RP07 Revote?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harbour dweller,
exercise your democratic right and vote NO then!
Just for the record, the AOA GC asked for the extension and the chance to vote again, not the company. They believe that they were acting in the best interests of the majority of the AOA membership. Remember that 57% did vote yes. They were given sufficient feedback from no voters to presume that many of the no voters were hoping for a better deal but had voted no to facilitate getting this better deal. Well, we saw that tactic didn't work.
Anyway all will unfold after Jan 31st...get your mates to vote!
Still firmly a YES voter (or technically No then Yes;-)
exercise your democratic right and vote NO then!
Just for the record, the AOA GC asked for the extension and the chance to vote again, not the company. They believe that they were acting in the best interests of the majority of the AOA membership. Remember that 57% did vote yes. They were given sufficient feedback from no voters to presume that many of the no voters were hoping for a better deal but had voted no to facilitate getting this better deal. Well, we saw that tactic didn't work.
Anyway all will unfold after Jan 31st...get your mates to vote!
Still firmly a YES voter (or technically No then Yes;-)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC, the membership have ALREADY exercised their democratic right on this subject. The vote was for the fallback position. We should already be being rostered to that RP.
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numero Crunchero,
Yes you are correct. However if the Company really want us to work under the Fallback then why did they agree to this extension?
Why do you think this is?
I have read all of your posts & I agree with most of your points regarding RP07. What I don't agree with is that it is the best deal possible for us under the current times.
At the end of the day we all want what is best for the pilot body.
Just for the record, the AOA GC asked for the extension and the chance to vote again, not the company.
Why do you think this is?
I have read all of your posts & I agree with most of your points regarding RP07. What I don't agree with is that it is the best deal possible for us under the current times.
At the end of the day we all want what is best for the pilot body.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the company would be happy with the interim fallaback and then eventually the AFTLS, they may however have taken a lot of flack if they went straight into it after the last vote of 56% voting for RP07.
But what they would absolutley love is for the AOA membership to vote for the fallback and any time anyone complains about the roster....well I can almost hear Hoyland and Walker saying "Don't blame us , blame the AOA, we were happy to give you RP07"
As I have said before the AOA has been trying for years to get RP's into the COS and whilst RP 07 is not totally enshrined into the COS the major components of the 84 hour threshold and credit factors, EFP rates etc will go into COS if the vote is succesful. Problems do exist with WORK STACKING and RESERVE management, however on balance RP 07 offers more control over ones lifestyle than any other system CX has ever had.
3 man crewing on ULR is cleary defined in RP07 and agreed at a factor of 1.14. I would bet my home that come the end of the fallback agreed period all those unlucky enought to working at CX then will be doing 3 man ULR with no 543 protection and no RP negotiated agreement.
Vote on rostering on the issue of rostering, not a protest over the lack of a pay rise, you will be hurting yourself more than the company, they can live with RP 01, RP94 or the AFTLS as they imposed all of them on their terms....RP 07 at least has some or our terms in it.
I hope the dopey 250 members who failed to vote last time put one in this time, if it is not to much trouble!
Cyril
But what they would absolutley love is for the AOA membership to vote for the fallback and any time anyone complains about the roster....well I can almost hear Hoyland and Walker saying "Don't blame us , blame the AOA, we were happy to give you RP07"
As I have said before the AOA has been trying for years to get RP's into the COS and whilst RP 07 is not totally enshrined into the COS the major components of the 84 hour threshold and credit factors, EFP rates etc will go into COS if the vote is succesful. Problems do exist with WORK STACKING and RESERVE management, however on balance RP 07 offers more control over ones lifestyle than any other system CX has ever had.
3 man crewing on ULR is cleary defined in RP07 and agreed at a factor of 1.14. I would bet my home that come the end of the fallback agreed period all those unlucky enought to working at CX then will be doing 3 man ULR with no 543 protection and no RP negotiated agreement.
Vote on rostering on the issue of rostering, not a protest over the lack of a pay rise, you will be hurting yourself more than the company, they can live with RP 01, RP94 or the AFTLS as they imposed all of them on their terms....RP 07 at least has some or our terms in it.
