VAus - New "EBA"
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: centre of the Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who are unaware. The proposed agreement clearly states that it "contains the complete statement of mutual rights and obligations..... to the full extent permitted by law". Effectively negating any previous agreement/employment contract unless it is consistent with this proposal. See you in court to determine what is consistent. Amongst other issues the proposal gives an immediate pay cut of 8% (as the bonus in the original contracts is now removed) and removes max working hours. It was 1000flt hrs annually in the original contract. The proposal is silent so it can now be what ever V Aus can extract out of CASA. HR...sorry, people manager 'Sue' has repeatedly stated in staff meetings that pilots are precious. Whilst that is most likely true, it doesn't support the treatment V Aus people managers are dishing out. The pilots haven't had a chance to be precious yet. All joined V Aus with their eyes open, hoping the risk is worth what ever personal reason drove them to sign on. Now V Aus has become hostile to its own employees before even receiving their AOC. This happened at VB as well and "lack of trust in VB" became a issue during their last negotiation. (could that be why Sue is no longer at VB?) The real issue is what the agreement doesn't contain; allowances, rosters, loss of license to name a few. The presentation given to staff was upbeat stressing flexibility for the company but offering only a reduction in terms and conditions. The attitude shown by V Aus people management was hostile just like a school yard bully. Just like the school yard bully, if you don't stand up for yourself now they will be back with something worse at the next opportunity. To those reading this who are actually employed by V Aus. You must vote. The proposal is carried with 50% + 1 of those who voted. Just as importantly I would ask you to vote no. Then some real negotiation can start.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if this proposal did somehow get voted in buy majority vote of the Cabin Crew i seriously doubt as to whether they would be able to crew any of their flights with the amount of resignations they would get about 10 minutes after it was voted in.From the cabin crew wannabee forum it seems it wont be a problem though as eveyone appears to be saying they will vote 'no'
I have nothing against CC's but they should have nothing to do with our t & c's just like we should have nothing to do with theirs.
before you know it the agreement will include ground staff, crewing, pilots, cabin crew and cleaners. I mean seriously if 1 gets through where will it stop?
or are they doing it so the individual contracts look better?
This is truly a new low
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Up and down
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not dispair
Let us not all dispair - what the VA management is trying to do does not differ too greatly from what every other airline management has tried to do over the years. It took the concerted efforts of the various pilot groups in all these companies to achieve a fair working agreement with their various companies.
Ground engineers, cabin crew and the pilots are the only employees in an airline that can significantly affect operations by withholding their services (legal speak for going on strike). Any airline management is threatened by these groups and the more they can do to restrict these groups from withholding their services, the easier they sleep.
A number of us have said in this thread that the only way the pilots and cabin crew are going to get a fair deal out of VA is if they vote NO. By what has been written on various threads it looks as if this is the way it might go. The management is concerned enough to have dispatched the CEO to try and sell the agreement. Under the current circumstances he must see this as very important or he would be spending his time seeing to other more pressing issues (like finding aeroplanes).
Any agreement that is drafted by one party without any consultation with the other party has to be flawed. VA management are doing their best to sell the agreement as offering protection for the two groups. Oh yeh - since when does any management run around offering the employees any protection when there is not a greater protection built in for the company.
Only time will tell but for their own sakes we all hope that both these groups vote NO
Ground engineers, cabin crew and the pilots are the only employees in an airline that can significantly affect operations by withholding their services (legal speak for going on strike). Any airline management is threatened by these groups and the more they can do to restrict these groups from withholding their services, the easier they sleep.
A number of us have said in this thread that the only way the pilots and cabin crew are going to get a fair deal out of VA is if they vote NO. By what has been written on various threads it looks as if this is the way it might go. The management is concerned enough to have dispatched the CEO to try and sell the agreement. Under the current circumstances he must see this as very important or he would be spending his time seeing to other more pressing issues (like finding aeroplanes).
Any agreement that is drafted by one party without any consultation with the other party has to be flawed. VA management are doing their best to sell the agreement as offering protection for the two groups. Oh yeh - since when does any management run around offering the employees any protection when there is not a greater protection built in for the company.
Only time will tell but for their own sakes we all hope that both these groups vote NO
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hotel
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the flight-crew AND the cabin-crew groups each took a vote.
I believe the vote was on whether or not to lump the flight crew and cabin crew together on the ame set of conditions, as far as working hours, days off and other points are concerned.
I believe the flight crew votes were added together with the cabin crew votes and the total was counted for a result.
Question:
Since the vote DETERMINED and PRECEDED the move to joint conditions, then how can the two separate (at the time) groups vote as ONE on the topic of acting as ONE group - IN THE FUTURE?
And how can this be considered a legitimate process?
Sensible answers, please, if there are any. Derision feels good but may not answer my question.
