EBA & IR Issues in Australia (Not for those easily offended!)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowerlobe, tired and repetitive spin is not the sole domain of the LHR crew. In fact, the most tiring and repetitive spin comes from about 4 or 5 posters here who are very anti LHR crew.
If you voted no to the EBA, then congratulations. However, the majority voted to accept it and therefore it does not give you a right to launch a hate campaign against anyone who thinks of going up there. If they had gone up there without the endorsement of the faaa, then you would have a case. However, this is not the situation we are now in.
From my understanding, the tech crew deal will not allow for any foreign people to be employed, and they will actually get a rise in conditions for going up there (Singapore) if the eba gets up. If not, it is back to the drawing board (just try asking some of the techies you fly with). The overall sentiment is that the eba will get smashed. Perhaps we should have done the same, but the union has a lot to answer for at the end of the day.
If you voted no to the EBA, then congratulations. However, the majority voted to accept it and therefore it does not give you a right to launch a hate campaign against anyone who thinks of going up there. If they had gone up there without the endorsement of the faaa, then you would have a case. However, this is not the situation we are now in.
From my understanding, the tech crew deal will not allow for any foreign people to be employed, and they will actually get a rise in conditions for going up there (Singapore) if the eba gets up. If not, it is back to the drawing board (just try asking some of the techies you fly with). The overall sentiment is that the eba will get smashed. Perhaps we should have done the same, but the union has a lot to answer for at the end of the day.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
white pointer,
Quote-
"If they had gone up there without the endorsement of the faaa, then you would have a case"
The longhaul FAAA in no way supported or endorsed the LHR base.
Get your facts straight before posting your drivel.
Quote-
"If they had gone up there without the endorsement of the faaa, then you would have a case"
The longhaul FAAA in no way supported or endorsed the LHR base.
Get your facts straight before posting your drivel.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White pointer,
This is getting repetitive,but I do not hate anyone nor have I started a hate campaign against those who went to lhr.
It also does not matter what the faaa thinks but to me those who went to to LHR and took an effective pay cut and an increase in hours are helping the company erode our conditions in Australia.
'
The majority of those who went are either shorthaul or contract holders (who are hoping to get full time employment and to be honest I think it stinks the way the company treats them).There are very few longhaul crew there,if the company had wanted just to save on accomodation and allowances as they stated then they could have set up a base and used Australian crew but inreality they have always wanted to erode the award conditions of Australain crews .If they had not refused to pay the australian supperanuation they probably would have got a lot of Australian crews and still saved on Hotel and allowance costs
This is getting repetitive,but I do not hate anyone nor have I started a hate campaign against those who went to lhr.
It also does not matter what the faaa thinks but to me those who went to to LHR and took an effective pay cut and an increase in hours are helping the company erode our conditions in Australia.
'
The majority of those who went are either shorthaul or contract holders (who are hoping to get full time employment and to be honest I think it stinks the way the company treats them).There are very few longhaul crew there,if the company had wanted just to save on accomodation and allowances as they stated then they could have set up a base and used Australian crew but inreality they have always wanted to erode the award conditions of Australain crews .If they had not refused to pay the australian supperanuation they probably would have got a lot of Australian crews and still saved on Hotel and allowance costs
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why then did they agree to anything with regards a cap on the LHR base in the eba when they could have turned around and told management 'no we don't accept any base and if it goes ahead there will be no eba sign off, and the company will be subject to industrial action.'
When some people rang the union for advice about accepting the offer to go up there, they were not told by the union not to go (they could easily have taken the line that anyone who goes up there is banned from being a member in the future, or perhaps some other measure). While they didn't get out and encourage people to go, they did not actively discourage it.
I just getted really annoyed at certain people who go around making up crap to put people down who are up there. Some did it because they needed to in order to remain employed. What would the association have done if they took the moral high ground and said thanks, but we don't want to upset other f/a's and will therefore go on the dole. What would you have done in the same situation (young, employed, enjoying travels, but facing the prospect of suddenly being unemployed?).
