Jetstar EBA 2019
He’s not even in mainline yet Ollie, and he’s going to get a bit of a rude shock when he gets here with that kind of attitude. Either he is full of crap or his mates are, there’s nothing but support here for what the Jetstar pilots are going through. Don’t forget most of us went through PIA and got locked out, it’s not a good feeling. To think Mainline Pilots would use this to their advantage is rubbish.
I can only say I fully support the betterment of all pilots terms and conditions in Australia.
While we bicker and fight over the crumbs, the executive class took the whole pie.
In a leaked memo from Citibank to the 1%ers, it was mentioned the biggest threat to the plutocracy is we have 99% of the votes in our western democracies. Their biggest fear is may rise up against them.
I can tell you, the middle class has had enough.
While we bicker and fight over the crumbs, the executive class took the whole pie.
In a leaked memo from Citibank to the 1%ers, it was mentioned the biggest threat to the plutocracy is we have 99% of the votes in our western democracies. Their biggest fear is may rise up against them.
I can tell you, the middle class has had enough.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do those going on PIA think Joyce is going to respond? What do you hope to gain by engaging in this type of PIA? What in Joyce’s actions or inactions makes you think he will respond differently in 2019 than how he did in 2011 or at any other stage over the last decade?
How do those going on PIA think Joyce is going to respond? What do you hope to gain by engaging in this type of PIA? What in Joyce’s actions or inactions makes you think he will respond differently in 2019 than how he did in 2011 or at any other stage over the last decade?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PR battle
Afternoon those concerned with the dispute.
Today's Brisbane paper carried a story with mention of the pay dispute using the words "pilots walk off the job ... delays, disruptions" and its all the pilots fault.
The quote from the company CEO was "it is cynically timed to hurt the travelling public .... we (Jstar) are proactively contacting customers ... " and then reference was made to the pay increase of 15% in the first year.
And the final part (to show the greed of the pilots), and, I am paraphrasing, "they already get $300,000 a year".
I would suggest that it is time to put your own circumstances out there rather than let Jstar blame you for the problems.
I hope the Union has access to journalists as does Jstar. It might be worth the effort to have the public on your side.
Today's Brisbane paper carried a story with mention of the pay dispute using the words "pilots walk off the job ... delays, disruptions" and its all the pilots fault.
The quote from the company CEO was "it is cynically timed to hurt the travelling public .... we (Jstar) are proactively contacting customers ... " and then reference was made to the pay increase of 15% in the first year.
And the final part (to show the greed of the pilots), and, I am paraphrasing, "they already get $300,000 a year".
I would suggest that it is time to put your own circumstances out there rather than let Jstar blame you for the problems.
I hope the Union has access to journalists as does Jstar. It might be worth the effort to have the public on your side.
Pilots ‘folding’ is not the only other option available when held up against the scheduled stop work.
Prior to under taking PIA should one not ask ‘what do we hope to gain and how will this specific PIA achieve it’? The next step is to ask ‘how is my adversary likely to respond and what are the ramifications of that’. If those questions can’t be answered then how well advised is the PIA?
So, two non answers, genuine questions characterised as a threat, and the opposite to these PIA stop works being to ‘fold’. I hope that someone comes up with something better than that!
I hope the JQ pilots are clear about the pros and cons of the actions you’ve chosen. I hope you achieve what you set out to achieve. Good luck.
Prior to under taking PIA should one not ask ‘what do we hope to gain and how will this specific PIA achieve it’? The next step is to ask ‘how is my adversary likely to respond and what are the ramifications of that’. If those questions can’t be answered then how well advised is the PIA?
So, two non answers, genuine questions characterised as a threat, and the opposite to these PIA stop works being to ‘fold’. I hope that someone comes up with something better than that!
I hope the JQ pilots are clear about the pros and cons of the actions you’ve chosen. I hope you achieve what you set out to achieve. Good luck.
PIA is the only language they speak! Bring it on!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media is a commercial business, press release regurgitators (formally referred to as journalists) are corrupted to the core by payment "in-kind" by the big end of town.
