Should we Name & Shame G Day Workers?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious
MrClaus. It's strange but I read it as:
Idiots should be entitled to bread, and;
Should put you down, lie my last dog! (I thought he was going Shakespearian).
I actually think your translation is correct now I come to think of it. In either case, both versions are utterly ludicrous and have no bearing on the debate.
STP
Oh by the way, I disagree with naming and shaming - what would it achieve?
Idiots should be entitled to bread, and;
Should put you down, lie my last dog! (I thought he was going Shakespearian).
I actually think your translation is correct now I come to think of it. In either case, both versions are utterly ludicrous and have no bearing on the debate.
STP
Oh by the way, I disagree with naming and shaming - what would it achieve?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorvad,
Perhaps Albatross wants his seniority respected without having to perform extremely fatiguing and potentially dangerous W patterns?
STP,
I think name and shame would cause some G day working members to stop. It's the whole accountability thing again. Some might argue that overall membership numbers would be affected. So be it, these G day workers will be the first to rack up all the EFP if we ever enter some form of CC or IA. No point in having a false notion of numerical strength anyways.
Perhaps Albatross wants his seniority respected without having to perform extremely fatiguing and potentially dangerous W patterns?
STP,
I think name and shame would cause some G day working members to stop. It's the whole accountability thing again. Some might argue that overall membership numbers would be affected. So be it, these G day workers will be the first to rack up all the EFP if we ever enter some form of CC or IA. No point in having a false notion of numerical strength anyways.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist, stillalbatross
with regard to w patterns..either you choose to do them because they suit you, or you choose not to do them because they don't suit you...its up to you, make your choice, and don't bemoan the roster you get as a result . The very idea of "naming and shaming" someone who makes the most of the lifestyle request system which is, afterall for our benefit, and which, in various guises is available at most of the worlds airlines is utterly ridiculous
with regard to w patterns..either you choose to do them because they suit you, or you choose not to do them because they don't suit you...its up to you, make your choice, and don't bemoan the roster you get as a result . The very idea of "naming and shaming" someone who makes the most of the lifestyle request system which is, afterall for our benefit, and which, in various guises is available at most of the worlds airlines is utterly ridiculous
Last edited by sorvad; 24th Nov 2011 at 22:56.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist, I agree with you on one point, and that is:
Not only that but, sadly, numerical strength doesn't always translate into the ability to achieve results.
As far as naming G day workers goes there are a few issues to consider:
Firstly, those who work on G days are hardly likely to care if their names are published as many of them are probably non-members anyway.
Secondly, the only way that anything could come of this from a collective sense would be if there were to be a motion put, seconded, voted on and then carried that made working on G days punishable by some form of sanction.
Thirdly, any sanction resulting from the second point would, as you say, probably have an effect on membership, both from those deemed to be "guilty" and those who see this sort of vindictive unionism perhaps a step too far.
Fourthly, our contract allows us to work G days for reward and the Association preventing (arguably) members from complying with their contracts (even the voluntary bits) might be (would be) seen as industrial action.
Fifthly, even though CokeZero gave us all a bit of a laugh with some bits of his post, he did have a point, albeit tenuous, with respect to legal action for claims of defamation.
So, I suppose that's a rather long-winded way of saying what I said in my previous post - what would "naming and shaming" G day workers achieve? In my opinion, the negative impact of such a strategy would far outweigh any positive (apart, perhaps, from settling a few personal vendettas).
I wonder if they're all A scalers?
No point in having a false notion of numerical strength anyways.
As far as naming G day workers goes there are a few issues to consider:
Firstly, those who work on G days are hardly likely to care if their names are published as many of them are probably non-members anyway.
Secondly, the only way that anything could come of this from a collective sense would be if there were to be a motion put, seconded, voted on and then carried that made working on G days punishable by some form of sanction.
Thirdly, any sanction resulting from the second point would, as you say, probably have an effect on membership, both from those deemed to be "guilty" and those who see this sort of vindictive unionism perhaps a step too far.
Fourthly, our contract allows us to work G days for reward and the Association preventing (arguably) members from complying with their contracts (even the voluntary bits) might be (would be) seen as industrial action.
