AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jagman, what a load of rubbish. Clearly you are frustrated, but you're exacting your anger on the wrong people. The issue is with management not your fellow pilots. The most factual response is from Numero Crunchero, may I suggest you go back and read it.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jagman1,
Are you sure? What about all the HKG based FO's & SO's? Do you really think they are happy about the AOA funding this appeal.
The whole matter has been poorly thought out. Supporting this appeal will only have immediate benefit to UK based Captains.
If the appeal is successful how does it effect every pilot in CX? The AOA needs to be certain of this before going ahead.
Lets not set a precedence without knowing all the effects of it.
The AOA needs to discuss & negotiate RA65 with knowledge & well thought out strategies that balance the needs of all pilots in CX.
And you said that the FO's were self interested!!
Last time I checked the COS (prior to 08), we all signed knowingly for RA55. Now you think that just because it doesn't suit you to retire that you should gain RA65 at the demise of the FO's & SO's careers. Your comment of BPP kicking in at 65 is a nice touch also.
From reading your comments it appears that your beliefs of "self interested" are well off the mark. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home.
This whole debate is being driven by a bunch of lazy self interested cowards who snivel away on their bases whilst refusing to come to HKG to undergo the ultimate examination of the Command course.
The whole matter has been poorly thought out. Supporting this appeal will only have immediate benefit to UK based Captains.
If the appeal is successful how does it effect every pilot in CX? The AOA needs to be certain of this before going ahead.
Lets not set a precedence without knowing all the effects of it.
The AOA needs to discuss & negotiate RA65 with knowledge & well thought out strategies that balance the needs of all pilots in CX.
We need to catch up with the normal world. I'm past 55 and don't feel like retiring. BY pass pay for those affected by people staying after 65 not 55.
End of story.
End of story.
Last time I checked the COS (prior to 08), we all signed knowingly for RA55. Now you think that just because it doesn't suit you to retire that you should gain RA65 at the demise of the FO's & SO's careers. Your comment of BPP kicking in at 65 is a nice touch also.
From reading your comments it appears that your beliefs of "self interested" are well off the mark. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems CX has been able to create the home grown ANGRY YOUNG MAN and now as a result of years of frustration of being mis managed and failing to negotiate in good faith, has created the ANGRY OLD FART as well.
What Jagman said is the truth.....but it could have been put a little more diplomatically
What Jagman said is the truth.....but it could have been put a little more diplomatically
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: FL550
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jagman, what a load of rubbish. Clearly you are frustrated, but you're exacting your anger on the wrong people. The issue is with management not your fellow pilots. The most factual response is from Numero Crunchero, may I suggest you go back and read it.
If not a single A scale Captain took anything the company offered when they hit 55 then wouldn't the company be forced to apply age 65 on present terms and conditions and we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Angry Old Fart To Angry Young Man
And if you guys didn't take B scale on joining there would not be an A scale to blame everything on. Might not have even been a CDEF scale also.
AND IF MY AUNTY HAD BALLS SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE
AND IF MY AUNTY HAD BALLS SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE
Last edited by CYRILJGROOVE; 4th Jan 2009 at 03:45. Reason: ADD
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: FL550
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyrilgroove
I also agree with you here. However, as you indicated in your edit, that is one large if!
The fact remains. It's in the based FOs contract that he can stay on the base and wait for a command. If he's entitled to BBP than he should receive it.
We as HK based A scalers are entitled to a Travel Allowance, it's in our contract. Should we have it taken away because someone else thinks we shouldn't get it?
In my opinion, BBP has little to do with Age 65. The company,as usual, want it both ways. They prefer to choose who to extend and when to extend.
Think about it. If Age 65 came in tomorrow, how many Check and Trainers would there be next week?
And if you guys didn't take B scale on joining there would not be an A scale to blame everything on. Might not have even been a CDEF scale also.
The fact remains. It's in the based FOs contract that he can stay on the base and wait for a command. If he's entitled to BBP than he should receive it.
We as HK based A scalers are entitled to a Travel Allowance, it's in our contract. Should we have it taken away because someone else thinks we shouldn't get it?
In my opinion, BBP has little to do with Age 65. The company,as usual, want it both ways. They prefer to choose who to extend and when to extend.
Think about it. If Age 65 came in tomorrow, how many Check and Trainers would there be next week?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you choose not to do a command, then you are not being bypassed. I would take it with both hands if I was in their position...but I wouldn't count on it for much longer. The by pass pay mechanism needs to be looked at if it is not doing what it was meant to do particularly if it the blocker to a Unified Retirement Age.