At the end of the day, the little bribe by the union to get us to agree to the eba with the free trip to london (what a lot of use it turned out to be) turned out to be a total disaster.
For your information also, I voted no. Others didn't however, and the majority rules so that is life.
When some people rang the union for advice about accepting the offer to go up there, they were not told by the union not to go (they could easily have taken the line that anyone who goes up there is banned from being a member in the future, or perhaps some other measure). While they didn't get out and encourage people to go, they did not actively discourage it.
I just getted really annoyed at certain people who go around making up crap to put people down who are up there. Some did it because they needed to in order to remain employed. What would the association have done if they took the moral high ground and said thanks, but we don't want to upset other f/a's and will therefore go on the dole. What would you have done in the same situation (young, employed, enjoying travels, but facing the prospect of suddenly being unemployed?).
At the end of the day, the little bribe by the union to get us to agree to the eba with the free trip to london (what a lot of use it turned out to be) turned out to be a total disaster.
For your information also, I voted no. Others didn't however, and the majority rules so that is life.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White pointer,
I take it,that you are on the LHR base,if so then you wanted to go irrespective of the effect.
Don't try to justify your decision on the what the faaa did or did not do..
I take it,that you are on the LHR base,if so then you wanted to go irrespective of the effect.
Don't try to justify your decision on the what the faaa did or did not do..
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHITE POINTER ASSERTED
"Some short sighted people seem to not realise the LHR base went ahead with the support of the union and members who voted in the last eba."
The endless confusion and ignorance is amazing!
White pointer - the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base. My god man where were you all of last year while the O/S based issue raged and the FAAA was on the airwaves, in newspapers, TV and radio almost daily , including a 7.30 REPORT episode devoted to the issue which was organised by the FAAA?
EBA 6 had a cap of 370 on overseas bases which expired on 17 December 2004. The next day QF had the capacity to employ unlimited crew O/S because the cap legally ceased to exist.
The reason why the 370 cap expired was because the previous FAAA officials Brem, Warner, Broome etc had a date limited cap. It was one of the reasons Mijatov and Smedley opposed EBA 6 and told us to vote against it.
What the current FAAA people succeeded in doing is placing a new cap of 870 that does not automatically expire at the end of EBA7.
The current FAAA people did not support the London base, they merely rectified the lack of a cap from EBA6 along with fixing up lots of other problems left over from the previous buffoons.
People need to be careful from continually asserting things in here that are factually wrong.
What it further demonstrates is that many crew really have little appreciation of the issues or the complexities of the major industrial issues confronting us.
Hopefully crew will attend the upcoming FAAA meetings next month and receive a proper briefing on issues rather than listening to the nonsense peddled in here at times by well meaning amateurs and at other times, morons who are ex FAAA fools or their mates.
"Some short sighted people seem to not realise the LHR base went ahead with the support of the union and members who voted in the last eba."
The endless confusion and ignorance is amazing!
White pointer - the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base. My god man where were you all of last year while the O/S based issue raged and the FAAA was on the airwaves, in newspapers, TV and radio almost daily , including a 7.30 REPORT episode devoted to the issue which was organised by the FAAA?
EBA 6 had a cap of 370 on overseas bases which expired on 17 December 2004. The next day QF had the capacity to employ unlimited crew O/S because the cap legally ceased to exist.
The reason why the 370 cap expired was because the previous FAAA officials Brem, Warner, Broome etc had a date limited cap. It was one of the reasons Mijatov and Smedley opposed EBA 6 and told us to vote against it.
What the current FAAA people succeeded in doing is placing a new cap of 870 that does not automatically expire at the end of EBA7.
The current FAAA people did not support the London base, they merely rectified the lack of a cap from EBA6 along with fixing up lots of other problems left over from the previous buffoons.
People need to be careful from continually asserting things in here that are factually wrong.
What it further demonstrates is that many crew really have little appreciation of the issues or the complexities of the major industrial issues confronting us.
