QANTAS long haul EBA
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The well trodden path
Justin,
Qantas applied to FWA to have 787 terms and conditions not determined. AIPA wanted them to Artibrate. As suggested by others it would of been better for pilots.
A330 LH or should I say Fair work Determined rates would of been the minimum.
345] By claim AIPA14, AIPA seeks to have the workplace determination include rates of pay for crew operating the B787 aircraft, which might be introduced into the Qantas fleet. This claim also seeks to have the workplace determination set the status of the B787 (ranking it against other aircraft), which affects the status of pilots in categories and bidding rights for a position on the aircraft
Qantas were indeed fortunate that in the future they had such a willing salesman for their EBA in a new president whom now works for the company.
I note with interest the new President talking up the burden of Fuel prices for Qantas in his submissive Insights.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.
Qantas applied to FWA to have 787 terms and conditions not determined. AIPA wanted them to Artibrate. As suggested by others it would of been better for pilots.
A330 LH or should I say Fair work Determined rates would of been the minimum.
345] By claim AIPA14, AIPA seeks to have the workplace determination include rates of pay for crew operating the B787 aircraft, which might be introduced into the Qantas fleet. This claim also seeks to have the workplace determination set the status of the B787 (ranking it against other aircraft), which affects the status of pilots in categories and bidding rights for a position on the aircraft
Qantas were indeed fortunate that in the future they had such a willing salesman for their EBA in a new president whom now works for the company.
I note with interest the new President talking up the burden of Fuel prices for Qantas in his submissive Insights.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Elysium
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that FWC will determine better than negotiated terms for the 777/350 is therefore grossly misleading and is directly opposed by the evidence and precedent.
There is no way that they would commit to 777/350 orders without a finalised EBA.
.
Last edited by Justin. Beaver; 20th Dec 2018 at 10:31.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no way that they would commit to 777/350 orders without a finalised EBA
From the bowels of QCA, the Campus or whatever buzzword infests them this week, that is their strategy: Use the threat of a new aircraft to lever contract concessions.
Of course having done it once, why not try it again.
Crew costs do not change strategic fleet considerations. Fleet decisions take in so many complex considerations of range and payload, network, performance considerations, airport considerations and indeed what is likely to be the case over the aircraft's operating life, that 'landed crew costs' are a simple entry on a spread sheet. For nearly every other airline, the investment of over $250 million and nearly twenty years worth of operations, what the crew is paid is at best a minor consideration. It might suit a pilot psyche to think they are the primary consideration they are not.
But a nice way to control the pilot body is to convince them that without 'concession' no new aircraft..
Justin is quite correct. To believe that the FWC will deliver you a wonderful new EA is delusional.
Look at the background of the 6 (yes 6) new FW Commisioners the Liberal government just appointed. They are no friend of the working man and will be very sympathetic to Qantas’s claims.
The attacks on the new AIPA president are utterly baseless. An appreciation of the business realities of an airline is an asset to a pilot union president not a liability. Pontificating about what we should be getting while being ignorant of the wider reality of the business environment does not make a good leader.
One can acknowledge the business environment and still fight to improve our terms and conditions.
And to the claim that he did not even mention the pilot shortage, well perhaps it needed to be written in simpler english for you.
Look at the background of the 6 (yes 6) new FW Commisioners the Liberal government just appointed. They are no friend of the working man and will be very sympathetic to Qantas’s claims.
The attacks on the new AIPA president are utterly baseless. An appreciation of the business realities of an airline is an asset to a pilot union president not a liability. Pontificating about what we should be getting while being ignorant of the wider reality of the business environment does not make a good leader.
One can acknowledge the business environment and still fight to improve our terms and conditions.
And to the claim that he did not even mention the pilot shortage, well perhaps it needed to be written in simpler english for you.
It should also be stated that at some stage, perhaps inevitably, we will see the labour market effects of a relative decline in pilot supply filter through in Australia, although this may still take some time to materialise.
Last edited by Beer Baron; 20th Dec 2018 at 21:29.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Elysium
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The venom directed at aipa presidents current and past is misplaced. It is the pilots themselves who accept or reject terms and conditions.
Back in 2008 there was a long haul EBA8 that was heavily backed by the then President and lead negotiator. Much robust debate occurred and the eba was rejected by about 75%. EBA9 in 2015 was supported by the then President. Again much debate ensued and the EBA was supported by more than 80% of pilots.
This showe rhat it is the pilots who decide to accept or reject an eba, not Individuals.
I understand it is easier for unsatisfied pilots to target individuals and place all the responsibility on them, rather than accepting the reality that it was actually your colleagues who accepted the terms and conditions offered. You probably do so because you want to believe that your colleagues share your opinions on the eba and induatrial issues, even though you know a majority might not. if you think any aipa President has the sole power to introduce an eba unilaterally then you are either wrong or you are saying that a majority of your colleagues are incapable of making up their own minds.
