View Poll Results: Virgin Blue Crew - Did You vote to accept (Yes) or decline (No) the EBA
YES
16
28.07%
NO
41
71.93%
Voters: 57. This poll is closed
Virgin Blue EBA II (Poll)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tightslot thanks for setting up that poll for us, very much appreciated...
So folks interesting so far - I wonder how close to form this will be, like the pilots one was?
So folks interesting so far - I wonder how close to form this will be, like the pilots one was?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mosman
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read the EBA several times, attended the roadshows and listened to various opinions from cabin and flight crew, I'll be voting no.
Why?
1. There are many provisions in the new EBA that allow less than desirable working conditions (see this post for more). Management's spin is that they are reserved for exceptional circumstances, however these circumstances are NOT outlined in the EBA. It wasn't too long ago that I heard the same spin applied to the 4 crew complement only being used in exceptional circumstances (ie. mid-duty sickness). Now it's being applied to every flight on an 800... I haven't forgotten this yet..
2. Virgin Blue achieved a whopping 38% increase in productivity per cabin crew member on all 800 flights. I'll let you think about this one for a while...
3. I'm already tired working 4 sector 9.5 hour days. I can't imagine working a 9.5 hour day with 6 or more sectors, turnarounds and repeated change in altitude. Fatigue management??
4. <Warning: speculative rant> How much do our department heads earn annually? How much will their bonuses be? What kickbacks and offers have those working on the EBA been given if it is passed?
Why?
1. There are many provisions in the new EBA that allow less than desirable working conditions (see this post for more). Management's spin is that they are reserved for exceptional circumstances, however these circumstances are NOT outlined in the EBA. It wasn't too long ago that I heard the same spin applied to the 4 crew complement only being used in exceptional circumstances (ie. mid-duty sickness). Now it's being applied to every flight on an 800... I haven't forgotten this yet..
2. Virgin Blue achieved a whopping 38% increase in productivity per cabin crew member on all 800 flights. I'll let you think about this one for a while...
3. I'm already tired working 4 sector 9.5 hour days. I can't imagine working a 9.5 hour day with 6 or more sectors, turnarounds and repeated change in altitude. Fatigue management??
4. <Warning: speculative rant> How much do our department heads earn annually? How much will their bonuses be? What kickbacks and offers have those working on the EBA been given if it is passed?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve now read your pre-Workchoices EBA on www.wagenet.gov.au and the proposed EBA on the FAAA website. Kittyblue, is your Flight Crew member ‘respected opinion’ knowledgeable in how the IR laws affect flight attendants? Did you know that pilots are protected by different parts of law for the way they work if their current EBA is rescinded? I hope the respected opinion is balanced and not biased. I noticed they didn’t compare it to the current EBA so this is where many of the comments made don’t actually change things for you if you vote no.
I recently stood by and watched the flight attendants union go into bat for a friend of mine who was on an unfair workplace agreement. Everything that the union said about the laws was correct-I had researched it. Pilots were in negotiations the same time as the flight attendants the pilots' pay and conditions were protected differently, the flight attendant union officer knew this too. Because of the greater protections for pilots, the pilots’ new workplace agreement was superior to the flight attendants but the agreement for flight attendants with the union’s help was 1000% better than before. A word of caution-when 'so called' experts tell you that your union is going to ‘sell you out’, ask yourself has this person seen your union in action? Remember the union is the only group of people who has provided you duty hour limits and rest minimums-your respected Flight Crew member certainly hasn’t and neither has the government. CASA couldn’t give a flying you know what about flight attendants or engineers, it only ‘protects’ or regulates pilots. The 140 hour limit in your pre-Workchoices EBA is only there because of your union.
Federal (not State) unfair dismissal provisions apply at law so you’re protected. I hate to say it but if this ‘respected opinion’ didn’t know that, then they don’t seem to be very qualified or knowledgeable about the old or the new laws. By the way, did you know that John Howard is winding up the State Industrial Relations Commissions with his new IR laws?
At law, this is the ‘reasonable man’ test, there’s plenty of precedent law/awards etc. to protect you I would imagine. Just ask your union reps.
