Cathay recruitment, a question for the 89ers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay recruitment, a question for the 89ers
Opinions from anyone welcome, but what do the people involved with the 89 dispute think of the current Cathay recruitment ban?
Will it all be over once 51 people have been employed?
Will it all be over once 51 people have been employed?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion is that the current Cathay recruitment ban is an error of judgement by the AOA. Whilst probably well intentioned, it looks hypocritical and makes the AOA members look narrow and self-interested (continuing to take upgrades and the likes while expecting others to refrain from enjoying career advancement).
However, I would like to offer the following advice to aspirant Cathay pilots.
Don't break the ban.
As other threads on this forum show; industrial disputes are not dead and buried even decades later, and lists of names are constructed and will haunt people for a lifetime.
Therefore, my advice to CX aspirants is try to remember that your career WILL be decades long. It WILL be rewarding and YOU WILL be successful whether you take a job with CX or another airline. KA and EK are both better options at present (given the circumstances). Try not to fall for the fallacy, which is entirely human and understandable, of thinking that this is "my one big chance" or "my best offer yet" or "more than I could have hoped for". Trust your destiny and believe in the fact that you will not kill your career by declining to joing CX at present.
Don't think that the Company will look after you in the long run. In the short run - sure, they will look after you. It's what generals always do with battle fodder. In the long run, the Company management will move on, the priorities of the moment will change and your 'great contribution' will be old news. But in the meantime you are perpetually tarred with the **** brush.
This is a ban supported and instituted by IFALPA. It will follow you all your life. Please don't act tough or precipitously now. You should cherish your career (you deserve to) and not squander the potential that you have, for the sake of short run advantages.
Think of short term pain, long term gain.
However, I would like to offer the following advice to aspirant Cathay pilots.
Don't break the ban.
As other threads on this forum show; industrial disputes are not dead and buried even decades later, and lists of names are constructed and will haunt people for a lifetime.
Therefore, my advice to CX aspirants is try to remember that your career WILL be decades long. It WILL be rewarding and YOU WILL be successful whether you take a job with CX or another airline. KA and EK are both better options at present (given the circumstances). Try not to fall for the fallacy, which is entirely human and understandable, of thinking that this is "my one big chance" or "my best offer yet" or "more than I could have hoped for". Trust your destiny and believe in the fact that you will not kill your career by declining to joing CX at present.
Don't think that the Company will look after you in the long run. In the short run - sure, they will look after you. It's what generals always do with battle fodder. In the long run, the Company management will move on, the priorities of the moment will change and your 'great contribution' will be old news. But in the meantime you are perpetually tarred with the **** brush.
This is a ban supported and instituted by IFALPA. It will follow you all your life. Please don't act tough or precipitously now. You should cherish your career (you deserve to) and not squander the potential that you have, for the sake of short run advantages.
Think of short term pain, long term gain.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tamarama beach
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short term ???
You've got to be kidding me. How long has this saga been going on ? For a job hunter ( which I'm not ) this looks like very long term.
You may have a point but the fact remains that staying put for someone looking for a real job is really hard and I don't think people can afford to wait a decade until the CX dust settles if it ever does.
You've got to be kidding me. How long has this saga been going on ? For a job hunter ( which I'm not ) this looks like very long term.
You may have a point but the fact remains that staying put for someone looking for a real job is really hard and I don't think people can afford to wait a decade until the CX dust settles if it ever does.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wallabie - I hear your point. Perhaps my advice under the circumstances is to forget about CX (since it's taking such a long time to resolve the mess there) and focus elsewhere.
If it helps you to know, I don't work for CX but went through the 89 dispute after a mere 8 months in the Australian airline system. I can understand therefore how vulnerable and insecure young guys feel when they have the rug pulled out from under them.
However, after 12 years abroad (working for airlines in Europe and Asia) my career has blossomed since the dark days of 89.
There is life after death - and I am ever grateful that I wasn't disposed toward 'returning'. I have enjoyed a much better life and career thanks to the catalyst of the dispute. (In 89 I couldn't imagine I would ever be grateful for the dispute... but that's life...!!)
What I have found is that after 89, as a result of keeping my nose clean, there are only 2 airlines in the whole world that I can't work for - TAA and Ansett. What a lot of choice I have and had. The reverse logic is true, if I had scabbed, there would have only been two airlines in the world I could have worked for...
Please guys, don't screw up your career at such an early stage by breaking the ban at CX. You may well regret it forever.
If it helps you to know, I don't work for CX but went through the 89 dispute after a mere 8 months in the Australian airline system. I can understand therefore how vulnerable and insecure young guys feel when they have the rug pulled out from under them.
However, after 12 years abroad (working for airlines in Europe and Asia) my career has blossomed since the dark days of 89.
