JetStar Cabin Crew EBA
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from todays Australian newpaper regarding the new IR laws.
I like the bit about unfair dismissal - 'operational reasons?'. JQ would really love this...
For all the nay-sayers out there, the threats are very much reality.
I like the bit about unfair dismissal - 'operational reasons?'. JQ would really love this...
"Most employers will have the power to dismiss without needing to give a reason. The only available recourse will be if an employee can prove unlawful dismissal because of discrimination. Unlawful dismissal claims will be difficult to prove if an employer gives no reason for the sacking. And the cost of running a case in the Federal Court -- at least $30,000 -- will be an obvious restraint on employees.
People in firms with more than 100 staff, such as BHP Billiton, Qantas or Coles Myer, will keep the right to claim unfair dismissal, based on harsh, unjust or unreasonable treatment. But from Monday such employers will also have the right to dismiss for ``genuine operational reasons''.
The minister's chief minder, Ian Hanke, plays down the significance of this clause and says it is linked to redundancy. Most industrial lawyers disagree and believe it will be fought out in the courts. This is because there is no mention of redundancy in the new provision and the definition of operational reasons is vague: the law says an employee will not be unfairly dismissed if the termination is ``for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature relating to the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business, or a part of the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business.''
Joe Catanzariti, partner and head of workplace relations at law firm Clayton Utz, says such dismissals must include genuine operational reasons and does not believe redundancy is relevant. ``If the Government wanted it to mean redundancy, they would have said so,'' he says.
Andrew Stewart, professor of industrial law at Flinders University, says two interpretations are possible. The first, based on a literal reading, will allow employers to escape almost all unfair dismissal claims. ``Most dismissals have something to do with a person's conduct or capacity and it would be easy to rationalise as something to do with the business,'' Stewart says. ``If that interpretation is accepted, there are no unfair dismissal laws.''
The other interpretation, he says, is that ``operational reasons'' have been linked in the past with retrenchment and therefore could be code. ``In that context it would refer to a dismissal by reason of redundancy.''
One clear-cut change for many serving employees from Monday is that a list of conditions until now legally permissible in employment contracts will become invalid and get deleted from existing agreements.
These conditions, called prohibited content, include paid leave to attend union meetings and the right of unions to participate in resolving disputes. The Government justifies the deletions on the ground that only matters linked to the employment relationship should be allowed in agreements between a company and its workforce.
The world will most definitely change for new employees, depending on their bargaining leverage. From Monday, employers will be free to offer jobs on vastly reduced conditions.
In the past, entitlements including overtime, penalty rates, shift work, allowances and public holidays had to be taken into account so workers were no worse off in overall terms than the award for their occupation. In future, just five minimum conditions will apply: a minimum wage starting at $484 a week, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave and an averaged 38-hour week. And most employees who were previously employed under more generous state systems will be dragged into the net under a new national regime. "
People in firms with more than 100 staff, such as BHP Billiton, Qantas or Coles Myer, will keep the right to claim unfair dismissal, based on harsh, unjust or unreasonable treatment. But from Monday such employers will also have the right to dismiss for ``genuine operational reasons''.
The minister's chief minder, Ian Hanke, plays down the significance of this clause and says it is linked to redundancy. Most industrial lawyers disagree and believe it will be fought out in the courts. This is because there is no mention of redundancy in the new provision and the definition of operational reasons is vague: the law says an employee will not be unfairly dismissed if the termination is ``for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature relating to the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business, or a part of the employer's undertaking, establishment, service or business.''
Joe Catanzariti, partner and head of workplace relations at law firm Clayton Utz, says such dismissals must include genuine operational reasons and does not believe redundancy is relevant. ``If the Government wanted it to mean redundancy, they would have said so,'' he says.
Andrew Stewart, professor of industrial law at Flinders University, says two interpretations are possible. The first, based on a literal reading, will allow employers to escape almost all unfair dismissal claims. ``Most dismissals have something to do with a person's conduct or capacity and it would be easy to rationalise as something to do with the business,'' Stewart says. ``If that interpretation is accepted, there are no unfair dismissal laws.''
The other interpretation, he says, is that ``operational reasons'' have been linked in the past with retrenchment and therefore could be code. ``In that context it would refer to a dismissal by reason of redundancy.''
