The 49ers and Related Issues(Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 1
This is a bit long so it had to be split into two parts.
A paper portraying the case against the offer, supported by several Cathay Captains.
HKAOA EGM 15TH FEBRUARY 2005
THE CASE AGAINST “THE OFFER”
Ladies & Gentlemen
At the 15th February EGM, we are being asked to vote For or Against “The Offer”. Whilst the AOA GC is recommending that we accept the Offer, this paper details some of the issues that merit voting Against acceptance. It focuses on the issues for the non-49er Member. It is up to each individual 49er to decide whether the provisions of the Offer meet his own needs. For example, is he prepared to become a Year 1 freighter F/O instead of the Senior Captain on previous CoS? Only by considering all of the issues can we, the non-49ers, make informed and balanced decisions about our future.
Here are the “highlights”:
The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
The Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
The Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.
AOA Strategy. Our Association’s stated strategy is:
“The overall strategy since September 2002 has been to move away from a confrontational position and engage Management in constructive discussions with a view to forging a new working relationship. We believe that this path will benefit our Association. It is the path most likely to lead to a resolution to the 49ers; it is the path that will enable us to strengthen our Membership and therefore it is the path that is most likely to protect and improve our Conditions of Service. These are all very important objectives”; and,
“After every dispute there is never long-lasting peace unless there is rehabilitation. An essential part of the rehabilitation process is to find an acceptable resolution for The 49ers, and that would be our next step”; and,
“However, we are conscious that all parties have already lost greatly out of this dispute, the 49ers more than any, and what is needed is a resolution that allows us all to move forward.”
At the 29th December Focus Night, the President stated:
We thought {The 49ers negotiation} would go one of two ways:
Having agreed to negotiate they could make an offer that was generous enough to be seen to try and put the wrong right, and allow everyone to put it behind them and move forward. That’s one way and that’s the way we hoped they’d do it.
On the other hand, they could make an offer, which was better than any court could provide, but didn’t go as far as allowing people to put it all behind them. And that’s the path they’ve unfortunately chosen to go… a missed opportunity in my view.
The President is quite clear that the Offer does not permit “us all to move forward” nor does it “put the wrong right”. The DFO was also quite clear last month:
“The Company is keen to demonstrate that the confrontational approach of previous committees has no place within the Swire Group of companies”.
It is clear that our current strategy has not “forged a new working relationship”.
Negotiation Objectives. Last autumn, in preparation for upcoming negotiations, a 49er and the AOA President had the following communication:
I expressed to the President the view that the objectives of any negotiations that might be enjoined should be twofold:
1. To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.
2. To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.
The President agreed with both of these objectives.
The President responded on 13th October with: “I agree with the sentiment of the letter particularly as regards our objectives in any negotiation” and on 19th October, after reading the above final text in an internal 49er newsletter, with: ”Seems like fair comment to me”.
In essence, these negotiation Objectives are “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers”.
Neither Objective has been met.
The 49ers’ newsletter also included:
“The President also gave me an undertaking that financial assistance to the 49ers in pursuit of the legal cases will continue for the foreseeable future. I related to him that some people were concerned that he was going to negotiate a deal that does not satisfy the needs of the 49ers, put it to a membership vote and, if it passed, stop the assistance if the 49ers did not agree to accept the deal. He stated to me that this will not happen”.
That’s exactly what has happened.
Why Should I Have a Vote? The legal situation is that each 49er is in litigation with the Company. Therefore, any legal settlement is essentially between The 49er and the Company. However, as a peculiarity of the Offer, we non-49er Members have become directly involved: “The Association would be required to cease funding all legal actions related to the dismissals”. As a point of Law, the Association has never funded the legal actions nor are we permitted to do so. We have, however, given welfare loans to 49ers so they can pursue their own legal actions. This subtle but important difference means that we are not in litigation with the Company. We are, however, financially assisting our fellow Members who were unfairly terminated 31/2 years ago. That’s a basic union members’ responsibility, covered by the Rules.
Therefore, our vote is nothing to do with industrial relations or The 49ers, per se – it is all about withdrawing financial subsistence to those seeking legal justice.
Legal Funding. We have been told that:
“Even in the event of a victory in the actions, if the award is less than the current Offer, and it almost certainly will be, the courts would determine that we should pay the Company’s costs, as well as our own, from the time of the Offer going forward. Given that most of the costs still lie ahead of us, Instructing Solicitors advise that we would need to budget for a net outflow of up to HKD 20m”.
This statement is misleading and incorrect. Firstly, the Company has not yet made a “payment into Court”. Therefore the status of this Offer is not the trigger point for us accruing any liability, nor is the EGM date of 15th February. That trigger would only occur once the Company chose to make a formal “payment into Court”. One must wonder, if it could save such huge sums of money and force the AOA to pay its costs, why management has not done so in the last 31/2 years? It is a fact that there is every chance that the Company will not “pay into Court” because of associated jeopardy. Even if it did so, that would not preclude us accepting the payment with no liability.
Secondly, until it does so, it continues to be liable for a percentage of The 49ers’ costs to date: ≈HK$12m. By accepting this Offer, we would be agreeing to write off ≈HK$8.5m to date that CPA will almost inevitably be ordered to pay – even if it “pays into Court” - more than HK$9000 per Member.
The legal costs issue is a red herring designed to mislead you to abandon the long-running legal strategy.
The Voting Balance. For most of us, the vote is straightforward: we will continue to support The 49ers and vote whichever way they choose:
If all The 49ers accept – we will accept: the Yes vote.
If all The 49ers decline – we will decline: the No vote.
Objectively, we need to consider what to do if The 49ers are, say, split 50:50. Any other balance is just a weaker permutation of Yes or No. Clearly, the notion that “if one 49er accepts then we should all accept and forsake the other 49ers” is absurd. Therefore, let’s focus on the 50:50 scenario.
The argument is that we should all vote Yes “otherwise we are preventing The 49ers from being employed”. Let’s be clear here: the Association Membership has never prevented any 49er from being employed - management are. They could rehire all of The 49ers on full back pay tomorrow if they so desired. The only reason your vote is required now is that they want you to stop giving financial assistance to any 49er seeking legal justice. If you vote NO, you are not stopping any 49er being employed. If you vote NO, you are voting to continue assisting The 49ers who find the Offer unacceptable. We’ve been doing that proudly for 31/2 years and something that costs us less than the monthly Hourly Duty Pay we negotiated.
If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to decline the Offer? You are voting to abandon those 49ers. For those men and their families, the hardship of the last 31/2 years would be wasted, only to be abandoned by their union.
If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to accept the Offer? It means that they could proceed to a job interview - if they sacrifice their statutory legal rights first. It does not guarantee employment in a new F/O position and it is certainly not “re”-employment or “re”-instatement. It is only a job interview. To even consider abandoning some of The 49ers then surely the other 49ers should at least be guaranteed employment, subject to medical criteria? If 25 walk into the interview then 25 should receive job offers.