I believe the vote was on whether or not to lump the flight crew and cabin crew together on the ame set of conditions, as far as working hours, days off and other points are concerned.
I believe the flight crew votes were added together with the cabin crew votes and the total was counted for a result.
Question:
Since the vote DETERMINED and PRECEDED the move to joint conditions, then how can the two separate (at the time) groups vote as ONE on the topic of acting as ONE group - IN THE FUTURE?
And how can this be considered a legitimate process?
Sensible answers, please, if there are any. Derision feels good but may not answer my question.
The short answer is they can't.
I tried to explain why in a previous post, and Waren9 carried on with some dribble about me not knowing what I was talking about. Sandpit Sam gleefully jumped in and gave him a thumbs up! Of course that's their opinion
.
The real test will be when they (VA HR) attempt to have the "Agreement" certified in the IRC. If I were them I would be putting on my best armour before standing in front of the commisioner.
It all may be a bit academic though when considering the future of the operation!
I tried to explain why in a previous post, and Waren9 carried on with some dribble about me not knowing what I was talking about. Sandpit Sam gleefully jumped in and gave him a thumbs up! Of course that's their opinion
.The real test will be when they (VA HR) attempt to have the "Agreement" certified in the IRC. If I were them I would be putting on my best armour before standing in front of the commisioner.
It all may be a bit academic though when considering the future of the operation!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 19th Oct 2008 at 20:12.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: centre of the Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it is difficult for some to understand as several times on this thread it has been reported that the vote has been approved by staff even the % is given. I'll write this slowly so that the less gifted may understand.
The VOTE has NOT been completed as yet. The VOTE by both FC and CC is currently underway. 1700(?) on 19/10/08 is the completion time.
The vote will pass if 50% + 1 of THOSE WHO VOTED say yes.
The CC would be just as stupid as the FC to vote yes. There is no downside to voting no.
In addition, the first 777 is owned by a lease company (not VA), so there is no value in telling Boeing to go slow (who comes up with this crap? open your bedsit window and stop getting high on your own farts). It is in the interests of the leasing company to get the aircraft off the factory floor and in to VA's hands so they can get a return on their investment.
The VOTE has NOT been completed as yet. The VOTE by both FC and CC is currently underway. 1700(?) on 19/10/08 is the completion time.
The vote will pass if 50% + 1 of THOSE WHO VOTED say yes.
The CC would be just as stupid as the FC to vote yes. There is no downside to voting no.
In addition, the first 777 is owned by a lease company (not VA), so there is no value in telling Boeing to go slow (who comes up with this crap? open your bedsit window and stop getting high on your own farts). It is in the interests of the leasing company to get the aircraft off the factory floor and in to VA's hands so they can get a return on their investment.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Krusty,
If you believe the IRC offers employees protection, then I'd say you've never dealt with the IRC.
Do not expect some malignant(IMHO) government department to save the day, this will not happen.
Fight, flight or fright, these are really the choices, good luck folks.
If you believe the IRC offers employees protection, then I'd say you've never dealt with the IRC.
Do not expect some malignant(IMHO) government department to save the day, this will not happen.
Fight, flight or fright, these are really the choices, good luck folks.
Well LRT, believe it or not I've seen the IRC save the day. Not for one minute do I believe because of a sense of justice (Remember the ex KD RJ boys and girls), but at the end of the day they are bound to enforce the law!
Now if I have gone off on a tangent I'll be proven wrong, but I think there may a problem with this sort of HR trickery. History is repleat with d!ckheads that don't learn from it, and just maybe VA HR fall into that catagory.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote is all about combining two once seperate industrial agreements (if you can call them that). The original CEO of REX tried this back in 2002 and despite being told he was wrong in his assumption, had to find out directly from the IRC just how little he knew.
The combined REX EBA was delivered to both the Hazelton and Kendell pilot groups for a vote. There were approx 80 Hazo's pilots and around 120 Kendell pilots eligible. As all good managements do when their workforces are at a low eb, the new GM of REX slashed conditions (including seniority protection) and adopted the now obsolete and lower remuneration of the Hazelton group. He had done his research in so much as he was confident that the Kendell group would vote yes, (they had a particularily difficult administration and frankly were ready to sign just about anything!) The Hazelton group stood firm, and told the CEO in no uncertain terms that they would vote against it. The vote was taken and virtually all the Kendell group voted yes, and virtually all the Hazelton group voted no! As far as the old mate at the helm was concerned the deal was done.
The problem was that it was as much a vote to dissolve the 2 existing agreements as it was an endorsement of the new one. Despite being advised not to, the CEO had his HR department take the deal to the IRC. The Commisioner gave REX 2 choices. Have his pilot groups covered under 2 seperate EBA's, or got back to the drawing board and do it properly! You see there must be a majority vote from both employee groups for it to be binding.