Welcome to Workchoices-mandatory reasonable overtime for 0 pay is the law now. What’s reasonable weekly/fortnightly overtime for a flight attendant, well I’m sure there’s precedent on this-your union is going to hold the key here for precedents. However, the way I read the new EBA, you’ll ONLY EVER BE FORCED to do the 10 extra hours of overtime per roster if the final duty on your roster is 10 hours or less. What is the chance of this happening? It would most likely have to be a single duty because most overnight duties are greater than 10 hours in total. To me it looks like the union has been clever in its overtime avoidance scheme!
Your new EBA is very clear-“flying rosters WILL be built to 125-135 duty credit hours”, therefore it has to include the 5 duty credit hours for the performance monitoring duty otherwise these would be considered non credit hours. This would mean worse case scenario:
130 hours flying+5 hours perf monitoring duty+18 hours non credit training+5 hours mandatory overtime as per Workchoices=158 in 28 days in ONE or TWO rosters a year.
The fatigue avoidance scheme says you are safe up to 210hrs in 28 days rolling with an average of 8 days off per roster, so when you get non credit training, you look back over the past 26 days see how many work hours you did and look ahead at the next 26 days.
These calculations are not quite accurate or balanced:
Work Hours Guaranteed Duty Free Days Off
1470 (140x10.5rosters) 105 (10x10.5) - 24 poss draft = 81DFD’s
[10.5 due to annual leave] [you could also add DFD’s after 140 reached to DFD total]
1598 (135x11.5rosters+45) 110 (10x11.5-5) - 12 draft = 98DFD’s
[rare to be forced to 140] [you could also add OPT days to DFD's]
By law, any explanation given by the company or the FAAA is able to be relied on further down the track-this is the law. This includes explanations given in the roadshows or in written explanations. Both management and the union must explain what you are voting on before you vote, so therefore anything they tell you must hold up if there is any dispute later.
I recently stood by and watched the flight attendants union go into bat for a friend of mine who was on an unfair workplace agreement. Everything that the union said about the laws was correct-I had researched it. Pilots were in negotiations the same time as the flight attendants the pilots' pay and conditions were protected differently, the flight attendant union officer knew this too. Because of the greater protections for pilots, the pilots’ new workplace agreement was superior to the flight attendants but the agreement for flight attendants with the union’s help was 1000% better than before. A word of caution-when 'so called' experts tell you that your union is going to ‘sell you out’, ask yourself has this person seen your union in action? Remember the union is the only group of people who has provided you duty hour limits and rest minimums-your respected Flight Crew member certainly hasn’t and neither has the government. CASA couldn’t give a flying you know what about flight attendants or engineers, it only ‘protects’ or regulates pilots. The 140 hour limit in your pre-Workchoices EBA is only there because of your union.
"It excludes all state laws …..". Why? What about unfair dismissal laws – which are not covered …
Federal (not State) unfair dismissal provisions apply at law so you’re protected. I hate to say it but if this ‘respected opinion’ didn’t know that, then they don’t seem to be very qualified or knowledgeable about the old or the new laws. By the way, did you know that John Howard is winding up the State Industrial Relations Commissions with his new IR laws?
What is the definition of the term unreasonable?
At law, this is the ‘reasonable man’ test, there’s plenty of precedent law/awards etc. to protect you I would imagine. Just ask your union reps.
I personally would like a choice in saying no to over time (not everyone wants it remember) and there's no choice if 6.2.1 applies.
Welcome to Workchoices-mandatory reasonable overtime for 0 pay is the law now. What’s reasonable weekly/fortnightly overtime for a flight attendant, well I’m sure there’s precedent on this-your union is going to hold the key here for precedents. However, the way I read the new EBA, you’ll ONLY EVER BE FORCED to do the 10 extra hours of overtime per roster if the final duty on your roster is 10 hours or less. What is the chance of this happening? It would most likely have to be a single duty because most overnight duties are greater than 10 hours in total. To me it looks like the union has been clever in its overtime avoidance scheme!
Is the 5 hours duty credit in addition to the possible 135 hours I have been rostered? is my overtime to 140 hours (clause 6.4.2.b) including the 5 hours propel? Could I be doing 140 hours plus 2 days training(2x9 hours not including paxing!) plus 5 hours propel (total 163) plus all the extra time I spend at work to do my job well in 28 days?
Your new EBA is very clear-“flying rosters WILL be built to 125-135 duty credit hours”, therefore it has to include the 5 duty credit hours for the performance monitoring duty otherwise these would be considered non credit hours. This would mean worse case scenario:
130 hours flying+5 hours perf monitoring duty+18 hours non credit training+5 hours mandatory overtime as per Workchoices=158 in 28 days in ONE or TWO rosters a year.
