VA Short/Medium haul EBA voted down
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well let's just hope they take note that the majority of the pilot group voted NO to the document they endorsed. Even if they personally thought it was good enough, they obviously got the mood of their members and the pilot group very wrong. That is the big failure here for the Feds. Stop blaming Vipa, and listen to what the pilots have said.! It was the pilots that voted no, not Vipa.
It is almost October so maybe a new Xmas group video would help everyone settle down, relax, exhibit some frivolity, just like old times!
Last edited by Cactusjack; 27th Sep 2012 at 07:39.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"that is totally up to the pilots who bothered to vote."
Umm yessss Josh, it was 97% of pilots who voted! Quite a few bothered to vote.
"I must say, the stupidity shown by many here is breath taking."
Yes Agreed!
"Running a "no campaign" is not effective representation."
Why? VIPA exposed flaws in the 'agreement' and the haste at which this was being pushed through and the conservative pilot group voted NO by majority. The majority saw through the company rhetoric to sell this EBA mainly on their own terms and decided that the first draft was too open-ended (clauses open to interpretation). Some were not happy with renumeration.
"Is it possible that they gave their yes endorsement after having been negotiating the contents of the document with the company over the previous12 odd months"
No.....not entirely. The company was pushing hard to introduce clauses that would impact heavily on lifestyle (conditions like airport reserve and others), quite natural for a corporate company to desire this as cabin crew do already. It seemed the company were steadfast for quite sometime and not willing to budge on certain items. They then reneged on some at the 11th hour to try and get the EBA over the line after a revolt by the pilot group. There were a few sweeteners as well during this time by the company.
"Having more than one representative body in the workplace allows the company to divide and weaken the pilot group, why would you lot allow this to happen"
Unfortunately.....that's life! It just proves that pilots need an alternative to one union. It's really a confidence vote isn't it. In an ideal world...............
Umm yessss Josh, it was 97% of pilots who voted! Quite a few bothered to vote.
"I must say, the stupidity shown by many here is breath taking."
Yes Agreed!
"Running a "no campaign" is not effective representation."
Why? VIPA exposed flaws in the 'agreement' and the haste at which this was being pushed through and the conservative pilot group voted NO by majority. The majority saw through the company rhetoric to sell this EBA mainly on their own terms and decided that the first draft was too open-ended (clauses open to interpretation). Some were not happy with renumeration.
"Is it possible that they gave their yes endorsement after having been negotiating the contents of the document with the company over the previous12 odd months"
No.....not entirely. The company was pushing hard to introduce clauses that would impact heavily on lifestyle (conditions like airport reserve and others), quite natural for a corporate company to desire this as cabin crew do already. It seemed the company were steadfast for quite sometime and not willing to budge on certain items. They then reneged on some at the 11th hour to try and get the EBA over the line after a revolt by the pilot group. There were a few sweeteners as well during this time by the company.
"Having more than one representative body in the workplace allows the company to divide and weaken the pilot group, why would you lot allow this to happen"
Unfortunately.....that's life! It just proves that pilots need an alternative to one union. It's really a confidence vote isn't it. In an ideal world...............
In the U.S. after a "No" vote on a contract that the negotiating team recommended, the team steps down and makes way for a new negotiating team. Maybe it is time that the AFAP step aside and let the VIPA negotiate the next offer!!
Originally Posted by PammyAnderson
Well let's just hope they take note that the majority of the pilot group voted NO to the document they endorsed. Even if they personally thought it was good enough, they obviously got the mood of their members and the pilot group very wrong. That is the big failure here for the Feds. Stop blaming Vipa, and listen to what the pilots have said.! It was the pilots that voted no, not Vipa.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoilher,
A vote of 60% against does not mean the other union got it right.
It means a combination of atleast two things:
1) many pilots were not happy with the EBA ( and that is their right ),
2) many pilots fell for the doomsday scenarios presented by the other union ( most of which has been dressed up as "flaws in the proposed EBA" ).
A no campaign is not a solution, offering an EBA up for the vote is a solution.
A no vote means exactly that, no, we will not accept this offer, i.e. company sharpen your pencil, why don't you put your name up as a pilot rep and help.
Just remember, those guys are on the end of the phone for when you have an incident at work, they give their time freely, holding your hand through CASA interviews, ATSB interviews, company interview, answering rostering practices and EBA questions at all hours, all free, and you still think these guys are corrupt ?. Whatever you are smoking, I want some.
How exactly do you suggest your council members would be advantaged by spending twelve odd months negotiating an EBA, then to endorse one they think is inferior ?.
If you are wondering why the terms and conditions in our industry are so rapidly declining with respect to the cost of living, you need only look in the mirror.