I hope the dopey 250 members who failed to vote last time put one in this time, if it is not to much trouble!
Cyril
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having RP07 enshrined into our COS makes perfect sense and I would vote YES regardless if it is good deal or not.
But then again, we have a Discipline and Grievance Procedure enshrined into our COS, but is it ever followed?
Ask anyone who has been terminated in the last 10 years if they had a D&G procedure. Let me see, the Peanut Thrower, the 49ers, the most recent Command Trainee and the First Officer, the Freighter Captain...................
Is our COS worth the paper it is written on?
But then again, we have a Discipline and Grievance Procedure enshrined into our COS, but is it ever followed?
Ask anyone who has been terminated in the last 10 years if they had a D&G procedure. Let me see, the Peanut Thrower, the 49ers, the most recent Command Trainee and the First Officer, the Freighter Captain...................
Is our COS worth the paper it is written on?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kenfoggo
yes very insulting to the 57% that wanted RP07 and to the 'no' voters who sought a better deal. We have another vote...same issues, same proposal. What damage has been done? The GC will abide by the vote. So if 34% don't want RP07 then you will be happy. If 67% do, then the MAJORITY will be happy. Would you have been so enraged and indignant if you had voted yes?
Harbour dweller
I don't think that every deal has to be win/lose. I think CX would like to have us 'onside'. There are no major rostering impediments within RP07 vs the fallback. We will get more lifestyle rostering and eventually contractual protection.
Mr Bloggs,
I understand your cyncism as I have seen 2 of the incidences you refer to at first hand. However, CX stick to the contract D+G 'technically'..ie they have already decided what will happen but will go through the motions. The difference is that a contravention of our contractual rostering rights would be defendible in court, a subjective viewpoint on a D+G is not defendible.
So yes the peanut thrower and the FOs had a D+G...I can guarantee that. But I agree it was a 'kangaroo court'.
yes very insulting to the 57% that wanted RP07 and to the 'no' voters who sought a better deal. We have another vote...same issues, same proposal. What damage has been done? The GC will abide by the vote. So if 34% don't want RP07 then you will be happy. If 67% do, then the MAJORITY will be happy. Would you have been so enraged and indignant if you had voted yes?
Harbour dweller
I don't think that every deal has to be win/lose. I think CX would like to have us 'onside'. There are no major rostering impediments within RP07 vs the fallback. We will get more lifestyle rostering and eventually contractual protection.
Mr Bloggs,
I understand your cyncism as I have seen 2 of the incidences you refer to at first hand. However, CX stick to the contract D+G 'technically'..ie they have already decided what will happen but will go through the motions. The difference is that a contravention of our contractual rostering rights would be defendible in court, a subjective viewpoint on a D+G is not defendible.
So yes the peanut thrower and the FOs had a D+G...I can guarantee that. But I agree it was a 'kangaroo court'.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC - nope, neither enraged nor indignant. But curious to know how the GC managed to extend the current RP without reference to the membership when it had no mandate to do so. Quite the reverse.
It was you who brought up the notion of democracy.
It was you who brought up the notion of democracy.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC, the membership have ALREADY exercised their democratic right on this subject. The vote was for the fallback position. We should already be being rostered to that RP.
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?
But because the vote was not what the GC or the company wanted, the GC extended the current rostering deal WITHOUT reference to the membership. How democratic is that?
How insulting to the membership?
It is stretching the facts a little that the membership voted for the fallback. The fact that 250 members entitled to a vote did not take the time or effort to vote meant that the RP vote needed 67% of those whom voted, to pass. If they (the 250) had voted in the same ratio then the motion would have passed as over 50% of the membership voted FOR the proposal. The way it turned out a CLEAR MINORITY of 43% by default would have taken us to a position that many crew did not fully understand. Given the fact that the AOA received plenty of feedback from both YES and NO voters I think it was a sensible decision to attempt to fix the areas of concern.
I also understand the cynacism of those regarding the D&G procedures and how they have been handled, however apart from the 49ers they have followed the COS procedure and not everbody has been sacked.
