Despot

You have just signed already. My lease is up end of November. Guess my landlord might not be telling porkie pies

A venal mendacious Hong Kong landlord. Unheard of. The fact is you can sign what you want. Whether they agree to reimburse anywhere near that sum in the future is the issue.

Swires ka-ching! Standard 150917

I'm shocked...SHOCKED..... :ooh:

From the article

"However, revenues at the UK-based holding company, chaired by billionaire businessman Barnaby Swire and led by chief executive Merlin Swire, rose to nearly £8 billion from £7 billion."

Perhaps by cashing in on a fuel hedge?????

Unless the company if forthcoming with this information, there should be NO negotiations entered into regarding the overall financial health of CX. What is the point of discussing the issue if the company won't divulge the facts. Might as well be in a boxing ring, with a blindfold on.....and one arm tied behind your back.

Simply incorrect.
The current ARAPA deal expires, or is rolled over or is paid as cash as per 2002-2004 when the last ARAPA deal expired.

The housing deal is perpetual.

The clause in our COS that pertains to a 'market driven' costing is problematic for CX, as the current ARAPA deal was designed (by CX i might add) to achieve that very thing. Therefore, any lessening of the current amount of housing for ARAPA recipients is by association violating that clause in the COS.

What negotiations? When did the company ever negotiate with us?

Traf you raise a good point, namely that they simply can't violate your COS, without your consent. The housing clause in our COS requires them to provide housing assistance that satisfies a "market driven" costing. Well, any sentient being would see through any attempt by them to argue that the current Hong Kong housing market justifies a reduction in assistance, much less the massive reduction they dream about. That's not to say that they won't try.

What leverage can they try and deploy that will force you to attach your signature to a new COS with more work for a reduction of pay and benefits? I don't expect them to deploy their sign or be fired arguement. I think they would be ridiculled publicly for trying that again. So what will they try and argue to force you to sign a new COS that will have you work even more for less?

-sign or you will never be eligible for a base.
-sign or you will never be promoted.
-sign the new COS and receive a small bump in HKPA, with back pay for several months.
-sign the new COS with reduced ARAPA, or keep your current COS with a massively reduced ARAPA....and never get a base.

It will then be up to each individual to weigh the cost benefit of not signing and the possibility of never getting a base or promotion....

The Company is weighing what they think they can get away with and how gullible they think we, and the public, might be.

But here's the conundrum that management face raven.
Our current contracts 99/08 already have clauses for bases, promotion etc. So I'm guessing COS17 will have a new clause;
"CX promises that despite the fact that they will ignore previous contractual agreements, we promise on our philanthropic hearts to abide by all clauses in this new contract."

What's the point in signing any contract with an organization that doesn't believe in honoring them? All you've done is given yourself a pay cut for a benefit you already had.

Progress Wanchai
I completely agree...

Wanch. You have hit the nail on the proverbial head: what is the point of negotiating a contract with a group of venal managers who then will refuse to honour the terms of said contract as and when it suits them. As you said, all you will be doing is giving up pay and benefits for something you already have, for the guaranteed expectation that they will then violate the new contract at a later date anyway (as an example, CX hired me on A scale, promised me a 'wonderful career' and that I was 'valued' and 'respected'...we all now know what a load of crap those promises have become). That is why there is NO point dealing with these people. They are dishonorable, deceitful and malicious. The ONLY thing they understand is force. They are trying to apply that to us.....I suggest WE apply that to them. We have NOTHING to lose.

Another question: why is it only US that has to adhere to our contract terms? Why is the management not beholden to the same standard? Why can they decide to change our terms as and when they like, regardless of the law, contract terms or even common decency and morality? I say they can't and they shan't. They can try, but we can and will hurt them back in every way we can. If they want to cost me and my family money, then they can be assured that the same policy will be directed right back at them. I seem to recall seeing two rows of shiny jets parked at the airport back in 1999, when a really awful 'flu' virus struck HK. I hear the same bug is floating around once again.

We really need to start a SIGN NOTHING Campaign to be unified in this upcoming debacle.

Dan

If you know people in the right places and qualify you should already be part of said group

Pm me and I'll invite you

Sign nothing?

May I offer an example to show the problem with that?

Imagine you live in a rental. Your contract expires. Your landlord is asking for 10% more rent in order to renew the lease.You tell him I will sign nothing. He tells you, no problem, please hand me the keys on the first.

Not signing caused this mess in the first place, and not signing a second time won't be the solution either.

STW what the hell are you chewin' on buddy - it's a completely different issue, what a P155 poor example. Try again.

STW just highlighted the problem with his own thinking... retardation. It's scary that he is allowed anywhere near a cockpit. Having flown with him, I can tell you nothing reassuring. I sure hope the Company is on to him and that RQ is a long ways off still.

STW???

The context of the suggestion to not signing is one in which you refuse to sign your acceptance to a degradation in your current conditions of service...as opposed to voting yes or no on a union motion regarding a negotiated agreement which contains a raise in pay and conditions. Spot the difference?

If the vast majority of us don't sign whatever company "proposal" (read degradation to your COS) is in the works then whatever that "proposal" is (read degradation to your COS), the "proposal" (read degradation to your COS) will not affect those that don't sign.

Understand?

Eh? If we are coming up with completely irrelevant examples - can I play?

Imagine you live in a house. You are having something delivered. Your courier is asking you to sign for delivery. .You tell him I will sign nothing. He tells you, no problem, and doesn't give you the item

Not signing caused this mess in the first place, and not signing a second time won't be the solution either.