The fatigue avoidance scheme says you are safe up to 210hrs in 28 days rolling with an average of 8 days off per roster, so when you get non credit training, you look back over the past 26 days see how many work hours you did and look ahead at the next 26 days.
1680 (140x12rosters) is currently the max hours we can do in a year that we have control over (ie denom avails) ,
1820 (140x13rosters)is the hours proposed, but then there's the addition of 5 training days up to 9 hours, bringing it to 1901 hours.
1820 (140x13rosters)is the hours proposed, but then there's the addition of 5 training days up to 9 hours, bringing it to 1901 hours.
These calculations are not quite accurate or balanced:
Work Hours Guaranteed Duty Free Days Off
1470 (140x10.5rosters) 105 (10x10.5) - 24 poss draft = 81DFD’s
[10.5 due to annual leave] [you could also add DFD’s after 140 reached to DFD total]
1598 (135x11.5rosters+45) 110 (10x11.5-5) - 12 draft = 98DFD’s
[rare to be forced to 140] [you could also add OPT days to DFD's]
If they answered your concerns, ask yourself this - are their answers that you seemed to be pleased with written in the EBA, or is it just managements/FAAAs word?
By law, any explanation given by the company or the FAAA is able to be relied on further down the track-this is the law. This includes explanations given in the roadshows or in written explanations. Both management and the union must explain what you are voting on before you vote, so therefore anything they tell you must hold up if there is any dispute later.
Last edited by Ol Shep; 25th Mar 2007 at 05:44.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ol Shep,
As a Pilot and having studied the new workchoices rules (as well as the old IR laws that currently protect the cabin crew), I am perplexed as to what extra protection we have over the cabin crew ; I would say none.
I do not know what your agenda is, but it is not for the good of the cabin crew and your views do not represent the majority of pilots.
In terms of trusting your union, we have recently been shown a court case in which our union appears to admit they have put themselves before us
http://www.airc.gov.au/documents/Tra...307d200658.htm
PN 1300 onwards.
As for the DFD's, you forgot to mention the company only has to achieve 8/month over a three month rolling roster, so I think in the worst case (as everything seems to be at the moment), your DFD's are way out.
As a Pilot and having studied the new workchoices rules (as well as the old IR laws that currently protect the cabin crew), I am perplexed as to what extra protection we have over the cabin crew ; I would say none.
I do not know what your agenda is, but it is not for the good of the cabin crew and your views do not represent the majority of pilots.
In terms of trusting your union, we have recently been shown a court case in which our union appears to admit they have put themselves before us
http://www.airc.gov.au/documents/Tra...307d200658.htm
PN 1300 onwards.
As for the DFD's, you forgot to mention the company only has to achieve 8/month over a three month rolling roster, so I think in the worst case (as everything seems to be at the moment), your DFD's are way out.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 38,000 ft
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitty Blue: Thanks for that post. I have read what you have said and spoken to the flight crew who prepared that document. It changed my mind back to my original opinion which is that it is no. The EBA is too grey. If the company decides to come back to the table after an overwhelming no vote then perhaps we can get a few of the grey areas ironed out and have a bit more say in what is put in the document.
I am concerned that crewing are the people who will control our lives with this document not CC Management who are just looking for ways to increase productivity at as little cost as possible.
Its all good and well to tell us in the railroad shows that we should be seeing the positive side of things but it is crew that have crewing on the phone telling us to just extend our 12 hour day by 2 hours to help them out when we all know good and well that if we need a favour, "I cant help you" is normally the answer.
We are the "face" of VB and should be looked after accordingly.
I am concerned that crewing are the people who will control our lives with this document not CC Management who are just looking for ways to increase productivity at as little cost as possible.
Its all good and well to tell us in the railroad shows that we should be seeing the positive side of things but it is crew that have crewing on the phone telling us to just extend our 12 hour day by 2 hours to help them out when we all know good and well that if we need a favour, "I cant help you" is normally the answer.
