Recruitment Ban
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Oz -Sometimes
Recruitment Ban
The only real scabs are the arrogant folks taking upgrades, whilst telling prospective S/Os that they must not take a job. What a hypocritical bunch you are! The sad thing is that not only are you now playing the dirty games that management indulge in; but you have lost any sympathy from the pilot community outside of Won Chi. This is the wrong approach, which will only win the company points when its all debated out in the SCMP. If the ban is to stifle the companies expansion, then why would you do an upgrade or train someone. Instead of trying to selfishly use other people to achieve this goal, why not have the balls to refuse upgrades and to train. You then would have a reasonable argument in asking prospective SO’s not to join. Until then you are spinelessly using prospective SO’s to do your dirty work. I believe this is why this forum has seen so many critical responses regarding the ban and the AOA lately. This action is hypocritical and wrong. It will only turn opinion against you. The Donkeys ends in CX City must be laughing!
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Daxon,
Maybe you would care to enlighten us on your views!
As far as most are concerned, BankAngle50 has hit the nail on the head!
There isnt anything too complicated about the whole thing if you ask me, guys taking upgrades are the ones that are taking the jobs, not just the new S/O's!
Maybe you would care to enlighten us on your views!
As far as most are concerned, BankAngle50 has hit the nail on the head!
There isnt anything too complicated about the whole thing if you ask me, guys taking upgrades are the ones that are taking the jobs, not just the new S/O's!
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: The Fragrant Harbour
Daxon
You imply that we know nothing of the ban and the background behind it. Yet you have not shared what you know or defended BA 50s accusation.
I would dearly love to hear why it isnt hypocriticle to ban new s/os yet others still take the upgrades...
You imply that we know nothing of the ban and the background behind it. Yet you have not shared what you know or defended BA 50s accusation.
I would dearly love to hear why it isnt hypocriticle to ban new s/os yet others still take the upgrades...
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 47
Likes: 14
From: East of Watford
EMB Bras:
My views have been formed from the inside. I joined CPA in the 80’s. I have read and discussed every piece of correspondence sent to me, from both the company and the HKAOA (including the 14 page BTL that arrived this afternoon), during the last 8 or 10 years of this campaign against the aircrew. If you have too, good, but I doubt it.
If BankAngle50 and flyingkiwi have too, then I apologise.
If you think "there isn’t anything too complicated about the whole thing.." then I would suggest you have not had sight of all the correspondence.
flyingkiwi:
I think we have all read enough of the two sides of the argument, so please forgive me if I refrain from repeating what has already been said.
What I will say however, is how do you honestly think you would act, if you were on the inside and had seen the 49ers sacked "for no particular reason"?
BankAngle50,flyingkiwi and EMB Bras:
Could I ask in return which Association or Union you each belong to and how your views fit in with the rest of the membership and your fellow airline colleagues?
Could I also, humbly suggest a little background reading to get you slightly more abreast of the times, albeit from outside this dispute in Hong Kong? In no particular order:
1 "Grounded. Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of Eastern Airlines"
2 "Flying the Line. Volume I and II"
3 "Confessions of a Union Buster"
4 "Hard Landing"
5 "From Worst to First"
6 "Nuts"
If any or all of you guys are so driven to join CPA while the IFALPA recruitment ban is in effect, then go right ahead.
Perhaps you know more than thousands of ‘team playing’ pilots around the world.
Thank you.
My views have been formed from the inside. I joined CPA in the 80’s. I have read and discussed every piece of correspondence sent to me, from both the company and the HKAOA (including the 14 page BTL that arrived this afternoon), during the last 8 or 10 years of this campaign against the aircrew. If you have too, good, but I doubt it.
If BankAngle50 and flyingkiwi have too, then I apologise.
If you think "there isn’t anything too complicated about the whole thing.." then I would suggest you have not had sight of all the correspondence.
flyingkiwi:
I think we have all read enough of the two sides of the argument, so please forgive me if I refrain from repeating what has already been said.
What I will say however, is how do you honestly think you would act, if you were on the inside and had seen the 49ers sacked "for no particular reason"?
BankAngle50,flyingkiwi and EMB Bras:
Could I ask in return which Association or Union you each belong to and how your views fit in with the rest of the membership and your fellow airline colleagues?