Hopefully crew will attend the upcoming FAAA meetings next month and receive a proper briefing on issues rather than listening to the nonsense peddled in here at times by well meaning amateurs and at other times, morons who are ex FAAA fools or their mates.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
white pointer.
I have had this discussion with peanut pusher re the FAAA support for the LHR base, it simply didn't happen.
What amazes me is that you went up to LHR base without even knowing the basic facts! did you really believe that the FAAA supported this base.
I think its about time you read your contract, you may find some surprising things in it.
You have read it haven't you?
Read and re-read what Guardian has stated, its 100% accurate.
Now I understand why the company are having a field day with its "spin" there are people out there that will believe anything.
as guardian stated, "where were you during the endless letters and correspondence from both the company and FAAA during the EBA negotiations!.
You have made me realise what a battle the FAAA faces in ensuring that members are aware of the FACTS
I have had this discussion with peanut pusher re the FAAA support for the LHR base, it simply didn't happen.
What amazes me is that you went up to LHR base without even knowing the basic facts! did you really believe that the FAAA supported this base.
I think its about time you read your contract, you may find some surprising things in it.
You have read it haven't you?
Read and re-read what Guardian has stated, its 100% accurate.
Now I understand why the company are having a field day with its "spin" there are people out there that will believe anything.
as guardian stated, "where were you during the endless letters and correspondence from both the company and FAAA during the EBA negotiations!.
You have made me realise what a battle the FAAA faces in ensuring that members are aware of the FACTS
Last edited by tow-truck; 22nd Aug 2005 at 13:11.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I am not on the LHR base. Just sick of some of the crap being invented about the base that is a figment of some peoples imagination. All you succeed in doing is making the rest of us look like fools as well (even though we don't all share your extreme opinions).
I, like others, am unhappy to lose European flying. However, with all the crap you dish out, there is no chance of going up there for a couple of years while I can in order to travel Europe and have a good time. Would you not rather the base be crewed by Australians, or if no Australian crew go up you would rather see it totally staffed by locals. Any Australian who goes up there is branded a scab for life by some of you morons, but for every one who doesn't go up there is one less job for an Australian and one more job for an English local.
Anyhow, whatever points people put forward here cannot ever make sense to some, so I won't waste my time trying.
I, like others, am unhappy to lose European flying. However, with all the crap you dish out, there is no chance of going up there for a couple of years while I can in order to travel Europe and have a good time. Would you not rather the base be crewed by Australians, or if no Australian crew go up you would rather see it totally staffed by locals. Any Australian who goes up there is branded a scab for life by some of you morons, but for every one who doesn't go up there is one less job for an Australian and one more job for an English local.
Anyhow, whatever points people put forward here cannot ever make sense to some, so I won't waste my time trying.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Out
So you want to go the LHR base because you want to see Europe, ok I can understand that. Have you thought about how firstly you are helping the company both financially and by eroding the condition of Australian based crew? You call us morons but have a look at the conditions of the base.
Why do they insist that you take leave with out pay, take a look at the cabin crew site at the conditions the company insist on if you take LWOP…Ask if they will put in writing, that they will give you your old position, in the same location at the same pay when you get back…in those words.
Second, look at the part where they say if there has been a re-organization of the company while you are on LWOP, you will either have to take CR or be re-deployed within the company.
They will tell you that these are standard conditions when you take LWOP, but you are not taking LWOP to go surfing in Tahiti or backpacking through Europe, you are taking LWOP at their insistence because they have registered the company in the UK so they don’t have any Australian obligations like Superannuation.
Look at question No.3 on the application form:
“Do you agree to work overtime and accept legal changes to your rostering at short notice?”
Firstly, QF UK do not pay overtime, so why that clause.
Secondly, legal changes to your rostering at short notice...legal in what country and what changes exactly. It leaves you wide open to what ever they want to do to you. If they do not intend to use this clause, why did they insist on you signing it?
If you still are considering going to the LHR base with these conditions, a cut in pay, give up your Australian superannuation contributions (that makes it a very expensive working holiday) and no real guarantee of your existing job back when your contract expires, then it is not me that is a moron.