We are told that “the assessment procedure will permit a fair and objective decision to be made in each case”. What behavioural proof do we have of that? At the last Command Assessment panel 8 out of 10 SFOs were categorised Cat B. There is at least one Cat C F/O (not yet suitable for further Command training) who received no extra sectors and passed all his check rides on his Command Training. Is it likely that a junior manager will override the directions of the DFO? Why did the minutes of the original Star Chamber disappear? The Flight Ops Boards are heavily influenced by personal opinions and are definitely opaque. Why should this procedure be any different?
If management had faith in the natural justice of their own interview procedure they would have offered employment, subject to individual withdrawal of ongoing legal action. The 49ers could then choose to rescind their legal position once the job offer was actually available, and not before. There is no downside to this for CPA – unless they wish to retain the “weeding out” facility. Conversely, there is a major downside for our Association. In the scenario, we could face the situation where only half of the candidates secure employment, leaving us to support twenty-five 49ers that declined the Offer and twelve 49ers that now have no statutory legal rights.
Consequently, it is far too hazardous for us, as Members, to accede to 49ers sacrificing their legal rights just for an interview. It is also more hazardous to stop assisting The 49ers who still need our financial assistance.
On that basis alone, this Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s Future. Acceptance of the Offer will destroy the objectives of “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers” and waste our efforts of the last 31/2 years. Not only would we abandon some 49ers and their families, we would also set a dire precedent for the future of our Association. We would be saying to management that, any time they have a disagreement with the Association, they can “fire 20 or 30 pilots and the rest will fall into line”. The contractual Discipline & Grievance Procedure would be meaningless. “Moving on” would be condoning intimidation through capitulation. More importantly, we would be signalling that this Association is prepared to quit in the fight for justice. As our Association does not currently comprise quitters, it is very likely that many will decide that our Association no longer represents our morals or values and therefore resign. Just step back and look at this Offer morally and ethically. You know it’s wrong, don’t you?
The Association’s future is best served by a No Vote.
The President said that this Offer is “not a famous victory”. Stop it becoming “a famous defeat” that will emasculate our Association for the foreseeable future. When The 49ers vote No, please vote No with them.
Conclusion.
The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
This Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
This Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.
Please Vote NO at the forthcoming EGM
A paper portraying the case against the offer, supported by several Cathay Captains.
HKAOA EGM 15TH FEBRUARY 2005
THE CASE AGAINST “THE OFFER”
Ladies & Gentlemen
At the 15th February EGM, we are being asked to vote For or Against “The Offer”. Whilst the AOA GC is recommending that we accept the Offer, this paper details some of the issues that merit voting Against acceptance. It focuses on the issues for the non-49er Member. It is up to each individual 49er to decide whether the provisions of the Offer meet his own needs. For example, is he prepared to become a Year 1 freighter F/O instead of the Senior Captain on previous CoS? Only by considering all of the issues can we, the non-49ers, make informed and balanced decisions about our future.
Here are the “highlights”:
The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
The Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
The Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.
AOA Strategy. Our Association’s stated strategy is:
“The overall strategy since September 2002 has been to move away from a confrontational position and engage Management in constructive discussions with a view to forging a new working relationship. We believe that this path will benefit our Association. It is the path most likely to lead to a resolution to the 49ers; it is the path that will enable us to strengthen our Membership and therefore it is the path that is most likely to protect and improve our Conditions of Service. These are all very important objectives”; and,
“After every dispute there is never long-lasting peace unless there is rehabilitation. An essential part of the rehabilitation process is to find an acceptable resolution for The 49ers, and that would be our next step”; and,
“However, we are conscious that all parties have already lost greatly out of this dispute, the 49ers more than any, and what is needed is a resolution that allows us all to move forward.”
At the 29th December Focus Night, the President stated:
We thought {The 49ers negotiation} would go one of two ways:
Having agreed to negotiate they could make an offer that was generous enough to be seen to try and put the wrong right, and allow everyone to put it behind them and move forward. That’s one way and that’s the way we hoped they’d do it.
On the other hand, they could make an offer, which was better than any court could provide, but didn’t go as far as allowing people to put it all behind them. And that’s the path they’ve unfortunately chosen to go… a missed opportunity in my view.
The President is quite clear that the Offer does not permit “us all to move forward” nor does it “put the wrong right”. The DFO was also quite clear last month:
“The Company is keen to demonstrate that the confrontational approach of previous committees has no place within the Swire Group of companies”.
It is clear that our current strategy has not “forged a new working relationship”.
Negotiation Objectives. Last autumn, in preparation for upcoming negotiations, a 49er and the AOA President had the following communication:
I expressed to the President the view that the objectives of any negotiations that might be enjoined should be twofold:
1. To ensure that Cathay Pacific pilots can never again be put in the position in which we have found ourselves.
2. To ensure full reinstatement and proper compensation for 49ers who are qualified and wish to return to work for CX and to ensure proper compensation for those who are not now qualified or do not wish to return to work for CX.
The President agreed with both of these objectives.
The President responded on 13th October with: “I agree with the sentiment of the letter particularly as regards our objectives in any negotiation” and on 19th October, after reading the above final text in an internal 49er newsletter, with: ”Seems like fair comment to me”.
In essence, these negotiation Objectives are “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers”.
Neither Objective has been met.
The 49ers’ newsletter also included:
“The President also gave me an undertaking that financial assistance to the 49ers in pursuit of the legal cases will continue for the foreseeable future. I related to him that some people were concerned that he was going to negotiate a deal that does not satisfy the needs of the 49ers, put it to a membership vote and, if it passed, stop the assistance if the 49ers did not agree to accept the deal. He stated to me that this will not happen”.
That’s exactly what has happened.
Why Should I Have a Vote? The legal situation is that each 49er is in litigation with the Company. Therefore, any legal settlement is essentially between The 49er and the Company. However, as a peculiarity of the Offer, we non-49er Members have become directly involved: “The Association would be required to cease funding all legal actions related to the dismissals”. As a point of Law, the Association has never funded the legal actions nor are we permitted to do so. We have, however, given welfare loans to 49ers so they can pursue their own legal actions. This subtle but important difference means that we are not in litigation with the Company. We are, however, financially assisting our fellow Members who were unfairly terminated 31/2 years ago. That’s a basic union members’ responsibility, covered by the Rules.
Therefore, our vote is nothing to do with industrial relations or The 49ers, per se – it is all about withdrawing financial subsistence to those seeking legal justice.
Legal Funding. We have been told that:
“Even in the event of a victory in the actions, if the award is less than the current Offer, and it almost certainly will be, the courts would determine that we should pay the Company’s costs, as well as our own, from the time of the Offer going forward. Given that most of the costs still lie ahead of us, Instructing Solicitors advise that we would need to budget for a net outflow of up to HKD 20m”.
This statement is misleading and incorrect. Firstly, the Company has not yet made a “payment into Court”. Therefore the status of this Offer is not the trigger point for us accruing any liability, nor is the EGM date of 15th February. That trigger would only occur once the Company chose to make a formal “payment into Court”. One must wonder, if it could save such huge sums of money and force the AOA to pay its costs, why management has not done so in the last 31/2 years? It is a fact that there is every chance that the Company will not “pay into Court” because of associated jeopardy. Even if it did so, that would not preclude us accepting the payment with no liability.
Secondly, until it does so, it continues to be liable for a percentage of The 49ers’ costs to date: ≈HK$12m. By accepting this Offer, we would be agreeing to write off ≈HK$8.5m to date that CPA will almost inevitably be ordered to pay – even if it “pays into Court” - more than HK$9000 per Member.
