Vote of no confidence in GC.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vote of no confidence in GC.
This was deleted from the AOA website ( against union rules ) . It wasn't written or proposed by me, I merely broadcast it again.
Motion:
"That the membership no longer has confidence in the General Council and calls on them all to resign immediately"
Motion:
"That the membership no longer has confidence in the General Council and calls on them all to resign immediately"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Asia
Age: 43
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s sadly ironic that those on the GC who have turned out to be the the biggest advocates for this deal, and best spin doctors for the company are mostly the senior members.
It turns out that self interest wins again.
Either accepting this ‘turd with sprinkles’ because it locks in their 25 year housing, or because they want to get into training before they retire, so they can keep on keeping on after retiring 🙄, or just because they negotiated it and just seem tied to it.
They can try their best to spin it, and sell it, but they’ve shown their cards for all to see, and will have to live with their actions.
It turns out that self interest wins again.
Either accepting this ‘turd with sprinkles’ because it locks in their 25 year housing, or because they want to get into training before they retire, so they can keep on keeping on after retiring 🙄, or just because they negotiated it and just seem tied to it.
They can try their best to spin it, and sell it, but they’ve shown their cards for all to see, and will have to live with their actions.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron, I'm one of those "senior" pilots who you say will vote "yes" for the 25 year housing. Let me state categorically: I will be voting NO, becuase principle and integrity still have a foothold in my life. I am not going to be bought off for something that CX will undoubtedly find a way to take back from me anyway, as we will have effectively destroyed the union, and any ability to fight back. All of my peers that I have spoken with are voting NO as well. This offer is a disgrace, as is the GC that recommended it.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 53
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be in the entire unions best interest if a resounding majority voted NO.
Failure to do this will allow the message being sent by the union members to the GC, the president and the company to be misinterpreted.
Failure to do this will allow the message being sent by the union members to the GC, the president and the company to be misinterpreted.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP, you didn’t read it properly, I said senior members on the GC.
I, like you, will be voting no.
Also perhaps like you, I voted for many of the captains at the previous GC elections, in the now clearly naive believe that they would be able to look past a turd with sprinkles. I was very wrong.
My point is, that it turns out, the younger members on the GC on HKPA, have more spine, vision and integrity, than those who I voted for, as those that I voted for seem happy to take a turd with sprinkles to lock in their 25 year housing, or a training command.
I, like you, will be voting no.
Also perhaps like you, I voted for many of the captains at the previous GC elections, in the now clearly naive believe that they would be able to look past a turd with sprinkles. I was very wrong.
My point is, that it turns out, the younger members on the GC on HKPA, have more spine, vision and integrity, than those who I voted for, as those that I voted for seem happy to take a turd with sprinkles to lock in their 25 year housing, or a training command.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below the line all those who vote No expect a better offer, those who vote yes don't.
All the rest is just noise.
Arguments for a No only because of the umbrella argument are not justified. All what could happen is the loss of something you guys reject to receive in the first place. In other words, IA would just bring us back to where we are now.
The rejection two years ago is costing me about 10 000 USD per year, CN on B scale. I don't know the figure for other contracts and ranks, but we are all losing money, that is for sure.
How likely is it that the company gives in to our demands this time ? That, and only that, is the question.
Let's remember for a moment all the heated arguments 2 years ago. I was basically crucified in here, most of you thought the company will come back with a better offer. Now we get an offer that is even lower, plus the lost income of the years without agreement. Why would that be a sign for IA working?
You guys are mixing up measurements that hurt and those that change behaviour. It is pointless to speculate what the company hurts and how much that would be as long as it doesn't produce a better offer.
What I find remarkable is that it seems common opinion in here that the company basically is evil and wants to destroy us, in a nutshell. However, at the same time you believe the company will improve the last offer. After again today very clearly publicly announcing they won't, see the last message from the GMA. In other words, you expect the company to publicly declare defeat. You must understand this will never happen. Hell will freeze over first.
Voting no is easy. Don't go the easy way, sit down with a calculator and look at the numbers. The offer is better than what we have now, it would be foolish (again) to reject it.
All the rest is just noise.
Arguments for a No only because of the umbrella argument are not justified. All what could happen is the loss of something you guys reject to receive in the first place. In other words, IA would just bring us back to where we are now.
The rejection two years ago is costing me about 10 000 USD per year, CN on B scale. I don't know the figure for other contracts and ranks, but we are all losing money, that is for sure.
How likely is it that the company gives in to our demands this time ? That, and only that, is the question.
Let's remember for a moment all the heated arguments 2 years ago. I was basically crucified in here, most of you thought the company will come back with a better offer. Now we get an offer that is even lower, plus the lost income of the years without agreement. Why would that be a sign for IA working?
You guys are mixing up measurements that hurt and those that change behaviour. It is pointless to speculate what the company hurts and how much that would be as long as it doesn't produce a better offer.
What I find remarkable is that it seems common opinion in here that the company basically is evil and wants to destroy us, in a nutshell. However, at the same time you believe the company will improve the last offer. After again today very clearly publicly announcing they won't, see the last message from the GMA. In other words, you expect the company to publicly declare defeat. You must understand this will never happen. Hell will freeze over first.
Voting no is easy. Don't go the easy way, sit down with a calculator and look at the numbers. The offer is better than what we have now, it would be foolish (again) to reject it.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more thing. If the conflict escalates because C scale pilots automatically reject every offer, it is common belief B will eventually have to be sacrificed because C has now a majority in the union.
This would be a mistake, because most potential candidates for training are on B. They will simply leave the union and join training.
This would be a mistake, because most potential candidates for training are on B. They will simply leave the union and join training.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 10th Jan 2019 at 12:32.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam, you are sounding increasingly frantic and illogical. Further, you make proclamations on what others would think or do. Take a break and let the adults figure things out ok? Also, it's curious that every post shows as your first post...very strange. Management have tried the old bully and bluff game one time too many, and this time we have definitively had "enough". No sensible pilot is voting for this joke of a contract. We are behind in pay by close to 10%, and suffer from just about the worst work rules in the business. Either they company comes back with a sensible offer that addresses those points (and others) or they can continue to see all their experience walk out the door. And we are not bluffing fyi. NO. Easiest vote i've ever had to make.
Leaders of the union only care about one thing, their housing. I wouldnt be surprised if side deals have been occuring amongst the union leaders and management regarding their own personal situation regarding training/management positions or bases. It is just too fishy that they are pushing it so hard when only weeks ago they were saying they would get a deal but not at any cost. Vote of no confidence in the 13 that voted in favour. A vote to bring back the GC members that had to stand down as they were so disgusted with how the AOA was being run and could no longer be a part of it
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is NO excuse for the GC to have "recommended" this deal. They have utterly failed in their duty. They could have presented it and made a "neutral" comment, neither for or against. To have recommended it simply provides evidence that something is corrupted in our system. Even now, the GC and NC are on the forums trying to defend the indefensible, and rightly being slammed by more honest members for the obvious fallacies in their arguments. I am voting NO, and I am in support of a proposal to remove the officers of the union who have sold us out.
