All under control MB??
I really should know better but I am going to respond.
APMR on the day of the count the reps contacted the accounting firm that were employed to conduct the ballot. The reps were told the result was not to be divulged to them unless authorised by JW. JW was contacted and refused to permit to occur and stated "the numbers are not important".
The AFAP also tried to access the result with the same result. They also contacted JW and were told the same as the reps.
The next day the AFAP on advice from the reps wrote to the company to attempt to recommence negotiations. This was rejected by the company.
The AFAP and reps communicated these events to the pilot group. Since then every attempt by the AFAP and reps to get the company to the table have failed. Instead the company did the roadshow.
To date they have not made any communication with the AFAP nor the reps to progress the negotiations.
As far as giving the pilots updates, well there are none that they can give. Rather than pick on the reps, why not ask the company why they have refused every attmpt by the reps to recommence negotiations.
I also question where you get the "60/40 70/30" figures.
Either you have access to insider information from management or you are plucking them out of your @rse.
Either way I think you should explain.
On the matter of staff resignations, have you actually asked them personally why they are leaving.
I have and the answers I have received do not support your theory but rather that put forward by ringin.
And from my readings of some of his posts it appears to me he is not employed by the group but is close to someone who is and also in the "know".
Might be wrong, but I don't really care who he is. But he has posted some info that is from my knowledge, pretty accurate.
Cheers
OAH
APMR on the day of the count the reps contacted the accounting firm that were employed to conduct the ballot. The reps were told the result was not to be divulged to them unless authorised by JW. JW was contacted and refused to permit to occur and stated "the numbers are not important".
The AFAP also tried to access the result with the same result. They also contacted JW and were told the same as the reps.
The next day the AFAP on advice from the reps wrote to the company to attempt to recommence negotiations. This was rejected by the company.
The AFAP and reps communicated these events to the pilot group. Since then every attempt by the AFAP and reps to get the company to the table have failed. Instead the company did the roadshow.
To date they have not made any communication with the AFAP nor the reps to progress the negotiations.
As far as giving the pilots updates, well there are none that they can give. Rather than pick on the reps, why not ask the company why they have refused every attmpt by the reps to recommence negotiations.
I also question where you get the "60/40 70/30" figures.
Either you have access to insider information from management or you are plucking them out of your @rse.
Either way I think you should explain.
On the matter of staff resignations, have you actually asked them personally why they are leaving.
I have and the answers I have received do not support your theory but rather that put forward by ringin.
And from my readings of some of his posts it appears to me he is not employed by the group but is close to someone who is and also in the "know".
Might be wrong, but I don't really care who he is. But he has posted some info that is from my knowledge, pretty accurate.
Cheers
OAH
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the 60/40 - 70/30 figures: this is my carefully considered estimate based on discussions with many individuals (mostly pilots, but not all). I apologise for giving the impression it was inside information. If I was a betting man I would have all my money on the result having been 65/35.
You might recall the AFAP came out with something like "52 against, 2 for", and I hope that is not where my esteemed colleagues are getting their notions of "strongly against" from, as, apart from grossly overstating the number of pilots in the company, these numbers could only have been a wild guess, passed to the AFAP by one of our pilot reps.
The simple reality is that the offer by the company was nowhere near bad enough to garner a result of the order of 52/2 against. To suggest such a result is to suggest that most of our pilots are complete morons.
There is no need to ask the company this question as the answer is obvious:
The reps don't actually represent the pilots! Nobody can deny this. The reps were effectively acting as individuals - individuals that were asking for some rather wild terms and conditions.
Getting the reps together with management for meetings that go for several hours over several days does not come cheap.
If you were in management, sitting across the table from a rep, spending hours debating the merits of conditions that you just know are not concensus backed by the pilots, you would begin to wonder whether you were getting value for money.
Then, you notice that none of the reps are taking notes and seem to be making things up as they go along. A few months later, at the next meeting, you find they have changed their minds on a point that had earlier been agreed.
