QF Strikebreakers!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC news online
Fri, Feb 21 2003 9:08 PM AEDT
Union condemns Qantas's contract labour plan
The Flight Attendants Association has condemned a plan by Qantas to circumvent a strike by its members next Tuesday by using contract labour.
It is expected up to 30 flights scheduled to leave Australia will be affected when around 2,000 Qantas international cabin crew stop work for 14 hours over a pay dispute.
Flight Attendants Association spokeswoman Johanna Brem says she is concerned management is attempting to replace the crew with inexperienced labour that has not undergone proper emergency procedures training and security checks.
"Cabin crew are safety professionals - they have very extensive training and experience and we are concerned that if Qantas fast tracks the whole training, that people are actually not, possibly not adequately prepared and adequately trained," Ms Brem said.
"If you are a passenger flying on Tuesday, well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky?"
Meanwhile, Qantas would not respond in detail to the allegations except to say the airline will be using professional Qantas-trained cabin crew to cover striking workers.
An airline spokeswoman says all the regulatory requirements would be met and contingency plans were still being finalised.
Fri, Feb 21 2003 9:08 PM AEDT
Union condemns Qantas's contract labour plan
The Flight Attendants Association has condemned a plan by Qantas to circumvent a strike by its members next Tuesday by using contract labour.
It is expected up to 30 flights scheduled to leave Australia will be affected when around 2,000 Qantas international cabin crew stop work for 14 hours over a pay dispute.
Flight Attendants Association spokeswoman Johanna Brem says she is concerned management is attempting to replace the crew with inexperienced labour that has not undergone proper emergency procedures training and security checks.
"Cabin crew are safety professionals - they have very extensive training and experience and we are concerned that if Qantas fast tracks the whole training, that people are actually not, possibly not adequately prepared and adequately trained," Ms Brem said.
"If you are a passenger flying on Tuesday, well, you have to ask yourself one question: do you feel lucky?"
Meanwhile, Qantas would not respond in detail to the allegations except to say the airline will be using professional Qantas-trained cabin crew to cover striking workers.
An airline spokeswoman says all the regulatory requirements would be met and contingency plans were still being finalised.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heartily agree with consciencecalling. I have flown for 20 years but ****** me if I would feel comfortable being responsible for hundreds of people on a 747 after 1 day of schooling. As "cc" said, just who is going to be the cabin manager on these flights. I know for a fact that there are no casuals trained in the Qf CSM way so how do they propose to do it. 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad see the lack of morality amongst some people. Attitudes like some of those expressed here are those of fleas and leaches. To knowingly and willingly be prepared to destroy the future of others is just amoral. In time, if they are successful, these parasites will be complaining that their employment conditions, inevitably, have been continuously degraded and be heard bleating “We all have to stick together to improve our conditions”, pathetic. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that unity in this instance is the only way. Unity to stand up to the maurices and inform them you were not contracted as union breakers and stand united to not let them do you out of your futures. If you stand united you stand a chance.
I'm on the preverbial shortlist and luckily for me they called back to say the contract wouldnt go ahead. I'm not sure if this still stands true though for the current casuals working for mam?
I think in all honesty though it is fair to refuse an offer of strike breaking - I know when they contacted me no mention of strike breaking was made. If they want to hold that against you later then screw them. No job sorry is worth that. Even an airline job. Its unfair and dishonest
I know how maurice works and I also know that when ansett went down and they did interviews for the current shortlisters..all of the ex ansett permanent f/a were called up for interviews...only a handful of ex casuals were considered...and all of this after maurices promise to get them all up and working again. They really didnt even get a look in. They gave loyalty...they got shafted
Best of luck to all concerned. Hold a meeting for the casuals...agree to stand united...you will stand stronger for it in the long run. Sell old junk at the markets to gain some extra cash.
I'm on the preverbial shortlist and luckily for me they called back to say the contract wouldnt go ahead. I'm not sure if this still stands true though for the current casuals working for mam?