The legal costs issue is a red herring designed to mislead you to abandon the long-running legal strategy.
The Voting Balance. For most of us, the vote is straightforward: we will continue to support The 49ers and vote whichever way they choose:
If all The 49ers accept – we will accept: the Yes vote.
If all The 49ers decline – we will decline: the No vote.
Objectively, we need to consider what to do if The 49ers are, say, split 50:50. Any other balance is just a weaker permutation of Yes or No. Clearly, the notion that “if one 49er accepts then we should all accept and forsake the other 49ers” is absurd. Therefore, let’s focus on the 50:50 scenario.
The argument is that we should all vote Yes “otherwise we are preventing The 49ers from being employed”. Let’s be clear here: the Association Membership has never prevented any 49er from being employed - management are. They could rehire all of The 49ers on full back pay tomorrow if they so desired. The only reason your vote is required now is that they want you to stop giving financial assistance to any 49er seeking legal justice. If you vote NO, you are not stopping any 49er being employed. If you vote NO, you are voting to continue assisting The 49ers who find the Offer unacceptable. We’ve been doing that proudly for 31/2 years and something that costs us less than the monthly Hourly Duty Pay we negotiated.
If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to decline the Offer? You are voting to abandon those 49ers. For those men and their families, the hardship of the last 31/2 years would be wasted, only to be abandoned by their union.
If you vote Yes – what does that mean for The 49ers who wish to accept the Offer? It means that they could proceed to a job interview - if they sacrifice their statutory legal rights first. It does not guarantee employment in a new F/O position and it is certainly not “re”-employment or “re”-instatement. It is only a job interview. To even consider abandoning some of The 49ers then surely the other 49ers should at least be guaranteed employment, subject to medical criteria? If 25 walk into the interview then 25 should receive job offers.
We are told that “the assessment procedure will permit a fair and objective decision to be made in each case”. What behavioural proof do we have of that? At the last Command Assessment panel 8 out of 10 SFOs were categorised Cat B. There is at least one Cat C F/O (not yet suitable for further Command training) who received no extra sectors and passed all his check rides on his Command Training. Is it likely that a junior manager will override the directions of the DFO? Why did the minutes of the original Star Chamber disappear? The Flight Ops Boards are heavily influenced by personal opinions and are definitely opaque. Why should this procedure be any different?
If management had faith in the natural justice of their own interview procedure they would have offered employment, subject to individual withdrawal of ongoing legal action. The 49ers could then choose to rescind their legal position once the job offer was actually available, and not before. There is no downside to this for CPA – unless they wish to retain the “weeding out” facility. Conversely, there is a major downside for our Association. In the scenario, we could face the situation where only half of the candidates secure employment, leaving us to support twenty-five 49ers that declined the Offer and twelve 49ers that now have no statutory legal rights.
Consequently, it is far too hazardous for us, as Members, to accede to 49ers sacrificing their legal rights just for an interview. It is also more hazardous to stop assisting The 49ers who still need our financial assistance.
On that basis alone, this Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s Future. Acceptance of the Offer will destroy the objectives of “Job Security via Fair Treatment For The 49ers” and waste our efforts of the last 31/2 years. Not only would we abandon some 49ers and their families, we would also set a dire precedent for the future of our Association. We would be saying to management that, any time they have a disagreement with the Association, they can “fire 20 or 30 pilots and the rest will fall into line”. The contractual Discipline & Grievance Procedure would be meaningless. “Moving on” would be condoning intimidation through capitulation. More importantly, we would be signalling that this Association is prepared to quit in the fight for justice. As our Association does not currently comprise quitters, it is very likely that many will decide that our Association no longer represents our morals or values and therefore resign. Just step back and look at this Offer morally and ethically. You know it’s wrong, don’t you?
The Association’s future is best served by a No Vote.
The President said that this Offer is “not a famous victory”. Stop it becoming “a famous defeat” that will emasculate our Association for the foreseeable future. When The 49ers vote No, please vote No with them.
Conclusion.
The current AOA Strategy has not forged a new working relationship.
The negotiation objectives have not been met:
o We have not protected our job security.
o We have not achieved Fair Treatment for The 49ers.
This Offer is not about The 49ers – it’s about withdrawing the legals.
The legal costs issue is a red herring.
This Offer is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The Association’s future is best served by a No vote.
Please Vote NO at the forthcoming EGM
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 49ers, having been sacked by the Company, are now being offered 10 months salary if they stop persueing their law suits.
The Flight Engineers that were made redundant on the Classic fleet were paid 6 months salary.
The Flight Engineers that were made redundant on the Classic fleet were paid 6 months salary.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SCMP
SCMP 30/1/05
Captain A, who earned $ ????? a month when he was fired during the dispute over pay and rosters in July 2001, has said "no" to a $ 1.45 million payout offer from the airline and is determined to carry on fighting his case through the courts if his union colleagues will support him.
Mr Biaspal, who earns $ ????? a month, has said "no" to a $ 6,000 payout offer from the airline and on February 23 will go to Hong Kong's High Court with two other flight attendants to fight for pay they say they are owed but never received.
Both Captain A and Mr Biaspal are indignant and defiant. Both have so far resisted considerable pressure to reach an out-of-court settlement because they believe Cathay Pacific is acting unfairly. Both are determined to have their day in court.
It is the high-profile and emotive case of the 49ers - whose salaries start at around $ ????? - that has so far dominated the headlines.
But the case being brought by Mr Biaspal and his colleagues on February 23 may have far broader implications for staff relations at the hugely successful Hong Kong airline. Mr Biaspal, who joined the airline eight years ago, took a job with Cathay at a time when flight attendants saw their salaries rise by a grade every year, giving them automatic pay rises of around $ 600 for each year they completed. If it had had continued, as he says he was entitled to expect it would, he would now be on a salary of $ 15,120. Instead he's earning $ 11,888 and with every pay cheque that goes into his bank, he is $ 3232 worse off than he believes he should be. He claims they now owe him more than $ 107,000 - and the figure is rising by the month. About 3,400 attendants past and present employed in 1996 under monthly contacts are losing thousands of dollars a month, according to its calculations. In a series of meetings aimed at averting next month's court case, Cathay first offered in December a one-off goodwill payment of $ 4,000 to flight attendants of Mr Biaspal's junior rank, along with a 7.5 per cent pay rise over three years. The offer was increased on January 6 to $ 6,000 for junior attendants, $ 8,000 for senior pursers and $ 11,000 for in-flight service managers - a one-off payout that would have cost the company a total of $ 24.3 million. By her calculations - which she admits take the highest possible permutations on behalf of cabin crew - Cathay should be offering significantly more than $ 24.3 million to settle the dispute. She believes that if the two-week court case goes against the airline, it could be facing a bill of as much as $ 350 million. It is a scenario Cathay - which says it has made a fair and reasonable offer to staff - dismisses, indicating the approach taken by the union representing 70 per cent of cabin crew fails to take account of Hong Kong's "economic situation and competitive environment". However, the fact the airline has fallen so far short of the expectations of a large proportion of its cabin crew and now faces a court hearing over alleged breach of contract points to an uncomfortably disparate view of the world between management and frontline staff.