If the reps were democratically elected (or re-elected) on a regular basis, were known to approach pilots to obtain then represent their views, then make regular written reports back to the pilots (3-4 line emails would suffice), you would find the management much more prepared to regularly and frequently meet with those reps.
Olderairhead said this, about ringin:
Ok, so you know him well and he works for Pearl Aviation. I already knew that!
You might recall the AFAP came out with something like "52 against, 2 for", and I hope that is not where my esteemed colleagues are getting their notions of "strongly against" from, as, apart from grossly overstating the number of pilots in the company, these numbers could only have been a wild guess, passed to the AFAP by one of our pilot reps.
The simple reality is that the offer by the company was nowhere near bad enough to garner a result of the order of 52/2 against. To suggest such a result is to suggest that most of our pilots are complete morons.
... every attempt by the AFAP and reps to get the company to the table have failed. ... To date they have not made any communication with the AFAP nor the reps to progress the negotiations. ...why not ask the company why they have refused every attmpt by the reps to recommence negotiations.
The reps don't actually represent the pilots! Nobody can deny this. The reps were effectively acting as individuals - individuals that were asking for some rather wild terms and conditions.
Getting the reps together with management for meetings that go for several hours over several days does not come cheap.
If you were in management, sitting across the table from a rep, spending hours debating the merits of conditions that you just know are not concensus backed by the pilots, you would begin to wonder whether you were getting value for money.
Then, you notice that none of the reps are taking notes and seem to be making things up as they go along. A few months later, at the next meeting, you find they have changed their minds on a point that had earlier been agreed.
If the reps were democratically elected (or re-elected) on a regular basis, were known to approach pilots to obtain then represent their views, then make regular written reports back to the pilots (3-4 line emails would suffice), you would find the management much more prepared to regularly and frequently meet with those reps.
Olderairhead said this, about ringin:
And from my readings of some of his posts it appears to me he is not employed by the group but is close to someone who is and also in the "know".
Might be wrong, but I don't really care who he is. But he has posted some info that is from my knowledge, pretty accurate.
Might be wrong, but I don't really care who he is. But he has posted some info that is from my knowledge, pretty accurate.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APMR
Like another has said before, "I know I shouldn't respond but....."
This is utter crap!
I have been sitting at my computer formatting way of explaining and deciding which examples to use. I honestly believe that statements made,(like above) prove a great deal about your approach to the situation. I will not return any further comment to you on this thread.
Like another has said before, "I know I shouldn't respond but....."
The reps don't actually represent the pilots! Nobody can deny this. The reps were effectively acting as individuals - individuals that were asking for some rather wild terms and conditions
I have been sitting at my computer formatting way of explaining and deciding which examples to use. I honestly believe that statements made,(like above) prove a great deal about your approach to the situation. I will not return any further comment to you on this thread.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxgrad,
Perhaps you are one of the privileged few that have been truly represented.
If you were approached by a rep, requesting your ideas on what T&Cs to add/change/delete, then if that rep tried to achieve your requests, then if he kept you updated on how the negotiations were proceeding, then, yes, you have been represented, but you would be in the minority.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that I would not be expecting the company to reopen negotiations with those reps. That previous "negotiation" approach was just too costly and counterproductive.
In my previous post, on the subject of just how representative our reps are, there was a point I forgot to remind everybody of. This point shows just how little the reps cared about our interests:
On the eve of the vote, the AFAP put out a paper containing a long list of things the company was allegedly trying to do in order to "rip the pilots off". That list contained many inaccuracies, blatant lies and misrepresentations of certain T&Cs - one of the oldest tricks in the union book.
It was a blatant scare campaign, in other words, and the reps allowed it to stand. So did the pilots get a fair, accurate and unbiased representation of the company's offer? Of course not. Did the reps care? Of course not.
I am still hopping mad about that.
Perhaps you are one of the privileged few that have been truly represented.