One clear-cut change for many serving employees from Monday is that a list of conditions until now legally permissible in employment contracts will become invalid and get deleted from existing agreements.
These conditions, called prohibited content, include paid leave to attend union meetings and the right of unions to participate in resolving disputes. The Government justifies the deletions on the ground that only matters linked to the employment relationship should be allowed in agreements between a company and its workforce.
The world will most definitely change for new employees, depending on their bargaining leverage. From Monday, employers will be free to offer jobs on vastly reduced conditions.
In the past, entitlements including overtime, penalty rates, shift work, allowances and public holidays had to be taken into account so workers were no worse off in overall terms than the award for their occupation. In future, just five minimum conditions will apply: a minimum wage starting at $484 a week, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave and an averaged 38-hour week. And most employees who were previously employed under more generous state systems will be dragged into the net under a new national regime. "
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact or Fiction
Everything you have posted mr seatback is true......
Just need to update with a few facts........
Jetstar is a growing airline,,, they can't fire us bask on operational requirements,,, we are a growing airline, would be interesting to see them get out of that one....... QF and AO might be a bit different
All we will lose at Jetstar is Base transfers and other fuzzy crap that the company like to use as a bargaining tool,,,
The company would need to negotiate the 5 minimum conditions...... but in saying that like they have the resurces to do so.....
As a "nay-sayer" and a pretty switched on one at that..... I have done my homework and have not really gained insight from the Galley. pprune, or the Murdoch press........ People like to dramatise....thats how they sell newspapers
We will be fine, stand your ground and get what you want..... If the company wants to run me out of the organisation then they are not the kind or organisation i wish to work for......
Just need to update with a few facts........
Jetstar is a growing airline,,, they can't fire us bask on operational requirements,,, we are a growing airline, would be interesting to see them get out of that one....... QF and AO might be a bit different
All we will lose at Jetstar is Base transfers and other fuzzy crap that the company like to use as a bargaining tool,,,
The company would need to negotiate the 5 minimum conditions...... but in saying that like they have the resurces to do so.....
As a "nay-sayer" and a pretty switched on one at that..... I have done my homework and have not really gained insight from the Galley. pprune, or the Murdoch press........ People like to dramatise....thats how they sell newspapers
We will be fine, stand your ground and get what you want..... If the company wants to run me out of the organisation then they are not the kind or organisation i wish to work for......
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Jetstar is a growing airline,,, they can't fire us bask on operational requirements,,, we are a growing airline, would be interesting to see them get out of that one....... QF and AO might be a bit different
All we will lose at Jetstar is Base transfers and other fuzzy crap that the company like to use as a bargaining tool"
All we will lose at Jetstar is Base transfers and other fuzzy crap that the company like to use as a bargaining tool"
That's also according to a few friends of mine who work in the IR field in other industries - not just airlines. 'Operational reasons' is a very broad term, sadly. The test cases that will inevitably arise soon will of course provide clearer definition for this, one would hope.
"As a "nay-sayer" and a pretty switched on one at that..... I have done my homework and have not really gained insight from the Galley. pprune, or the Murdoch press........ People like to dramatise....thats how they sell newspapers"
I have no problem with people being nay-sayers to the EBA - that's a given. What I do despair at is the fact people don't think this legislation will affect them - growing airline or not, JQ and the QF Group at large will utilise as much of this new legislation as much as possible. With two Ryanair people at the helm, I think this is a given.
HOW and WHEN is anyone's guess.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: queensland
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetstarFA,
you are correct jetstar is a growing airline, right now these new IR changes are not designed to affect you guys at jetstar. They will predominantly be used to affect QF LHaul and QF S Haul.
what should concern you is not the short term future.
It is when your EBA is finished subject to when it is agreed of course. As I was saying when it is finished (I assume 3 years) what will you be prepared to negotiate on behalf of yourself to be awarded a contract of continuance.
A contract of continuance? you say. Oh yes! That is how the new system will operate if Labor aren't voted in federally. Yes, ally our hard work by assisting in establishing and growing both jet* and jet*intnl will be repaid with you having to accept a contract. Negotiated by you that is if there isn't some worm hole in all this IR stuff that prevents the FAAA negotiatingon your behalf. What if negotiations break down. What then?Thats how I understand it anyway. Im happy to be proven wrong if anyone could better enlighten me. We should all take the next few months as a learning phase and an opportunity of sharing information.