If, on top of that, pilots vote "no" when the Aircrew Officers Association meets later this month to decide whether to accept what Cathay insists is its final offer to the 49ers before court cases proceed, the schism between management and staff is in danger of looking more like a chasm.
According to Ms Kwan and others, there is a strong sense among cabin crew the airline is not willing to give credit to its staff for Cathay's turnaround in fortune since the dark days of 2003, and sees any challenge over contracts as another union dragon to be slain at any cost.
Despite its vastly improved relationship with the leadership of the Aircrew Officers Association, Cathay will find relations with pilots back in the spotlight if association members reject the offer to 49ers at their extraordinary general meeting on February 15, eight days before the flight attendants go to the High Court.
It is impossible to know which way the membership vote will go, but there is ferocious opposition among the 49ers themselves, whose feelings will be made known to members after a poll due to be concluded on tomorrow.
If they reject it, the association will have to go against the wishes of the men they have supported for 31/2 years if the offer is to stand.
One senior association member, who asked not to be named, said pilots viewed the offer as "derisory and insulting". It was quite possible the offer would be accepted, he admitted, but he added: "If it doesn't go through they'll have a heap of legal trouble on their plate.
Captain A, who earned $ ????? a month when he was fired during the dispute over pay and rosters in July 2001, has said "no" to a $ 1.45 million payout offer from the airline and is determined to carry on fighting his case through the courts if his union colleagues will support him.
Mr Biaspal, who earns $ ????? a month, has said "no" to a $ 6,000 payout offer from the airline and on February 23 will go to Hong Kong's High Court with two other flight attendants to fight for pay they say they are owed but never received.
Both Captain A and Mr Biaspal are indignant and defiant. Both have so far resisted considerable pressure to reach an out-of-court settlement because they believe Cathay Pacific is acting unfairly. Both are determined to have their day in court.
It is the high-profile and emotive case of the 49ers - whose salaries start at around $ ????? - that has so far dominated the headlines.
But the case being brought by Mr Biaspal and his colleagues on February 23 may have far broader implications for staff relations at the hugely successful Hong Kong airline. Mr Biaspal, who joined the airline eight years ago, took a job with Cathay at a time when flight attendants saw their salaries rise by a grade every year, giving them automatic pay rises of around $ 600 for each year they completed. If it had had continued, as he says he was entitled to expect it would, he would now be on a salary of $ 15,120. Instead he's earning $ 11,888 and with every pay cheque that goes into his bank, he is $ 3232 worse off than he believes he should be. He claims they now owe him more than $ 107,000 - and the figure is rising by the month. About 3,400 attendants past and present employed in 1996 under monthly contacts are losing thousands of dollars a month, according to its calculations. In a series of meetings aimed at averting next month's court case, Cathay first offered in December a one-off goodwill payment of $ 4,000 to flight attendants of Mr Biaspal's junior rank, along with a 7.5 per cent pay rise over three years. The offer was increased on January 6 to $ 6,000 for junior attendants, $ 8,000 for senior pursers and $ 11,000 for in-flight service managers - a one-off payout that would have cost the company a total of $ 24.3 million. By her calculations - which she admits take the highest possible permutations on behalf of cabin crew - Cathay should be offering significantly more than $ 24.3 million to settle the dispute. She believes that if the two-week court case goes against the airline, it could be facing a bill of as much as $ 350 million. It is a scenario Cathay - which says it has made a fair and reasonable offer to staff - dismisses, indicating the approach taken by the union representing 70 per cent of cabin crew fails to take account of Hong Kong's "economic situation and competitive environment". However, the fact the airline has fallen so far short of the expectations of a large proportion of its cabin crew and now faces a court hearing over alleged breach of contract points to an uncomfortably disparate view of the world between management and frontline staff.
If, on top of that, pilots vote "no" when the Aircrew Officers Association meets later this month to decide whether to accept what Cathay insists is its final offer to the 49ers before court cases proceed, the schism between management and staff is in danger of looking more like a chasm.
According to Ms Kwan and others, there is a strong sense among cabin crew the airline is not willing to give credit to its staff for Cathay's turnaround in fortune since the dark days of 2003, and sees any challenge over contracts as another union dragon to be slain at any cost.
Despite its vastly improved relationship with the leadership of the Aircrew Officers Association, Cathay will find relations with pilots back in the spotlight if association members reject the offer to 49ers at their extraordinary general meeting on February 15, eight days before the flight attendants go to the High Court.
It is impossible to know which way the membership vote will go, but there is ferocious opposition among the 49ers themselves, whose feelings will be made known to members after a poll due to be concluded on tomorrow.
If they reject it, the association will have to go against the wishes of the men they have supported for 31/2 years if the offer is to stand.
One senior association member, who asked not to be named, said pilots viewed the offer as "derisory and insulting". It was quite possible the offer would be accepted, he admitted, but he added: "If it doesn't go through they'll have a heap of legal trouble on their plate.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: anywhere but the 3rd floor
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justice....and resolve
I have just read the letters from the 49er's that have been posted on the HKAOA website. I was particularly struck by the one from Craig Youngs wife. To read these letters is to experience only a very small amount of the pain and suffering our colleagues AND their families have been put through. We owe it to them, and ourselves to continue to force this management to address the terrible wrong they committed against our friends and their families. I voted for RP04, I voted for the housing, mainly to 'offer' the company evidence that I am willing to 'move ahead'. As many of the 49er's have so eloquently stated, there CANNOT be a way ahead until this terrible wrong has been overturned. Vote NO. Continue the support of the 49ers. We cannot allow the injustice of the 49er's to be ratified by such a punative and petty agreement as is now on offer. Morality and character do not go out of fashion....
Guest
Posts: n/a
ah, yes, lets all go to court and spend fortunes on Lawyers to come away with less than what is already on offer................more sound reasoning from those who do not have to foot the bill............ A man who can go to court and doesn't have to pay irrespective of outcome is like a lunatic a howitzer in a shopping mall....................party on boys!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell do you care?
It's obvious you aren't a member of the AOA so piss off and let us spend our money the way we see fit, looking after our colleagues.
On the off chance I have made an incorrect assumption then maybe it's time to reconsider your membership.
It's obvious you aren't a member of the AOA so piss off and let us spend our money the way we see fit, looking after our colleagues.
On the off chance I have made an incorrect assumption then maybe it's time to reconsider your membership.
There have been some very composed and well expressed views in this thread. If nothing else it shows a developed focus and clarity which is how agreements are reached.
Regardless of the real or perceived motivations of the company there is undoubtedly developing a consensus for closure of some kind.To not seize the opportunity would, IMHO, be a mistake. The opportunity (and by this I do not mean the offer) may never come around again, leaving the issue as a nettle in every seat cover of every a/c CX will fly for generations to come.
How then does one gather together the differing views and nuances of those directly aggrieved, the rest of the pilot body and the company?
I think MG has helped to open the door a little, but it is actually up to the 49er group themselves to now grab the ball, if they wish to, bearing in mind the AOA's nuanced position on extended funding.
There is no point at this stage debating the so-called offer, as you as a group have not received one. I believe if you cannot grab the ball and run as a group, then reject the offer and move on to the courtroom.