I think in all honesty though it is fair to refuse an offer of strike breaking - I know when they contacted me no mention of strike breaking was made. If they want to hold that against you later then screw them. No job sorry is worth that. Even an airline job. Its unfair and dishonest
I know how maurice works and I also know that when ansett went down and they did interviews for the current shortlisters..all of the ex ansett permanent f/a were called up for interviews...only a handful of ex casuals were considered...and all of this after maurices promise to get them all up and working again. They really didnt even get a look in. They gave loyalty...they got shafted
Best of luck to all concerned. Hold a meeting for the casuals...agree to stand united...you will stand stronger for it in the long run. Sell old junk at the markets to gain some extra cash.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For any pilot who was involved in the 1989 debacle, (or for 77% of them, at least), there would be a dreadful feeling of déjŕ vu as he (or she) read the earnest cries of “don’t do it!” from those appealing for unity or to the better natures and morality of those who are being asked to fill in for those three days next week.
Sadly, I feel that there will be enough who, just like some now QF did pilots all those years ago, will be able to rationalise within their own minds that taking the one day of training(!) and the three days work is the “right” thing to do.
In my humble opinion, appealing to people’s better natures will get you nowhere in a situation like this, (a lesson I learnt to my cost some 13.5 years ago). What may have more effect is a gentle reminder of just how “right” that decision might seem some months later as one of a very busy 16 member crew, the other 15 of whom have all had considerably more than one day’s training. Unlike the pilots, it’s very unlikely that the stand-in crew will be left holding the fort when this is resolved, (however it is resolved).
On to what should be a very serious note, how in the world can CASA (or whatever their name is this week) allow Qantas to even consider manning (“person-ing”) their flights with cabin crews with only one day’s training? Along the same argument, if there’s a Qantas captain out there who is willing to fly with a cc with the level of training these fill in crew will allegedly have, it ain’t the Qantas it once was…
But it would seem from other indicators that that’s the case already.
Sadly, I feel that there will be enough who, just like some now QF did pilots all those years ago, will be able to rationalise within their own minds that taking the one day of training(!) and the three days work is the “right” thing to do.
In my humble opinion, appealing to people’s better natures will get you nowhere in a situation like this, (a lesson I learnt to my cost some 13.5 years ago). What may have more effect is a gentle reminder of just how “right” that decision might seem some months later as one of a very busy 16 member crew, the other 15 of whom have all had considerably more than one day’s training. Unlike the pilots, it’s very unlikely that the stand-in crew will be left holding the fort when this is resolved, (however it is resolved).
On to what should be a very serious note, how in the world can CASA (or whatever their name is this week) allow Qantas to even consider manning (“person-ing”) their flights with cabin crews with only one day’s training? Along the same argument, if there’s a Qantas captain out there who is willing to fly with a cc with the level of training these fill in crew will allegedly have, it ain’t the Qantas it once was…
But it would seem from other indicators that that’s the case already.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, if one day of training is sufficient, what has been going on in the past? An inexcusable waste (6 weeks training)? Shouldn't the managers responsible for this gross waste of shareholders money be called to account and sacked immediately?
Oh no, that's right, they are all sitting around thinking up reasons to justify their obscene bonuses. Right Margaret? Count the pennies (in the workers pay packets), and the (millions of) pounds (in the bosses bonuses) will look after themselves, eh?
Oh no, that's right, they are all sitting around thinking up reasons to justify their obscene bonuses. Right Margaret? Count the pennies (in the workers pay packets), and the (millions of) pounds (in the bosses bonuses) will look after themselves, eh?
It is a concern to see references in previous posts to “black banning” fellow FA’s deemed to be strike breakers. While I understand the need to stand together, you are appealing to people who may not agree with your dispute and are not part of your union to see things from your perspective and stand by you in your action. Yet conversely you will not empathize with their situation and accept that many simply can not join you in a unanimous stand. Threats of, “your name will be tagged with with no chance of flying with QF”, for not conforming seem contradictory with the request for understanding and assistance.
It would be very disappointing to see a long running rift in the FA ranks over this issue as occurred with the pilots in 1989 and continues to this present day, which is of no benefit to either side.
Stand united but spare a thought for those you may be too quick to condemn. Safety (or maybe lack there of) is the bigger issue here.
............................................................ ..................................
I'll add a little to this if I may, a sort of $0.15AUD from the moderators.
The language this post refers to has been edited out of the original and the poster warned (not Beer Baron.) This thread is being very closely watched and so far is generally OK, and people are debating both sides with a high level of respect. Obviously some lessons have been learned from previous threads on here and elsewhere on the site.