Back in 2008 there was a long haul EBA8 that was heavily backed by the then President and lead negotiator. Much robust debate occurred and the eba was rejected by about 75%. EBA9 in 2015 was supported by the then President. Again much debate ensued and the EBA was supported by more than 80% of pilots.
This showe rhat it is the pilots who decide to accept or reject an eba, not Individuals.
I understand it is easier for unsatisfied pilots to target individuals and place all the responsibility on them, rather than accepting the reality that it was actually your colleagues who accepted the terms and conditions offered. You probably do so because you want to believe that your colleagues share your opinions on the eba and induatrial issues, even though you know a majority might not. if you think any aipa President has the sole power to introduce an eba unilaterally then you are either wrong or you are saying that a majority of your colleagues are incapable of making up their own minds.
Last edited by Justin. Beaver; 20th Dec 2018 at 21:57.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally incorrect.
The A380 arrived and was operated prior to EA agreed terms and conditions. The same was true of the 747-400.
The contract permits three months of operations too.
“42.3 Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment when declared airworthy for a minimum period of three (3) months even if agreement not reached on pay and conditions
Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment on the Company's scheduled and non- scheduled operations at such time as the aircraft or equipment is declared airworthy by the aviation regulatory authority whether or not rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the aircraft or equipment have been agreed but this obligation will not continue if rates of pay, rules and working conditions have not been agreed upon within a period of three (3) months after the new aircraft or equipment has been placed in service by the Company.”
Your just pandering to the company line as it suits them to rush AIPA into a deal. Qantas may wish for a deal sewn up prior, however it’s not essential. I suppose if you were a poor or weak negotiator you’d allow yourself to be rushed.
As Rated D suggests you just fell for the Company’s IR strategy.
If the A380 replacement deal is a superior one then fine, however if it’s not then why be rushed by the company?
But then Qantas have many experienced professionals advising them and AIPA have pilots with little formal training.
AIPAs dismal legal record is not dissimilar.
It worries me greatly that you think it’s acceptable for an AIPA president to talk down the pilots prospects prior to an EA.
He spoke only of the fuel price pressures facing Qantas(from very low levels) which have since reversed, and he made NO mention of a single bargaining strength such as a well documented global pilot shortage for experienced pilots. Nor did he make any mention of recurrent record profits or bonuses.
In the past good presidents and the AIPA executive lead by strength and formed a strong position.
This protected pilots from themselves on the back of company fed and spun rumours. That ensured strong EAs were put forward and didn’t exacerbate a race to the bottom mentality.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note with interest the new President talking up the burden of Fuel prices for Qantas in his submissive Insights.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.
His cut and paste from google is sadly incorrect as fuel is falling due to increasing US stock piles of oil from Shale and the declining influence of OPEC.
The new president did surprisingly fail to mention the Global pilot shortage. It was more sympathetic to Qantas than the chief pilots email.
But then It is all a question of where someone ultimately has aspirations.
We have seen it all before.
Given the position held by the former President and some interesting posturing from the new fellow ascertaining precisely where their 'ambition' resides ought be high on the list of considerations for the membership.
The current position with many associations (unions) worldwide is that there is an embargo on assuming management/training positions, so that members know in what interest the executive works!
Is this the case at AIPA?
Good point Rated D.
This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.
Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.
“You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” seems appropriate
This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.
Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.
“You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” seems appropriate
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Elysium
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justin.
Totally incorrect.
The A380 arrived and was operated prior to EA agreed terms and conditions. The same was true of the 747-400.
The contract permits three months of operations too.
“42.3 Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment when declared airworthy for a minimum period of three (3) months even if agreement not reached on pay and conditions
Pilots will operate new aircraft or equipment on the Company's scheduled and non- scheduled operations at such time as the aircraft or equipment is declared airworthy by the aviation regulatory authority whether or not rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the aircraft or equipment have been agreed but this obligation will not continue if rates of pay, rules and working conditions have not been agreed upon within a period of three (3) months after the new aircraft or equipment has been placed in service by the Company.”
Your just pandering to the company line as it suits them to rush AIPA into a deal. Qantas may wish for a deal sewn up prior, however it’s not essential. I suppose if you were a poor or weak negotiator you’d allow yourself to be rushed.
As Rated D suggests you just fell for the Company’s IR strategy.
If the A380 replacement deal is a superior one then fine, however if it’s not then why be rushed by the company?
But then Qantas have many experienced professionals advising them and AIPA have pilots with little formal training.
AIPAs dismal legal record is not dissimilar.
It worries me greatly that you think it’s acceptable for an AIPA president to talk down the pilots prospects prior to an EA.