No media would ever print the pilots side of the argument with a shred of sympathy.
So, no the "truth" won't be televised.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here’s what worries me about the AFAP response to AIPA’s warning (and I have no horse in this race, I’m just concerned that someone might get hurt):
The AFAP did not state that they had “strong legal advice”, they merely said that other unions in the past had advised their members that it was OK to engage in PIA even if they joined after the vote.
I’m sorry, but that is not a strong legal precedent, IMHO, and if that is the best they are going to put in writing then I suspect that someone might be carefully trying to cover their arse. Ask yourself what they didn’t say.
Now, the AFAP have lawyers, and AIPA have lawyers: they obviously disagree with each other on this topic, or at least are demonstrating differing legal risk thresholds. Qantas have lawyers too, and you can bet what they will be seeking if any of you take unprotected industrial action. Qantas goes into “battle mode” when PIA starts, and may start behaving differently to what you have been accustomed. Remember also, you will be lumped into the same bucket as the TWU.
AIPA would not have provided this advice if they did not consider there to be a legal risk. It would not be anything else. It most certainly would not be a Union V Union stunt.
Please tread warily my friends if you joined AFAP after the vote. Just because “other unions” dealing with “other companies” may have gotten away with it in the past, doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t be fined or sacked for taking unprotected industrial action.
If AJ can make an example of even one of you, it has the potential to destroy morale, and/or divert attention from the core issue. I wouldn’t advise it, it just isn’t worth it. There is already an overwhelming number of protected AFAP members.
It would be a pity if the AFAP’s resources, and the will of the members, were to be diverted to attempting to reinstate the employment of one or a few individuals instead of the keeping the attention on the EBA.
Fight the fight carefully and hope your opponent makes an error. Don’t be the one to make the dumb error, especially after you have been warned.
Remember: “my union told me it’s ok” is not a defence.
To the rest of you: good luck folks, I’m with you in spirit! (And this post is not legal advice).
The AFAP did not state that they had “strong legal advice”, they merely said that other unions in the past had advised their members that it was OK to engage in PIA even if they joined after the vote.
I’m sorry, but that is not a strong legal precedent, IMHO, and if that is the best they are going to put in writing then I suspect that someone might be carefully trying to cover their arse. Ask yourself what they didn’t say.
Now, the AFAP have lawyers, and AIPA have lawyers: they obviously disagree with each other on this topic, or at least are demonstrating differing legal risk thresholds. Qantas have lawyers too, and you can bet what they will be seeking if any of you take unprotected industrial action. Qantas goes into “battle mode” when PIA starts, and may start behaving differently to what you have been accustomed. Remember also, you will be lumped into the same bucket as the TWU.
AIPA would not have provided this advice if they did not consider there to be a legal risk. It would not be anything else. It most certainly would not be a Union V Union stunt.
Please tread warily my friends if you joined AFAP after the vote. Just because “other unions” dealing with “other companies” may have gotten away with it in the past, doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t be fined or sacked for taking unprotected industrial action.
If AJ can make an example of even one of you, it has the potential to destroy morale, and/or divert attention from the core issue. I wouldn’t advise it, it just isn’t worth it. There is already an overwhelming number of protected AFAP members.
It would be a pity if the AFAP’s resources, and the will of the members, were to be diverted to attempting to reinstate the employment of one or a few individuals instead of the keeping the attention on the EBA.
Fight the fight carefully and hope your opponent makes an error. Don’t be the one to make the dumb error, especially after you have been warned.
Remember: “my union told me it’s ok” is not a defence.
To the rest of you: good luck folks, I’m with you in spirit! (And this post is not legal advice).
Pilots ‘folding’ is not the only other option available when held up against the scheduled stop work.
Prior to under taking PIA should one not ask ‘what do we hope to gain and how will this specific PIA achieve it’? The next step is to ask ‘how is my adversary likely to respond and what are the ramifications of that’. If those questions can’t be answered then how well advised is the PIA?
So, two non answers, genuine questions characterised as a threat, and the opposite to these PIA stop works being to ‘fold’. I hope that someone comes up with something better than that!