Fifthly, even though CokeZero gave us all a bit of a laugh with some bits of his post, he did have a point, albeit tenuous, with respect to legal action for claims of defamation.
So, I suppose that's a rather long-winded way of saying what I said in my previous post - what would "naming and shaming" G day workers achieve? In my opinion, the negative impact of such a strategy would far outweigh any positive (apart, perhaps, from settling a few personal vendettas).
I wonder if they're all A scalers?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sovrad,
I don't want them but they are there in our COS and anyone is entitled to do them, much like G day compensation. W patterns suit some, G day compensation suits others.
To get a W pattern sorted rostering have to give you two requests, one for each pattern BEFORE I even get my first request. Seniority is irrelevent.
All the good trips like FCO are taken up by W patterns even if it's my first request, rostering say too bad.
Name and shame, I say.
I don't want them but they are there in our COS and anyone is entitled to do them, much like G day compensation. W patterns suit some, G day compensation suits others.
To get a W pattern sorted rostering have to give you two requests, one for each pattern BEFORE I even get my first request. Seniority is irrelevent.
All the good trips like FCO are taken up by W patterns even if it's my first request, rostering say too bad.
Name and shame, I say.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stillalbatross
so let me get this straight...you don't do W patterns because you don't want to, but as a result of YOUR choice you don't like the rosters you do get as you don't get to go to some of the places you'd like to. So because of this, you feel that no one else should be able benefit from them either, and those who do are doing you some sort of disservice by choosing them...is that about right?
so let me get this straight...you don't do W patterns because you don't want to, but as a result of YOUR choice you don't like the rosters you do get as you don't get to go to some of the places you'd like to. So because of this, you feel that no one else should be able benefit from them either, and those who do are doing you some sort of disservice by choosing them...is that about right?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titan,
That's a valid point. Let's publish the W patterns then and let people bid on them like a normal airline. Maybe I don't want to do super compact every month, but maybe I'm willing to do them to get MXP and JFK on preferred dates. Catch my drift? Perhaps we could even enter the real airline world and bid for pre-built lines. Our system punishes seniority and rewards juniority.
That's a valid point. Let's publish the W patterns then and let people bid on them like a normal airline. Maybe I don't want to do super compact every month, but maybe I'm willing to do them to get MXP and JFK on preferred dates. Catch my drift? Perhaps we could even enter the real airline world and bid for pre-built lines. Our system punishes seniority and rewards juniority.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorvad,
The lack of depth of your understanding on this issue is striking. Let me explain:
Because W patterns exist, many long haul patterns are not available via the normal request system. That is not fair to requesters more senior to W pattern holders.
I am not advocating name and shame for those doing super compact rosters. I am saying the system needs to be changed...
Super compact bidders should have to request long hauls via the normal request system. When they get one, crew planning should look for another one (also possibly requested) to build the W. If it works great, if not too bad. The most senior super compact bidders should still get them as long as they put in enough long haul requests to ensure they get one which can accommodate a W. More junior bidders may not. Either way, the W would not come at the expense of more senior normal requesters.
The notion that a junior crew member should get Ws at the expense of more senior requests just so they can commute is absurd. Only in CX would such a blatantly anti-seniority system be allowed.
Time for change...
The lack of depth of your understanding on this issue is striking. Let me explain:
Because W patterns exist, many long haul patterns are not available via the normal request system. That is not fair to requesters more senior to W pattern holders.
I am not advocating name and shame for those doing super compact rosters. I am saying the system needs to be changed...
Super compact bidders should have to request long hauls via the normal request system. When they get one, crew planning should look for another one (also possibly requested) to build the W. If it works great, if not too bad. The most senior super compact bidders should still get them as long as they put in enough long haul requests to ensure they get one which can accommodate a W. More junior bidders may not. Either way, the W would not come at the expense of more senior normal requesters.
The notion that a junior crew member should get Ws at the expense of more senior requests just so they can commute is absurd. Only in CX would such a blatantly anti-seniority system be allowed.