However, do not give the company the opportunity to say that they tried but that there was no response.
I have already said enough on the subject in past years but suffice it to say, this is what I would be inclined to do.
Step back from what the company wants or seems to be offering for a moment and reach consensus on what it takes to bring closure. Not necessarily satisfaction but closure.This is the hardest step.
State what you want directly to the company on a document, including a philosophical statement of what you want out of it as a human being, namely full or partial redemption and restoration of dignity.
Address it to AS, the Chairman,the CEO, the COO and the DFO. Noone else. Make it as personal a document as possible.
Make it simple but preface it with a few opening remarks before going into any legalise.
Acknowledge your understanding of the background to this whole sorry mess but also state clearly your dismay that a company of such standing could employ random and discriminatory methods to wreak havoc on so many lives. I would also be inclined to express regret over some of the press brouha declaring CX management as unfit to run a school tuckshop.
If you want to divide, no more than two camps. Those that want to return and those that don't or cannot. Black or white as there is no way to cover all the grey in between.
Write a brief preface for each group. Why you want to return or why you do not. Short but eloquent.
List one set of requirements and requests for each group.
State what you want for each group. Dot points.
Group under:
Financial restitution - salary, super etc
COS - access to old seniority and scale after what period.
What you will do for this. Freighter time etc.
Keep it out of the press.
When you clap your hands, which hand makes the noise?
Who cares as long as the two hands meet.
Enough said. Best of luck.
Regardless of the real or perceived motivations of the company there is undoubtedly developing a consensus for closure of some kind.To not seize the opportunity would, IMHO, be a mistake. The opportunity (and by this I do not mean the offer) may never come around again, leaving the issue as a nettle in every seat cover of every a/c CX will fly for generations to come.
How then does one gather together the differing views and nuances of those directly aggrieved, the rest of the pilot body and the company?
I think MG has helped to open the door a little, but it is actually up to the 49er group themselves to now grab the ball, if they wish to, bearing in mind the AOA's nuanced position on extended funding.
There is no point at this stage debating the so-called offer, as you as a group have not received one. I believe if you cannot grab the ball and run as a group, then reject the offer and move on to the courtroom.
However, do not give the company the opportunity to say that they tried but that there was no response.
I have already said enough on the subject in past years but suffice it to say, this is what I would be inclined to do.
Step back from what the company wants or seems to be offering for a moment and reach consensus on what it takes to bring closure. Not necessarily satisfaction but closure.This is the hardest step.
State what you want directly to the company on a document, including a philosophical statement of what you want out of it as a human being, namely full or partial redemption and restoration of dignity.
Address it to AS, the Chairman,the CEO, the COO and the DFO. Noone else. Make it as personal a document as possible.
Make it simple but preface it with a few opening remarks before going into any legalise.
Acknowledge your understanding of the background to this whole sorry mess but also state clearly your dismay that a company of such standing could employ random and discriminatory methods to wreak havoc on so many lives. I would also be inclined to express regret over some of the press brouha declaring CX management as unfit to run a school tuckshop.
If you want to divide, no more than two camps. Those that want to return and those that don't or cannot. Black or white as there is no way to cover all the grey in between.
Write a brief preface for each group. Why you want to return or why you do not. Short but eloquent.
List one set of requirements and requests for each group.
State what you want for each group. Dot points.
Group under:
Financial restitution - salary, super etc
COS - access to old seniority and scale after what period.
What you will do for this. Freighter time etc.
Keep it out of the press.
When you clap your hands, which hand makes the noise?
Who cares as long as the two hands meet.
Enough said. Best of luck.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut legal funding at all costs
Seems the AOA President has a mandate to stop the legal funding at all costs. One has to ask, why? Rumor has it that he will up the dues to 6% in the hopes people will stop funding the legals. Time will tell.
VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Don’t think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.
Tamalai- somehow I believe you are footing the bill - this is an anonymous forum. Very easy to call a truce before we both spend a lot of money. You know what has to be done. Nobody cares what aircraft they fly, just the conditions it has to be done. I will leave it to you- work out the details before we give the money to the lawyers. I believe we are both willing to go the distance, but if both eat a bit of crow and not just the 49ers/AOA, it would be a lot easier to swallow, seems we are eating the whole flock ourselves. Imagine, just a little bit of crow but wash it down with wine and caviar with all the money we both save. Over to you.
Shortly- we fund it because it is the right thing to do. A lot of people were just starting/in the middle of their careers (with obligations) when this happened.
49er Letter:
Dear AOA President,
As one who has defended you in the recent past, I am disappointed to see the following in your 'response to the case against.' Maybe it was written in haste, under pressure or with a feeling of annoyance at the authors - I don't know, but I believe it to be provocative, ill advised and a source of stress for the 49ers.
You said:
'We would need a separate mandate going forward with more than two thirds of the Members voting in favor. There is a clear possibility, therefore, that the Settlement Offer could be voted down with a subsequent Motion on continued legal funding also being voted down; this is critical in any consideration of the Offer at present before us.'
I disagree strongly that there would be such a need. The current path, endorsed by the membership, is that the legal actions will be funded by the AOA. If this offer is voted down then that path has not changed. There will therefore be no need for a 'separate mandate' and I would view the attempted introduction of one with deep suspicion.
You are leaving yourself open to accusations of attempting to manipulate the membership with the threat of the withdrawal of funding for the legal action if the offer is voted down.
As I have no doubt that this is not your intent and that you would rightly deny such an accusation, I would suggest that you clarify or withdraw your comments.
VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Don’t think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.
Tamalai- somehow I believe you are footing the bill - this is an anonymous forum. Very easy to call a truce before we both spend a lot of money. You know what has to be done. Nobody cares what aircraft they fly, just the conditions it has to be done. I will leave it to you- work out the details before we give the money to the lawyers. I believe we are both willing to go the distance, but if both eat a bit of crow and not just the 49ers/AOA, it would be a lot easier to swallow, seems we are eating the whole flock ourselves. Imagine, just a little bit of crow but wash it down with wine and caviar with all the money we both save. Over to you.
Shortly- we fund it because it is the right thing to do. A lot of people were just starting/in the middle of their careers (with obligations) when this happened.
49er Letter:
Dear AOA President,
As one who has defended you in the recent past, I am disappointed to see the following in your 'response to the case against.' Maybe it was written in haste, under pressure or with a feeling of annoyance at the authors - I don't know, but I believe it to be provocative, ill advised and a source of stress for the 49ers.
You said:
'We would need a separate mandate going forward with more than two thirds of the Members voting in favor. There is a clear possibility, therefore, that the Settlement Offer could be voted down with a subsequent Motion on continued legal funding also being voted down; this is critical in any consideration of the Offer at present before us.'
I disagree strongly that there would be such a need. The current path, endorsed by the membership, is that the legal actions will be funded by the AOA. If this offer is voted down then that path has not changed. There will therefore be no need for a 'separate mandate' and I would view the attempted introduction of one with deep suspicion.
You are leaving yourself open to accusations of attempting to manipulate the membership with the threat of the withdrawal of funding for the legal action if the offer is voted down.
