Union Membership
I would vote take him onboard the Union immediately and help him to the fullest extent possible.
Charge him back-dues for Union membership for every year he was employed at CX up to a maximum of say 5 years.
Charge him back-dues for Union membership for every year he was employed at CX up to a maximum of say 5 years.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as he's only so far applied to join the HKAOA, that doesn't necessarily mean at this stage that his application has been accepted. Why don't a number of you who are HK members make written objections voicing your reasons.
Personally, I would accept him, with the calculations of the standard fees from day one when he joined CX, include the extra we paid for the 49ers, (if he's been around that long) and once he's transferred the whole amount, accept him and offer help.
Agreed, the union need to have a more robust system in place to stop non member scammers like this abusing our resources. Get a grip GC.
And listen to your membership ffs!
Personally, I would accept him, with the calculations of the standard fees from day one when he joined CX, include the extra we paid for the 49ers, (if he's been around that long) and once he's transferred the whole amount, accept him and offer help.
Agreed, the union need to have a more robust system in place to stop non member scammers like this abusing our resources. Get a grip GC.
And listen to your membership ffs!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He can join on the proviso that he volunteers his time, pro bono, helping out the various HKAOA committees for, lest say, the next 24 months, at the Chairman's discretion.
Pay it forward, sort of.
Pay it forward, sort of.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been a dues paying member for 20 yrs +. That includes during the 49'er episode where subscriptions were increased to support the affected members (and their families) who were terrorized by the company. Now, it seems that I have been a fool. I could have kept all the money over this past two decades, knowing that when I needed the AOA's help, I could join retroactively and expect the full support as though I had been contributing to the wellbeing of our membership all along. Silly me. If this comes to pass, I will resign from my membership, and send the GC a letter telling them exactly why. This is disgusting on so many levels. There are responsibilites, morals and commitments involved in supporting an association. To allow this person to join now, without any financial penalty would be obscene. In fact, at this point I wouldn't believe the AOA GC if they stated he had 'paid' a penalty. There has to be an example made to the wider pilot community that there is in fact a difference between being a member, and freeloading on the actual memberships financial commitments. No better lesson would be taught than for the entire pilot body to know that if you choose to spend many years freeloading, when push comes to shove, you lie in the bed you chose. NO to membership for this individual.
Don't usually agree with a lot that Traf says; however he's right on the money with this one.
If morally, or for historical or other reasons, you choose not to join the AOA, then fine, that is your rightful choice. This stunt, however, is bludging at it's worst, and is just taking the poverbial.
If morally, or for historical or other reasons, you choose not to join the AOA, then fine, that is your rightful choice. This stunt, however, is bludging at it's worst, and is just taking the poverbial.
Instead of being negative why don't we use this terrible situation as an opportunity to show all and sundry the exact reasons why they should join.
I've been a member for 20+ years like you and I can completely understand what you say, however let's use this to our advantage.
I've been a member for 20+ years like you and I can completely understand what you say, however let's use this to our advantage.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm, how exactly are we to 'use' this to our advantage? I think making it plainly clear that there is a heavy price to be paid for NOT being a member over the years is very much using this to our advantage.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has to be a consequence for freeloading on the backs of paying members for 20 years. Now, he needs helps and decides to 'join'. NO. Too late, and it will be a good example to others.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: St Helena Island
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I'll bite...
I'm reading the above posts of people threatening to leave the AOA if he is approved for membership. Really? Is this what we as a pilot group should feel? Now that the Company is slowly tightening the screws with our contracts, we are thinking of the segregation of a potential member or abandonment of the AOA from a standing member(s)? What have we become?
Why don't we all take a deep breath and try to find a solution in a rational manner rather than partake in a 'stone-the-heretic' view by what we've heard from other than the parties involved?
Michael Hunt mentioned about diversions and the response was "Two diversions ? Niiice. Needs his tech knowledge re-appraising then." Again, before we cast a decision, how about we obtain the facts? (Globocnik this is not a personal attack against you) - I'll apologise to you right now if I am incorrect; I don't read posts #35,#36 and #37 the way you do.
Regardless whether he was involved in one...two...ten per month diversions, the question raised by RugbyRugby is whether he should be allowed to join and whether there is "an abuse of membership." If there is a decision made that "yes, in fact, there was an abuse of membership," then the membership should decide what the consequence should be (from what 'round midnight's suggestion, post #52, to Tafalgar's suggestion, of NO membership, #53.