This is not the time for scaremongering.In saying that we should prepare for the worse.A big storm is on the way.Being mentally prepared and ready to cope with the unexpected and the infuriating will be a big plus to how you sail out the storm.
Good luck to us all
you are correct jetstar is a growing airline, right now these new IR changes are not designed to affect you guys at jetstar. They will predominantly be used to affect QF LHaul and QF S Haul.
what should concern you is not the short term future.
It is when your EBA is finished subject to when it is agreed of course. As I was saying when it is finished (I assume 3 years) what will you be prepared to negotiate on behalf of yourself to be awarded a contract of continuance.
A contract of continuance? you say. Oh yes! That is how the new system will operate if Labor aren't voted in federally. Yes, ally our hard work by assisting in establishing and growing both jet* and jet*intnl will be repaid with you having to accept a contract. Negotiated by you that is if there isn't some worm hole in all this IR stuff that prevents the FAAA negotiatingon your behalf. What if negotiations break down. What then?Thats how I understand it anyway. Im happy to be proven wrong if anyone could better enlighten me. We should all take the next few months as a learning phase and an opportunity of sharing information.
This is not the time for scaremongering.In saying that we should prepare for the worse.A big storm is on the way.Being mentally prepared and ready to cope with the unexpected and the infuriating will be a big plus to how you sail out the storm.
Good luck to us all
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Home
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surveys
Fill out and send in the surveys from the FAAA,
meet and discuss issues important to us with FAAA or Management in meetings,
think realisticaly of what you will be rostered in the next 3 years and what you physically will be able to do (if you strugglw now with long shifts..),
stress the importance that the other 33% remember to VOTE !!!!!!
meet and discuss issues important to us with FAAA or Management in meetings,
think realisticaly of what you will be rostered in the next 3 years and what you physically will be able to do (if you strugglw now with long shifts..),
stress the importance that the other 33% remember to VOTE !!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: oz
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spoke to faaa
Having read and re read this post (because thats the talk at work) i couldn't help but get mesmorised by the goings on on this site. I accept (like most of you i think) that everyone has a different opinion on the eba or the company for that matter and some of the information on here seems to be relatively on track. What i wanted to know was were do we actually go from here. Some say strike, others say fill in survey forms hold meetings but it seems most don't know what to do. I thought i'd do what seatback said and i phoned the faaa. I spoke to the industrial relations negotiator and asked her a few questions. The answers i got were:
q. What do we do next ?
a. fill in the survey and make sure you talk to crew and encourage the same from them the faaa needs to hear from all f/a's even the non members.
q. Then what will happen ?
a. we will collate them and at least know what the issues are that gave the no vote
q. What will you do then ?
a. Meet with the company (if they agree they haven't said anything so far) and try to negotiate again
q. Did you know that people are saying your following in JG's footsteps and taking a job with JQ ?
a. Had been told it was on a website.
q. Are you taking a job with JQ ?
a. No. Not sure why the woman who put it on the site would make it up but did understand it is probably the most harmful thing to say because it can lead to uncertainty and distrust in her which can only be harmful to the people she represents ie flight attendants.
q. Why the scaremongering at the road shows ?
a. Didn't do that and doesn't really believe that most f/a's think that. Explained what she could about the new ir changes. She said if that scared some people then thats unfortunate but there is nothing friendly to the worker in these changes.
q. so you agree we can't be forced onto a contract ?
a. depends on what you determine 'forced' to mean. your current agreement stays until replaced by another agreement but if all you get offered is a contract what will you do ? we will fight hard against any moves to put you on contracts but in the end it will be up to the crew to stand together. we believe that while JQ crew are divided at the moment contracts should get them to stand together, god help them if it doesn't.
q. Can we be sacked for 'operational' reasons ?
a. The latest info does suggest that even employers with over 100 staff can be exempt from unfair sacking claims if the sack is for operational reasons not sure how far this can be taken. any and all decisions made by the bosses under new ir changes will no doubt be tried and tested before final outcome, will need to wait and see.
I have to say i spoke with her for about 20 minutes and she was happy enough that i had called and to answer my questions.