As I have no doubt that this is not your intent and that you would rightly deny such an accusation, I would suggest that you clarify or withdraw your comments.
TB
Your comment:
VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Dont think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.
My response:
I am very aware of all the pettiness and nastiness..and that will not be easy to forget. So forgive but do not forget. Understand from which part of the organisation the bulk of the acid originated.
Nothing will ever reach closure if all that cannot be put to one side for a moment.If that can be done, then I believe it is easy to take the next step. If not then closure may never be reached.
Your comment:
VR- I wish it were that easy. It was business but got very personnel from CX. Trying to have people thrown out of their home, sending letters to banks - credit cards being cancelled, defamation of character, blacklisting, etc. Dont think a touchy feely letter to AS, on down would suffice.
My response:
I am very aware of all the pettiness and nastiness..and that will not be easy to forget. So forgive but do not forget. Understand from which part of the organisation the bulk of the acid originated.
Nothing will ever reach closure if all that cannot be put to one side for a moment.If that can be done, then I believe it is easy to take the next step. If not then closure may never be reached.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Behind the scenes" politics regarding the 49 vote.
VR- any reason why you pulled your last thread?
The AOA President has hinted at numerous 49 meeting overseas that certain people will not have a problem with the interview, but discouraged other members from moving back to Hong Kong. I believe that MG and NR already talked about who will be accepted and who will not. They think some will be too bitter, well take a look at some still working at CX, but hey, we are willing to put it all behind us, are they willing to do the same? I think not!
"Behind the scenes" politics regarding the 49 vote.
Hi xxxx,
Great to hear from you, thank you for your support.
I hope that you are not looking for 100%, cause that will never happen. There are many reasons but statistically:
Facts of industrial relation disputes (10-80-10):
There will always be a 10% group of militants who will reject, no matter how good the deal is.
There will always be a 10% group who will be intimidated, break and bend over backward for management.
There will always be an 80% group who can fall either way, looking at the merits of the "offer" itself.
With regard to the 49er Poll that you will receive approximately Tuesday, I would be shocked to see more than 10% of 49ers who intend to accept (4 or 5 at the most.) I think that 100% of the 80% will Reject the "offer", which means that 90% of the 49ers will reject. We shall see...
PS. I am confident to say that I would not pass the three interviews, as I have not received "the call" from MG. MG has personally called at least four 49ers (that we know of,) telling them that they would be "OK" during the interviews (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) MG knows who will not be accepted and who will (of course, he will deny that.) These 49ers include ??????. (the first two will accept the deal, the third won't.) Another one was recently called, see this following message:
Gentlemen
It has been brought to my attention that one of our group recently electronically submitted his intention poll and EGM proxy vote both of which were NO. One hour later he was telephoned by the President who attempted to persuade him to change his vote.
In the course of the conversation he was told that the President could "virtually guarantee" that he would pass the "selection process" and that he would "probably" receive his Command within 12 to 18 months after his employment. He was also told that the AOA would pay for his commuting costs between his place of residence and his home base.
The terms of the current offer make no provision for such guarantees and/or financial undertakings
The timing of this phone call may be pure coincidence or it may be more sinister.
From information received, it would appear that the integrity of the EGM proxy voting system may not be so secure.
Ignoring matters of confidentiality and abuse of process for the moment, if any of you are subject to such communications, you might want to ask on what foundation such "virtual guarantees" are based and whether or not the membership of the association is aware that they are going to be asked to pay their own money to subsidies costs which, under the terms of a proper settlement, should rightfully be borne by the company.
Perhaps this is why budgetary matters have become such an issue all of a sudden. In the worst case scenario, if the Association is to subsidies the commuting costs of all the 49ers who wish to return to employment with CX, the cost could run into "millions of dollars".
The AOA President has hinted at numerous 49 meeting overseas that certain people will not have a problem with the interview, but discouraged other members from moving back to Hong Kong. I believe that MG and NR already talked about who will be accepted and who will not. They think some will be too bitter, well take a look at some still working at CX, but hey, we are willing to put it all behind us, are they willing to do the same? I think not!
"Behind the scenes" politics regarding the 49 vote.
Hi xxxx,
Great to hear from you, thank you for your support.
I hope that you are not looking for 100%, cause that will never happen. There are many reasons but statistically:
Facts of industrial relation disputes (10-80-10):
There will always be a 10% group of militants who will reject, no matter how good the deal is.
There will always be a 10% group who will be intimidated, break and bend over backward for management.
There will always be an 80% group who can fall either way, looking at the merits of the "offer" itself.
With regard to the 49er Poll that you will receive approximately Tuesday, I would be shocked to see more than 10% of 49ers who intend to accept (4 or 5 at the most.) I think that 100% of the 80% will Reject the "offer", which means that 90% of the 49ers will reject. We shall see...
PS. I am confident to say that I would not pass the three interviews, as I have not received "the call" from MG. MG has personally called at least four 49ers (that we know of,) telling them that they would be "OK" during the interviews (wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) MG knows who will not be accepted and who will (of course, he will deny that.) These 49ers include ??????. (the first two will accept the deal, the third won't.) Another one was recently called, see this following message:
Gentlemen
It has been brought to my attention that one of our group recently electronically submitted his intention poll and EGM proxy vote both of which were NO. One hour later he was telephoned by the President who attempted to persuade him to change his vote.
In the course of the conversation he was told that the President could "virtually guarantee" that he would pass the "selection process" and that he would "probably" receive his Command within 12 to 18 months after his employment. He was also told that the AOA would pay for his commuting costs between his place of residence and his home base.
The terms of the current offer make no provision for such guarantees and/or financial undertakings
The timing of this phone call may be pure coincidence or it may be more sinister.
From information received, it would appear that the integrity of the EGM proxy voting system may not be so secure.
Ignoring matters of confidentiality and abuse of process for the moment, if any of you are subject to such communications, you might want to ask on what foundation such "virtual guarantees" are based and whether or not the membership of the association is aware that they are going to be asked to pay their own money to subsidies costs which, under the terms of a proper settlement, should rightfully be borne by the company.
Perhaps this is why budgetary matters have become such an issue all of a sudden. In the worst case scenario, if the Association is to subsidies the commuting costs of all the 49ers who wish to return to employment with CX, the cost could run into "millions of dollars".
TB
No sinister reason. It was poorly worded and wanted to re-write when I was more awake.
My earlier suggestion was really to try and get the group to reach some internal consensus and try and take the lead rather than be dragged along by conflicting agendas. Very difficult I know but I really think it is the best way.
Otherwise you will end up playing the nod nod wink wink game alluded to above.
Only my view but I firmly believe management would be responsive to a straight approach with clear options from the group itself.
No sinister reason. It was poorly worded and wanted to re-write when I was more awake.
My earlier suggestion was really to try and get the group to reach some internal consensus and try and take the lead rather than be dragged along by conflicting agendas. Very difficult I know but I really think it is the best way.
Otherwise you will end up playing the nod nod wink wink game alluded to above.
Only my view but I firmly believe management would be responsive to a straight approach with clear options from the group itself.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An email I received.
Gentlemen
I see the 49ers have rejected the offer and that the GC has responded to the "Case Against".