The moderators are not here to take sides but to make sure that an environment for debate is maintained where people are not threatened. Therefore debate the issues without descending into the rhetoric Beer Baron is countering here and your argument will be heard full force. Use any of the standard emotive language from now on, and your post will be deleted; we will not have threats made on our watch from EITHER side. Thanks for the attention.
CC Forum Moderators
It would be very disappointing to see a long running rift in the FA ranks over this issue as occurred with the pilots in 1989 and continues to this present day, which is of no benefit to either side.
Stand united but spare a thought for those you may be too quick to condemn. Safety (or maybe lack there of) is the bigger issue here.
............................................................ ..................................
I'll add a little to this if I may, a sort of $0.15AUD from the moderators.
The language this post refers to has been edited out of the original and the poster warned (not Beer Baron.) This thread is being very closely watched and so far is generally OK, and people are debating both sides with a high level of respect. Obviously some lessons have been learned from previous threads on here and elsewhere on the site.
The moderators are not here to take sides but to make sure that an environment for debate is maintained where people are not threatened. Therefore debate the issues without descending into the rhetoric Beer Baron is countering here and your argument will be heard full force. Use any of the standard emotive language from now on, and your post will be deleted; we will not have threats made on our watch from EITHER side. Thanks for the attention.
CC Forum Moderators
Last edited by Sick Squid; 23rd Feb 2003 at 17:03.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed at what I am reading especially all this talk that a one day (10 hours) 747 course is not safe.
You are forgetting that all MAM casuals have already gone through the initial 5 week cabin crew EP course & are have attendned their annual /bi annual days & passed.
Like all QF crew, MAM casuals are operating crew and are certified in QF emergency procedures and like all Short Haul crew are certified to fly on 737, 767, A330 aircraft.
Therefore this one day course is sufficient, as all you are learning about is communication systems, Door operation, oxygen, equipment location for the 747.
All other procedures are already known as we are operationg crew already.
Just like all Short Haul crew were endorsed on the A330 aircraft recently. We all went to a 1 day EP course to be trained on the A330 and we don't feel that is unsafe!!!! That is because we are proficient with all the common procdures etc already!
I feel that this issue is being made bigger than what it should be.
MAM casuals are not QF employees and are contracted to cover uncovered work. No labels should be put on MAM Casuals just because they are covering flying that is available due to the fact that some flight attendants want to attend a meeting.
There will be CSMs operating as CSMs on the flights....Not all Long Haul Flight Attendants want to or will attend the stop work meeting...a situation could see only a few MAM casuals & maybe no MAM casuals onboard a flight during the stop work meeting as the rostered flight attendants may turn up for work....are they labelled scabs too??????
This is about choice.....I do not judge...if one wants to attend the meeting that is their right to do so...if a permanent Long Haul F/A wants to work during the meeting that is their choice....If MAM casuals want to be trained on a 747 & potentially get work and cover those F/As who want to attend the meeting that is their choice......who is anyone to judge what others do!!!
You are forgetting that all MAM casuals have already gone through the initial 5 week cabin crew EP course & are have attendned their annual /bi annual days & passed.
Like all QF crew, MAM casuals are operating crew and are certified in QF emergency procedures and like all Short Haul crew are certified to fly on 737, 767, A330 aircraft.
Therefore this one day course is sufficient, as all you are learning about is communication systems, Door operation, oxygen, equipment location for the 747.
All other procedures are already known as we are operationg crew already.
Just like all Short Haul crew were endorsed on the A330 aircraft recently. We all went to a 1 day EP course to be trained on the A330 and we don't feel that is unsafe!!!! That is because we are proficient with all the common procdures etc already!
I feel that this issue is being made bigger than what it should be.
MAM casuals are not QF employees and are contracted to cover uncovered work. No labels should be put on MAM Casuals just because they are covering flying that is available due to the fact that some flight attendants want to attend a meeting.
There will be CSMs operating as CSMs on the flights....Not all Long Haul Flight Attendants want to or will attend the stop work meeting...a situation could see only a few MAM casuals & maybe no MAM casuals onboard a flight during the stop work meeting as the rostered flight attendants may turn up for work....are they labelled scabs too??????
This is about choice.....I do not judge...if one wants to attend the meeting that is their right to do so...if a permanent Long Haul F/A wants to work during the meeting that is their choice....If MAM casuals want to be trained on a 747 & potentially get work and cover those F/As who want to attend the meeting that is their choice......who is anyone to judge what others do!!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think people were referring to MAM when they were talking about the 1 days training. They were referring to non flyers who were recently advised by QF that they were on a short list from recent recruitment drives. 1 days training for these people is totally unacceptable by anyone standards and even you MAMPOWER must agree with this surely. Although these people may not be in training due to the number of MAM crew willing to take on the challenge of international flying on Tuesday.