Having the basic numbers of your rostering system in your COS is a positive for you and it is a lot easier and quicker to defend than a vague D&G that the court has already pre decided!
Again on balance RP07 whilst far from perfect,it is far better than the alternatives and I have yet to hear any logical unemotive argument that makes me think that the interim fallback is going to make the company come cap in hand and offer a better deal.
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 25th Jan 2007 at 21:36. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost
C Groove :
The reason it takes more than 50% to vote in a change is to make sure that the change is wanted without any doubt. It is also to ensure that change is not brought about by the minority. This is not to be confused with maintaining the status quo by minority. If all votes were 50% (of voters who vote)+ 1 to change then you would have a minority making change. As it stands our voting set up is more than fair as there are the two thresholds (60% +1 of votes and 50% of total voting members). You cannot presume to know how those who did not vote may have decided. In fact it has been shown that the lack of voting in itself represents a choice, ie if you do not care enough to vote then you are happy to add weight to the NO side or in other words you are happy with the status quo (as is usually represented by a NO vote).
So you cannot say that the vote was a majority vote for RP07. We did not get 50% of the membership voting for RP07.
This is in no way an endorsement for or against RP07 by Five Green.
Cheers
The reason it takes more than 50% to vote in a change is to make sure that the change is wanted without any doubt. It is also to ensure that change is not brought about by the minority. This is not to be confused with maintaining the status quo by minority. If all votes were 50% (of voters who vote)+ 1 to change then you would have a minority making change. As it stands our voting set up is more than fair as there are the two thresholds (60% +1 of votes and 50% of total voting members). You cannot presume to know how those who did not vote may have decided. In fact it has been shown that the lack of voting in itself represents a choice, ie if you do not care enough to vote then you are happy to add weight to the NO side or in other words you are happy with the status quo (as is usually represented by a NO vote).
So you cannot say that the vote was a majority vote for RP07. We did not get 50% of the membership voting for RP07.
This is in no way an endorsement for or against RP07 by Five Green.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunatley in this case by not voting you do not maintain the status quo (RP04/07), you could by default end up with the AFTL as your rostering system in a few short years. If everyone votes then it is clear what we as a group want. If the AOA put the question "Do you want to revert to the Fallback" to the membership do you think that would get over the line......I do not think so.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before or after ?
C Groove :
When we voted in RP07 we only did so on a trial basis. Therefore the status quo was and still is RP04. While I agree that CAD limits are a likely outcome they are, by no means, a certainty. So this is still a vote about the status quo. Only now we will be returning to the status quo or in other words to the system before the trial change. I am leaning towards voting for RP07, however if the vote results in both rp07s being turned down then so be it. I will accept the results of our voting mechanism and will be happy to live with them, regardless of the turn out for the vote.
I can also say that should this job ever be reduced to CAD maximum limits for flight and duty times we will be loosing more than 2 pilots per month !!
When we voted in RP07 we only did so on a trial basis. Therefore the status quo was and still is RP04. While I agree that CAD limits are a likely outcome they are, by no means, a certainty. So this is still a vote about the status quo. Only now we will be returning to the status quo or in other words to the system before the trial change. I am leaning towards voting for RP07, however if the vote results in both rp07s being turned down then so be it. I will accept the results of our voting mechanism and will be happy to live with them, regardless of the turn out for the vote.
I can also say that should this job ever be reduced to CAD maximum limits for flight and duty times we will be loosing more than 2 pilots per month !!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Five Green,
I agree that I am also happy to live with however this vote turns out. I wish more people would vote so that we can know one way or the other what the majority want. It is statistical guesswork to predict what the non voters would have voted for. In very small sampling(like me asking why guys didn't vote) the most common answer is that they didn't care what rostering system we had. But in most cases these gentlemen were not aware of the consequences of a no vote.
kenfoggo.
I was incredibly indignant at the GC decision to extend RP04 and have a revote. But on cooling down and talking to people I can understand why they did and I can assure you it was done in the best interests of the membership, not a petulant attempt to 'win' a vote. If the GC was truly manipulative, the motion would read "BIRT the members vote FOR the Fallback Agreement. Should this motion not pass, we will revert to RP07". Now it would take 67% (or 50% of majority) to have the fallback. Instead they have stuck to the original wording and motion. Doesn't seem like it is too manipulative to me?
