Onshore = Emloyment Law
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Onshore = Emloyment Law
hey, think about it ...............If the basings compnies go onshore you will have European/US employment protection, the right to form and join a proper union, the right to strike, work to rule, whatever it takes to get these bar stewards to pay the going rate
they do not want to go onshore, the tax may hurt us but in the end, they will pay !!!!
they do not want to go onshore, the tax may hurt us but in the end, they will pay !!!!
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
From: England
On the age discrimination debate from a lawyer acquaintance:
Age discrimination prevents companies giving you less pay/benefits etc. THAN YOUR PEERS solely due to your age. In the event that you reach 55 as an A scaler and finish your contract, there is nothing in EU law that says that you have to be signed on back on A scales. Your peers are paid B scales, and so there would be no discrimination to pay you B scales too.....
Age discrimination prevents companies giving you less pay/benefits etc. THAN YOUR PEERS solely due to your age. In the event that you reach 55 as an A scaler and finish your contract, there is nothing in EU law that says that you have to be signed on back on A scales. Your peers are paid B scales, and so there would be no discrimination to pay you B scales too.....
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Beware.... unrenumerated advice is worthless......
Your lawyer friend has opined.... he is entitled to.. however an alternative (unrenumerated) view; if someone is on a salary of x one day... and the next day he is on a salary of less than "x".... and the only thing that has changed is he turned 55.... this can only be construed as "ageism"...
EU Courts don't tolerate "isms" and tend to give fairly hefty damages.....
EU Courts don't tolerate people who make contracts that condone "isms"...
Your lawyer friend has opined.... he is entitled to.. however an alternative (unrenumerated) view; if someone is on a salary of x one day... and the next day he is on a salary of less than "x".... and the only thing that has changed is he turned 55.... this can only be construed as "ageism"...
EU Courts don't tolerate "isms" and tend to give fairly hefty damages.....
EU Courts don't tolerate people who make contracts that condone "isms"...
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I think Jose was pointing out the spelling mistake....maybe it is a bit easier to read sarcasm;-)
Either that or Liam Gallagher meant beware of 'non quantitative thought or lack of competent numeracy' in your advisers! I am guessing he meant "Unremunerated" ;-)
Either that or Liam Gallagher meant beware of 'non quantitative thought or lack of competent numeracy' in your advisers! I am guessing he meant "Unremunerated" ;-)
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: hong kong
Don't think so NC. Jose simply didn't understand but Cyril did.
If you don't pay for legal advice it ain't worth a toss. The "advice" Kitsune got from his lawyer friend is simply rubbish. Liam has yet again got things about right.
Stick to the numbers NC as you are out of your depth on legal crunching.
If you don't pay for legal advice it ain't worth a toss. The "advice" Kitsune got from his lawyer friend is simply rubbish. Liam has yet again got things about right.
Stick to the numbers NC as you are out of your depth on legal crunching.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: hong kong
Freightdoggy
:if you are on a contract that simply expires when you turn 55 and you sign a new contract with lower pay - that's your problem.:
Just googled "Age discrimination legislation" in various countries and your scenario is exactly what is being legislated against......setting age criteria for retirement is illegal, lowering pay is illegal and changing provident/retirement funds is illegal, probably even taking the travel fund is illegal. There are some many links just do it yourselves.
Think about it CX would not offer A scales if they could get away with B scales legally
Just googled "Age discrimination legislation" in various countries and your scenario is exactly what is being legislated against......setting age criteria for retirement is illegal, lowering pay is illegal and changing provident/retirement funds is illegal, probably even taking the travel fund is illegal. There are some many links just do it yourselves.
Think about it CX would not offer A scales if they could get away with B scales legally
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Cyril has hit on something that has been puzzling me since I read the offer.... why after years of eroding/ avoiding paying A scales do the company roll on their backs and offer to pay-up........?
I don't buy into the theory of collusion between the Negotiating Team and the Company... perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the Corporate Code of Conduct linked from the Intracx home page.... that's a document every SO/ North American should keep handy on a line-check
Maybe it's for an entirely different purpose... things are seldom what they seem..
Freightdog188; not aware of the LH case and to cross read any case you need all the details. However, I suspect that someone seeking a Court Order to work beyond a nationally accepted retirement age may be a bit different than someone receiving a pay cut when reaching an age significantly less than any accepted retirement age....... As an acid test.... just delete the phrase "age 55" and insert "black" or "female" and I think you will gauge the potential problem coming the company's way.......
Yes, NC was right (again
).... unrenumerated is the mancunian way of spelling "unpaid"................. or even unremunerated
I don't buy into the theory of collusion between the Negotiating Team and the Company... perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the Corporate Code of Conduct linked from the Intracx home page.... that's a document every SO/ North American should keep handy on a line-check
Maybe it's for an entirely different purpose... things are seldom what they seem..
Freightdog188; not aware of the LH case and to cross read any case you need all the details. However, I suspect that someone seeking a Court Order to work beyond a nationally accepted retirement age may be a bit different than someone receiving a pay cut when reaching an age significantly less than any accepted retirement age....... As an acid test.... just delete the phrase "age 55" and insert "black" or "female" and I think you will gauge the potential problem coming the company's way.......
Yes, NC was right (again
).... unrenumerated is the mancunian way of spelling "unpaid"................. or even unremunerated
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,609
Likes: 0
From: Asia
CYRILJGROOVE
Ah, no it’s not. If both parties agree to a particular retirement age then the “Age Discrimination” laws aren’t applicable. It is only applicable if the company unilaterally imposes a retirement age.
Again incorrect. If your contract expires and a new contract is offered on lower conditions and you accept it then no “Age Discrimination” laws or any other anti discrimination laws can protect you. If the company imposes something unilaterally then the company may find itself in hot water. You will probably find that the company has realised that if current “A” scalers are to be offered extensions to 65 they are going to sign a contract well before they turn 55. In this case “Age Discrimination” is a factor as a new contract was already signed but their pay was cut on their 55th birthday.
setting age criteria for retirement is illegal
lowering pay is illegal and changing provident/retirement funds is illegal, probably even taking the travel fund is illegal.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: the world
I Think....
I know I haven't been here long and don't know much (just over 4 years), but I would suspect if those of us on a base start unionizing and bring US, Aussie, UK, and other labor laws to bear on CX the bases would be closed and we would all be living in Honky. No one more than I would love to see ALPA vs CX...or the US Dept of Labor vs CX..but it would be short lived...
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
I'm sure the company's considered the implications of going onshore and has determined that US labor laws and unionizing are not going to put it out of business. Airlines don't cease to function when subjected to onshore laws and a unionized workforce. I'm guessing that being onshore is still cheaper in the long run than having the whole pilot group in HKG getting housing allowance!