All reponses are a little light on evidence and heavy on emotion but that is how I would characterise all of the information that the membership has received. As you will see below, I believe that following the 49ers lead is the only way to proceed. For me, the 49ers rejection of the offer is the most significant and relevant piece of evidence.
In this very difficult negotiation their recommendation is flawed and we need to vote against this motion and give them a mandate to go back to the company. The good relationship they have built with the company will serve them well in delivering to the company the message that the offer needs improving.
The paper posted on the web site sets out the case against the offer and begins by describing why this is a bad offer.
This boils down to 2 facts:
• It is not fair to the 49ers.
• It does little to ensure this will not happen again.
In other words, this does not achieve what we asked the committee to do and what they stated were the goals of the negotiation.
The question is: “Is there an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; one that treats the 49ers more fairly and makes it less likely the company will act in the same way in the future?”
The GC judgment is that there is no realistic alternative.
Their judgment is based on 2 main arguments:
• There are limits to what remedies courts can decide on.
Since the offer is close to these limits it must be a ‘good’ offer.
• If we proceed we will face very high legal costs.
But these are poor and somewhat misleading arguments.
To take the first: Yes, the courts are limited by these remedies but the company is not. If it is in the company’s interests to do so, it will exceed these limits. It is likely that its reputation and that of its CX officers are worth a good deal more and that the company will, therefore, settle out of court. The fact is that in the context of the whole process, which could include going to court, there is no upper limit.
Indeed, the court remedies could now be viewed as a lower limit since the company has more or less matched them
That said, there is of course an upper limit to what CX would pay and that would be a sum just short of making the company insolvent. Obviously, this is very unlikely, so much so, that the GC, quite rightly, has not mentioned it. Now, this will seem a trivial point to make except that the GC has been selective in which unlikely events they mention. Take, for instance, their 2nd main argument, that of costs. Here they are happy to emphasise a very unlikely outcome. Nearly all the reasoning presented to us by the GC is based on worst-case scenarios where costs are concerned.
Yes it is technically possible that all costs are awarded against us, but it is not likely. To date most costs have been awarded against the company.
What would be more useful is guidance on likely outcomes rather than the limits that bound them. However, this is not as straightforward as defining the limits. It requires extensive knowledge of the legal process, allied with good judgment in assessing how badly the company wants to stay out of court. To whom can we turn for such advice?
Well, for many of us, when first faced with this decision, we instinctively turned to the 49ers themselves. For most, this was a question of morals – an obligation to support the 49ers in which ever way they preferred. Well, as it happens, this is a very sensible way to proceed and for more than the moral reasons that, for many, would suffice. We have the company to thank for a large and diverse group who after 3 1⁄2 years are well versed in the legal process. And now, thanks to the company they are well motivated to make the correct decision.
The 49ers have an offer that we have been told is reasonable.
(Do not forget that the general membership is voting on funding; the <10 months / job interview> is an offer to the 49ers and it is theirs to accept or reject.) The 49ers have considered the offer and it would seem they are about to overwhelmingly reject it. The 49ers believe that rejection is an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; an outcome that treats the 49ers more fairly. We need debate no further. The 49ers are a large diverse group, well versed in the legal process and strategy and well motivated to make a sound decision.
If, as looks very likely, the 49ers reject the offer, there is no alternative to a NO vote to allow the legal cases to proceed. In the context of all that has happened and all that inevitably waits for us in the future, this is one of the more simple decisions we have been faced with.
I see the 49ers have rejected the offer and that the GC has responded to the "Case Against".
All reponses are a little light on evidence and heavy on emotion but that is how I would characterise all of the information that the membership has received. As you will see below, I believe that following the 49ers lead is the only way to proceed. For me, the 49ers rejection of the offer is the most significant and relevant piece of evidence.
In this very difficult negotiation their recommendation is flawed and we need to vote against this motion and give them a mandate to go back to the company. The good relationship they have built with the company will serve them well in delivering to the company the message that the offer needs improving.
The paper posted on the web site sets out the case against the offer and begins by describing why this is a bad offer.
This boils down to 2 facts:
• It is not fair to the 49ers.
• It does little to ensure this will not happen again.
In other words, this does not achieve what we asked the committee to do and what they stated were the goals of the negotiation.
The question is: “Is there an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; one that treats the 49ers more fairly and makes it less likely the company will act in the same way in the future?”
The GC judgment is that there is no realistic alternative.
Their judgment is based on 2 main arguments:
• There are limits to what remedies courts can decide on.
Since the offer is close to these limits it must be a ‘good’ offer.
• If we proceed we will face very high legal costs.
But these are poor and somewhat misleading arguments.
To take the first: Yes, the courts are limited by these remedies but the company is not. If it is in the company’s interests to do so, it will exceed these limits. It is likely that its reputation and that of its CX officers are worth a good deal more and that the company will, therefore, settle out of court. The fact is that in the context of the whole process, which could include going to court, there is no upper limit.
Indeed, the court remedies could now be viewed as a lower limit since the company has more or less matched them
That said, there is of course an upper limit to what CX would pay and that would be a sum just short of making the company insolvent. Obviously, this is very unlikely, so much so, that the GC, quite rightly, has not mentioned it. Now, this will seem a trivial point to make except that the GC has been selective in which unlikely events they mention. Take, for instance, their 2nd main argument, that of costs. Here they are happy to emphasise a very unlikely outcome. Nearly all the reasoning presented to us by the GC is based on worst-case scenarios where costs are concerned.
Yes it is technically possible that all costs are awarded against us, but it is not likely. To date most costs have been awarded against the company.
What would be more useful is guidance on likely outcomes rather than the limits that bound them. However, this is not as straightforward as defining the limits. It requires extensive knowledge of the legal process, allied with good judgment in assessing how badly the company wants to stay out of court. To whom can we turn for such advice?
Well, for many of us, when first faced with this decision, we instinctively turned to the 49ers themselves. For most, this was a question of morals – an obligation to support the 49ers in which ever way they preferred. Well, as it happens, this is a very sensible way to proceed and for more than the moral reasons that, for many, would suffice. We have the company to thank for a large and diverse group who after 3 1⁄2 years are well versed in the legal process. And now, thanks to the company they are well motivated to make the correct decision.
The 49ers have an offer that we have been told is reasonable.
(Do not forget that the general membership is voting on funding; the <10 months / job interview> is an offer to the 49ers and it is theirs to accept or reject.) The 49ers have considered the offer and it would seem they are about to overwhelmingly reject it. The 49ers believe that rejection is an alternative that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome; an outcome that treats the 49ers more fairly. We need debate no further. The 49ers are a large diverse group, well versed in the legal process and strategy and well motivated to make a sound decision.
If, as looks very likely, the 49ers reject the offer, there is no alternative to a NO vote to allow the legal cases to proceed. In the context of all that has happened and all that inevitably waits for us in the future, this is one of the more simple decisions we have been faced with.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the rez
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a difference in 6 months
When the 49ers were terminated, there was a universal outcry from within our ranks which acknowledged the fact that their termination without due process was unwarranted and unjust. We rallied around our friends and colleagues to assure them that we would not allow this injustice to stand. Three years later we have kept the faith. Our support of the 49ers and their struggle to find a fair resolution to this affair is both admirable and necessary. As a group, we have helped in the very important area of financial assistance for nearly three years. Quite possibly, the greater impact of this monetary support is in the message it sends: we will not give up on the 49ers and their families. This is something we should be very proud of because, through this support, we have stamped an indelible mark of integrity on our Association.