He spoke only of the fuel price pressures facing Qantas(from very low levels) which have since reversed, and he made NO mention of a single bargaining strength such as a well documented global pilot shortage for experienced pilots. Nor did he make any mention of recurrent record profits or bonuses.
In the past good presidents and the AIPA executive lead by strength and formed a strong position.
This protected pilots from themselves on the back of company fed and spun rumours. That ensured strong EAs were put forward and didn’t exacerbate a race to the bottom mentality.
I never said that a new type cannot be introduced without agreed terms and conditions, I’ve said that the current management will not do so. There is a difference. You clearly misunderstand how the ceo thinks and operates if you think there is any chance of him locking in billons of dollars in new planes without agreed terms.
No one, neither the pilots of FWC, can force management to order new aircraft. And if management makes a business case including employee costs a pre condition of ordering new aircraft, then no ceo in their right mind would walk away from that pre condition.
Good point Rated D.
This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.
Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.
“You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” seems appropriate
This was mentioned on Qrewroom. An AIPA executive with legal qualifications(but no substantial legal practice) was quick to dismiss them as being legally unenforceable. But then so was a former AIPA president who jumped ship and became Deputy Chief pilot.
Someone did make valid comment that despite it potentially having no legal enforcement it would make a moral and ethical statement formal leaving no doubt given the history that has not served AIPA well.
In fact many governments and corporations have non complete periods.
“You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” seems appropriate
It is interesting that there all this attention about an ex-president that has moved to a management position after not being on Committee for several years, yet nobody has mentioned the person who went straight from being an EBA negotiator to an office position in networks without any intervening time away from AIPA.
Knobby. I find it interesting that you complain about AIPA not having professionals handling negotiations and other matters, yet when we elect a President that does have skills and qualifications, you misinterpret this as being a reflection of their ambition to use AIPA as some kind of stepping stone to a company position? The fact is we need to attract and retain talented people to fill these rolls in AIPA. Throwing rocks and making completely baseless and incorrect allegations about someone's motives is not the way to do this.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 21st Dec 2018 at 01:37.
Thread Starter
Interview with Napoleon in yesterday’s Australian confirming 3% wage rise for staff.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point was how do you draft a non-compete that is enforceable if the person is already working for Qantas?
When negotiations are entered into for contractual bargaining purposes, does QF IR require the appointed representatives sign a non-disclose (commonly referred to as a confidentiality arrangement)?
If so, it would appear, axiomatically, that the company take a wholly different view to 'office holders' of an association, performing their duties as union representatives, irrespective of presumably still working for Qantas. It would be of material interest to understand just how AIPA claims exclusion to what would otherwise seem obvious: The two entities are not the same and Qantas see the issue differently to the union.
Surely there must then be information gleaned from executives and other office holders during the performance of their 'union duties' that would, if disclosed to say something like Qantas IR, be damaging to the pilot body interests?
The case of the former union president 'Stream Lead' being a case, but clearly from the posts, not an isolated one.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Elysium
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt you’ll find any restraints of trade in the business world that are much longer than 6-12 months. Didn’t Borghetti, who knew the Qantas business intimately, go to VA after little more than a year?
At the end of the day the company agreed position won’t be decided by any pilot negotiators. It will need to be signed off by the ceo just as the pilot agreed position will be signed off by the pilots in the form of a vote. The job of the aipa negotiators is to come up with best deal possible for the pilots to vote on. In the case of eba8, it was unacceptable by a large majority and in the case of eba9, it was accepted by a large majority.
At the end of the day the company agreed position won’t be decided by any pilot negotiators. It will need to be signed off by the ceo just as the pilot agreed position will be signed off by the pilots in the form of a vote. The job of the aipa negotiators is to come up with best deal possible for the pilots to vote on. In the case of eba8, it was unacceptable by a large majority and in the case of eba9, it was accepted by a large majority.
Presumably then there is case law to support this? How is a contract not enforceable?
When negotiations are entered into for contractual bargaining purposes, does QF IR require the appointed representatives sign a non-disclose (commonly referred to as a confidentiality arrangement)?
If so, it would appear, axiomatically, that the company take a wholly different view to 'office holders' of an association, performing their duties as union representatives, irrespective of presumably still working for Qantas. It would be of material interest to understand just how AIPA claims exclusion to what would otherwise seem obvious: The two entities are not the same and Qantas see the issue differently to the union.
Surely there must then be information gleaned from executives and other office holders during the performance of their 'union duties' that would, if disclosed to say something like Qantas IR, be damaging to the pilot body interests?
The case of the former union president 'Stream Lead' being a case, but clearly from the posts, not an isolated one.
When negotiations are entered into for contractual bargaining purposes, does QF IR require the appointed representatives sign a non-disclose (commonly referred to as a confidentiality arrangement)?
