You have to admire the optimism considering Qantas are still led by the CEO who locked everyone out in 2011.
|
Originally Posted by Give it the herbs
(Post 10810498)
I must have missed the part of the EBA that says they'll only fire males in reverse seniority
|
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
(Post 10810603)
With the current PC climate that we find ourselves in, you're highly optimistic if you don't think there will be a 50/50 gender "equality" quota installed when all this turns around..
Let's hope no one needs to be made redundant on the list. Re your earlier post, suggesting taking LWOP (or some variation of) to be recalled in seniority would be a disadvantage to males only is drawing a longbow. However, I do agree 50/50 gender targets will be back on HR's menu once the hiring wave begins down the track, as it was pre CV19. |
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
(Post 10810603)
With the current PC climate that we find ourselves in, you're highly optimistic if you don't think there will be a 50/50 gender "equality" quota installed when all this turns around..
|
Love all this pie in the sky BS you guys are going on about.
Redundancy and re-employment are all VERY well covered in the EBA. As is LWOP, stand down, and all the good things that go with it. As fun as it is to poke fun at QF - the pilots EBA spells out what can and can not happen. Deep breath and relax folks - the sky isn’t falling. |
Originally Posted by JamieMaree
(Post 10810651)
You are dreaming . as someone once said, RTFA. (Read the fuc*king Agreement)
In other words, what stops a company coming out and saying "in line with gender equality criteria, we will be employing at 50/50"? |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10810516)
F##k HR and the horse they rode in on.
Amen to that ! Best post here |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10810516)
F##k HR and the horse they rode in on.
Amen to that ! Best post here |
Better be careful, HR hold a pretty good hand in this scenario.
|
The EA has pretty comprehensive guidance around re-employment. If a pilot has complied with the EA requirements it’d take a pretty significant argument by the company to suggest that re-employment should be by different means.
|
I wouldn't be too worried about any gender targets re: hiring because the QF group won't be hiring for a long long time
Remember mainline didn't hire for 8 years post GFC , & this is a tad worse , international business now at zero and will stay there for the foreseeable future Wouldn't the only hiring be reshuffling those already within the group ? Agree with Keg that CR is clear how re-employment occurs . On that point why would any ML person take a VR ? , the payout will be lesser than CR and there is no right of return, and no other flying jobs out there The return to work following a stand down is clear as mud , no details , nothing prescriptive at all , ie" by seniority , by type , by base , by % of normal workload No details there You should just unite as a group and make QF make you CR if that is what it comes to , payouts maximised & a guaranteed right of return first The only other element you might be able to add is preference for employment with other group airlines , in Australia & OS while you wait , or other employment in the group |
For anyone that may not know Keg, he has been around a long,long time and his view is always worth listening to!
|
We will just have to settle for reading it here, at least until pprune comes with an audio function on e day.
|
Originally Posted by ozbiggles
(Post 10811174)
We will just have to settle for reading it here, at least until pprune comes with an audio function on e day.
I think it’s also worth looking at this from the company’s perspective- isn’t that a Sun Tzu thing to consider your predicament from the opposition’s view point? Do you think they’d prefer to pay 6 months to someone at the start of their career and run the risk of not getting them back or find the ‘sweet spot’ amount of money (perhaps a similar amount of money or perhaps less depending on who they’re offering) to get people to leave at the end of their careers and still retain the investment on those newer crew. If the A380 is a chance to remain stood down beyond March next year and/ or reduced capacity when it comes back, would an A380 Captain consider taking a package worth (say) $150K in March next year or potentially work 50% (or less) divisors for the next 12 months until they get to retirement? I’m also pretty confident that the company can put an individual offer to specific crew so I’m sure there would be a bit of a ‘sliding scale’ as to how much a particular pilot may be offered depending on their time to retirement. Anyway, it’s going to be a rough couple of years. Very few winners anywhere. |
Keg FM....I’d tune in.
|
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
(Post 10810687)
What I admittedly don't understand is how someone can be assured that they are covered by an agreement if they are not employed by the company.
In other words, what stops a company coming out and saying "in line with gender equality criteria, we will be employing at 50/50"? But it is amusing watching pilots soil their strides at the thought of losing almost exclusivity in the workplace. |
Losing exclusivity in the workplace? You mean their own individual jobs?
|
But why would you accept a VR ?
The money will be less than CR and you forfeit guaranteed right of return Think Keg is incorrect in thinking that a sliding scale can be offered which targets those who are older Don't VRs just apply for years of service , not years remaining , why for example would a 55 year old leave - they will not get another job Just stick together and maximize the payout to any who get CR , make AJ pay the full amount as prescribed by EA "If" there is a CR it would have to be done in seniority , so a % of those at the bottom go & are all reemployed within 5 years - all works out The Kiwis acted promptly and set the example - just follow it and try to get provisions in any deal for those made redundant to have preference for employment at other QF group airlines (obviously after their own for example Qlink come back) The only variable is if you have to CR across each division of mainline - are SH FOs who have been around for short time protected by the fact they went to SH |
Originally Posted by Gazza mate
(Post 10811917)
Careful oicur12. Pilots are loosing their livelihood and some have gone further than “soil their strides”. Just look at what’s happened at EK in the last week. Very sad. I don’t think it’s amusing at all.
What a low life comment. |
Originally Posted by oicur12.again
(Post 10811727)
Not legal.
But it is amusing watching pilots soil their strides at the thought of losing almost exclusivity in the workplace. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.