A vote of 60% against does not mean the other union got it right.
It means a combination of atleast two things:
1) many pilots were not happy with the EBA ( and that is their right ),
2) many pilots fell for the doomsday scenarios presented by the other union ( most of which has been dressed up as "flaws in the proposed EBA" ).
A no campaign is not a solution, offering an EBA up for the vote is a solution.
A no vote means exactly that, no, we will not accept this offer, i.e. company sharpen your pencil, why don't you put your name up as a pilot rep and help.
Just remember, those guys are on the end of the phone for when you have an incident at work, they give their time freely, holding your hand through CASA interviews, ATSB interviews, company interview, answering rostering practices and EBA questions at all hours, all free, and you still think these guys are corrupt ?. Whatever you are smoking, I want some.
How exactly do you suggest your council members would be advantaged by spending twelve odd months negotiating an EBA, then to endorse one they think is inferior ?.
If you are wondering why the terms and conditions in our industry are so rapidly declining with respect to the cost of living, you need only look in the mirror.
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
God, why us this thread still going?
Its clear that only Spoilher and a couple of others have any first hand knowledge, the rest are just acting as pro AFAP mouthpeices.
Josh. Posting this sort of utterly ridiculous drivel without any first hand knowledge just makes you look foolish; and quite frankly, if the AFAP team members have alluded to this then it just serves to srengthen the belief that the AFAP has lost the plot and should stand aside.
The level of pay or the lack of is irrelevant in this case. Volunteering doesn't automatically make people right. There are volunteers in all unions.
For once i'd like to see the AFAP display some inward reflection. Admit they got it wrong, not blame anyone else, and resolve to work in a collaborative nature with the other union.
Its clear that only Spoilher and a couple of others have any first hand knowledge, the rest are just acting as pro AFAP mouthpeices.
2) many pilots fell for the doomsday scenarios presented by the other union ( most of which has been dressed up as "flaws in the proposed EBA" ).
Just remember, those guys are on the end of the phone for when you have an incident at work, they give their time freely, holding your hand through CASA interviews, ATSB interviews, company interview, answering rostering practices and EBA questions at all hours, all free...
For once i'd like to see the AFAP display some inward reflection. Admit they got it wrong, not blame anyone else, and resolve to work in a collaborative nature with the other union.
Last edited by psycho joe; 28th Sep 2012 at 01:40.
psycho, I have to say I'm losing track of your drift with most of your posts disappearing - is it that it's ok for you to bash the feds and extoll the virtues of vipa, and not ok for the opposite?
I personally couldn't give a rats which union apparently got it wrong or right, in fact I would say until we have a signed document it is far too early to tell. Just because you happened to back the winning side in a no vote by a group of largely cynical, suspicious and self-interested pilots (myself included) does not mean you are a winner.
I personally couldn't give a rats which union apparently got it wrong or right, in fact I would say until we have a signed document it is far too early to tell. Just because you happened to back the winning side in a no vote by a group of largely cynical, suspicious and self-interested pilots (myself included) does not mean you are a winner.
You're making a judgement that the pilot group is divided based on a few posts on a rumour network?
Are you acting alone or do you work for Today Tonight or some other sort of outfit with view points based on a ridiculous interpretations and zero facts?
Are you acting alone or do you work for Today Tonight or some other sort of outfit with view points based on a ridiculous interpretations and zero facts?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you get peoples hopes up, they tend to expect a result.
What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.
One Union has a realistic approach, the other a "give me, give me" approach.
The other major question that needs to be asked is where to from here? The silence was deafening, no updates to members yet two media articles. And now more surveys with questions designed to sway the data.
The Karma bus is around the corner and its about to toot its horn.
What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.
One Union has a realistic approach, the other a "give me, give me" approach.
The other major question that needs to be asked is where to from here? The silence was deafening, no updates to members yet two media articles. And now more surveys with questions designed to sway the data.
The Karma bus is around the corner and its about to toot its horn.
Last edited by dirty deeds; 30th Sep 2012 at 09:30.
What one really needs to look at is both Unions Log of Claims prior to the negotiations starting, and what one will find is who has been more successful than the other. Its that simple.
I wasn't aware that the result is judged by which unions log of claims most closely resembled the outcome. I thought it was about getting the best result for the pilots, whilst maintaining sustainable employment costs for the company.
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for. So you can bang on all you like about being "realistic" but that isn't how it works. You ask for the unbelievable and negotiate back to common ground, the same way as the company starts with "you're not getting anything"" and negotiates up from that.
Its called ambit claims and negotiation.
If pilots get their hopes up and expect a result based on a Log of Claims, then they are as dumb as management think they are.