Another point to take into consideration is MAM are casuals working for a labour hire company. You made a choice to join MAM as a casual so if you are not getting many hours and cant pay the bills that is your choice please dont use this as an excuse when you jet off on Tuesday.
Another point to consider is how strong the union movement is in Australia and not just in the airline industry. You are working for a labour hire company not Qantas and the union is well within its right to make a request to Qantas that any member of MAM working on Tuesday never be instated as a permanent cabin crew member with Qantas for undertaking flying on Tuesday. You are not protected like Qantas employees willing to work on Tuesday. Also do you think you will ever be able to join the FAAA international division should you somehow ever score a long haul position? The FAAA have made there position very clear on their website what they think of MAM working on Tuesday.
The work that you undertake next week may very well help pay the bills but if you think Qantas or the FAAA or a large percentage of cabin crew will welcome you with open arms you are wrong. Qantas does not and cannont lose its 4000 international cabin crew and that is their priority at present MAM is filling the void on Tuesday and I am sure they will promise you this and that but if the FAAA and its 4000 members put pressure on the big Q to refuse permanent employment to the MAM crew working on Tuesday who do you think Qantas will go with.
There is a history of this sort of action by unions namely the building and waterfront so my advice to you is think carefully and than make a decision based on all the facts. Im not saying dont do it Im just giving you the other side of the coin based on what other unions have achieved even though you may not see it this way you are taking on the FAAA international division which is very powerfull please dont underestimate their power over Qantas when it comes to MAM and any other labour hire company.
Another point to take into consideration is MAM are casuals working for a labour hire company. You made a choice to join MAM as a casual so if you are not getting many hours and cant pay the bills that is your choice please dont use this as an excuse when you jet off on Tuesday.
Another point to consider is how strong the union movement is in Australia and not just in the airline industry. You are working for a labour hire company not Qantas and the union is well within its right to make a request to Qantas that any member of MAM working on Tuesday never be instated as a permanent cabin crew member with Qantas for undertaking flying on Tuesday. You are not protected like Qantas employees willing to work on Tuesday. Also do you think you will ever be able to join the FAAA international division should you somehow ever score a long haul position? The FAAA have made there position very clear on their website what they think of MAM working on Tuesday.
The work that you undertake next week may very well help pay the bills but if you think Qantas or the FAAA or a large percentage of cabin crew will welcome you with open arms you are wrong. Qantas does not and cannont lose its 4000 international cabin crew and that is their priority at present MAM is filling the void on Tuesday and I am sure they will promise you this and that but if the FAAA and its 4000 members put pressure on the big Q to refuse permanent employment to the MAM crew working on Tuesday who do you think Qantas will go with.
There is a history of this sort of action by unions namely the building and waterfront so my advice to you is think carefully and than make a decision based on all the facts. Im not saying dont do it Im just giving you the other side of the coin based on what other unions have achieved even though you may not see it this way you are taking on the FAAA international division which is very powerfull please dont underestimate their power over Qantas when it comes to MAM and any other labour hire company.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have read from the previous posts I sense a little threat. I hope this doesn't come to that.
I am not involved in this matter and thank god I am not. You are talking about a lot of people who have been out of permanent work for so long they would do anything to fly again. These guys are not in a position to say no. Think about when you first started flying. You would have jumped at the chance to do any flying and these guys who have flown with other airlines and lost their positions just want to get back there. They want to get their careers back and if there is an offer to do so, so be it! It may only be 3 days work but have you ever lost your dream job? It hurts and I'm sure you would do the same. If the only job you could secure was casual flying, and that is what they are, casuals, and you were offered any flying, because I know some are existing on 20hrs per month or less, of course you would take it. It's not about what they believe is right or wrong, it's about working to live. Hey, they need the money and they shouldn't be criticised for wanting to do so. How do you know if they said no to this offer their application for permanent work would be tossed aside. They dont know that. They want to do what they think is right for themselves. They are not permanent Qantas employees and probably have no idea what the hell you are fighting for. They just want their jobs back.