I think we all took it as a given that you take a base as a FO then in order to get a command you would come back to HKG. You could stay as a FO on the base but as I have said several times before It was not the intent to get BPP to pay that in those circumstances.....pay it to those READY WILLING AND ABLE to do the job.
I think we all took it as a given that you take a base as a FO then in order to get a command you would come back to HKG. You could stay as a FO on the base but as I have said several times before It was not the intent to get BPP to pay that in those circumstances.....pay it to those READY WILLING AND ABLE to do the job.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 1000 out of 2500 are on bases nowadays! From that perspective, it's not as much a HK based airline anymore. Moreover, we don't need to come back to HK to get a command anymore, it's in the contract remember. So no, I don't think we all take it for granted that we all have to come back to HK for a command! BPP on bases is in accordance with the new realities. If you're entitled to it, you get it, jealousy or not.
A possible compromise would be to make BPP base specific. When there are extendees on a specific base, FOs who delayed their command there can get BPP (since we're allowed to wait on a base until a command slot comes up there, any extendees on your base are effectively affecting you). If no one is extending on your base, you don't get BPP once you choose to delay your command. Wouldn't that make everyone happy
A possible compromise would be to make BPP base specific. When there are extendees on a specific base, FOs who delayed their command there can get BPP (since we're allowed to wait on a base until a command slot comes up there, any extendees on your base are effectively affecting you). If no one is extending on your base, you don't get BPP once you choose to delay your command. Wouldn't that make everyone happy
Last edited by bobrun; 5th Jan 2009 at 01:36.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobrun
I disgree with your post on so many levels.
Cathay is a HK company. Cathay's relationship with the HK Government and with it's biggest market (HK) ensures that it must employ people in HK and pin its colours clearly to HK's mast. Anyone who is not prepared to come HK is potentially going to have their careers and earnings limited; whether that be for Command, a move to C&T or Management
As for your proposal, I'm not sure how your contract is written or applied, but for the rest of us, if a CN retires off a base his replacement is senior most suitable...ish. Once that person is qualified, he is then at liberty to take up the base or remain in HK and if necessary the base runs light. The company does not go down the list of FO's on that base to seek his replacement. BPP should mirror this.
To go with your proposal. Consider the following; if the company had a bunch of retirees in Bumfrack Nebraska and I was based in HK and had no interest in living in Nebraska, I would change my mind when I heard guys junior to me were getting BPP. I would whack my application in ASAP. The day the base became available, I would feign injury and keep the cash.
Further, we do not want the Pax contract to go the way of the Freighter Contract where the company only offers Command on specific bases. You basically get a reverse auction where the pilots fall over each other to get a Command on reduced terms. Bombay base anyone...?
Cathay is a HK company. Cathay's relationship with the HK Government and with it's biggest market (HK) ensures that it must employ people in HK and pin its colours clearly to HK's mast. Anyone who is not prepared to come HK is potentially going to have their careers and earnings limited; whether that be for Command, a move to C&T or Management
As for your proposal, I'm not sure how your contract is written or applied, but for the rest of us, if a CN retires off a base his replacement is senior most suitable...ish. Once that person is qualified, he is then at liberty to take up the base or remain in HK and if necessary the base runs light. The company does not go down the list of FO's on that base to seek his replacement. BPP should mirror this.
To go with your proposal. Consider the following; if the company had a bunch of retirees in Bumfrack Nebraska and I was based in HK and had no interest in living in Nebraska, I would change my mind when I heard guys junior to me were getting BPP. I would whack my application in ASAP. The day the base became available, I would feign injury and keep the cash.
Further, we do not want the Pax contract to go the way of the Freighter Contract where the company only offers Command on specific bases. You basically get a reverse auction where the pilots fall over each other to get a Command on reduced terms. Bombay base anyone...?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moreover, we don't need to come back to HK to get a command anymore, it's in the contract remember.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contract has not changed, just the interpretation by CX and it could easily change again and probably should.
A contract is NOT open to interpretation for the benefit of the company. Hence some of the ongoing legal cases.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s been a while since I took part in this thread, so I think I’ll reenter the fray.
Generally speaking, I take it that a number of pilots feel that if the majority of pilots adversely affected by supporting this appeal are junior pilots their majority strength should be allowed to vote it down, regardless of the negative impact on the older pilots.