Lowerlobe
So you want to go the LHR base because you want to see Europe, ok I can understand that. Have you thought about how firstly you are helping the company both financially and by eroding the condition of Australian based crew? You call us morons but have a look at the conditions of the base.
Why do they insist that you take leave with out pay, take a look at the cabin crew site at the conditions the company insist on if you take LWOP…Ask if they will put in writing, that they will give you your old position, in the same location at the same pay when you get back…in those words.
Second, look at the part where they say if there has been a re-organization of the company while you are on LWOP, you will either have to take CR or be re-deployed within the company.
They will tell you that these are standard conditions when you take LWOP, but you are not taking LWOP to go surfing in Tahiti or backpacking through Europe, you are taking LWOP at their insistence because they have registered the company in the UK so they don’t have any Australian obligations like Superannuation.
Look at question No.3 on the application form:
“Do you agree to work overtime and accept legal changes to your rostering at short notice?”
Firstly, QF UK do not pay overtime, so why that clause.
Secondly, legal changes to your rostering at short notice...legal in what country and what changes exactly. It leaves you wide open to what ever they want to do to you. If they do not intend to use this clause, why did they insist on you signing it?
If you still are considering going to the LHR base with these conditions, a cut in pay, give up your Australian superannuation contributions (that makes it a very expensive working holiday) and no real guarantee of your existing job back when your contract expires, then it is not me that is a moron.
Lowerlobe
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The longhaul FAAA in no way supported or endorsed the LHR base
Therefore, the LHR base and the increase in crew based offshore IS endorsed by the FAAA. They have signed it.
Perhaps you JL should "Get your facts straight before posting your drivel."
PS The last line is lifted from JL's post as an example of his inability to form a valid argument without some form of abuse.
Last edited by Jet_Black_Monaro; 22nd Aug 2005 at 22:54.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need I say more
Above is yet another example.
Yet where is your response JL? Is what I have written incorrect?
Does the EBA allow for a LHR base? YES!
Does the EBA allow for an increase in foreign based crew? YES!
Did the majority of moderate crew (over 70%) endorse the acceptance of the EBA with these bases included in the deal? YES!
Is the EBA endorsed by the FAAA by way of their signatures on the document? YES!
Do you choose to differ with any of the above? If so, I would love to hear it!
Yet where is your response JL? Is what I have written incorrect?
Does the EBA allow for a LHR base? YES!
Does the EBA allow for an increase in foreign based crew? YES!
Did the majority of moderate crew (over 70%) endorse the acceptance of the EBA with these bases included in the deal? YES!
Is the EBA endorsed by the FAAA by way of their signatures on the document? YES!
Do you choose to differ with any of the above? If so, I would love to hear it!
Last edited by Jet_Black_Monaro; 22nd Aug 2005 at 23:07.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jbm [our resident virgin blue fa],
no. What you have written isn't correct.
I'll cut and paste a recent post from Guardian1 that should assist you with the facts.
Quote-
"The endless confusion and ignorance is amazing!
White pointer - the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base. My god man where were you all of last year while the O/S based issue raged and the FAAA was on the airwaves, in newspapers, TV and radio almost daily , including a 7.30 REPORT episode devoted to the issue which was organised by the FAAA?
EBA 6 had a cap of 370 on overseas bases which expired on 17 December 2004. The next day QF had the capacity to employ unlimited crew O/S because the cap legally ceased to exist.
The reason why the 370 cap expired was because the previous FAAA officials Brem, Warner, Broome etc had a date limited cap. It was one of the reasons Mijatov and Smedley opposed EBA 6 and told us to vote against it.
What the current FAAA people succeeded in doing is placing a new cap of 870 that does not automatically expire at the end of EBA7.
The current FAAA people did not support the London base, they merely rectified the lack of a cap from EBA6 along with fixing up lots of other problems left over from the previous buffoons.
People need to be careful from continually asserting things in here that are factually wrong.
