EasyJet Offices Raided by French Police
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZBMAN I think this has nothing to do with the abuse of pilot employees in France. As I said before, not only do I not approve of that, but I strongly disapprove. I think that there are at least two different arguments taking place here and that it is a mistake to confuse two different problems, since they have different solutions.
In addition, it has nothing to do with the real, or supposed, superiority of the French social system. It has to do with the fact that some airlines are reducing their costs at the expense of their pilots by employing pilots in bases abroad and using a range of different mechanisms to avoid social payments. This gives them a competitive advantage, but it leaves the pilots vulnerable to short term disadvantage (illness) and long term disadvantage (pension entitlements). The mechanisms to do this require a sophisticated and cynical plan by the airlines involved to avoid their social responsibilities.
I think that all European states should act to prevent such activities and that all European states should ensure that both employees and employers meet the requirements of the law. Otherwise every pilot will loose in the end - regardless of where they work. If you read my posts you will see that that is all I have been saying since this thread began.
In addition, it has nothing to do with the real, or supposed, superiority of the French social system. It has to do with the fact that some airlines are reducing their costs at the expense of their pilots by employing pilots in bases abroad and using a range of different mechanisms to avoid social payments. This gives them a competitive advantage, but it leaves the pilots vulnerable to short term disadvantage (illness) and long term disadvantage (pension entitlements). The mechanisms to do this require a sophisticated and cynical plan by the airlines involved to avoid their social responsibilities.
I think that all European states should act to prevent such activities and that all European states should ensure that both employees and employers meet the requirements of the law. Otherwise every pilot will loose in the end - regardless of where they work. If you read my posts you will see that that is all I have been saying since this thread began.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but it leaves the pilots vulnerable to short term disadvantage (illness) and long term disadvantage (pension entitlements).
To conclude, I think that all this rubbish about the french wanting to "protect" or "save" "oppressed" employees is just a shoddy excuse to get their hands on more cash, cash which is much needed to finance the french pilots retirement fund for example.
To be totally honest I don't think easyJet will be able to escape paying french national insurance. However pension will be another matter, since most french eJ pilots will try and avoid at all costs to contribute to the french system, whose future is uncertain to say the least.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZBMAN this will be my final comment, as I think we are talking past each other. First, I have not mentioned EasyJet - I have been talking about the principle which I believe the French state is pursuing, which is that social payments should not be avoided by employers. Second, this is not about contributions, it is about social entitlements. When an employer avoids social payments, the impact for the employer is cost savings. The impact for the employee is loss of entitlements.
This is not theoretical. I have a colleague who has discovered that he is not entitled to a full Old Age pension because his social payments were not made. Many pilots working of LoCo carriers have minimal pension arrangements (if any) - the worst situation of all will be to discover years later that they also have either no (or a reduced) Old Age pension from the state. Remember, in the case of some employers this could easily happen in circumstances where the pilot never even realised that how they were paid reduced their Old Age pension.
This is not theoretical. I have a colleague who has discovered that he is not entitled to a full Old Age pension because his social payments were not made. Many pilots working of LoCo carriers have minimal pension arrangements (if any) - the worst situation of all will be to discover years later that they also have either no (or a reduced) Old Age pension from the state. Remember, in the case of some employers this could easily happen in circumstances where the pilot never even realised that how they were paid reduced their Old Age pension.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aloue, you are missing the point entirely here. If you are based in France on an Irish / UK contract and you get sick, sure you will have health care by virtue of presenting periodically to your local health board a E601, (or whatever the hell it is called these days) This means that Monsieur Le Frog will be reimbursed by Johnny English or Paddy the Irishman so apart from a bit of admin (and there is no shortage of functionaires in France to take care of that) the expense goes back to the country issuing your paperwork and is NOT borne by the French. Just to reiterate, this has nothing to do with social dumping , nothing to do with expense to the French social system , and everything to do with the new Transavia vf, shortly to be thrust into the limelight requiring a little help ( Air France style) by nobbling the competition. Otherwise, why no fuss for the last few years over that very Irish Air France franchise City Jet, with all it's pilots on Irish contracts paying nada in France. As I said before if Easy Jet or Ryanair suddenly acquired an Air France franchise do you really think this would be happening? Merde Alors.Our posts crossed there, your pension from the state(which outside France is pretty worthless anyway, is determined by how long you contributed in that country, if you accept the low social charges you accept the low pension, you want more , you make your own arrangements, or pay loadsa bucks in another country? your choice ultimately.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been talking about the principle which I believe the French state is pursuing, which is that social payments should not be avoided by employers.
Another issue here is the pension. It is pretty worthless for an eJ employee based in France to pay French pension contribution (CRPN), since this employee may well be based elsewhere once the time for command comes. In this case this employee would have lost x number of years worth of contributions to the company scheme (which could be disastrous in terms of investments), and gained a worthless x number of years to the french scheme. Which makes the whole exercise a bit pointless really. A far cry from the proclaimed "rescue of opprossed employees", won't you agree?