For my first post and first public opinion i say this after my 20 min call: to date i can't see (please correct me if i've missed something) where they have told us the wrong thing, they were about a week late on the ir changes but thats about it. they want to negotiate again for us and they have sent out survey's again to hear from all JQ crew to find out what we want, so far so good i say. they seem to be showing leadership and i got 'the rumour' denied (and lets face it only time will tell) i'm happy enough to trust them let them do their thing. just my opinion
q. What do we do next ?
a. fill in the survey and make sure you talk to crew and encourage the same from them the faaa needs to hear from all f/a's even the non members.
q. Then what will happen ?
a. we will collate them and at least know what the issues are that gave the no vote
q. What will you do then ?
a. Meet with the company (if they agree they haven't said anything so far) and try to negotiate again
q. Did you know that people are saying your following in JG's footsteps and taking a job with JQ ?
a. Had been told it was on a website.
q. Are you taking a job with JQ ?
a. No. Not sure why the woman who put it on the site would make it up but did understand it is probably the most harmful thing to say because it can lead to uncertainty and distrust in her which can only be harmful to the people she represents ie flight attendants.
q. Why the scaremongering at the road shows ?
a. Didn't do that and doesn't really believe that most f/a's think that. Explained what she could about the new ir changes. She said if that scared some people then thats unfortunate but there is nothing friendly to the worker in these changes.
q. so you agree we can't be forced onto a contract ?
a. depends on what you determine 'forced' to mean. your current agreement stays until replaced by another agreement but if all you get offered is a contract what will you do ? we will fight hard against any moves to put you on contracts but in the end it will be up to the crew to stand together. we believe that while JQ crew are divided at the moment contracts should get them to stand together, god help them if it doesn't.
q. Can we be sacked for 'operational' reasons ?
a. The latest info does suggest that even employers with over 100 staff can be exempt from unfair sacking claims if the sack is for operational reasons not sure how far this can be taken. any and all decisions made by the bosses under new ir changes will no doubt be tried and tested before final outcome, will need to wait and see.
I have to say i spoke with her for about 20 minutes and she was happy enough that i had called and to answer my questions.
For my first post and first public opinion i say this after my 20 min call: to date i can't see (please correct me if i've missed something) where they have told us the wrong thing, they were about a week late on the ir changes but thats about it. they want to negotiate again for us and they have sent out survey's again to hear from all JQ crew to find out what we want, so far so good i say. they seem to be showing leadership and i got 'the rumour' denied (and lets face it only time will tell) i'm happy enough to trust them let them do their thing. just my opinion
Last edited by ljp-oz; 28th Mar 2006 at 03:14.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terminal2
A CSO was terminated this afternoon for "operational performance" reasons.
What does this interpretation mean?
What does this interpretation mean?
The CSO was given the opportunity to improve performance during an agreed extended probation.
At the end of the extended probation the CSO's "operational performance" hadn't improved and management terminated the CSO's employment.
As a CSO myself, I believe the termination was quite justified.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
q. so you agree we can't be forced onto a contract ?
a. depends on what you determine 'forced' to mean. your current agreement stays until replaced by another agreement but if all you get offered is a contract what will you do ? we will fight hard against any moves to put you on contracts but in the end it will be up to the crew to stand together. we believe that while JQ crew are divided at the moment contracts should get them to stand together, god help them if it doesn't.
The above is a bit of a worry, I think Mr Seatbacks comment above is correct that a lot of people here not taking the new IR rules seriously enough.
There has to be a chance that management may use your rejection of the EBA as a test of trying on putting you on contracts, hope I'm wrong.
a. depends on what you determine 'forced' to mean. your current agreement stays until replaced by another agreement but if all you get offered is a contract what will you do ? we will fight hard against any moves to put you on contracts but in the end it will be up to the crew to stand together. we believe that while JQ crew are divided at the moment contracts should get them to stand together, god help them if it doesn't.
The above is a bit of a worry, I think Mr Seatbacks comment above is correct that a lot of people here not taking the new IR rules seriously enough.
There has to be a chance that management may use your rejection of the EBA as a test of trying on putting you on contracts, hope I'm wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go_dj...
Have you read the proposed EBA? It was complete ****e! Inhumane at best. JQ cabin crew should be commended for valuing themselves for what they are worth and not buying into threats and the cr@p thrown at them by management.