Could I also, humbly suggest a little background reading to get you slightly more abreast of the times, albeit from outside this dispute in Hong Kong? In no particular order:
1 "Grounded. Frank Lorenzo and the Destruction of Eastern Airlines"
2 "Flying the Line. Volume I and II"
3 "Confessions of a Union Buster"
4 "Hard Landing"
5 "From Worst to First"
6 "Nuts"
If any or all of you guys are so driven to join CPA while the IFALPA recruitment ban is in effect, then go right ahead.
Perhaps you know more than thousands of ‘team playing’ pilots around the world.
Thank you.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: Gods Country
I understand that a positive link has been established between the CX management(?) and an outfit in Perth that specialize in union bashing, do any of you CX guys have any more gen?
I further understand that a certain high ranking FOP member literally had to go and change his shorts due to a severe attack of the Hershey squirts when two 49ers walked into the CX box at the &7's.........
I further understand that a certain high ranking FOP member literally had to go and change his shorts due to a severe attack of the Hershey squirts when two 49ers walked into the CX box at the &7's.........
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Hiring Ban
To the current CX crews:
I definitely do feel for you people, and I am not about to write "snotty" posts here pushing my opinions one way or the other. I'd like to think I am a little more professional than that. I have seen some pretty nasty posts here and have to wonder about the individuals who write them.
I do however, with all due respect, have to question the wisdom of an outright hiring ban at CX by IFALPA.
What about "strength in numbers"? Allowing CX to recruit more pilots adds more to the HKAOA membership (although I understand new hires are not presently welcome). Going into this with the assumption that all new hires (while defying the hiring ban) are "union busters", or "anti-union" is IMHO very wrong.
Here are a few hypothetical situations for you:
Would I leave my current employment and join CX with the intention of improving my career? No, I can't say I would do that under the current situation. I would give that a "probably not".
If the CX pilots were on strike, and the company were trying to replace striking union pilots with permanent non-union pilots, would I accept a position? Whether I was employed at the time or not, I can't say I would do that either. I would give that one a "most definitely not".
However, at a time of unemployment, and under the current "hiring ban", would I accept a position with CX? I would have to honestly give that one a "yes, I likely would", and follow it up by saying that I would also be interested in joining the association, as well as supporting the "49ers" in the struggle to get their positions and seniority numbers reinstated.
With all due respect, and this is not meant as criticism but rather a question for someone not up on the finer points of industrial action, why did the CX pilots not shut the place down when the "49ers" were first let go? Are the “49ers” all "B scale" pilots? Or are there more senior "A scale" pilots involved too? Are most of the CX pilots together on this, or are there two camps there? (ie: the "A" camp and the "B" camp).
I can certainly see that the company has engaged in the old "divide and conquer" strategy over the past number of years. Has it worked or are you all in this together?
I am sure these questions have all been asked before, but I am relatively new to this board.
Cheers.
I definitely do feel for you people, and I am not about to write "snotty" posts here pushing my opinions one way or the other. I'd like to think I am a little more professional than that. I have seen some pretty nasty posts here and have to wonder about the individuals who write them.
I do however, with all due respect, have to question the wisdom of an outright hiring ban at CX by IFALPA.
What about "strength in numbers"? Allowing CX to recruit more pilots adds more to the HKAOA membership (although I understand new hires are not presently welcome). Going into this with the assumption that all new hires (while defying the hiring ban) are "union busters", or "anti-union" is IMHO very wrong.
Here are a few hypothetical situations for you:
Would I leave my current employment and join CX with the intention of improving my career? No, I can't say I would do that under the current situation. I would give that a "probably not".
If the CX pilots were on strike, and the company were trying to replace striking union pilots with permanent non-union pilots, would I accept a position? Whether I was employed at the time or not, I can't say I would do that either. I would give that one a "most definitely not".
However, at a time of unemployment, and under the current "hiring ban", would I accept a position with CX? I would have to honestly give that one a "yes, I likely would", and follow it up by saying that I would also be interested in joining the association, as well as supporting the "49ers" in the struggle to get their positions and seniority numbers reinstated.
With all due respect, and this is not meant as criticism but rather a question for someone not up on the finer points of industrial action, why did the CX pilots not shut the place down when the "49ers" were first let go? Are the “49ers” all "B scale" pilots? Or are there more senior "A scale" pilots involved too? Are most of the CX pilots together on this, or are there two camps there? (ie: the "A" camp and the "B" camp).
