Should we Name & Shame G Day Workers?
 

It is now becoming apparent to me that G day workers are not only indirectly screwing us out of overtime, but directly screwing up our rosters. The latest trend seems to be working a G day to massage their rosters; often to allow a more commuter friendly roster.

Example, you call crew control after the last flight of a 3 day regional pattern to check for messages. You are told your O day has now become a Taipei split. Further research finds that 'some guy' worked on his G day to swap the Taipei split for a G day, thus insuring an uninterrupted block of time off for himself.

I used to think that naming and shaming was a step too far. I am now starting to think otherwise. Thoughts....?

Yes, I'm afraid that it should be done.


I would like any other way than this, but the events since '99 lead me to think there is no other way.

For once we could be doing something without waiting for the GC, who probably have their hands tied on this.

Shouldn't post after too many pops in the gay bar, but what the hell... it won't be me who gets named.

No ! Definitely not !!
They should be rostered to fly with Toss, that way they will never volunteer to work a G day again. Sure there will be some collateral damage with visits to the phsyc and wotnot, but desperate times ........

Unfortunately through proffering and swaps with others, quite often the real time roster will show someone flying on what was a G day on their published roster...doing it through legitimate means. How to tell someone who has worked a G day simply to help CC?

So if you're to publicly name people in this forum (presumably), I also presume you'd have the balls to put your name at the end of your post?

Equally bad and more unsafe are those who do flights when not rested. This hides crew shortages:ugh:

geh065

I understand where you are coming from with those who are proferring and could be wrongly fingered. I don't think trawling through the master roster is the way. But if you yourself are affected and you clearly didn't swap or profer it away, then you know that it can only be a G day worker.

Blogsey,

If you catch me working a G day or flying half asleep because I am commuting from half way around the world before my flight; then feel free to put my name up on pprune. I deserve it.

How do you expect to achieve anything by naming and shaming when AOA GC members (some) work on their G days? Start with the AOA, not PPRuNe.

oh god, here we go again....YAWN

Dumb idea. What happens when someone is incorrectly identified? How about it if was you? Sorry, but we need to design a better strategy of dealing with rostering. If the entire company is not willing to unite and fight the management for a proper rostering scheme, then singling out a few colleagues (rightly or wrongly) will not make much of a difference.

Yes, we should definitely post them, but not on here. They should be posted on the AOA forums where a member could defend him/herself from a known accuser. Non-members get stuffed! No one thinks much of them anyways.

So if you quit the AOA you can work on G days and if you stay you can't. We are brilliant.

Outstanding post Dan

..that grizzled smiley at the end really gives your response an intelligent, weighty edge

I enjoy working G Days when I want to, as I get more money. Plain and simple!!

The new iCadets will start doing it too when they get a chance. It will help make up for the poor housing conditions

Get used to it lads

I'm quite certain that there are too many readers unable to detect the sarcasm, so to clarify:

The large overtime payment you deny the other guy when you work a G day for the tiny G day callout pay is the same large overtime payment the other guy will deny you on another day.

There is a reason the company calls guys on G days while others are already sitting reserve as per their roster....and it's not to because they want to give the G day worker his tiny little bonus.

What about a new rule enforcing CC to call reserves before calling people on G days?
A day off is a day off, I don't want to be disturbed unless there is a GOOD reason for it.

Can we name and shame W pattern workers as well. My roster always gets put together after theirs has been attended to and that isn't fair.

Hey MrClaus

Are you as stupid as you sound? Sure name and shame people then have the lawsuits for defamation pile up on your door step :) So go ahead. You must have nothing better to do. I will be sitting on my couch with a beer in hand watching it all unfold.

Maybe I'll bring popcorn as well :)

Idiots should be allowed to bred. Should put you down like my last dog.

stillalbatross...just a thought but have you requested super compact rosters yourself?

CokeZero

Sounds like you had one too many coke zeros today. Are you always that angry or is it possible that I touched a nerve with one of our G Day workers.

I feel though, that I must provide a translation of your last two sentences for those who speak English as their first language.

Translation: Idiots should NOT be allowed to BREED. Should put you down LIKE my last dog.:ok:

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?

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.

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

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? :)

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

Mr Claus

Thanks for picking up my typing mistake :)

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?

........what he said :D:D:D

Has there ever been a proposal put towards the Company at either CX or KA for a rotating bidding(request) system?

b.

Of course there has, but, because THEY didn't think of it first, the answer is NO.

stillalbatross,

Since when has seniority had anything to do with this airline? Why pretend that it does now that you are (or maybe you are not) top of the heap?

How does this " G " day brouhaha thingy come about? I thought CX pilots are highly principled and such practices should be utterly beneath them!

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...

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? :)