What it further demonstrates is that many crew really have little appreciation of the issues or the complexities of the major industrial issues confronting us.
Hopefully crew will attend the upcoming FAAA meetings next month and receive a proper briefing on issues rather than listening to the nonsense peddled in here at times by well meaning amateurs and at other times, morons who are ex FAAA fools or their mates."
Jettlager
P.S. I hope your face painting is going well and that chris is providing timely amendments to your "joke book" manuals.
no. What you have written isn't correct.
I'll cut and paste a recent post from Guardian1 that should assist you with the facts.
Quote-
"The endless confusion and ignorance is amazing!
White pointer - the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base. My god man where were you all of last year while the O/S based issue raged and the FAAA was on the airwaves, in newspapers, TV and radio almost daily , including a 7.30 REPORT episode devoted to the issue which was organised by the FAAA?
EBA 6 had a cap of 370 on overseas bases which expired on 17 December 2004. The next day QF had the capacity to employ unlimited crew O/S because the cap legally ceased to exist.
The reason why the 370 cap expired was because the previous FAAA officials Brem, Warner, Broome etc had a date limited cap. It was one of the reasons Mijatov and Smedley opposed EBA 6 and told us to vote against it.
What the current FAAA people succeeded in doing is placing a new cap of 870 that does not automatically expire at the end of EBA7.
The current FAAA people did not support the London base, they merely rectified the lack of a cap from EBA6 along with fixing up lots of other problems left over from the previous buffoons.
People need to be careful from continually asserting things in here that are factually wrong.
What it further demonstrates is that many crew really have little appreciation of the issues or the complexities of the major industrial issues confronting us.
Hopefully crew will attend the upcoming FAAA meetings next month and receive a proper briefing on issues rather than listening to the nonsense peddled in here at times by well meaning amateurs and at other times, morons who are ex FAAA fools or their mates."
Jettlager
P.S. I hope your face painting is going well and that chris is providing timely amendments to your "joke book" manuals.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JL, Why did you delete the other posts? So untrue they were laughable perhaps?
You are seriously in denial. Perhaps that's what one eyed unionism does to you.
You wrote "The longhaul FAAA in no way supported or endorsed the LHR base" [ie before you deleted it]
This statement is incorrect. The endorsement was given by way of the signatures of the authorised representatives of the FAAA rabble.
You have then written "the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base"
This statement is also incorrect as the majority of LH crew, over 70% did support it by way of their vote.
What I assume you meant to say is that YOU didn't endorse it. However your extremist and radical views are displayed on this forum for all to see so I need not say more.
PS Would you seriously deny a 4 yo kid the joy of having their face painted on a transcontinental flight? Bit uncool for you is it? I guess they can't drag you out of the galley where you sit there doing f*ck all - something you have boasted about in the past
You are seriously in denial. Perhaps that's what one eyed unionism does to you.
You wrote "The longhaul FAAA in no way supported or endorsed the LHR base" [ie before you deleted it]
This statement is incorrect. The endorsement was given by way of the signatures of the authorised representatives of the FAAA rabble.
You have then written "the FAAA and the members did not support the LHR base"
This statement is also incorrect as the majority of LH crew, over 70% did support it by way of their vote.
What I assume you meant to say is that YOU didn't endorse it. However your extremist and radical views are displayed on this forum for all to see so I need not say more.
PS Would you seriously deny a 4 yo kid the joy of having their face painted on a transcontinental flight? Bit uncool for you is it? I guess they can't drag you out of the galley where you sit there doing f*ck all - something you have boasted about in the past
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBM,
I suppose that if you drive a Jet Black Monaro(probably a HQ) then you don’t understand subtlety.
There is a distinct difference between acceptance and an endorsement ..subtle but distinct.
By the way,how much profit did VB make this year,you might want to join a union if your conditions come under threat
I suppose that if you drive a Jet Black Monaro(probably a HQ) then you don’t understand subtlety.
There is a distinct difference between acceptance and an endorsement ..subtle but distinct.