You have all been through a recruitment process, any denial of employment you have been given will be discussed and where does that put them, in the too hard basket and they may risk their opportunity of gaining permanent employment. "Oh you really want to fly but you turned down such and such an offer"?.
Yes it's a catch 22 situation, QF know they have people to call on, and if I was with you I would be with you all the way, but please dont bag these guys for trying to get ahead with their career.
Re the training, as MAMPOWER mentioned, a lot of crew are already trained in QF EP's and it's really only a version type difference. Yes 2 days seems short but I have done it in the past and it's not that hard. As MAMPOWER said they wont be alone as many CSM's are flying along with other experienced crew. You had a first flight once, they let you do it. But personally, if they are brand new crew, they shouldn't be crewing as primary after 2 days training. I agree with you there. If there was an issue with their training I'm sure the techies wouldn't allow the flight to go.
I'm with you all the way but understand the plight of the casuals.
I am not involved in this matter and thank god I am not. You are talking about a lot of people who have been out of permanent work for so long they would do anything to fly again. These guys are not in a position to say no. Think about when you first started flying. You would have jumped at the chance to do any flying and these guys who have flown with other airlines and lost their positions just want to get back there. They want to get their careers back and if there is an offer to do so, so be it! It may only be 3 days work but have you ever lost your dream job? It hurts and I'm sure you would do the same. If the only job you could secure was casual flying, and that is what they are, casuals, and you were offered any flying, because I know some are existing on 20hrs per month or less, of course you would take it. It's not about what they believe is right or wrong, it's about working to live. Hey, they need the money and they shouldn't be criticised for wanting to do so. How do you know if they said no to this offer their application for permanent work would be tossed aside. They dont know that. They want to do what they think is right for themselves. They are not permanent Qantas employees and probably have no idea what the hell you are fighting for. They just want their jobs back.
You have all been through a recruitment process, any denial of employment you have been given will be discussed and where does that put them, in the too hard basket and they may risk their opportunity of gaining permanent employment. "Oh you really want to fly but you turned down such and such an offer"?.
Yes it's a catch 22 situation, QF know they have people to call on, and if I was with you I would be with you all the way, but please dont bag these guys for trying to get ahead with their career.
Re the training, as MAMPOWER mentioned, a lot of crew are already trained in QF EP's and it's really only a version type difference. Yes 2 days seems short but I have done it in the past and it's not that hard. As MAMPOWER said they wont be alone as many CSM's are flying along with other experienced crew. You had a first flight once, they let you do it. But personally, if they are brand new crew, they shouldn't be crewing as primary after 2 days training. I agree with you there. If there was an issue with their training I'm sure the techies wouldn't allow the flight to go.
I'm with you all the way but understand the plight of the casuals.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avion calling (and others); so when these people finally land their 'dream job' as permanents, then the rat turns around and finds a bunch of people who would do the job for, say, half the pay, sacks everyone and replaces them with the even lower paid workers (who just need a job, and it's their dream job)- that will be OK with everybody concerned?
Think about the principles of what you are suggesting.
And, most importantly, do unto others...........
Think about the principles of what you are suggesting.
And, most importantly, do unto others...........
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAM & The Union - just a thought
In the current debate of MAM contractors being called to cover work for stop work meetings for Qantas international - a thought occurred to me.
Most of the current MAM casuals would be union members. Why cant the union help them out also in this situation and offer advise towards their members on this stance. The real stance of what this position would hold for the casual members. Wouldnt it be in their best interests.
Additionally - cant the union step in to suggest that this form of work is unacceptable for casuals to undertake - or that if they decide not to undergo this form of contract work that their careers wont be hindered by rejecting this offer. Or if they decide to take on the offer what the repercussions will be???
Look might be way off base here...but was just a thought that came to mind. I am sure most casuals are current union members and the union should also be looking after their interests here also.
As for the shortlisters - well that would be a different scenario as most wouldnt be current union members.
I do feel for the current casuals being put in this position!
Most of the current MAM casuals would be union members. Why cant the union help them out also in this situation and offer advise towards their members on this stance. The real stance of what this position would hold for the casual members. Wouldnt it be in their best interests.
Additionally - cant the union step in to suggest that this form of work is unacceptable for casuals to undertake - or that if they decide not to undergo this form of contract work that their careers wont be hindered by rejecting this offer. Or if they decide to take on the offer what the repercussions will be???