Yes it is scary that the crew could be put on contracts (I doubt it). But to vote up the junk EBA thrown at them would be to intentionally devalue themselves and bring about MUCH inferior working conditions to the detriment of all aussie cabin crew. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for that. The proposed EBA was really that bad. Really.
Good on you Guys I certainly hope this is all for the best.
Have you read the proposed EBA? It was complete ****e! Inhumane at best. JQ cabin crew should be commended for valuing themselves for what they are worth and not buying into threats and the cr@p thrown at them by management.
Yes it is scary that the crew could be put on contracts (I doubt it). But to vote up the junk EBA thrown at them would be to intentionally devalue themselves and bring about MUCH inferior working conditions to the detriment of all aussie cabin crew. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for that. The proposed EBA was really that bad. Really.
Good on you Guys
I certainly hope this is all for the best.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to Basics
As a flight attendant with Qantaslink / Impulse and having no choice but to take off on the 25th May 2004 as Jetstar, I write the following.
I was told at my initial interview for the cabin crew role, my primary responsibility is for the safety and security of all passengers and fellow crew on the aircraft, that was in 2002. If I was employed as cabin crew now with Jetstar, I fear I would be told my primary responsibilities would be to sell as much on board product as possible, and turn the aircraft around as quickly as possible, no matter what it takes.
I really think it's time we all got back to basics.
I realise the airline is just like any other business, and that it has to make money. But, as things stand, I feel like I'm working in a retail outlet. In breifings and memo's from the company we are being told where to stick rubbish, how quick we have to be, how crap our on time performance was last week, etc etc - We are not children and shouldnt be treated like we are. What about the feedback from that medical emergency we had on board, or the half an hour we made up when we were delayed????? Positive feedback my help lift moral.
As trained cabin crew, I still firmly believe we are there for the safety and security of our passengers and fellow crew. So let's forget about how much commission we can make or how quick we can turn an aircraft around. We work our guts out everyday, only to be told by the company the next day that it's not good enough - this has to stop and it has to stop NOW!
I realise management read these posts, and I'm sure you may very well figure out who I am, I really couldn't care less. I care more about this company than you ever will. I know for a fact, 99.9% of Qantaslink / Impulse crew are deeply disappointed to see what the company has become. We built it up from nothing, and we are now watching it being destroyed by greedy fingers in head office. I also realise the company wants to get rid of 'the old crew' who try to stick up for whats right. Let me just say that you will miss the experience and professionalism we bring to the company when something goes wrong, and the way things are going, something will go wrong soon enough - Fatigue kills we are told.
In regards to the EBA, fight, and fight all the way. We deserve so much more than what is on offer. There would be no airline without us - STICK TOGETHER GUYS AND GALS !
I realise some of you who read this will say I'm just an old bitter flight attendant, well i'm not, I just care.
Take Care and fly safe
I was told at my initial interview for the cabin crew role, my primary responsibility is for the safety and security of all passengers and fellow crew on the aircraft, that was in 2002. If I was employed as cabin crew now with Jetstar, I fear I would be told my primary responsibilities would be to sell as much on board product as possible, and turn the aircraft around as quickly as possible, no matter what it takes.
I really think it's time we all got back to basics.
I realise the airline is just like any other business, and that it has to make money. But, as things stand, I feel like I'm working in a retail outlet. In breifings and memo's from the company we are being told where to stick rubbish, how quick we have to be, how crap our on time performance was last week, etc etc - We are not children and shouldnt be treated like we are. What about the feedback from that medical emergency we had on board, or the half an hour we made up when we were delayed????? Positive feedback my help lift moral.
As trained cabin crew, I still firmly believe we are there for the safety and security of our passengers and fellow crew. So let's forget about how much commission we can make or how quick we can turn an aircraft around. We work our guts out everyday, only to be told by the company the next day that it's not good enough - this has to stop and it has to stop NOW!
I realise management read these posts, and I'm sure you may very well figure out who I am, I really couldn't care less. I care more about this company than you ever will. I know for a fact, 99.9% of Qantaslink / Impulse crew are deeply disappointed to see what the company has become. We built it up from nothing, and we are now watching it being destroyed by greedy fingers in head office. I also realise the company wants to get rid of 'the old crew' who try to stick up for whats right. Let me just say that you will miss the experience and professionalism we bring to the company when something goes wrong, and the way things are going, something will go wrong soon enough - Fatigue kills we are told.