For all of you who feel that way, my response is to keep the following in mind: I felt exactly same way when I was younger, and have changed my mind since then, as I grew older, and hopefully wiser. Just like the vast majority of my colleagues nearing the age of 55 have also changed their minds.
If the vast majority of senior pilots thinking has evolved on this issue, there is at least a fair chance that younger pilots will also change their minds as they grow older and their personal situation and family commitments evolve. Just like most of us older pilots have changed our minds!
The "majority rules" argument is ridiculous on so many levels. Firstly, by that argument, why don’t the majority of junior pilots vote today on a proposal to raise their pay by chopping the pay of all Captains, so that all F/O’s and S/O’s get an immediate pay rise, i.e. lets pay everyone close to the same salary? Although this might appeal to some of the shortsighted among us, i.e. those who share an affinity with the teachings of Marx, it cannot appeal to anyone who believes in fair reward for hard work, experience, and years of service. Working beyond 55, during ones most formative years of earning (higher salary) results in more capacity to save for retirement. That’s how it works in every profession. It benefits all of us!
Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue. No contract can impose something in contravention to ones individual human rights. At least, not in any Western country that I know of. Especially in this day and age. No Western court would allow it, regardless of a majority vote to the contrary by even the most socialist-minded union. Pick up a newspaper for goodness sake! Have any of you not cringed at reading some of the more "far-out" politically correct court rulings? Regardless what someone’s employment contract says, do you really think any western court would allow an employer to kick someone out the door for turning 55? I think not. Hence the rush to cut off financial support by the "majority rules" crowd.
With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A); you have not previously failed the course; or, you’ve been assessed as suitable on a base, and you’re prepared to return to HKG to do the course in seniority.
Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!
Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.
Should this not be the AOA’s stance?
Generally speaking, I take it that a number of pilots feel that if the majority of pilots adversely affected by supporting this appeal are junior pilots their majority strength should be allowed to vote it down, regardless of the negative impact on the older pilots.
For all of you who feel that way, my response is to keep the following in mind: I felt exactly same way when I was younger, and have changed my mind since then, as I grew older, and hopefully wiser. Just like the vast majority of my colleagues nearing the age of 55 have also changed their minds.
If the vast majority of senior pilots thinking has evolved on this issue, there is at least a fair chance that younger pilots will also change their minds as they grow older and their personal situation and family commitments evolve. Just like most of us older pilots have changed our minds!
The "majority rules" argument is ridiculous on so many levels. Firstly, by that argument, why don’t the majority of junior pilots vote today on a proposal to raise their pay by chopping the pay of all Captains, so that all F/O’s and S/O’s get an immediate pay rise, i.e. lets pay everyone close to the same salary? Although this might appeal to some of the shortsighted among us, i.e. those who share an affinity with the teachings of Marx, it cannot appeal to anyone who believes in fair reward for hard work, experience, and years of service. Working beyond 55, during ones most formative years of earning (higher salary) results in more capacity to save for retirement. That’s how it works in every profession. It benefits all of us!
Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue. No contract can impose something in contravention to ones individual human rights. At least, not in any Western country that I know of. Especially in this day and age. No Western court would allow it, regardless of a majority vote to the contrary by even the most socialist-minded union. Pick up a newspaper for goodness sake! Have any of you not cringed at reading some of the more "far-out" politically correct court rulings? Regardless what someone’s employment contract says, do you really think any western court would allow an employer to kick someone out the door for turning 55? I think not. Hence the rush to cut off financial support by the "majority rules" crowd.
With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A); you have not previously failed the course; or, you’ve been assessed as suitable on a base, and you’re prepared to return to HKG to do the course in seniority.
Some perspective: I spoke to a young Captain the other day who mentioned he had recently flown with a first officer who had failed his command course. The first officer flippantly pointed out that his command course failure was no big deal since he was still earning more money as a first officer, than he was as the young Captain! How’s that for chutzpah? I mean really….this made my blood boil!
Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.
Should this not be the AOA’s stance?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have said it before and I will say it again :
The AOA is there to defend our contract and negotiate new COS.
Regardless of whether the guys in London have a human rights case or not their CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN ANY WAY and therefore the AOA has no business fighting their legal battle for them.
The AOA is there to defend our contract and negotiate new COS.
Regardless of whether the guys in London have a human rights case or not their CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN ANY WAY and therefore the AOA has no business fighting their legal battle for them.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yokebearer
If the AFTLS changes and pilots required 40 hours off after each sector yet CX continued to roster 12 hours off, the contract would not be violated in any way yet the law would have been. Clearly the contract would need to change to reflect that.
