal was meant. Like you I love a good debate but unfortuanetly I think (and I hope) I am a better with the spoken word rather than the written.
Cheers
My sentence construction was probably a bit off in my previous post, I wasn't so much having a go at you personally or what you had argued but more so as to where I feel employment T & C are heading in this industry.
Additionally when I read your posts on the matter it took me a while to digest and really understand where you were coming from. As a result my own thinking on the matter changed slightly. I cannot say that I agree with you completely but certainly you have provided well written and thought provoking counter points.
My view remains that it is an act of corporate bastardry by Jetstar. As you rightly argue what Jetstar are proposing is within Jetstars rights. I still view it as an Australian Company attempting to improve profits by moving Australian jobs offshore and driving down salaries. In any industry workers would be up in arms and you would expect trade unions to be jumping all over the issue.
On a recent trip I did have a very good discussion on this matter with a Captain I respect and your posts were specifically mentioned. He, like you pointed out to that I am naive in matters of industrial relations and I accept that this is maybe the case.
As I said earlier certainly nothing personal was meant. Like you I love a good debate but unfortuanetly I think (and I hope) I am a better with the spoken word rather than the written.
Cheers
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
The point of my posts on this issue were to try and point out what is worth fighting against and what is not. If you think you can or should fight against your, or any, employer creating a perfectly legal entity in another country then you will be severely disappointed every time. It will only stop hurting when you stop banging your head against that wall.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Sometimes making a noise and raising public awareness is worth a bloody nose. Though in this case it should never have been left up to an individual.
Grandpa Aerotart
adsyj - 
Psycho joe
And if you don't you run the risk of having no credibility when the really serious issues arise.
Psycho joe
If you base every sparring match on squaring a ledger of legal points then you run the risk of never showing up to a fight or constantly backing away and becoming completely irrelevant (AFAP).
If it's what Joe wanted, I'm pleased he got his job back.
But it is just Jetstar and the pay and conditions are modest.
You have said your piece, make a further statement and use the outfit as a job search allowance.
But it is just Jetstar and the pay and conditions are modest.
You have said your piece, make a further statement and use the outfit as a job search allowance.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who pays the legal bill when a person/persons admit their guilt and have done the wrong thing by their company and fellow crew members?
The guilty person/persons or the associated members?
Don't shoot this down, just a question.......
Laikim da man bilong pait
The guilty person/persons or the associated members?
Don't shoot this down, just a question.......
Laikim da man bilong pait
I still view it as an Australian Company attempting to improve profits by moving Australian jobs offshore and driving down salaries. In any industry workers would be up in arms and you would expect trade unions to be jumping all over the issue.
...and while some radio talk-show hosts grumble, rant and rail about it (when the mood takes them) the general public still haven't stopped using their phones or buying Chinese shoes.
It's hard to believe it in OUR industry though
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts of the matter are that it is an Australian company offshoring to minimise and avoid paying tax. And to minimise Australian workers conditions. It's no different to what the ATO is ACCUSING people like Paul Hogan and the like of doing. He stood up and said f@ck you! He had his departure from Australia blocked. He didn't back down in the face of massive legal bills to defend his position. The government is complicit. They choose their battles in line with which industry they want to break.
It may be legal, but it is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL.
Pilots may not see the value in what they do, day to day, but I do. I just don't get why SOME pilots behave the way they do?
(only two beers so far I'm driving 
)
It may be legal, but it is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL.
Pilots may not see the value in what they do, day to day, but I do. I just don't get why SOME pilots behave the way they do?
(only two beers so far
I'm driving )
Last edited by Jack Ranga; 25th Dec 2010 at 22:51.
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
Quote:
And if you don't you run the risk of having no credibility when the really serious issues arise.
If you base every sparring match on squaring a ledger of legal points then you run the risk of never showing up to a fight or constantly backing away and becoming completely irrelevant (AFAP).
The days of conventional warfare are over and that's why the US military, although the most powerful force in the world, will ultimately lose any non conventional conflict to an inferior force.
So who has lost credibility here? J.E.?, AIPA?, Jet*?