If you were approached by a rep, requesting your ideas on what T&Cs to add/change/delete, then if that rep tried to achieve your requests, then if he kept you updated on how the negotiations were proceeding, then, yes, you have been represented, but you would be in the minority.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that I would not be expecting the company to reopen negotiations with those reps. That previous "negotiation" approach was just too costly and counterproductive.
In my previous post, on the subject of just how representative our reps are, there was a point I forgot to remind everybody of. This point shows just how little the reps cared about our interests:
On the eve of the vote, the AFAP put out a paper containing a long list of things the company was allegedly trying to do in order to "rip the pilots off". That list contained many inaccuracies, blatant lies and misrepresentations of certain T&Cs - one of the oldest tricks in the union book.
It was a blatant scare campaign, in other words, and the reps allowed it to stand. So did the pilots get a fair, accurate and unbiased representation of the company's offer? Of course not. Did the reps care? Of course not.
I am still hopping mad about that.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Somewhere near an airport
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then APMR, if you wouldn't expect the company to re-open neg's with the rep's BUT those rep's are supported by the pilot body - where then does that leave everybody?
An impasse would the technically correct term I suppose.
Which to me would mean, the company is not prepared to do anything and therefore is going to bully the pilot body by not pro-actively seeking a resolution.
That's a sad state of affairs.
An impasse would the technically correct term I suppose.
Which to me would mean, the company is not prepared to do anything and therefore is going to bully the pilot body by not pro-actively seeking a resolution.
That's a sad state of affairs.
APMR I responded to your post reluctantly, and reluctantly find myself in a position where I once again respond so as to put some facts on the table.
I suggest you read them all and digest what I am telling you before and if you repost.
I was one of those reps.
I was at all the meetings.
I took lots of notes. I have retained these.
I sent and received many emails from and to pilots, management, AFAP and the other reps. I still have all that correspondance.
We emailed all bases for pilot input into the negotiations.
We represented those pilots and the concerns they raised.
We had input from all bases in writing, but I don't seem to remember yours.
We compared what we negotiated as to what was sent to the pilots and that was the comparison document you saw.
We still have the original negotiated document without the changes put in by the company without consultation nor negotiation.
You are the only pilot complaining.
You have made many posts without proper knowledge of the process.
Above is what factually occured - I have the records remember.
When the offer comes out very, very soon you will find it very closely matches what the reps were negotiating on the pilots behalf.
Therefore since you believe we did not represent you, I offer a challenge:
Rather than accept the $20,000 pay increase coming your way, stand by your word and publicly accept the previous offer made to you by the company
I suspect you will not, but rather put out your dirty little hand and accept the $20,000, and then continue to bag us for not representing the pilot group. I would expect nothing less from you.
Over to you APMR.
I suggest you read them all and digest what I am telling you before and if you repost.
I was one of those reps.
I was at all the meetings.
I took lots of notes. I have retained these.
I sent and received many emails from and to pilots, management, AFAP and the other reps. I still have all that correspondance.
We emailed all bases for pilot input into the negotiations.
We represented those pilots and the concerns they raised.
We had input from all bases in writing, but I don't seem to remember yours.
We compared what we negotiated as to what was sent to the pilots and that was the comparison document you saw.
We still have the original negotiated document without the changes put in by the company without consultation nor negotiation.
You are the only pilot complaining.
You have made many posts without proper knowledge of the process.
Above is what factually occured - I have the records remember.
When the offer comes out very, very soon you will find it very closely matches what the reps were negotiating on the pilots behalf.
Therefore since you believe we did not represent you, I offer a challenge:
Rather than accept the $20,000 pay increase coming your way, stand by your word and publicly accept the previous offer made to you by the company
I suspect you will not, but rather put out your dirty little hand and accept the $20,000, and then continue to bag us for not representing the pilot group. I would expect nothing less from you.
Over to you APMR.
APMR some further things for you to consider:
The negotiations have been ongoing since Rob O'Brien was at the helm, followed by Karl Bader and now MB.
Nominations for rep positions were called for in Perth, Darwin, Alice and Brisbane. Only 1 from each base put up their hands and were accepted by the pilots in those areas.