Look might be way off base here...but was just a thought that came to mind. I am sure most casuals are current union members and the union should also be looking after their interests here also.
As for the shortlisters - well that would be a different scenario as most wouldnt be current union members.
I do feel for the current casuals being put in this position!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airborne1
Below is a notice put out by the FAAA Domestic/Regional division on 21 February, 2003.
There are two seperate unions of the FAAA one for Long Haul crew and one for Domestic/Regional crew.
The union is very clear on this matter MAM Casuals or any other flight attendants for that matter SHOULD not undertake any work on behalf of any other union taking industrial action.
The MAM casuals that operated on Tuesday should have their membership cancelled and NO support should be shown to them by the FAAA Domestic/Regional division.
That is my personal view, some may see this as harsh but what we are talking about here are labour hire companies eroding the conditions of permanent employment for cabin crew.
MAM Casuals took the decision to operate now they must face whatever consequences may be handed out to them by their union.
LONG HAUL INDUSTRIAL ACTION
As members are aware, Long Haul Flight Attendants are taking industrial action in support of their EBA claims.
Members should note, it is the policy of your Union not to do the work of any Union taking industrial action.
Therefore, while Short Haul Flight Attendants are not taking industrial action next Tuesday and will work as normal if you are assigned, awarded or drafted to a duty that you are not sure is your work, telephone the Association.
While it is understood that MAM Flight Attendants have had little or no work lately, it is our expectation that members should comply with our Union policy.
Below is a notice put out by the FAAA Domestic/Regional division on 21 February, 2003.
There are two seperate unions of the FAAA one for Long Haul crew and one for Domestic/Regional crew.
The union is very clear on this matter MAM Casuals or any other flight attendants for that matter SHOULD not undertake any work on behalf of any other union taking industrial action.
The MAM casuals that operated on Tuesday should have their membership cancelled and NO support should be shown to them by the FAAA Domestic/Regional division.
That is my personal view, some may see this as harsh but what we are talking about here are labour hire companies eroding the conditions of permanent employment for cabin crew.
MAM Casuals took the decision to operate now they must face whatever consequences may be handed out to them by their union.
LONG HAUL INDUSTRIAL ACTION
As members are aware, Long Haul Flight Attendants are taking industrial action in support of their EBA claims.
Members should note, it is the policy of your Union not to do the work of any Union taking industrial action.
Therefore, while Short Haul Flight Attendants are not taking industrial action next Tuesday and will work as normal if you are assigned, awarded or drafted to a duty that you are not sure is your work, telephone the Association.
While it is understood that MAM Flight Attendants have had little or no work lately, it is our expectation that members should comply with our Union policy.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a Stop Work, not a "Strike" that was taken.
Please clarify this as there is a difference in industrial terms.
The contract workers or MAM Casuals should not then be considered "Strike-Breakers".
Please clarify this as there is a difference in industrial terms.
The contract workers or MAM Casuals should not then be considered "Strike-Breakers".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for clarifying that galleyhag.
The company I am working for is also looking towards implementing casuals into our workforce also....sorry to say but I hope for this exact reason it doesnt go ahead.
No offense to any current casuals - the offense is at the management for putting you into this position. It shouldnt be allowed.
The company I am working for is also looking towards implementing casuals into our workforce also....sorry to say but I hope for this exact reason it doesnt go ahead.
No offense to any current casuals - the offense is at the management for putting you into this position. It shouldnt be allowed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the milkyway galaxy
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello everyone,
the latest news I have heard is that QF are contacting shortlisted staff and training them up for intl f/a duties..this is to cover anymore strike action that may happen.. shortlisters contacted on saturday night..training is for about 7 days 12 hour days
the latest news I have heard is that QF are contacting shortlisted staff and training them up for intl f/a duties..this is to cover anymore strike action that may happen.. shortlisters contacted on saturday night..training is for about 7 days 12 hour days
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just spoke to a friend of mine who told me this.QF hired a lear-jet to go from Mel-Syd to pick up 8 MAM FAs and fly to Drw.On arrival in Drw,MAM FAs not required so back to Syd they went.Then the Lear-Jet had to go back to Mel. I, After some research found out that the cheapest Lear-Jet is about $2.500 per hour.Give or take a few $ what did this cost QF.Not much change out of $30.000 plus.What a F^#king waste of money.Have a think about that.However these little stories always stay in-doors.This came from a true source.