I can certainly see that the company has engaged in the old "divide and conquer" strategy over the past number of years. Has it worked or are you all in this together?
I am sure these questions have all been asked before, but I am relatively new to this board.
Cheers.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
From: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Daxon...the problem is....(coming from a 10 years+) member in good standing ALPO member...is that the unions have a proven history of changing sides when it suits them financially....not allegations.....facts....so...why take out your frustations on potential dues paying members by effecting an uneffective recruitment ban...when there must be more effective methods of resolving what are obviously(to any literate person) unfair dismissals by their employer...the ban in effect serves two purposes...1) to alienate any potential supporters of your efforts to re-instate the affected employees..2)to prove your hypocrisy to the whole industry that while "banning" new employees, you are accepting command slots created by the termination of the very employees you claim to represent.....get a life boys.....wake up and smell the coffee.......remember "lemmings day"....support is a two way street...
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Hiring Ban
frankg,
I have to comment on your last post.
First, I have to disagree in terms of what the current status is of these pilots.
These people were fired. Whether it was just or not is irrelevant. They are NOT locked out. However, for the sake of argument, if they ARE locked out, then I have to ask again why the rest of the pilot group did not bring the place to a standstill when it happened? Isn’t that what solidarity is all about?
Secondly, I have to question (like many others on this board) why pilots are taking upgrades, which really IS replacing those lost positions?! That, in my mind, is certainly not solidarity. In fact, it seems to me that more people are looking out for “number one” than for the people who were sacked!
Here's one for you: Are only the first 49 (or 53) pilots considered "scabs"? I mean surely anyone after 49 (or 53) wouldn't be taking anyone's spot, so they shouldn't be subject to the ban then right? Just playing “Devil’s Advocate” here!
Again, I do feel for these people, and I sincerely wish them luck in terms of getting their positions reinstated. However, I still have to question the wisdom of this ban. I think it's ludicrous.
I have to comment on your last post.
First, I have to disagree in terms of what the current status is of these pilots.
These people were fired. Whether it was just or not is irrelevant. They are NOT locked out. However, for the sake of argument, if they ARE locked out, then I have to ask again why the rest of the pilot group did not bring the place to a standstill when it happened? Isn’t that what solidarity is all about?
Secondly, I have to question (like many others on this board) why pilots are taking upgrades, which really IS replacing those lost positions?! That, in my mind, is certainly not solidarity. In fact, it seems to me that more people are looking out for “number one” than for the people who were sacked!
Here's one for you: Are only the first 49 (or 53) pilots considered "scabs"? I mean surely anyone after 49 (or 53) wouldn't be taking anyone's spot, so they shouldn't be subject to the ban then right? Just playing “Devil’s Advocate” here!
Again, I do feel for these people, and I sincerely wish them luck in terms of getting their positions reinstated. However, I still have to question the wisdom of this ban. I think it's ludicrous.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: earth
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am just curious, not having all the information regarding the dismisal of the 49 employees, is the union providing legal help ie lawyers to fight the company on this matter.
My understanding, and please correct if i am wrong, is that the union should provide legal representation if the employee or the union feels the dismisal was unjust or foul play contributed to the rejection of the employee from the company. has this been done by the union??.
I wish all who have been affected and their families all the best.
Cheers.
330.
I am just curious, not having all the information regarding the dismisal of the 49 employees, is the union providing legal help ie lawyers to fight the company on this matter.
My understanding, and please correct if i am wrong, is that the union should provide legal representation if the employee or the union feels the dismisal was unjust or foul play contributed to the rejection of the employee from the company. has this been done by the union??.
I wish all who have been affected and their families all the best.
Cheers.
330.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
FreeHills
Where do you Freehills people get all the time.
I am sure David Turnball can't be paying you that much to spend your time on this forum.
Nick Rhodes, should you be spending time on drawing up a new contract for us to sign or be fired again? Should you be working on more intimination tactics? Should you be reducing some safety issues.
I am sure you could be doing that stuff instead of posting here.
I am sure David Turnball can't be paying you that much to spend your time on this forum.
Nick Rhodes, should you be spending time on drawing up a new contract for us to sign or be fired again? Should you be working on more intimination tactics? Should you be reducing some safety issues.
I am sure you could be doing that stuff instead of posting here.