By the way,how much profit did VB make this year,you might want to join a union if your conditions come under threat
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhhh JBM you're back!
You really have no idea what you're talking about!
read what you like into it!
the FAAA and the majority of LH crew does not support the LHR base, they would have supported it if it had our conditions and not posed a threat to our way of life.
ohhhh what am I doing, I'm replying to one of your ridiculous posts! go and do some face painting will you, how about a little medley along the aisles....
why dont you start a new topic on life at VB, I hear things are not all that "rosy"
You really have no idea what you're talking about!
read what you like into it!
the FAAA and the majority of LH crew does not support the LHR base, they would have supported it if it had our conditions and not posed a threat to our way of life.
ohhhh what am I doing, I'm replying to one of your ridiculous posts! go and do some face painting will you, how about a little medley along the aisles....
why dont you start a new topic on life at VB, I hear things are not all that "rosy"
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will NEVER join a union, ever.
The extremist lefties that dwell on this site further cement that view. I can assure you that unionists at VB are in the minority and "union speak" on board is generally treated with contempt.
We work for Virgin Blue, not the FAAA.
Towtruck, you say the FAAA and the majority of LH crew does not support the LHR base. The only poll taken on that issue was the EBA vote. So unless you have polled all the LH crew since the EBA vote, which I doubt, this statement is untested.
Perhaps you meant to say it isn't supported by the majority of the radical left. Now that is more likely to be a correct statement.
Things not rosy at Virgin? What? Are you telling me the sky is falling?
The extremist lefties that dwell on this site further cement that view. I can assure you that unionists at VB are in the minority and "union speak" on board is generally treated with contempt.
We work for Virgin Blue, not the FAAA.
Towtruck, you say the FAAA and the majority of LH crew does not support the LHR base. The only poll taken on that issue was the EBA vote. So unless you have polled all the LH crew since the EBA vote, which I doubt, this statement is untested.
Perhaps you meant to say it isn't supported by the majority of the radical left. Now that is more likely to be a correct statement.
Things not rosy at Virgin? What? Are you telling me the sky is falling?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union membership increasing at Virgin?
What is your source. Please provide evidence of this statement or is it just another throw away comment.
What I do find hilarious is the crew that run out and join the union when they are just about to be sacked, thereby placing a drain on union resources.
But strangely enough, they still get sacked! I have never seen anyone get sacked that didn't totally deserve to be. And your silly little union comes running in the door to hold their hand while they get the bullet because that's about all they can do.
What I do find hilarious is the crew that run out and join the union when they are just about to be sacked, thereby placing a drain on union resources.
But strangely enough, they still get sacked! I have never seen anyone get sacked that didn't totally deserve to be. And your silly little union comes running in the door to hold their hand while they get the bullet because that's about all they can do.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBM...
Rather than try to explain the difference between acceptance and endorsement and your other anti union drivel etc..…I will change the subject..
Has anyone else had any trouble with the new CIS program, in particular with a firewall preventing it working?
Rather than try to explain the difference between acceptance and endorsement and your other anti union drivel etc..…I will change the subject..
Has anyone else had any trouble with the new CIS program, in particular with a firewall preventing it working?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: baxter
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surprisingly JBM I agree with you that there are people that join the union before they get sacked!
and yes they do eventually get the sack!
I find these people the lowest of all!
But have you noticed that they do get the sack! maybe the unions are aware of the treachery and they take their money and let them swim or should I say sink!
Anyway JBM lets get back to the topic.
Its not a throw away line, membership in the UNION at VB is on the increase across all areas.
YOU will be the minority, just wait till chris gets his hands on you!
People like you will be the first to join the union for protection.
and yes they do eventually get the sack!
I find these people the lowest of all!
But have you noticed that they do get the sack! maybe the unions are aware of the treachery and they take their money and let them swim or should I say sink!
Anyway JBM lets get back to the topic.
Its not a throw away line, membership in the UNION at VB is on the increase across all areas.
YOU will be the minority, just wait till chris gets his hands on you!
People like you will be the first to join the union for protection.