Prior to under taking PIA should one not ask ‘what do we hope to gain and how will this specific PIA achieve it’? The next step is to ask ‘how is my adversary likely to respond and what are the ramifications of that’. If those questions can’t be answered then how well advised is the PIA?
So, two non answers, genuine questions characterised as a threat, and the opposite to these PIA stop works being to ‘fold’. I hope that someone comes up with something better than that!
What concerns me about this action is that the aim of it is pretty vague. Normally PIA comes a bit further down the track and can be focussed along the lines of ‘they are offering ‘x’ and we want ‘x’. Here is seems to be ‘they are saying no to everything and we want everything’, so where does it end, if Jetstar says after the 20th, here is 4% is it back to PIA, back into another 12 months of meetings or a yes vote. Indeed would Jetstar agreeing to meetings every other day until resolved be enough to withdraw PIA, I am genuinely interested and hope for the AFAP pilots to get a good settlement. It is just hard to see where this is going considering it would appear that nothing from the log of claims is settled.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP. Absolutely mind blowing that instead of seeking unity, division is being sought. No wonder as pilots we are the laughing stock around the world!
Legal advise is like financial advise, its based on one person's or firm's interpretation of the law as it applies at the time. If it is tested in court only then is the advise proved to be incorrect or correct.
You can -always- find a lawyer to agree with what you want (much like consultants
). Shyster & Graft are NOT infallible. Although they did fire a future PM for fraud and successfully hide the evidence...
). Shyster & Graft are NOT infallible. Although they did fire a future PM for fraud and successfully hide the evidence...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not a lawyer. I’m not a union strategist. I don’t know what options are available but the AFAP and JQ pilots have chosen this option so it’s not unreasonable to ask ‘will this PIA achieve what JQ pilots are trying to achieve’ and ‘what is Qantas history of responding to this sort of PIA’ and ‘what happens if they respond as they have in the past’?
1. “will this PIA achieve what JQ pilots are trying to achieve”?
It may achieve nothing, It may achieve part of what they are trying to achieve, It may achieve all of what they are trying to achieve. Absolutely impossible to predict, because doing so would imply knowledge of the future actions of both parties as it plays out dynamically. If you were observing a house sale, and the vendor wanted $600K and the buyer wanted it for $400K, and the buyer threatened to walk away and buy another house, can you predict the outcome? Of course not, it depends not only on what both parties hope to achieve, but also on how it plays out. Bluff can play a significant role. If both parties need an eventual outcome, it can come down to all sorts of things. Can you starve out the opponent? Will someone else come along with a better offer? Will your opponent get a better offer? Will the opponent beat you down psychologically through battle fatigue by calling you daily pretending they have a better offer? The house could end up selling for $400K or $600K or anywhere in between, or in the extreme example, the buyer ended up paying $700 because the vendor knew how to play the psychological game (or $300K if the buyer did).
2. “what is Qantas history of responding to this sort of PIA”?
Qantas has a long history of battling PIA from unions. They have a heavily unionised workforce. They have spent decades trying to reduce the impact of unions. The very existence of Jetstar is a prime example. Jetstar evolved from Dixon’s purchase of Impulse, which was not only non-union, but the pilots weren’t even employed by Impulse. What better compliant workforce to start with! He ended up having to put the pilots on the books because he knew Qantas could not possibly continue to get away with that scam under the spotlight that shines of QF, but he went to great lengths and expense to discourage any unionism of those pilots (short of actually paying and treating them well). He and his right hand mate AJ who he put in charge of JQ had the same opinion of pilots, and nearly two decades later, look who’s still in charge. There were those back in the day who understood Dixon thought pilots should earn train driver pay, and those who think that was the good old days because Joyce thinks they should earn less than that.
Where am I going with this? Well I am answering your question. Qantas has a long history of PIA, and dealing with it. I’ve provided the background of why they won’t treat pilots any differently from any other workforce who engages in PIA, because they don’t consider the pilot workforce to be any different from the staff who replace the toilet roll in the executive washroom. In fact, lower, because the washroom staff fold the toilet rolls in nice 45degree corners purely for AJ’s pleasure, and he probably assumes correctly that no pilot would do that for him, even for $300,000 per year.