We are the "face" of VB and should be looked after accordingly.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a balanced view
Vista
Several extra protections exist for pilots over cabin crew-one case in point-the law which sets out the minimum rest pilots must have following flight duty times where an agreement is silent or rescinded? CAO48 regulates this for pilots. What protects cabin crew? Under the old IR laws, Awards were used as a safety net for cabin crew and for pilots it was Awards or CAO48. Under the new IR laws there is no Standard for rest between flight duties for cabin crew and yet pilots can still rely on CAO48 for their minimum. Have you seen any cabin crew AWA's under the old IR laws or the new laws? Rest and daily flight duty limits are not necessarily included in the agreement. Cabin crew can get treated the same as an office worker-an average 38 hour week plus overtime as required. They have come a long way ahead with their Awards, don't you think they should protect what they have and build on it rather than be forced to a new minimum thanks to Howard?
Another protection that springs to mind is contained in the transcript link you gave-it refers to a 'pay dispute'. If pilots want to dispute what they get paid under the new IR laws, the Aust Fair Pay Commission will set a benchmark way above the minimum wage. But what about cabin crew-who will help them?-not the Fair Pay Commission or the Office of Employment Advocate that's for sure. The IRC state or federal can't even help anymore, Howard made sure of that.
My agenda is to pass on first hand knowledge of what can happen to flight attendants, what's yours? The VIPER issue is not for this forum. What is your advice for the good of cabin crew? Stay under the old IR laws where you stand still or get a new minimum, or move to the new IR laws and be way above the Aust Fair Pay Commission Standard and 20% better off in pay increases than the current EBA rates. Kittyblue's Flight Crew advisor critiques the new EBA clause by clause-I'm sure the critique represents the view of the majority of pilots-yet the majority of the criticisms which are highlighted in the list are clauses which are already contained in the current EBA. The advice presented is a contradiction. The advice suggests to vote No and take refuge in the curent EBA, yet most of the criticisms are against the current EBA(!?). For the good of Cabin Crew I recommend they compare the current EBA against the new one or if you don't have time take it to someone who can make a comparative analysis taking the old and new IR laws into account.
You forgot to mention that cabin crew can nominate to work on their duty free days (optional days and days off by definition) which means that it is the crew who Choose to go down to 8 on average or minimum 7 in a roster. They are guaranteed 10 days off in a roster and can only be Forced down to 9 worse case by Drafting.
Several extra protections exist for pilots over cabin crew-one case in point-the law which sets out the minimum rest pilots must have following flight duty times where an agreement is silent or rescinded? CAO48 regulates this for pilots. What protects cabin crew? Under the old IR laws, Awards were used as a safety net for cabin crew and for pilots it was Awards or CAO48. Under the new IR laws there is no Standard for rest between flight duties for cabin crew and yet pilots can still rely on CAO48 for their minimum. Have you seen any cabin crew AWA's under the old IR laws or the new laws? Rest and daily flight duty limits are not necessarily included in the agreement. Cabin crew can get treated the same as an office worker-an average 38 hour week plus overtime as required. They have come a long way ahead with their Awards, don't you think they should protect what they have and build on it rather than be forced to a new minimum thanks to Howard?
Another protection that springs to mind is contained in the transcript link you gave-it refers to a 'pay dispute'. If pilots want to dispute what they get paid under the new IR laws, the Aust Fair Pay Commission will set a benchmark way above the minimum wage. But what about cabin crew-who will help them?-not the Fair Pay Commission or the Office of Employment Advocate that's for sure. The IRC state or federal can't even help anymore, Howard made sure of that.
My agenda is to pass on first hand knowledge of what can happen to flight attendants, what's yours? The VIPER issue is not for this forum. What is your advice for the good of cabin crew? Stay under the old IR laws where you stand still or get a new minimum, or move to the new IR laws and be way above the Aust Fair Pay Commission Standard and 20% better off in pay increases than the current EBA rates. Kittyblue's Flight Crew advisor critiques the new EBA clause by clause-I'm sure the critique represents the view of the majority of pilots-yet the majority of the criticisms which are highlighted in the list are clauses which are already contained in the current EBA. The advice presented is a contradiction. The advice suggests to vote No and take refuge in the curent EBA, yet most of the criticisms are against the current EBA(!?). For the good of Cabin Crew I recommend they compare the current EBA against the new one or if you don't have time take it to someone who can make a comparative analysis taking the old and new IR laws into account.