Before we allow tempers to flare, how about we possibly obtain and consider all the facts rather than go by speculation.
I feel there are lessons to be learnt in more ways than just ethical.
As Anotherday previously stated, "Flame away."
I'm reading the above posts of people threatening to leave the AOA if he is approved for membership. Really? Is this what we as a pilot group should feel? Now that the Company is slowly tightening the screws with our contracts, we are thinking of the segregation of a potential member or abandonment of the AOA from a standing member(s)? What have we become?
Why don't we all take a deep breath and try to find a solution in a rational manner rather than partake in a 'stone-the-heretic' view by what we've heard from other than the parties involved?
Michael Hunt mentioned about diversions and the response was "Two diversions ? Niiice. Needs his tech knowledge re-appraising then." Again, before we cast a decision, how about we obtain the facts? (Globocnik this is not a personal attack against you) - I'll apologise to you right now if I am incorrect; I don't read posts #35,#36 and #37 the way you do.
Regardless whether he was involved in one...two...ten per month diversions, the question raised by RugbyRugby is whether he should be allowed to join and whether there is "an abuse of membership." If there is a decision made that "yes, in fact, there was an abuse of membership," then the membership should decide what the consequence should be (from what 'round midnight's suggestion, post #52, to Tafalgar's suggestion, of NO membership, #53.
Before we allow tempers to flare, how about we possibly obtain and consider all the facts rather than go by speculation.
I feel there are lessons to be learnt in more ways than just ethical.
As Anotherday previously stated, "Flame away."
He's already had the help; and more fool us. A complete disincentive to paying union dues.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the GC. Wake up you lot. Seriously, can you imagine operating an insurance company like this: "pay no premiums, for years....until you need help, then we'll cover you". Are we really that bankrupt on common sense? Either you join the union in a reasonable time frame, or you don't. That's fine. Just don't come crying when you need the help the AOA offers. Unbelievable. This is an issue that goes to the core of what the AOA stands for, the value of it's membership and the true cost of not joining. This individual made a choice over two decades. He is not welcome now.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you need to get off your high horses. I stopped counting the number of members who frequently worked on G days and who took training positions prior to CC. Oh that's right I forgot, there wasn't a directive from the AoA so it made it ok! what BS! Who did you think you were helping by training cheaper replacements? What about paying us all a penalty for aiding the company and helping them lower our CoS.
Let's face it, this isn't about morality, it's pure financial jealousy. And spare me the.."I paid the higher dues to the 49ers". It was the same AoA membership that turned its back on them when the higher dues started to become an inconvenience a few years later, but lets not rehash the past by bringing up embarrassing truths.
And what about the non member 49er. Didn't he lose his job as a result of actions taken by the AoA. As far as I am aware there was no assistance provided. Where is the morality there?
If this individual is being unjustly treated by the company, it is the AoAs duty to do something about it. What can happen to him can eventually happen to anyone, including a 3 months AoA member.
Let's face it, this isn't about morality, it's pure financial jealousy. And spare me the.."I paid the higher dues to the 49ers". It was the same AoA membership that turned its back on them when the higher dues started to become an inconvenience a few years later, but lets not rehash the past by bringing up embarrassing truths.
And what about the non member 49er. Didn't he lose his job as a result of actions taken by the AoA. As far as I am aware there was no assistance provided. Where is the morality there?
If this individual is being unjustly treated by the company, it is the AoAs duty to do something about it. What can happen to him can eventually happen to anyone, including a 3 months AoA member.
Last edited by Dragon69; 22nd Feb 2017 at 11:44.
No, I'm sorry, it's not the AOA's duty to do something about it if he isn't a member in good standing ferchrissakes. ! Otherwise, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, what's the point of paying dues ?
Individuals who took training jobs, or worked on g days prior to the ban were doing what they were entitled to do; morally questionable perhaps, however in the absence of a directive from the membership their right.
If somebody f@cks up, twice as it would appear, and is a non member then f@ck em, let them get to n with it,that the price of non-membership.
Just off to feed the horse a nose bag; a high one.
Individuals who took training jobs, or worked on g days prior to the ban were doing what they were entitled to do; morally questionable perhaps, however in the absence of a directive from the membership their right.
If somebody f@cks up, twice as it would appear, and is a non member then f@ck em, let them get to n with it,that the price of non-membership.
Just off to feed the horse a nose bag; a high one.