In the court of public opinion the Jet * management have acted like petulant children (It's my F
king bat and my Fing ball and my Fking rules and you're out.) This reaction has turned a non story into something of further interest in the media. I've happened to meet several journalists recently who have not only followed the saga, but have identified the key points on which Pilots are unhappy and taken the time to investigate further. These are the same sort of journo's that we normally delight in calling ignorant hacks. Do these actions effect immediate change? of course not. But the media and the general public are aware that all is not well at granny's house. The more that J* management try to push their Pan Asian whatever, the more it seems on the nose.
We all know that the days of spectacular industrial victories by frontal assault, like red coats standing on a hill are well and truly over. There was never going to be a fairy tale ending to this story, and I don't believe that anyone involved believed that there would be. But you have to admit that in this little story, the wolf got bitch slapped pretty badly.
Make no mistake the JE story and the Pan Asian Debacle will reappear as a footnote for future anti J* articles. Especially news articles about "really serious issues".
.
Last edited by psycho joe; 25th Dec 2010 at 21:17. Reason: Dislexia for cure found.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: oz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So who pays the legal bill when a person/persons admit their guilt and have done the wrong thing by their company and fellow crew members?
I wonder if it ruined some managers' Christmas having the guy who caused it all back on the payroll.
It gives me a warm glow to imagine it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collateral Damage
Brave and VERY lucky!!
A very interesting thread indeed. Joes original article contained only one indirect reference to safety ( I didn't hear the radio interviews, and the rationale for his sacking was the printed article). The rest of the article was about the offshore situation and the terms and conditions associated with these moves. Why Joe painted a large bullseye on his chest and exposed himself is a question unlikely to have a simple answer, and unlikely to be disclosed by Joe or AIPA. If the points Joe chose to make were an AIPA view, and if the content was expressed as an AIPA press release, we may have seen a more relevant outcome. As an industry issue, the matter is now dead (for quite some time), and any attempt to bring it back into public focus in a structured and representative way, will be ridiculed. J* management are now armed with Joes retraction, which can be trotted out at will. Never confuse public perception with pilot passion. The end result is that the issues he raised are now completely lost to view, and at considerable cost to the individual and the pilot body at large.
A very interesting thread indeed. Joes original article contained only one indirect reference to safety ( I didn't hear the radio interviews, and the rationale for his sacking was the printed article). The rest of the article was about the offshore situation and the terms and conditions associated with these moves. Why Joe painted a large bullseye on his chest and exposed himself is a question unlikely to have a simple answer, and unlikely to be disclosed by Joe or AIPA. If the points Joe chose to make were an AIPA view, and if the content was expressed as an AIPA press release, we may have seen a more relevant outcome. As an industry issue, the matter is now dead (for quite some time), and any attempt to bring it back into public focus in a structured and representative way, will be ridiculed. J* management are now armed with Joes retraction, which can be trotted out at will. Never confuse public perception with pilot passion. The end result is that the issues he raised are now completely lost to view, and at considerable cost to the individual and the pilot body at large.
Spot on Olive61. Unfortunately a huge opportunity lost. Whatever JE intentions all was lost with the release of that joint press release. Its good he has his job back but it has given j* management a huge weapon to use against its pilot body if the unions bring up any issues.What the public see is basically a union representative saying he was wrong, there are no issues with j*. Why his fellow pilots at J* didn't support him i find dissapointing, and this will ultimatley hurt all of us in the future because it says J* pilots are basically happy with what they have got!
Maybe they are
Maybe they are
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amazed me was that the joint press release was focussed on the comments on safety rather than the reason he was sacked - a breach of his employment contract!!
Surely any reinstatement and the reasoning for such should have been based on the issue of his employment contract!
Surely any reinstatement and the reasoning for such should have been based on the issue of his employment contract!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....in this little story, the wolf got bitch slapped pretty badly.
The retraction and reinstatement can be nothing other than total mission failure for disgruntled pilots within Jetstar. Future arm wrestling will be from a position of complete impotence.
If you dont like it just leave. Stop whining and bugger off.