Time for change...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lifestyle request is exactly that.....in an ideal world every bit of it would suit the person who requests it...unfortunately they have to be done within the constraints of the rostering system..those who want a compacted roster, in order to afford them a block of days off also have to suffer the fatiguing effects of, sometimes, 4 nights loss of sleep in 8. Those who aren't prepared to do this then don't request them, but as a result don't expect to always get your layover requests. Either way, whether you get your lifestyle request or not is dependant in part on seniority.
I agree..the system isn't perfect, but it is the system, and as I said previously, the very notion of naming and shaming someone who uses it to bid for a lifestyle that suits them is both pointless and unfair.
I agree..the system isn't perfect, but it is the system, and as I said previously, the very notion of naming and shaming someone who uses it to bid for a lifestyle that suits them is both pointless and unfair.
Last edited by sorvad; 26th Nov 2011 at 07:31.
cxorcist
The problem with your idea is that both you and I know that any request beyond your first request is extremely unlikely. To require a colleague to make two, possibly three requests each month just to make up a super compact roster as opposed to someone wanting a particular pattern who only has to make one request is unfair. What would be fairer is to make super compact rosters someone’s first request and then have them awarded on seniority with all other requests.
The problem with your idea is that both you and I know that any request beyond your first request is extremely unlikely. To require a colleague to make two, possibly three requests each month just to make up a super compact roster as opposed to someone wanting a particular pattern who only has to make one request is unfair. What would be fairer is to make super compact rosters someone’s first request and then have them awarded on seniority with all other requests.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sovrad,
Let me explain. the only person who should get the pattern I also request is someone who is ahead of me in seniority. That's why it's called seniority. If someone 7 yrs behind me keeps picking up the trips I request its called juniority.
You may be in favour of juniority, I am not.
I don't get my requests because of W patterns but I do get the same request if the opportunity presents itself and I work it on a G day.
Unfortunately the patterns I want also need to be obtained through the constraints of the rostering system.
I like the "dependant, in part on seniority" Shouldn't it be "dependant entirely on seniority"
Or wouldn't that suit you?
Let me explain. the only person who should get the pattern I also request is someone who is ahead of me in seniority. That's why it's called seniority. If someone 7 yrs behind me keeps picking up the trips I request its called juniority.
You may be in favour of juniority, I am not.
I don't get my requests because of W patterns but I do get the same request if the opportunity presents itself and I work it on a G day.
Unfortunately the patterns I want also need to be obtained through the constraints of the rostering system.
I like the "dependant, in part on seniority" Shouldn't it be "dependant entirely on seniority"
Or wouldn't that suit you?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really hate the defeatist attitude so many of our pilots have. So many say things like "this is just a contract job", or "seniority has always been disrespected here" as an excuse for continued abuses. We make it easier for the company to conduct themselves in this way when we say these things and just accept (take) it.
We should expect better and be willing to back it up with the force of a unified pilot group, but that is another story... Reference Management thread...
We should expect better and be willing to back it up with the force of a unified pilot group, but that is another story... Reference Management thread...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cxorcist
That's been tried, perhaps before your time here. The result is the subject of a very readable book and an on-going court case. It was also tried in Oz in '89. Look what happened there and that was in country with strong labour laws, strong unionism and a Labor government in power at the time. Look what's happening in QF now.
So, without wishing to appear defeatist, perhaps this might be a time for the sort of leadership that you said has been so sadly lacking in the other thread you referred to. This time, naturally, that leadership would need to come from a different group.
P.S. Have you read Don Quixote?
We should expect better and be willing to back it up with the force of a unified pilot group
So, without wishing to appear defeatist, perhaps this might be a time for the sort of leadership that you said has been so sadly lacking in the other thread you referred to. This time, naturally, that leadership would need to come from a different group.
P.S. Have you read Don Quixote?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there ever been a proposal put towards the Company at either CX or KA for a rotating bidding(request) system?
It should be a seniority system. Pure & simple.
Note: I'm nowhere near the top of the seniority list yet, but one day, many years in the future I will be. So will we all. It's in all of our interests to protect the seniority rights.