There is life after death - and I am ever grateful that I wasn't disposed toward 'returning'. I have enjoyed a much better life and career thanks to the catalyst of the dispute. (In 89 I couldn't imagine I would ever be grateful for the dispute... but that's life...!!)
What I have found is that after 89, as a result of keeping my nose clean, there are only 2 airlines in the whole world that I can't work for - TAA and Ansett. What a lot of choice I have and had. The reverse logic is true, if I had scabbed, there would have only been two airlines in the world I could have worked for...
Please guys, don't screw up your career at such an early stage by breaking the ban at CX. You may well regret it forever.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HIALS offers sound advice, and has put it in perspective. Being labelled a 'scab' aside, what bargaining power do employees have in any industry if the labour market are not united against unruly management?
Again, HIALS words, but.... short term pain (perhaps) for benefits in the long run.
Scenario: Imagine YOU are currently employed by Cx, and have been for a decade or two. Now, something has happened that is not right, and YOU and your workmates need to stand together (as the leaders of the pilot workforce) to right the wrong. Imagine how you would feel if someone underminded what you were trying to stand for by ignoring the ban, and eroding the effectiveness of what you were trying to achieve. I know I would not be a happy lad.
Would you really want to work for an airline where this was occuring? ......really? No unity as a workforce = no power against changes for the worse, i.e. pay decreases in the long run, declining work conditions etc etc.
Support the Cx pilots now. Forget about them now. Apply in a year, or two or three, or however long it goes on for. Because if YOU do take a job there now, you are not only putting yourself on 'the list', you are also undermining the collective bargaining power of a workforce that YOU are a part of.
I know that I wouldn't want to be a part of that. Do something else.
Again, HIALS words, but.... short term pain (perhaps) for benefits in the long run.
Scenario: Imagine YOU are currently employed by Cx, and have been for a decade or two. Now, something has happened that is not right, and YOU and your workmates need to stand together (as the leaders of the pilot workforce) to right the wrong. Imagine how you would feel if someone underminded what you were trying to stand for by ignoring the ban, and eroding the effectiveness of what you were trying to achieve. I know I would not be a happy lad.
Would you really want to work for an airline where this was occuring? ......really? No unity as a workforce = no power against changes for the worse, i.e. pay decreases in the long run, declining work conditions etc etc.
Support the Cx pilots now. Forget about them now. Apply in a year, or two or three, or however long it goes on for. Because if YOU do take a job there now, you are not only putting yourself on 'the list', you are also undermining the collective bargaining power of a workforce that YOU are a part of.
I know that I wouldn't want to be a part of that. Do something else.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect the ban, don't jion Cathay.................mmmmm. That leaves me with two choices, Qantas or Virgin. With no Jet time and an Australian passport can you believe it, job offers just keep coming.....not.
You're right, you should walk in others shoes before you make comments. Well walk in mine. 35K a year to fly a turbo prop. For a chance at Virgin I get to spend 20k of my own money to buy a type rating. With children and repayments to make on the castle that is not an option for many.
Accept it, the ban is not working, and if I say no where does that leave me. Some one else will take it. Geat advice,,,,,I just don't know how good I've got it.
You're right, you should walk in others shoes before you make comments. Well walk in mine. 35K a year to fly a turbo prop. For a chance at Virgin I get to spend 20k of my own money to buy a type rating. With children and repayments to make on the castle that is not an option for many.
Accept it, the ban is not working, and if I say no where does that leave me. Some one else will take it. Geat advice,,,,,I just don't know how good I've got it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been sitting on the sidelines while trying to keep up with the CX ban posts etc.
Maybe its just me but i am having difficulty understanding why the guys already in CX are crowing about the rate of upgrades and are gladly accepting them, yet they are telling (in some cases indirectly threatening) potential new recruits to stay away as it will help their cause with management.
If you guys applied the same rules to yourselves that you are trying to impose on new recruits then surely you would not be accepting any upgrades.
Think back to when you guys were doing bank runs etc in clapped out 402's and the like and put yourselves in their position.
Effectively you guys are dictating the rules of engagement but when an upgrade appears you gladly accept it and then you "preach" to some poor guy who is doing the hard yards (and is not even in CX yet) to do your work for you.
Maybe you guys should lead by example and that way you would at least earn some respect by practising what you preach.
From an outsiders point of view this is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Ahab
Maybe its just me but i am having difficulty understanding why the guys already in CX are crowing about the rate of upgrades and are gladly accepting them, yet they are telling (in some cases indirectly threatening) potential new recruits to stay away as it will help their cause with management.
If you guys applied the same rules to yourselves that you are trying to impose on new recruits then surely you would not be accepting any upgrades.
Think back to when you guys were doing bank runs etc in clapped out 402's and the like and put yourselves in their position.