In regards to the EBA, fight, and fight all the way. We deserve so much more than what is on offer. There would be no airline without us - STICK TOGETHER GUYS AND GALS !
I realise some of you who read this will say I'm just an old bitter flight attendant, well i'm not, I just care.
Take Care and fly safe
Last edited by Giggles_in_Melb; 9th Apr 2006 at 13:11.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Home
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Giggles
Go Giggles.
As for DJ - why is their turnover so high each month??? Enough about DJ.
Safety First......
Budget first..., sorry, I mean
'Low Cost' First.
Cheaper airfares - that's why people fly with JQ, cos they have cheaper airfares .......
Safety first. .....
4 BOC in a row etc.... it's all in the failed eba - and there is a reason why it failed.
Go Giggles, Miss Julie JQ, JQFA, Ditzyboy, etc...etc... - You take your job seriously and want safe work conditions - and why shouldn't you.
Safe Flying
Mr OnTime Arrival
PS - 'The Australian' has just announced AO closure - will that impact on JQ to QF career progression????
As for DJ - why is their turnover so high each month??? Enough about DJ.
Safety First......
Budget first..., sorry, I mean
'Low Cost' First.
Cheaper airfares - that's why people fly with JQ, cos they have cheaper airfares .......
Safety first. .....
4 BOC in a row etc.... it's all in the failed eba - and there is a reason why it failed.
Go Giggles, Miss Julie JQ, JQFA, Ditzyboy, etc...etc... - You take your job seriously and want safe work conditions - and why shouldn't you.
Safe Flying
Mr OnTime Arrival
PS - 'The Australian' has just announced AO closure - will that impact on JQ to QF career progression????
Last edited by OnTimeArrival; 15th Apr 2006 at 00:17.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: oz
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we are not immune
OTA i don't have a clue what you are trying to say in your last post. I get that you're upset with dj although i have no idea why, i think dj's last post was an opinion, not a criticism but that seems to be how you took it. but if you could just enlighten me with the other stuff i'd really appreciate it. (ps your no more a man than i am a girl, so she knows who you are... get over it and lets get on with it)
i can see that we all have opinions, but they are just that, opinions. the most common opinion at the moment seems to be that the new ir laws are going to put the wind up us at the very least. i don't know about the rest of you guys but i work hard enough for jq and eventhough i think everyone would like more money i'm bloody sure i don't want less. the whole country is talking about the new laws, not sure about the rest of you but keeping my head in the sand gives me a headache. i think its time we started realising that we are not immune from these changes and i know exactly what our irish minded folk could be capable of if the opportunity arose, do you ?
i can see that we all have opinions, but they are just that, opinions. the most common opinion at the moment seems to be that the new ir laws are going to put the wind up us at the very least. i don't know about the rest of you guys but i work hard enough for jq and eventhough i think everyone would like more money i'm bloody sure i don't want less. the whole country is talking about the new laws, not sure about the rest of you but keeping my head in the sand gives me a headache. i think its time we started realising that we are not immune from these changes and i know exactly what our irish minded folk could be capable of if the opportunity arose, do you ?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Age: 55
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ljp-Oz, I thought it was pretty obvious what Mr. OnTimeArrival was trying to say, i.e. that safety has become secondary to making money and being on time at Jetstar and that he doesn't like it. What is hard to understand about that? Someone from Qantas could probably shed some light on this, but don't their manuals actually list as the very first piece of policy that "the Qantas policy is safety before schedule"? I think there is something in that for us all.... something that penny pinching management types at Jetstar need to a get a grip on.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ljp-oz
your statement
is against the rules of this board, and is somehow hinting that you have a way of knowing who's behind a username, which is totally impossible. You're only guessing, but what is unacceptable, is that you are trying to intimidate another user, and this we won't let happen.
You are banned from this Forum until we have received an explanation, and I hope also an apology.
your statement
your no more a man than i am a girl, so she knows who you are...
is against the rules of this board, and is somehow hinting that you have a way of knowing who's behind a username, which is totally impossible. You're only guessing, but what is unacceptable, is that you are trying to intimidate another user, and this we won't let happen.
You are banned from this Forum until we have received an explanation, and I hope also an apology.