With the departure of the Perth, Alice and Darwin reps further nominations were called for. Perth was closed down, no-one from Alice nominated and 2 from Darwin did.
This is a normal process. Only a few are willing to become representatives. Most don't because they want someone else to do the work for them and then either reap the benefits or ridicule as appropriate.
All pilots are invited to participate through their reps and usually have to be prompted to do so. To date all reps have done this.
I am assuming you have never been a pilot rep nor attended or been involved in a negotiation process so consider the following:
The whole process is similar to parliament. There is the public side and then the behind the closed doors side. Most of the negotiation process is the latter. Many discussions, emails, conference calls etc are done without the pilot body being aware that we are actively working behind the scenes.
Many things are discussed and negotiated between all parties and are not communicated with the pilot body. I can already hear you asking why. 2 reasons. The negotiaitons are usually very fluid and can change on a daily basis and quite often would be considered to be minor issues. If we sent emails out to the pilot group they inevitably find their way back to management.
Yes surprise , surprise there are some pilots who would attempt to feather their own nests by trying to undermine the process.
As is done in parliament, whenever there is a need to issue a statement (press release) it is done and also very carefully worded. This is issued by the AFAP on behalf of the reps because, as has occured in the past with Pearl, reps are threatened with legal action if they send out emails themselves.
Then the public negotiations commence. And while this is occuring the behind the scenes action can be frantic.
The negotiations are done to represent what the pilots have directed us to do and after however many days you end up with a document. All negotiations have to end up in a win/win situation otherwise it will get voted down.
Management were told this when we finalised the last round of negotiations. We beleived it would get voted down and they wanted to "test the water".
That is now history and we are now in the situation whereby the Company now accepts that and will be issueing a new position very soon.
When you receive it you will see there is an accross the board pay increase, an aeromed allowance, a flight calibration allowance, an increase in C&T allowances, a recognition of ATPL for all pilots, an increase in loss of licence insurance.
These are the things we fought to have in the document that went out for the vote because these are the items the pilot group instructed us to negotiate for.
For the company to now accept this position is also an acceptance that the reps do actually represent the majority of the pilot group.
Being a rep is a thankless task and quite often the reps have to put up with false accusations like yours. Rarely is there a thankyou. Usually a quite talk in the crew room between pilots comparing their gains and losses is all we will hear.
So mate give your pilot reps a break. Without them you would have no conditions at all. They are there to stick up for you, so how about you stick up for them instead of trying to stick in the knife for reasons only known to you.
The negotiations have been ongoing since Rob O'Brien was at the helm, followed by Karl Bader and now MB.
Nominations for rep positions were called for in Perth, Darwin, Alice and Brisbane. Only 1 from each base put up their hands and were accepted by the pilots in those areas.
With the departure of the Perth, Alice and Darwin reps further nominations were called for. Perth was closed down, no-one from Alice nominated and 2 from Darwin did.
This is a normal process. Only a few are willing to become representatives. Most don't because they want someone else to do the work for them and then either reap the benefits or ridicule as appropriate.
All pilots are invited to participate through their reps and usually have to be prompted to do so. To date all reps have done this.
I am assuming you have never been a pilot rep nor attended or been involved in a negotiation process so consider the following:
The whole process is similar to parliament. There is the public side and then the behind the closed doors side. Most of the negotiation process is the latter. Many discussions, emails, conference calls etc are done without the pilot body being aware that we are actively working behind the scenes.
Many things are discussed and negotiated between all parties and are not communicated with the pilot body. I can already hear you asking why. 2 reasons. The negotiaitons are usually very fluid and can change on a daily basis and quite often would be considered to be minor issues. If we sent emails out to the pilot group they inevitably find their way back to management.
Yes surprise , surprise there are some pilots who would attempt to feather their own nests by trying to undermine the process.
As is done in parliament, whenever there is a need to issue a statement (press release) it is done and also very carefully worded. This is issued by the AFAP on behalf of the reps because, as has occured in the past with Pearl, reps are threatened with legal action if they send out emails themselves.