You forgot to mention that cabin crew can nominate to work on their duty free days (optional days and days off by definition) which means that it is the crew who Choose to go down to 8 on average or minimum 7 in a roster. They are guaranteed 10 days off in a roster and can only be Forced down to 9 worse case by Drafting.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More for your money
Yes Virgin has definately been responsbile for eroding conditions of the industry in Oz, granted a business needs to make money to remain viable and conditions pre Virgin were probably not sustainable. Now the hint of a new low cost carrier, no wonder Mr Godfrey has been so passionately spreading the word of his uniquely termed 'new world carrier', so as to distinguish it so he can launch a truly 'low cost carrier'. Already Virgin has set the precedent in reducing cabin crew ratios', so of course Jetstar and Qantas will follow suit to remain competitive. The so called 'they can copy our business but not copy our culture' rhetoric virgin drums home in its training and induction programs will disappear quickly if it continues to pursue more from their staff for less rewards and conditions.
It's the last sentence that seems relevent to current EBA discussions....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ol Shep,
The cabin crew currently use the basis of CAO 48 because the company does not have a proper fatigue monitoring system in place and requires the CAO 48 rules for it’s own protection from legal action (Occupational health and safety laws).
You say that the pilots have better pay protections, think again. On paper they may appear higher, but if the company was to implement the minimum wage, VB would only be able to crew about 6 aircraft. Simple supply and demand and the same stands for the cabin crew. You might be able to get applicants for $13.oo/HR, but as I’m sure your aware, we have a high turnover with the current wages and conditions and this would prove fatal to the longevity of the company.
Do you really think this company would offer more than the minimum they believe they have to?
Why the glossy brochure and DVD if the EBA was that good?
As for the VIPA (not VIPER) issue, the transcripts I was referring to are about how the company has manipulated the AFAP to get what they want and from the comments by Bruce Highfield under oath, it is quite conceivable that the same has been done with the FAAA. Because they have done a good job in the past does not automatically mean they are now.
The cabin crew currently use the basis of CAO 48 because the company does not have a proper fatigue monitoring system in place and requires the CAO 48 rules for it’s own protection from legal action (Occupational health and safety laws).
You say that the pilots have better pay protections, think again. On paper they may appear higher, but if the company was to implement the minimum wage, VB would only be able to crew about 6 aircraft. Simple supply and demand and the same stands for the cabin crew. You might be able to get applicants for $13.oo/HR, but as I’m sure your aware, we have a high turnover with the current wages and conditions and this would prove fatal to the longevity of the company.
Do you really think this company would offer more than the minimum they believe they have to?
Why the glossy brochure and DVD if the EBA was that good?
As for the VIPA (not VIPER) issue, the transcripts I was referring to are about how the company has manipulated the AFAP to get what they want and from the comments by Bruce Highfield under oath, it is quite conceivable that the same has been done with the FAAA. Because they have done a good job in the past does not automatically mean they are now.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minimums
Vista
The flight attendant AWA's or awards I've seen which use CAO 48 and CASA exemptions as the basis quote the correct reference. Which fatigue monitoring system should the oh and s ombudsman enshrine for Virgin flight attendants? The flight attendants are protected not because of oh and s laws or inspectors looming down but because they have fought for what they want in their awards or agreements. On AWA’s it is harder to fight or bargain, the law is stacked in employers' favour.
I did think again about what you said and I checked the law as well-qualified pilots can dispute the minimum wage if put on paper. For unqualified employees, and the government lumps flight attendants into this category, the federal law is not protective.
I think companies will offer the lowest wages and rules as possible if they can get away with it. It is more conceivable that companies manipulate government to make decisions swing 100% in their favour and make employees powerless wherever possible. It's easy to make an accusation on a forum, but why don't you test your manipulation theory by talking directly with the people who did the negotiating?
The flight attendant AWA's or awards I've seen which use CAO 48 and CASA exemptions as the basis quote the correct reference. Which fatigue monitoring system should the oh and s ombudsman enshrine for Virgin flight attendants? The flight attendants are protected not because of oh and s laws or inspectors looming down but because they have fought for what they want in their awards or agreements. On AWA’s it is harder to fight or bargain, the law is stacked in employers' favour.
I did think again about what you said and I checked the law as well-qualified pilots can dispute the minimum wage if put on paper. For unqualified employees, and the government lumps flight attendants into this category, the federal law is not protective.