Unfortunately what many people don't understand is that eJ employees based in France have a lot to lose if they are made to pay their NI and pension contributions in France. So lets stop the hypocrisy right here: the french social security needs money? Fine! Let them fight for it! But please let's not make it look like the french authorities were trying to save eJ employees from the evil grasp of their social dumping bosses! This couldn't be further from the truth.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I did say that I was going to drop it, but one last post is merited to repeat that I disagree and explain why. We are all talking past each other, because we have different matters in mind.
My post of Jan 3rd (number 78) above was a result of what Ryanair said. I used it to make the point that there was a different version of events from the one preferred by many of you who want to knock Air France, the French state, French social policy, or whatever. (Because when I first said it, so many people told me I was wrong). But just look at what Ryanair are saying. And then ask the question, why is it so important to them?
I think the clue as to why we are missing of the point is to be found in these words:
Well, you may be right. In fact all the negative comments clearly come from those who think you are right. But this is not what I am talking about; what I am talking about is relevant and Ryanair seem to agree. I repeat, these are two separate subjects.
As for your comments on pensions, I do not accept that what you say is correct in circumstances where proper payments are NOT made. What happens is that hospitals, etc. assume that they have been made, but that is coming to an end (I gave an example in an earlier post). It certainly will have come to an end when Old Age payments are due. The question that will then be asked is: "how can an individual who has worked his entire life as a pilot within Europe not be qualified for an Old Age pension?". The answer will be, he and his employer failed to make appropriate payments. (How this is done is a matter for another day).
Let's put it another way. Ryanair are going to fight a legal case over this. Anybody any ideas why it is so important to them?
My post of Jan 3rd (number 78) above was a result of what Ryanair said. I used it to make the point that there was a different version of events from the one preferred by many of you who want to knock Air France, the French state, French social policy, or whatever. (Because when I first said it, so many people told me I was wrong). But just look at what Ryanair are saying. And then ask the question, why is it so important to them?
I think the clue as to why we are missing of the point is to be found in these words:
As I said before if Easy Jet or Ryanair suddenly acquired an Air France franchise do you really think this would be happening?
As for your comments on pensions, I do not accept that what you say is correct in circumstances where proper payments are NOT made. What happens is that hospitals, etc. assume that they have been made, but that is coming to an end (I gave an example in an earlier post). It certainly will have come to an end when Old Age payments are due. The question that will then be asked is: "how can an individual who has worked his entire life as a pilot within Europe not be qualified for an Old Age pension?". The answer will be, he and his employer failed to make appropriate payments. (How this is done is a matter for another day).
Let's put it another way. Ryanair are going to fight a legal case over this. Anybody any ideas why it is so important to them?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to them , because it is cheaper for them (and the employees) to pay social contributions in Ireland than in France, nobody is attempting to hide that fact. At the moment European legislation allows for what they are doing, IT IS LEGAL. The French govt however want to act unilaterally to stop them doing this. Why shouldn't they challenge it you say ? why not indeed, but please please let us not be blind to the timing of this event, and the previous, and current, total lack of interest in investigating a little closer to home ie City Jet. If the French are reimbursed by the Irish maybe it is them who have the real complaint because an Irish company/employee sure doesn't contribute enough to cover that French medical bill. Ireland is the Africa of Europe, look how many foreign carriers use EI- as a flag of convenience, but as long as it is legal I don't think France or any other country has the right to disregard or overide existing legislation. This is only part of a much much bigger question regarding European integration , but let us not ty and attribute worthy motives to what in this case is pure and simple protectionism.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captplaystation , spot on mate!
that's what the french would call : "patriotisme economique et social".
but let us not ty and attribute worthy motives to what in this case is pure and simple protectionism.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: europe
Age: 63
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Social Security
I agree with Aloue ,some low costs carriers wanted cut off on socials charges .
For Exemple EZ use crews : via Storm Aviation ,they have no pension ,they have do pay by their own so they have a low salary compare to normal EZ crew .
What about if you get ill for 5 weeks ? do you have your salary ?.
In France they does ,if the airline bankrupt they have their salary paid ;also
pension scheme ;and mostly medical care full paid .
For Exemple EZ use crews : via Storm Aviation ,they have no pension ,they have do pay by their own so they have a low salary compare to normal EZ crew .
What about if you get ill for 5 weeks ? do you have your salary ?.
In France they does ,if the airline bankrupt they have their salary paid ;also
pension scheme ;and mostly medical care full paid .
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Exemple EZ use crews : via Storm Aviation ,they have no pension ,they have do pay by their own so they have a low salary compare to normal EZ crew .
What about if you get ill for 5 weeks ? do you have your salary ?.
In France they does ,if the airline bankrupt they have their salary paid also pension scheme
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you forget to mention is that these crew get their salary tax-free, so they are actually paid MORE not less than other eJ crew. Of course, if they pay no tax off their salary, they are left to make their own arrangements pension and healthcare wise. You must understand that this may suit a few people. Plus they are free to get in easyjet by filling the application form like anyone else...
By the way, if you don't pay tax it follows as night follows day, that you are "paid more" than colleagues who do. As far as I can see, leaving such people to "make their own arrangements" (which code for NO arrangements in many cases) is part of the motivation to get pilots to help airlines lower their costs. I don't know if this qualifies you for the FFAF, but it certainly qualifies as "social dumping" and as an attack on those pilots who pay their taxes.