Then the public negotiations commence. And while this is occuring the behind the scenes action can be frantic.
The negotiations are done to represent what the pilots have directed us to do and after however many days you end up with a document. All negotiations have to end up in a win/win situation otherwise it will get voted down.
Management were told this when we finalised the last round of negotiations. We beleived it would get voted down and they wanted to "test the water".
That is now history and we are now in the situation whereby the Company now accepts that and will be issueing a new position very soon.
When you receive it you will see there is an accross the board pay increase, an aeromed allowance, a flight calibration allowance, an increase in C&T allowances, a recognition of ATPL for all pilots, an increase in loss of licence insurance.
These are the things we fought to have in the document that went out for the vote because these are the items the pilot group instructed us to negotiate for.
For the company to now accept this position is also an acceptance that the reps do actually represent the majority of the pilot group.
Being a rep is a thankless task and quite often the reps have to put up with false accusations like yours. Rarely is there a thankyou. Usually a quite talk in the crew room between pilots comparing their gains and losses is all we will hear.
So mate give your pilot reps a break. Without them you would have no conditions at all. They are there to stick up for you, so how about you stick up for them instead of trying to stick in the knife for reasons only known to you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olderairhead said:
I'm glad you brought this up. I have several questions relating to these two points.
Please affirm the following:
The "comparison document" could not be considered a "scare campaign", was a fair, accurate, truthful and unbiased account of the "changes" and you and the other reps would stand by every comment made in that document?
Your answer to this would be YES, wouldn't it?
I have a few more questions in this area, but the above question is so important it should be in a post all of its own.
We compared what we negotiated as to what was sent to the pilots and that was the comparison document you saw.
We still have the original negotiated document without the changes put in by the company without consultation nor negotiation.
We still have the original negotiated document without the changes put in by the company without consultation nor negotiation.
Please affirm the following:
The "comparison document" could not be considered a "scare campaign", was a fair, accurate, truthful and unbiased account of the "changes" and you and the other reps would stand by every comment made in that document?
Your answer to this would be YES, wouldn't it?
I have a few more questions in this area, but the above question is so important it should be in a post all of its own.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counter-rotation,
You would recall the "comparison document" received by every pilot on the eve of the vote.
How did this document affect how you would be voting?
Did you accept what was being said in this document at face value?
Did you go throught this document, point by point, making your own assessment of each of the "changes" presented therein? (To have done this, you would have had to have gotten out both the draft and the offer documents, put them on your desk, side by side, then considered each clause referred to by the "comparison document". I did do this, and it took several hours. I would be surprised if many others also did this - after all, you would have been trusting the AFAP and the reps to give you the good oil, so why bother?).
You would recall the "comparison document" received by every pilot on the eve of the vote.
How did this document affect how you would be voting?
Did you accept what was being said in this document at face value?
Did you go throught this document, point by point, making your own assessment of each of the "changes" presented therein? (To have done this, you would have had to have gotten out both the draft and the offer documents, put them on your desk, side by side, then considered each clause referred to by the "comparison document". I did do this, and it took several hours. I would be surprised if many others also did this - after all, you would have been trusting the AFAP and the reps to give you the good oil, so why bother?).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been watching this thread for a while now and the only thing clear is:
APMR you are an annoying b#m s#cking management troll and a complete idiot!
This thread is going nowhere, please someone close it?
APMR you are an annoying b#m s#cking management troll and a complete idiot!
This thread is going nowhere, please someone close it?
APMR why don't you PM or e-mail the individuals your asking these questions/allegations of.
Do you think airing all this company's dirty laundry on a public forum is a particularly 'bright idea'????
Just my two bobs worth!
ps Zhaadum could not agree more!
APMR perhaps you could take it up in a private chat room??
Do you think airing all this company's dirty laundry on a public forum is a particularly 'bright idea'????
Just my two bobs worth!
ps Zhaadum could not agree more!
APMR perhaps you could take it up in a private chat room??