If so, it would appear, axiomatically, that the company take a wholly different view to 'office holders' of an association, performing their duties as union representatives, irrespective of presumably still working for Qantas. It would be of material interest to understand just how AIPA claims exclusion to what would otherwise seem obvious: The two entities are not the same and Qantas see the issue differently to the union.
Surely there must then be information gleaned from executives and other office holders during the performance of their 'union duties' that would, if disclosed to say something like Qantas IR, be damaging to the pilot body interests?
The case of the former union president 'Stream Lead' being a case, but clearly from the posts, not an isolated one.
With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Billions in profits
You can’t compare the last EA to project sunrise or any EA today.
In the last EA Qantas lost 2.6 Billion dollars. Alan Joyce asked Canberra for money.
Pilots left for Emirates. Captains got demoted.
Today Qantas has successfully turned around. Consecutive record billion dollar profits. Record returns on equity.
Consecutive record executive bonuses. 70 Captains and 70 FOs have been promoted on the 737 alone this year.
Retirements are growing. Pilot shortages for experienced airline pilots is a global trend.
Project sunrise is for an A380 replacement, flying close to 24 hour tours of Duty. So extreme is the flying that it’s illegal from a regulatory standpoint.
Im sure Alan will say he needs a deal signed off at 747 pay.
Given what aircraft it’s a replacement for and given the extreme tours of duty I’m confident AIPA will negotiate accordingly.
Hardly tough times.
In the last EA Qantas lost 2.6 Billion dollars. Alan Joyce asked Canberra for money.
Pilots left for Emirates. Captains got demoted.
Today Qantas has successfully turned around. Consecutive record billion dollar profits. Record returns on equity.
Consecutive record executive bonuses. 70 Captains and 70 FOs have been promoted on the 737 alone this year.
Retirements are growing. Pilot shortages for experienced airline pilots is a global trend.
Project sunrise is for an A380 replacement, flying close to 24 hour tours of Duty. So extreme is the flying that it’s illegal from a regulatory standpoint.
Im sure Alan will say he needs a deal signed off at 747 pay.
Given what aircraft it’s a replacement for and given the extreme tours of duty I’m confident AIPA will negotiate accordingly.
Hardly tough times.
Thread Starter
I’m afraid I do not share your confidence.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non compete and confidentiality are two separate, but related, issues. Stopping someone from working in a competing business is separate to having an obligation not to disclose information. A non-compete clause is generally a part of of a contract of employment. Most AIPA committee and executive are not employees of AIPA. In fact, they are employees of Qantas and have pre-existing obligations to Qantas with respect to restraint of trade. To say that a subsequent arrangement with AIPA should limit that original employment contract and associated obligations would be difficult to argue.
With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).
With respect to confidentiality, committee members, office holders and other volunteers already sign confidentiality agreements regarding information gained in these positions. It is also worth noting that even without signing anything, employees have common law obligations with respect to disclosure of confidential information. In this instance how you would practically enforce this or take action against a breach is probably difficult. So, as I stated, the best defence is for the AIPA committee to do its duty and appoint people who are likely to act in the best interest of the association and its members (even if at some point they chose to take a management role).
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.
Last edited by Rated De; 21st Dec 2018 at 06:53.
Thread Starter
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.
The issues are related and not mutually exclusive.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.
Given as you state they remain employees of Qantas, who then do the AIPA committee members ultimately give account to? Who then does the AIPA executive give account to, the paymaster or the membership? If the prima facie relationship is that with pre-existing conditions (IE deference to the employer) at best, the outcome which you allude to is the likely outcome: A goat track worn from the more ambitious wandering from sensitive union positions to management positions, having pinky sworn they were there for the members.
Other unions have negotiated this duality, using a variety of mechanism, including contract to ensure, not hope, that those who purport to act in the member's interest actually do so. If a union's executive is so difficult to 'ring fence' with a contractual undertaking how come other unions have no difficulty in ensuring that what one is privileged with in one arena, does not leak to the other?
It is neither complicated to enact nor enforce. That an association chooses not to is ultimately a decision of the organisation, however it is disingenuous and incorrect to say it cannot be done nor enforced. Perhaps it is time that pilots stopped holding offices such that any deference to the employer, or pursuit of a corporate career, is not at the expense of fee paying members.
Regarding who does someone give account to, it depends on the nature of the obligation. Committee members have obligations to members as a result of them being on the committee, and they also have obligations as employees. Generally these do not conflict in a way that makes either role unworkable. There are also some protections that allow these roles to be separated to some degree. Where I do see a conflict of obligations and interest is if someone were to be both a committee member and in a management role at the same time.
Regarding your statements about other unions have 'negotiated this duality', it is difficult to give an opinion without you providing some specific examples.
Last edited by theheadmaster; 21st Dec 2018 at 21:22.