Effectively you guys are dictating the rules of engagement but when an upgrade appears you gladly accept it and then you "preach" to some poor guy who is doing the hard yards (and is not even in CX yet) to do your work for you.
Maybe you guys should lead by example and that way you would at least earn some respect by practising what you preach.
From an outsiders point of view this is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Ahab
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon, lets hear it from CX drivers;
Has anyone at all refused an upgrade during the recruitment ban?.
Any guesses to the number of upgrades accepted during the recruitment ban?.
Has anyone at all refused an upgrade during the recruitment ban?.
Any guesses to the number of upgrades accepted during the recruitment ban?.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did hear from a Cathay pilot some time ago that out of around 1600 pilots employed by Cathay around 1000 are in the union and 63% of them voted for the ban to stay in place. So if what he says is correct that means that only 39% of the pilots at Cathay agree with the ban. Although I don't like to see management carrying on like the Cathay one did, I really think that unfortunatley management has won on this issue and the union should realise this.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
food for thought
I have responded on other CX ban posts so ill give it another go here.
I have made it clear to people that i think we are hypocrits here at CX. I have been a soldier in the past for the AOA and have been constantly dissapointed by mostly our senior guys when it comes to lifting their fingers and getting a bit dirty. So i wont label anyone a scab who joins this airline now, i am ex G.A in Oz and do understand the issues.
I will however say as i do to any of my mates that are thinking of joining and tell them that realistically there will be quite alot of people who will make life just that more difficult here in Honkers, yes we do have hard liners!!! It is a small world here and anything like that could make life miserable???? The international ban is also an issue and something i wouldnt want hanging over my head, you never know whats around the corner, ask any Ansett drivers.
So whats the answer, i dont know, i dont know what i would do so i wouldnt tell anyone else what to do. I guess it would be up to your personal circumstances.
I will say too that if the union wins a couple of court cases which are coming up alot of the fence sitters will bounce back in all their hypocrisy cheering on the 49ers again and bemoaning about new joiners.
One other thing while im here, we dont get the chance to knock back up grades as people think, it comes up and you do it, if you refuse you quit. I know what you are thinking but you ask any 89er about the logic about quiting a company as a form of strike action, it doesnt work!!!! This is not one way we can fight the company on. Unfortunately the ways we can fight them, we let ourselves down!!!!!
Good luck to all who are in this difficult decision process, have a long hard think about it!!!!
I have made it clear to people that i think we are hypocrits here at CX. I have been a soldier in the past for the AOA and have been constantly dissapointed by mostly our senior guys when it comes to lifting their fingers and getting a bit dirty. So i wont label anyone a scab who joins this airline now, i am ex G.A in Oz and do understand the issues.
I will however say as i do to any of my mates that are thinking of joining and tell them that realistically there will be quite alot of people who will make life just that more difficult here in Honkers, yes we do have hard liners!!! It is a small world here and anything like that could make life miserable???? The international ban is also an issue and something i wouldnt want hanging over my head, you never know whats around the corner, ask any Ansett drivers.
So whats the answer, i dont know, i dont know what i would do so i wouldnt tell anyone else what to do. I guess it would be up to your personal circumstances.
I will say too that if the union wins a couple of court cases which are coming up alot of the fence sitters will bounce back in all their hypocrisy cheering on the 49ers again and bemoaning about new joiners.
One other thing while im here, we dont get the chance to knock back up grades as people think, it comes up and you do it, if you refuse you quit. I know what you are thinking but you ask any 89er about the logic about quiting a company as a form of strike action, it doesnt work!!!! This is not one way we can fight the company on. Unfortunately the ways we can fight them, we let ourselves down!!!!!
Good luck to all who are in this difficult decision process, have a long hard think about it!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tifters
So quit!, its just as life changing as some poor pilot looking for a job who rejects a potentially life changing career with Cathay?
Musings anyway.....
dog
One other thing while im here, we dont get the chance to knock back up grades as people think, it comes up and you do it, if you refuse you quit. I know what you are thinking but you ask any 89er about the logic about quiting a company as a form of strike action, it doesnt work!!!! This is not one way we can fight the company on.
Musings anyway.....
dog
Dragonair Command offered within One Year
Forget about Cathay!
See "factsonly" on page 2 of the following Fragrant Harbour thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=66882
See "factsonly" on page 2 of the following Fragrant Harbour thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=66882
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons I asked the question is because I am in a similar situation to Speedlever, no jet time if and I don't look offshore it's Qantas or Virgin.
The way I see it at the moment (I'm sure someone will have a different view) I've never seen a company re-employ a person they have sacked and CX don't appear to be doing anything to re-employ any of the 49ers concerned.
So bearing that in mind, the recruitment ban could go on forever, or at least until all the people involved in the union retire. A VERY long time!
So back to my original question, do the 89 people think that joining CX would make you a sc@b?