When we walked out of the negotiations there was a document - the final negotiated document - Simple
What you received was not that document but an altered document - Simple
We were never consulted about these amendments - Simple
If you do not understand these simple facts then it is you that is simple - Simple
End of discussion - Simple
What you received was not that document but an altered document - Simple
We were never consulted about these amendments - Simple
If you do not understand these simple facts then it is you that is simple - Simple
End of discussion - Simple
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olderairhead,
You did not answer the question. I again ask you to answer it. Within the context of the recent vote it is a very important question. You owe those you represented this answer.
I'm glad you brought this up as it was from this area that my next few questions were going to come.
Are you saying that, upon the conclusion of the final negotiation session before the vote, every single clause in the proposed CA document had been agreed between yourselves and management? That is, there was nothing still to be settled or agreed upon?
I have it on good authority that there was a pilot rep present when those "amendments" were made. Can you confirm that no rep was present?
You did not answer the question. I again ask you to answer it. Within the context of the recent vote it is a very important question. You owe those you represented this answer.
When we walked out of the negotiations there was a document - the final negotiated document ...
Are you saying that, upon the conclusion of the final negotiation session before the vote, every single clause in the proposed CA document had been agreed between yourselves and management? That is, there was nothing still to be settled or agreed upon?
What you received was not that document but an altered document ... We were never consulted about these amendments ...
Maybe if I write it bigger you might understand.
We left the room with a final document that we did not support.
The company wanted to "test the water" and would negotiate no further.
No rep was asked nor consulted nor was one present when the changes were made.
We recieved the amended document 1 day before you did and that is when we found the changes.
We then notified the pilot group of those changes.
We are aware that certain Darwin based "management" pilots may have been involved.
Does this not answer your question. I bl@@dy well hope so.
Accept it as a yes and get on with your life so we can get on with ours.
We left the room with a final document that we did not support.
The company wanted to "test the water" and would negotiate no further.
No rep was asked nor consulted nor was one present when the changes were made.
We recieved the amended document 1 day before you did and that is when we found the changes.
We then notified the pilot group of those changes.
We are aware that certain Darwin based "management" pilots may have been involved.
Does this not answer your question. I bl@@dy well hope so.
Accept it as a yes and get on with your life so we can get on with ours.
Last edited by olderairhead; 14th Oct 2007 at 05:08.
APMR - to answer your question:
My decision was made already - based on company conduct, history, and simple arithmetic. The document you refer to simply reinforced this.
Zhaadum, Sarcs -
If you don't want to read it, don't read it. PM is a function that has it's uses, but I'm sure there are those out there who are interested in this discussion, even if not directly participating.
These aren't forums for your personal amusement. Be sure to check in with me before you post in future, and if what you've got to say doesn't interest me, well... post it anyway.
CR.
My decision was made already - based on company conduct, history, and simple arithmetic. The document you refer to simply reinforced this.
Zhaadum, Sarcs -
If you don't want to read it, don't read it. PM is a function that has it's uses, but I'm sure there are those out there who are interested in this discussion, even if not directly participating.
These aren't forums for your personal amusement. Be sure to check in with me before you post in future, and if what you've got to say doesn't interest me, well... post it anyway.
CR.
Last edited by Counter-rotation; 15th Oct 2007 at 03:51. Reason: Tone it down son...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I will accept a $20K pay rise - who wouldn't?
The first I have heard regarding the $20K has been in this thread.
I do not recall "a $20K pay rise" being one of the things the reps were negotiating for at the time negotiations ceased.
Can you say that you reps were trying to obtain a "$20K pay rise" during the negotiations that led up to the vote?
If it has come up since then, it can only be a management initiative.
The first I have heard regarding the $20K has been in this thread.
I do not recall "a $20K pay rise" being one of the things the reps were negotiating for at the time negotiations ceased.
Can you say that you reps were trying to obtain a "$20K pay rise" during the negotiations that led up to the vote?
If it has come up since then, it can only be a management initiative.