I think companies will offer the lowest wages and rules as possible if they can get away with it. It is more conceivable that companies manipulate government to make decisions swing 100% in their favour and make employees powerless wherever possible. It's easy to make an accusation on a forum, but why don't you test your manipulation theory by talking directly with the people who did the negotiating?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am cabin crew - this agreement affects me directly, how does it affect you?
First of all, thanks to all (whether cc or not) for the advice in this forum.
Ol Shep-
You seem to have a vested interest in pointing out to cabin crew that this proposed EBA is the best on offer, that should the outcome be no, we'll all be on minimum wage before we know it.
Would it be rude for me to ask why you feel so strongly to spend so much time writing posts to convince, almost scare crew into voting yes because of the new IR laws? If you're on our side maybe pointing out a few of the negaitives of the proposed EBA to help give a balanced view?
You also make mention of:
which airline?
I agree with you on this one though: get sound advice and stick together
Ol Shep-
You seem to have a vested interest in pointing out to cabin crew that this proposed EBA is the best on offer, that should the outcome be no, we'll all be on minimum wage before we know it.
Would it be rude for me to ask why you feel so strongly to spend so much time writing posts to convince, almost scare crew into voting yes because of the new IR laws? If you're on our side maybe pointing out a few of the negaitives of the proposed EBA to help give a balanced view?
You also make mention of:
I've seen it happen to all the staff-ground staff & flight attendants-in another airline.
I agree with you on this one though: get sound advice and stick together
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-I admit I am surprised by Ol Shep's comments...
"By law, any explanation given by the company or the FAAA is able to be relied on further down the track-this is the law...This includes explanations given in the roadshows "..
Firstly,you would have to prove in a court of law that certain information was actually given.It would be of no use at all if you simply said "the company said this or that".Unless you have it in writing and from a person legally able to represent the company you might as well whistle dixie.
You would have to have or be able to supply a signed and ratified document stating ..whatever..
Even if you had a recording device AND you had informed the company that you would be doing so I doubt it would stick.You might embarass the company but thats about it.
As far as whatever the FAAA tells you at thr roadshows is even more irrelevant.Their opinion is what they interpret the company's actions and documents as meaning and the company is under no obligation whatsoever to do what the FAAA THINKS the company intentions were whether that is stated or inferred.
Unless a clause says something like "under no circumstance will a crew member be required to work more than "X" hours including training,ep's etc,," then you would have to accept the fact that the company will try and push their side of the interpretation if given the need.
"By law, any explanation given by the company or the FAAA is able to be relied on further down the track-this is the law...This includes explanations given in the roadshows "..
Firstly,you would have to prove in a court of law that certain information was actually given.It would be of no use at all if you simply said "the company said this or that".Unless you have it in writing and from a person legally able to represent the company you might as well whistle dixie.
You would have to have or be able to supply a signed and ratified document stating ..whatever..
Even if you had a recording device AND you had informed the company that you would be doing so I doubt it would stick.You might embarass the company but thats about it.
As far as whatever the FAAA tells you at thr roadshows is even more irrelevant.Their opinion is what they interpret the company's actions and documents as meaning and the company is under no obligation whatsoever to do what the FAAA THINKS the company intentions were whether that is stated or inferred.
Unless a clause says something like "under no circumstance will a crew member be required to work more than "X" hours including training,ep's etc,," then you would have to accept the fact that the company will try and push their side of the interpretation if given the need.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBA Babylon
I have no vested interest-I am not pro-management or pro-union, I am pro-family. When family income and family time can be affected by the result of a new agreement, it's a good idea to look at it from all angles-what voting Yes produces and what voting No produces. If the new IR laws scare you, and they should, then you are in good company with other workers who have already been affected.
Naturally, there are negatives in the agreement, like every other agreement out there. In your new agreement you can be called out to do 13 or 14 hour duty, other domestic flight attendants can be rostered, yes rostered, a 13 or 14 hour duty. If the majority think it's worth fighting, then I'm sure you'll all get ready to do what it takes.
Wise words from ShesGreatintheGalley:
I have no vested interest-I am not pro-management or pro-union, I am pro-family. When family income and family time can be affected by the result of a new agreement, it's a good idea to look at it from all angles-what voting Yes produces and what voting No produces. If the new IR laws scare you, and they should, then you are in good company with other workers who have already been affected.