The way I see it at the moment (I'm sure someone will have a different view) I've never seen a company re-employ a person they have sacked and CX don't appear to be doing anything to re-employ any of the 49ers concerned.
So bearing that in mind, the recruitment ban could go on forever, or at least until all the people involved in the union retire. A VERY long time!
So back to my original question, do the 89 people think that joining CX would make you a sc@b?
Are you asking the right question?
You might find the following to be a little more relevant:
http://bbs.hkalpa.org/public/ban.htm
You might find the following to be a little more relevant:
http://bbs.hkalpa.org/public/ban.htm
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b58cptn - please be careful about asking questions from others. If you seek information, then it's fine and ok. But, if you seek a salve for your conscience, then you run the risk of defining your life by others agendas.
The fact is. IFALPA has a recruitment ban in force against CX. Israel may live in perpetual breach of UN resolutions, but generally speaking, the international community adheres to the dictates of it's peak authorities. In the community of pilots, an IFALPA recruitment ban is a dictate promulgated by the peak authority.
All the talk of rights and wrongs (a debate about the relative merits of the CX pilot cause and the behaviour of the group in question) is beside the point.
Anyone who breaches an IFALPA recruitment ban is a scab in the eyes of the international unionised pilot community. 89'ers will conform with this international standard.
The olden days when the label scab could only be applied to someone who had 'crossed a picket line' or 'was a strike breaker' are long gone. Modern employment law gives so much power to employers that employees have been forced in guerilla warfare industrially. The net result is that 'queensberry rules' (SP?) have become redundant if not naive. Industrial disputes are no longer characterised by strikes and stoppages because the law precludes such up-front methods. Accordingly, the labels that can be applied to industrial players are not as straight forward as they used to be, and the usage of the word scab has understandably become broader than in the past. I believe it is reasonable to apply the label to anyone who breaks a union ban or is actively working against the interests of the union during a declared industrial conflict.
The fact is. IFALPA has a recruitment ban in force against CX. Israel may live in perpetual breach of UN resolutions, but generally speaking, the international community adheres to the dictates of it's peak authorities. In the community of pilots, an IFALPA recruitment ban is a dictate promulgated by the peak authority.
All the talk of rights and wrongs (a debate about the relative merits of the CX pilot cause and the behaviour of the group in question) is beside the point.
Anyone who breaches an IFALPA recruitment ban is a scab in the eyes of the international unionised pilot community. 89'ers will conform with this international standard.
The olden days when the label scab could only be applied to someone who had 'crossed a picket line' or 'was a strike breaker' are long gone. Modern employment law gives so much power to employers that employees have been forced in guerilla warfare industrially. The net result is that 'queensberry rules' (SP?) have become redundant if not naive. Industrial disputes are no longer characterised by strikes and stoppages because the law precludes such up-front methods. Accordingly, the labels that can be applied to industrial players are not as straight forward as they used to be, and the usage of the word scab has understandably become broader than in the past. I believe it is reasonable to apply the label to anyone who breaks a union ban or is actively working against the interests of the union during a declared industrial conflict.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hhhmmmm
HIALS
Well put, i generally agree with what you are saying however i do see the frustration with CX wannabees in the lack of fire within CX. Maybe if we put up more of a fight within then the pilot community would have more reason to support our cause(?).
I think though the word scab is a bit over the top since i dont recall calling any of our non supporting senior pilots by that name during MSS or 99', but the point is that IFALPA will, queensberry rules definitely dont apply here especially in Hongkers!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck all.....
Well put, i generally agree with what you are saying however i do see the frustration with CX wannabees in the lack of fire within CX. Maybe if we put up more of a fight within then the pilot community would have more reason to support our cause(?).
I think though the word scab is a bit over the top since i dont recall calling any of our non supporting senior pilots by that name during MSS or 99', but the point is that IFALPA will, queensberry rules definitely dont apply here especially in Hongkers!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck all.....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: All the leaves are brown, and the sky is grey....
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont disagree entirely but, by your terms of reference HIALS I could call many people a scab: eg, those who didnt partake in MSS and perhaps even those who dont vote with the majority, or speak out against some aspects of the AOA?
If we start to brand those who speak out, we stiffle free speech...the old, 'your either with us or against us' scenario starts to sound more like socialist propaganda.
Nouns must have definitions or the meaning becomes so grey the the power of the word becomes insignificant. Scab is a powerful word (under its current oxford definition)..... widening the scope/usage may in fact undermine its worth?
Just thinking out loud.
If we start to brand those who speak out, we stiffle free speech...the old, 'your either with us or against us' scenario starts to sound more like socialist propaganda.
Nouns must have definitions or the meaning becomes so grey the the power of the word becomes insignificant. Scab is a powerful word (under its current oxford definition)..... widening the scope/usage may in fact undermine its worth?
Just thinking out loud.