Now from where I sit, this appears to be a similar situation. And before you say "VA would have done their homework", I've seen the arrogance and ineptitide of these departments in the past, and have no doubt of their capacity not to learn from the lessons of history!
I guess we will wait and see.
Now if I have gone off on a tangent I'll be proven wrong, but I think there may a problem with this sort of HR trickery. History is repleat with d!ckheads that don't learn from it, and just maybe VA HR fall into that catagory.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this vote is all about combining two once seperate industrial agreements (if you can call them that). The original CEO of REX tried this back in 2002 and despite being told he was wrong in his assumption, had to find out directly from the IRC just how little he knew.
The combined REX EBA was delivered to both the Hazelton and Kendell pilot groups for a vote. There were approx 80 Hazo's pilots and around 120 Kendell pilots eligible. As all good managements do when their workforces are at a low eb, the new GM of REX slashed conditions (including seniority protection) and adopted the now obsolete and lower remuneration of the Hazelton group. He had done his research in so much as he was confident that the Kendell group would vote yes, (they had a particularily difficult administration and frankly were ready to sign just about anything!) The Hazelton group stood firm, and told the CEO in no uncertain terms that they would vote against it. The vote was taken and virtually all the Kendell group voted yes, and virtually all the Hazelton group voted no! As far as the old mate at the helm was concerned the deal was done.
The problem was that it was as much a vote to dissolve the 2 existing agreements as it was an endorsement of the new one. Despite being advised not to, the CEO had his HR department take the deal to the IRC. The Commisioner gave REX 2 choices. Have his pilot groups covered under 2 seperate EBA's, or got back to the drawing board and do it properly! You see there must be a majority vote from both employee groups for it to be binding.
Now from where I sit, this appears to be a similar situation. And before you say "VA would have done their homework", I've seen the arrogance and ineptitide of these departments in the past, and have no doubt of their capacity not to learn from the lessons of history!
I guess we will wait and see.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hotel
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there must be a majority vote from both employee groups for it to be binding......... before you say "VA would have done their homework", I've seen the arrogance and ineptitide of these departments in the past, and have no doubt of their capacity not to learn from the lessons of history!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope that the last 10% didnt vote at all and werent stupid enough to vote YES. Love to hear from anyone that voted yes and try and convince the rest of us what was going through your mind!
The not being sacked clause was probably trying to scare people into thinking that they maybe sacked because of the strike and vote yes instead. I cant see them sacking trained crew when they are "supposed to begin ops in a few months" although wouldnt surprise me from what i have heard so far re: VA
congrats to all that voted NO at least the powers that be have been shown that you wont be bullied into anything and a strong message to send them before they are even up in the air.
ill duck for cover now as im sure some sort of abuse is coming my way!
The not being sacked clause was probably trying to scare people into thinking that they maybe sacked because of the strike and vote yes instead. I cant see them sacking trained crew when they are "supposed to begin ops in a few months" although wouldnt surprise me from what i have heard so far re: VA
congrats to all that voted NO at least the powers that be have been shown that you wont be bullied into anything and a strong message to send them before they are even up in the air.
ill duck for cover now as im sure some sort of abuse is coming my way!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: centre of the Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was forwarded to me by someone at V Aus. Out of 164 eligible voters, 119 voted. 12 voted yes and 107 voted no. Confirmation of this vote can be made through Elections Australia via their web site, although it is expected that the official news from the company is forthcoming. When the AFAP met with V Australia on Saturday morning for EBA discussions, V Australia stated that a no vote “is not a failing of the safety net, but of [their] recruitment process”. To be clear; the proposed agreement did not state that staff would not be stood down because of the Boeing strike - That was a personal statement by a People Manager (HR for the uninitiated). The agreement was clear that staff could be stood down.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Up and down
Age: 59
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratualtions to the VA Guys and Girls
So what are the VA management implying when the say to AFAP that the failure to ratify the "agreement" is a failure of the selection process - employ morons???
I wonder if the HR person who spearheaded this debacle will receive a bonus for her efforts??
Congratulations to all of you at VA and good luck in trying to get the company to understand your worth.
I wonder if the HR person who spearheaded this debacle will receive a bonus for her efforts??
Congratulations to all of you at VA and good luck in trying to get the company to understand your worth.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotwings777...absolutely agree, well put. Sort of vindicates why the likes of you I made the decision we did.
For the good guys that are there however, that have returned for their own reasons, lets hope it doesnt go pearshaped.
For the good guys that are there however, that have returned for their own reasons, lets hope it doesnt go pearshaped.
Quote:
"V Australia stated that a no vote “is not a failing of the safety net, but of [their] recruitment process”.
Oh that's priceless! How's the air on your planet, the author of that little gem?
"V Australia stated that a no vote “is not a failing of the safety net, but of [their] recruitment process”.
Oh that's priceless! How's the air on your planet, the author of that little gem?