Naturally, there are negatives in the agreement, like every other agreement out there. In your new agreement you can be called out to do 13 or 14 hour duty, other domestic flight attendants can be rostered, yes rostered, a 13 or 14 hour duty. If the majority think it's worth fighting, then I'm sure you'll all get ready to do what it takes.
Wise words from ShesGreatintheGalley:
I think every EBA we get is never going to be as good as the current one, due to the change in the whole airline industry, so although hold out for what you want, dont go in with unrealistic expectations - the airline will want some kind of cost reduction.. every airline does.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are Family
Pro family is me to a tee. I, having a family of my own to support, am concerned with the amount of work that comes with this EBA, and the lack of choice to say no. A huge assumption has been made that 'we' all want more hours/overtime. Ask any cc right now whether they feel over worked (not underpaid) and i can almost bet 4 out of 5 full timers will say yes.
I know 'other' domestic hosties can be rostered longer shifts than us presently, but look closer at thier "domestic routes" on what aircraft and how rests are planned.
I agree the industry is changing. Of course they want cost reduction- 4 crew on an 800 is just one example, we work hard and long to give them this enormous cost saving, of course we had no choice but still we did it (perhaps crew complement should have been mentioned in our current EBA).
I want, like many, to protect my employment as it is in my long term plans to still be with our airline long past this new EBA's proposed expiry. But it doesn't mean I think this EBA is good for crew. The PBS however, is great, and seems to be the basis to all the roadshow positives.
What I do think is that this proposed document is a great template which we can work together to come to a happy medium or stay put on our current EBA.
I know 'other' domestic hosties can be rostered longer shifts than us presently, but look closer at thier "domestic routes" on what aircraft and how rests are planned.
I agree the industry is changing. Of course they want cost reduction- 4 crew on an 800 is just one example, we work hard and long to give them this enormous cost saving, of course we had no choice but still we did it (perhaps crew complement should have been mentioned in our current EBA).
I want, like many, to protect my employment as it is in my long term plans to still be with our airline long past this new EBA's proposed expiry. But it doesn't mean I think this EBA is good for crew. The PBS however, is great, and seems to be the basis to all the roadshow positives.
What I do think is that this proposed document is a great template which we can work together to come to a happy medium or stay put on our current EBA.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mosman
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have a vested interest in pointing out to cabin crew that this proposed EBA is the best on offer, that should the outcome be no, we'll all be on minimum wage before we know it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voting closes 3pm tomorrow (monday), results soon after that I guess?
Thinking it might get through... came across loads of Yes voters on this last trip.
What I found most distressing, and hoping is false allegations, is that CT from the FAAA is telling members that if we vote No then we can be forced onto minimum wage and max hours after 90 days. I overheard a CS telling my CS this today, and another crewmember said she was told the same thing.
IF this is what CT has been saying (and I stress *IF* - I have not heard these words from CT myself), then it destroys any small lingering shred of integrity the FAAA had, and I will tell them they can stick their membership in an appropriate orifice. Its comprehensively untrue - you cannot be forced off the current agreement and onto an AWA. DR himself said we would stay on the current agreement if a no vote comes through, and they would try to find out why the no vote happened.
Can anyone provide clarification? Has CT really been saying this, or has the info been twisted in a chinese-whispers type scenario?
D-day looms........
Thinking it might get through... came across loads of Yes voters on this last trip.
What I found most distressing, and hoping is false allegations, is that CT from the FAAA is telling members that if we vote No then we can be forced onto minimum wage and max hours after 90 days. I overheard a CS telling my CS this today, and another crewmember said she was told the same thing.
IF this is what CT has been saying (and I stress *IF* - I have not heard these words from CT myself), then it destroys any small lingering shred of integrity the FAAA had, and I will tell them they can stick their membership in an appropriate orifice. Its comprehensively untrue - you cannot be forced off the current agreement and onto an AWA. DR himself said we would stay on the current agreement if a no vote comes through, and they would try to find out why the no vote happened.
Can anyone provide clarification? Has CT really been saying this, or has the info been twisted in a chinese-whispers type scenario?
D-day looms........
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck for the results of your vote.
B737NG Girl, you might be interested to read some info on the expired agreement on another thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268087&page=3 -see SM4 Pirate posts.
B737NG Girl, you might be interested to read some info on the expired agreement on another thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=268087&page=3 -see SM4 Pirate posts.
Last edited by Ol Shep; 1st Apr 2007 at 21:59.