The purpose of this letter is to re-focus our thoughts on our 49er colleagues. This will help to reinforce the reason why we continue to support them and the good we are doing by our continued support. They have been through an experience that not one of us would wish to have, but we have not allowed them to endure it alone. This is a bond of fellowship that our Association can be proud of and which will serve us well in the years to come. Let’s continue our struggle to right the wrong and ensure that the 49ers will always be a central part of who we are.
Murray Alan Gardner - 9th July 2004
Our decision to recommend acceptance is the only one possible from a careful and logical assessment of the facts and it takes into consideration the best interests of both the 49ers and of the Association. The decision was supported by an overwhelming majority of your GC. Has fair treatment for the 49ers been achieved? No. but I would say to you that we are confident the best Offer possible has been obtained. While we all want to have fair treatment for the 49ers, if that is not obtainable then we need to be pragmatic and look to achieve the best possible outcome.
Murray Alan Gardner - 5th January 2005
Where did the "integrity" go in the intervening 6 months?
The purpose of this letter is to re-focus our thoughts on our 49er colleagues. This will help to reinforce the reason why we continue to support them and the good we are doing by our continued support. They have been through an experience that not one of us would wish to have, but we have not allowed them to endure it alone. This is a bond of fellowship that our Association can be proud of and which will serve us well in the years to come. Let’s continue our struggle to right the wrong and ensure that the 49ers will always be a central part of who we are.
Murray Alan Gardner - 9th July 2004
Our decision to recommend acceptance is the only one possible from a careful and logical assessment of the facts and it takes into consideration the best interests of both the 49ers and of the Association. The decision was supported by an overwhelming majority of your GC. Has fair treatment for the 49ers been achieved? No. but I would say to you that we are confident the best Offer possible has been obtained. While we all want to have fair treatment for the 49ers, if that is not obtainable then we need to be pragmatic and look to achieve the best possible outcome.
Murray Alan Gardner - 5th January 2005
Where did the "integrity" go in the intervening 6 months?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Letter From a 49er
Hi all,
This is a_serious Motion_and though we have all had enough emails to chew on I suspect that some may still be wondering what the right way to vote is. I write to you in the hope that I may clarify the salient points as I see them. I present them in bullet points as much as possible to save you time.
1. The 49ers have a lot at stake and have a wealth of experience with this subject matter and they have voted 41:4 against the offer. Do not be fooled into thinking that it means something else because it doesn't! We would never put our hand up to remain 49ers for a second longer than we have to unless we had good reason - and right now we have good reason.
2. The_funding_scaremongering_is a red herring and was trotted out because nothing else will sell this crap deal. In my opinion we are not enjoying good leadership on this issue and certain realities are either not understood or are being ignored - we must do what is right for our union and vote this motion down.
3. The legals have two big cost periods being right at the beginning and right at the end - we have had the first one. We only cop the second one if we see through the whole case and then go into a series of appeals. Given that our lawyers are still saying to our faces that we will never see the inside of a court the scaremongering about the worst case scenarios conveniently ignores the obvious and most likely outcome - sensible settlement just before we go to court. Right now the cases are idling over not costing anything much and this will continue to be the case until we get deep into the courtroom phase - so there is no hurry and no imminent calamity. There is plenty of action to be had before we get to court - just look at the FAU example. You have to ask yourself why the big crisis spin - and why now?
4. This is not an emotional decision this is a smart negotiating position - we know they can't go to court and right now is just the first offer - as usual too cheap too late. Let's get this done properly and in a business-like fashion_because we all know that_the current deal is unacceptable. Do not fall into the spin about 49ers being offered jobs because we have not been offered jobs - we have been offered a half-arsed interview process which is full of jeopardy for the 49ers. Many have convinced themselves that this will get the 49ers their jobs back - it is only an offer to interview.
5. Timing is everything and the current scaremongering is a rearguard action - vote NO and we'll have plenty of time to sort it out. There are no big legal costs for quite a few months now so let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - we have plenty of time. Our leadership has tried to rush you and the 49ers and frighten_us into making a serious error. Let's slow the pace and deal with this in our usual measured and well informed manner.
6. If we based all of our decision making on unlikely worst case scenarios we'd never get off the ground - time for a reality check - this motion needs to go down strongly and send a message to the defendants that the next offer needs to be more sensible. Btw, history tells us it won't be the next offer but it may be the one after that - it is never the first offer ;-)
We have a very short time to make sure this Motion is defeated for the sake of our union and the 49ers - please do what you can in that time.
Best regards,
This is a_serious Motion_and though we have all had enough emails to chew on I suspect that some may still be wondering what the right way to vote is. I write to you in the hope that I may clarify the salient points as I see them. I present them in bullet points as much as possible to save you time.
1. The 49ers have a lot at stake and have a wealth of experience with this subject matter and they have voted 41:4 against the offer. Do not be fooled into thinking that it means something else because it doesn't! We would never put our hand up to remain 49ers for a second longer than we have to unless we had good reason - and right now we have good reason.
2. The_funding_scaremongering_is a red herring and was trotted out because nothing else will sell this crap deal. In my opinion we are not enjoying good leadership on this issue and certain realities are either not understood or are being ignored - we must do what is right for our union and vote this motion down.
3. The legals have two big cost periods being right at the beginning and right at the end - we have had the first one. We only cop the second one if we see through the whole case and then go into a series of appeals. Given that our lawyers are still saying to our faces that we will never see the inside of a court the scaremongering about the worst case scenarios conveniently ignores the obvious and most likely outcome - sensible settlement just before we go to court. Right now the cases are idling over not costing anything much and this will continue to be the case until we get deep into the courtroom phase - so there is no hurry and no imminent calamity. There is plenty of action to be had before we get to court - just look at the FAU example. You have to ask yourself why the big crisis spin - and why now?
4. This is not an emotional decision this is a smart negotiating position - we know they can't go to court and right now is just the first offer - as usual too cheap too late. Let's get this done properly and in a business-like fashion_because we all know that_the current deal is unacceptable. Do not fall into the spin about 49ers being offered jobs because we have not been offered jobs - we have been offered a half-arsed interview process which is full of jeopardy for the 49ers. Many have convinced themselves that this will get the 49ers their jobs back - it is only an offer to interview.
5. Timing is everything and the current scaremongering is a rearguard action - vote NO and we'll have plenty of time to sort it out. There are no big legal costs for quite a few months now so let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - we have plenty of time. Our leadership has tried to rush you and the 49ers and frighten_us into making a serious error. Let's slow the pace and deal with this in our usual measured and well informed manner.
6. If we based all of our decision making on unlikely worst case scenarios we'd never get off the ground - time for a reality check - this motion needs to go down strongly and send a message to the defendants that the next offer needs to be more sensible. Btw, history tells us it won't be the next offer but it may be the one after that - it is never the first offer ;-)
We have a very short time to make sure this Motion is defeated for the sake of our union and the 49ers - please do what you can in that time.
Best regards,