The GC has the mandate to act in the best interests of the membership. I have been told that this is the 2nd time in about 10years when a GC has 'self-mandated' an action. In this case, the only harm done is a delay of 4months for Fallback, if the vote fails, or the chance for 250 more voters to actually have their say. If no one changes their vote and no new voters come along, you will have your fallback soon enough. In the meantime you get to 'enjoy' 12hr reserves, jokers, and bids;-/
I agree that I am also happy to live with however this vote turns out. I wish more people would vote so that we can know one way or the other what the majority want. It is statistical guesswork to predict what the non voters would have voted for. In very small sampling(like me asking why guys didn't vote) the most common answer is that they didn't care what rostering system we had. But in most cases these gentlemen were not aware of the consequences of a no vote.
kenfoggo.
I was incredibly indignant at the GC decision to extend RP04 and have a revote. But on cooling down and talking to people I can understand why they did and I can assure you it was done in the best interests of the membership, not a petulant attempt to 'win' a vote. If the GC was truly manipulative, the motion would read "BIRT the members vote FOR the Fallback Agreement. Should this motion not pass, we will revert to RP07". Now it would take 67% (or 50% of majority) to have the fallback. Instead they have stuck to the original wording and motion. Doesn't seem like it is too manipulative to me?
The GC has the mandate to act in the best interests of the membership. I have been told that this is the 2nd time in about 10years when a GC has 'self-mandated' an action. In this case, the only harm done is a delay of 4months for Fallback, if the vote fails, or the chance for 250 more voters to actually have their say. If no one changes their vote and no new voters come along, you will have your fallback soon enough. In the meantime you get to 'enjoy' 12hr reserves, jokers, and bids;-/
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC- sadly , you are wrong when you say that "the only harm done is a delay of 4 months".
The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.
The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.
NC,
Very well explained.
Kenfoggo,
After a clear explanation like that if your trust is shattered its because you want it to be regardless of all else. I take exception that "the membership" feels that. I don't recall me asking you to represent me!!
Very well explained.
Kenfoggo,
After a clear explanation like that if your trust is shattered its because you want it to be regardless of all else. I take exception that "the membership" feels that. I don't recall me asking you to represent me!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC- sadly , you are wrong when you say that "the only harm done is a delay of 4 months".
The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.
The real harm done is that the trust between the membership and the GC has been shattered. A vote WAS held. The required majority was NOT achieved. The GC refused to abide by the vote.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A vote was held and the required majority was not achieved"
Ken, my confidence in the membership is shattered when 250 members do not vote and a clear minority dictates the path we take.
Also Ken please tell us why the fallback is a good position to take? and how you will progress from there
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 28th Jan 2007 at 19:35. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BusyB - Ooops, sorry. Wouldn't dream of pretending to represent you. Just my own opinion , not asking you to jump on board.
Cyril - I am not advocating the Fallback position. Just wanted to know the process by which the original vote was not accepted.
Cpdude - not sure really what to say to you.
NC - thanks for trying to explain.
Cyril - I am not advocating the Fallback position. Just wanted to know the process by which the original vote was not accepted.
Cpdude - not sure really what to say to you.
NC - thanks for trying to explain.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from all the obvious reasons why we shouldnt vote for RP07 here's another one.
You can prevent Mr Rhodes from getting another 5mil bonus like he did when RP04 was introduced, lets face it how much is he going to give us
SOUTHPAC
You can prevent Mr Rhodes from getting another 5mil bonus like he did when RP04 was introduced, lets face it how much is he going to give us
SOUTHPAC
SOUTHPAC
As much as I don’t like any manager getting large bonuses, one should never make such an important decision based on such an emotional reason. One should use their head to see the BS through the trees and that reason, I’m sorry, is a BS reason not to vote for RP07.
As much as I don’t like any manager getting large bonuses, one should never make such an important decision based on such an emotional reason. One should use their head to see the BS through the trees and that reason, I’m sorry, is a BS reason not to vote for RP07.