In terms of recent history of PIA from pilots? No recent history from JQ in my knowledge. In 2011 they responded to mainline with a lockout but that was ended by the government before the lockout started, so no-one was locked out. The threat affected some staff psychologically, but the end result was a basic 3% determination by the FWC. It didn’t have to be a determination, take note. It only became a determination because mandatory arbitration could not reach a deal. There were three unions “locked out” at that time, the other two were the LAMES and I think the AWU. Those other unions reached an arbitrated deal prior to a determination. At the end of the day, there was no negative for the pilots other than that they did not achieve the workplace security clauses they were taking PIA over. Pretty much the rest of their EBA claims happened anyway.
So Qantas got slammed by the general public for screwing up the nation for a week, it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, they lost a lot of face with government (of whom many MP’s also got stuck), and they ended up with an EBA for the same dollars they started with, but without the job security clauses the unions were asking for (read: security against future outsourcing).
Conclusion: this is how much the Company are (or were) prepared to pay to keep their options open for future outsourcing.
3. “what happens if they respond as they have in the past’?”
Well, in the past they have either returned to the negotiation table or conducted a lockout and endured an unsuccessful arbitration which led to a determination. A determination is unlikely to leave JQ pilots worse off, particularly considering where they are coming from. In the light of the latest Tiger EBA, a determination could well work in their favour, but that would be up to the FWC.
Birdie, I hope I have answered your questions.
Both parties start to take strategic risks at this point, the outcome is unknown, but the legal risks are quantifiable by law if both parties play fair.
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP.
Even if the warning is heeded it would have zero effect on the success of the PIA.
Secondly, lawyers don’t provide ‘an indepedant ruling‘, they provide their opinion. If you want a ruling, ignore the advice, get disciplined by Jetstar and then take your defence to the FWC or court, then you can get your independent ruling.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIPA's warning was nothing more than an attempt to destabilise and undermine the PIA about to take place this weekend, for whatever reason. Slater and Gordon have provided an indepedant ruling in favour of the AFAP. Absolutely mind blowing that instead of seeking unity, division is being sought. No wonder as pilots we are the laughing stock around the world!
2. I believe your statement that AIPA’s warning was attempting to destabilise and undermine the PIA is false. That’s my opinion against yours. I am not a member of AIPA’s committee, and have no inside knowledge, but I don’t believe they would do that, I also don’t believe they would have any reason to do that.
3. It’s nice to hear from Slater and Gordon, AFAP didn’t divulge that in the communication... maybe it’s more recent advice.
Hang on, did you just say it was an “independent ruling”?
Wow, that’s different then. An independent ruling is very different from “Slater and Gordon advice”.
One is a legal opinion from a law firm, which could easily differ from a legal opinion from a different law firm, such as the one Qantas may chose to employ. An “independent ruling” implies a decision made by a justice of the court or similar upon the presentation of two competing cases under some kind of legal framework. Which are we talking here? Sorry to be picky but this is important when colleagues careers are on the line.
Sorry to be argumentative, but your tone triggered me to question what you said. I doubt it’s factually correct.
Back to the point, maybe AFAP are now quoting an “independent legal advice” or similar. They didn’t earlier.
Potentially AIPA could counter the argument with their “independent legal advice” which may or may not differ. Seriously, I doubt they would, because it would serve them no gain - it would only provoke a “tit-for-tat” social media war with the AFAP. They have already cautioned a small number of pilots to be cautious of unprotected industrial action, presumably based on their advice of legal risk. They have no reason to devote resources to further question that advice just because AFAP may have secured a law firm and published an alternative advice.
4. Agreed about the mind-blowingness of seeking division. One union provided its internal legal advice to its members, then another union went nuts about it publicly, for no useful reason that I can determine. Maybe both unions need to send their presidents to lunch together to sort their **** out. I’ll happily donate the garlic bread and a bottle of Coonawarra. This crap serves none of us well.