Similarly the company is forcing some pilots to retire at 55 others may continue to 65. The contract has not been violated yet the law may have been. That is the core issue and the younger members are unable to comprehend that fact
In the UK our pilots pay local taxes and are protected by many laws. They are rightfully disputing that the tail registration on the aircraft should not negate protection from open straight out age discrimination.
Good post Raven11
Similarly the company is forcing some pilots to retire at 55 others may continue to 65. The contract has not been violated yet the law may have been. That is the core issue and the younger members are unable to comprehend that fact
In the UK our pilots pay local taxes and are protected by many laws. They are rightfully disputing that the tail registration on the aircraft should not negate protection from open straight out age discrimination.
Good post Raven11
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a pretty stupid analogy. The AFTLs are part of our contract and the company have to roster to them, that is the law. If the AFTLs change then so does the rostering!!!!
Raven, a very emotive plea, using human rights issues etc in this!!! Please!! I can just see all those A scalers flying their toy a/c around the UK, claiming their human rights have been violated!!!!
The AoA are in favor of a negotiated increase to RA. I agree with this. A win in the UK courts will not guarantee BPP to the juniors or any compensation, in fact i would agree with the company if they did not pay BPP for those Capts, as now the normal RA would be 65 in the UK!!!! This is the crux of the issue!!! If the courts had said first time that yes, CX must continue to employ these guys then fine, the ball is in CX's court, i disagree with the AoA funding it!
I do agree with you about who should get BPP though!
Raven, a very emotive plea, using human rights issues etc in this!!! Please!! I can just see all those A scalers flying their toy a/c around the UK, claiming their human rights have been violated!!!!
The AoA are in favor of a negotiated increase to RA. I agree with this. A win in the UK courts will not guarantee BPP to the juniors or any compensation, in fact i would agree with the company if they did not pay BPP for those Capts, as now the normal RA would be 65 in the UK!!!! This is the crux of the issue!!! If the courts had said first time that yes, CX must continue to employ these guys then fine, the ball is in CX's court, i disagree with the AoA funding it!
I do agree with you about who should get BPP though!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yokebearer
Listen mate: A contract cannot violate someone’s basic human rights, even if you say so in big letters.
At one time, not long ago, Cathay only employed male pilots. In the flight attendants contract they needed permission to get married. Their contract also stated they were forbidden to get pregnant. And most recently, their retirement age, I believe, was 45.
Why do you think all those contract provisions were removed? Do you think that Contract Law trumps Human Rights Law? It does not.
This issue does not only affect London based pilots, as you suggest, on the contrary, it affects us all. It is a human rights issue for those in Hong Kong and on all our bases. Do you think it would be fair that a pilot, junior in seniority, can continue to work beyond 55 in one base, while a more senior pilot is kicked out the door on another base?
Hong Kong has the majority of pilots, what if they voted to reduce pay on the bases in exchange for pay rises in Hong Kong. I mean really now...expats living in Hong Kong deserve more, don't they? Let's vote on it!
What's more, do you think we would even have a union if you and a majority of your mates blocked funding for this appeal? What if the shoe were on the other foot, as it will one day be when you become older and a member of the minority? Would you remain in a union that allowed a majority vote by the younger members to violate your basic human rights?
Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined. What's more, there are now a large number of B scale pilots nearing 55. Should they not be allowed to continue to work and save for retirement?
Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.
Should this not be the AOA’s stance?
Listen mate: A contract cannot violate someone’s basic human rights, even if you say so in big letters.
At one time, not long ago, Cathay only employed male pilots. In the flight attendants contract they needed permission to get married. Their contract also stated they were forbidden to get pregnant. And most recently, their retirement age, I believe, was 45.
Why do you think all those contract provisions were removed? Do you think that Contract Law trumps Human Rights Law? It does not.
This issue does not only affect London based pilots, as you suggest, on the contrary, it affects us all. It is a human rights issue for those in Hong Kong and on all our bases. Do you think it would be fair that a pilot, junior in seniority, can continue to work beyond 55 in one base, while a more senior pilot is kicked out the door on another base?
Hong Kong has the majority of pilots, what if they voted to reduce pay on the bases in exchange for pay rises in Hong Kong. I mean really now...expats living in Hong Kong deserve more, don't they? Let's vote on it!
What's more, do you think we would even have a union if you and a majority of your mates blocked funding for this appeal? What if the shoe were on the other foot, as it will one day be when you become older and a member of the minority? Would you remain in a union that allowed a majority vote by the younger members to violate your basic human rights?
Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined. What's more, there are now a large number of B scale pilots nearing 55. Should they not be allowed to continue to work and save for retirement?
Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55.
Should this not be the AOA’s stance?
Last edited by raven11; 6th Jan 2009 at 08:55.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Jet
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't waste too much time on the BPP issue. Word on the street is no more extensions, not even on the freighter as a senior Capt just found out to his horror. Won't be long, unless the world economy turns around quickly, before no one is on BPP due to no more extendees. In this climate, does anybody really think that CX wants to keep it's most expensive employee's (even if they are on B scale increment 17) if it has an easy way to let them go???
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven11
"Secondly, forcing someone out at age 55 is, quite simply, a human’s rights issue.....No Western court would allow it"
I think the UK, save for parts of the Midlands
, are generally accepted to be in the "West" and quite clearly, therefore, one Western Court did allow it; hence the need for an APPEAL.
I've said it previously and I'll say it again. Why is the Human Rights argument such a certainty? Nobody has a right to a job for life and all modern employment contracts have an end point... fixed period, completion of a project and/or a Retirement Age.
I would wager the Judge presiding in your "Western Court" has a retirement age.. it may 60 or 65.... so why is RA 60 or 65 deemed not a breach of Human Rights, but 55 is?
"Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined"
A good and valid point. However, I would also point out; yours, hers and my contract has RA 55 and we all signed so we must be OK with it. Did you think it was a breach of your Human Rights back then? Did you raise the issue?
"With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A);"
You obviously haven't been following the SO BPP debate. Next time you are flying with an SO; ask him what he thinks of this brilliant idea!
"Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55".
I sure every right minded pilot agrees with you. Sadly, Nick Rhodes doesn't. He wants to choose who extends and he wants the ability to offer differing contracts to extendees to meet his needs.(ie lower T&C's). However, he is prepared to alter his stance and offer contracts on reduced terms to all 55 year olds, in return for the removal of BPP from the contract. Unless you know a way of changing Nick's mind.... your point, as cosy as it is; is but a pipedream...
I think the UK, save for parts of the Midlands
, are generally accepted to be in the "West" and quite clearly, therefore, one Western Court did allow it; hence the need for an APPEAL.I've said it previously and I'll say it again. Why is the Human Rights argument such a certainty? Nobody has a right to a job for life and all modern employment contracts have an end point... fixed period, completion of a project and/or a Retirement Age.
I would wager the Judge presiding in your "Western Court" has a retirement age.. it may 60 or 65.... so why is RA 60 or 65 deemed not a breach of Human Rights, but 55 is?
"Fenwicksgirl. Let's not make this an A scale, B scale thing. If so, I would point out that the contract you signed would indicate that you were OK with B scale when you joined"
A good and valid point. However, I would also point out; yours, hers and my contract has RA 55 and we all signed so we must be OK with it. Did you think it was a breach of your Human Rights back then? Did you raise the issue?
"With regards to Bypass Pay, nothing I have read in this thread has changed my mind in that regard. If you’re entitled to BPP you should get it. By entitled I mean you’ve earned it (been assessed suitable CAt A);"
You obviously haven't been following the SO BPP debate. Next time you are flying with an SO; ask him what he thinks of this brilliant idea!
"Simply put, bypass pay should go to those who deserve it, and we should all have the option to work beyond 55".
I sure every right minded pilot agrees with you. Sadly, Nick Rhodes doesn't. He wants to choose who extends and he wants the ability to offer differing contracts to extendees to meet his needs.(ie lower T&C's). However, he is prepared to alter his stance and offer contracts on reduced terms to all 55 year olds, in return for the removal of BPP from the contract. Unless you know a way of changing Nick's mind.... your point, as cosy as it is; is but a pipedream...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a very slanted view on here by all of about FIVE different people. I think it has been very clearly written for many years what the longevity of our contract is. Did it not say 55 when you signed on? It did in my contract, and I am planning accordingly. Did you ever push for a HUMAN RIGHTS revolution when you were a five year FO and plenty were retiring at the CONTRACTUAL retirement age? Many of you probably never even made it to 5 year FO, as many upgraded before that point. And now, as that fateful day is approaching, you want to cry HUMAN RIGHTS!! How out of touch with the real world are some of you? Where do you think you fall in the big scheme of things? Probably top 1% of wage earners worldwide and you are crying about HUMAN RIGHTS??!! Look in the mirror guys. Get over yourselves. Rant over.
box
box