I work from the premise that most pilots will have read the document, and their respective unions advice, then formed their own opinion, with the union recommendation validating their view. I would be disappointed if there were enough pilots voting along party lines to affect the outcome. So, working on my premise, VIPA got it right because the pilots validated the union position.
Verification, or otherwise, of this will come when the final agreement is in place. If the final document is better than the one that has just been rejected then VIPA, and the pilots, will have got it right. If the final document is worse than the rejected offer, then the Feds will have got it right.
Last edited by virginexcess; 30th Sep 2012 at 11:47.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for.
You might want to go and check this fact!
I will also be suggesting to my Union and the Company at the next EBA to publish an offer very early on to get the NO vote out of the way so we can all move forward.
I have asked many drivers at VB why did you vote no, the answer has been the "wording". When I produce the document and ask which wording in specific, they cannot show me or even discuss which clauses they are concerned with. Funny stuff!
VB has gained 400 drivers since the last EBA, and sorry to say, they are easily led and industrially immature.
I agree with you Virginexcess, its all about whats best for the Pilot Group, but when the information being fed to them is factually incorrect at times and also misunderstood by certain factions, your bound to get yourself in a pickle.
This theory of asking for the unreasonable to then meet half way is great in theory, but when what were asking for is either industrially defunct (Leave Loading) or Super contributions above the tax threshold etc etc, one has to wonder WTF is going on.
Certain factions are Teflon at the moment, we are not aloud to point out any faults in their direction, yet it's ok for them to sling mud and innuendo.
The Karma Bus is around the corner and its about to honk its horn!
"TOOT TOOT, HONK HONK"
You might want to go and check this fact!
I will also be suggesting to my Union and the Company at the next EBA to publish an offer very early on to get the NO vote out of the way so we can all move forward.
I have asked many drivers at VB why did you vote no, the answer has been the "wording". When I produce the document and ask which wording in specific, they cannot show me or even discuss which clauses they are concerned with. Funny stuff!
VB has gained 400 drivers since the last EBA, and sorry to say, they are easily led and industrially immature.
I agree with you Virginexcess, its all about whats best for the Pilot Group, but when the information being fed to them is factually incorrect at times and also misunderstood by certain factions, your bound to get yourself in a pickle.
This theory of asking for the unreasonable to then meet half way is great in theory, but when what were asking for is either industrially defunct (Leave Loading) or Super contributions above the tax threshold etc etc, one has to wonder WTF is going on.
Certain factions are Teflon at the moment, we are not aloud to point out any faults in their direction, yet it's ok for them to sling mud and innuendo.
The Karma Bus is around the corner and its about to honk its horn!
"TOOT TOOT, HONK HONK"
Last edited by dirty deeds; 30th Sep 2012 at 12:16.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgnexcess, sorry for taking so long to respond, had to re-read your post which has been retrospectively edited, like a certain website that has had their media release retrospectively edited. I think this may fit into an example you are looking for.
Also, a certain update to members regarding RSV48 was factually incorrect in its substance.
Shall I keep going?
Also, a certain update to members regarding RSV48 was factually incorrect in its substance.
Shall I keep going?
Last edited by dirty deeds; 30th Sep 2012 at 12:26.
Saying something is factually incorrect does not mean it is. Retrospectively editing a website or a forum post does not render it factually incorrect either.
I am not suggesting your are wrong in your assertions, you just haven't provided any facts.
I am not suggesting your are wrong in your assertions, you just haven't provided any facts.
Last edited by virginexcess; 30th Sep 2012 at 12:34.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end result of the Long Haul Agreement Rem package was more than the Feds even asked for.
Direct from AFAP Log Of Claims:
Captain Year 1 $234685
Captain Year 2 $241725
Captain Year 3 $248977
Captain Year 4 $256446
Captain Year 5 $264140
Captain Year 6 $272064
Direct from LH Agreement:
Captain Year 1 $199541
Captain Year 2 $207339
Captain Year 3 $215596
Captain Year 4 $224312
Captain Year 5 $233486
Captain Year 6 $242661
Captain Year 7 $252294
Captain Year 8 $262395
People saying that the end result at LH was more than what the AFAP were asking for is complete garbage.
Agreed, however my point related to the final submissions prior to the vote.
I don't have the same access to the documents you have, but the last doc put forward by the AFAP at the negotiations was for 217k for a year 4 Captain, which ended up being 224 in the final company doc, because VIPA held out.
I don't have the same access to the documents you have, but the last doc put forward by the AFAP at the negotiations was for 217k for a year 4 Captain, which ended up being 224 in the final company doc, because VIPA held out.
Last edited by virginexcess; 30th Sep 2012 at 23:10.