NORWEGIAN /OSM

[PEDER737]

It just gets worse. From Flight Global.




Norwegian to buy half of recruitment firm OSM Aviation



16 Dec 2015 14:16 GMT+01:00(London)Oliver Clark


Norwegian has signed an agreement to acquire a 50% stake in crew recruitment firm OSM Aviation.


Under the deal OSM Aviation will take a 49% share in the Oslo-based carrier’s own recruitment business in Spain, Finland and the UK as of June 30, 2016 which come under the umbrella company of Norwegian Air Resources.


The agreement is subject to approval under the European Commission’s merger regulations and the parties expect the transaction to close by the end of the first quarter of 2016. The remaining 50% of shares in OSM Aviation will continue to be held by a group of Scandinavian investors.


OSM Aviation employs more than 1,000 Norwegian crew members in Sweden, Finland, UK, Spain and the USA and says the agreement will not affect their conditions of employment. It also employs crew at airlines such as Finnair.

[captplaystation]

It makes sense if you are of the mindset that their medium term aim is to "ship-out" (pun intended ) all of their pilot workforce as soon as they can find a reason/excuse to dismantle the employment model they dreamed up (PSN/PSD/PSS) as a fudge to comply with their Scandinavian agreement, resulting in the battle back in Springtime.

But, 49% would not really comply with "working for a wholly owned Norwegian subsidy", maybe they should have gone for 51

[Kirks gusset]

According to the UK HMRC:

Difference between employment agencies and businesses
Employment agencies

Employment agencies find work for work-seekers who are employed and paid by employers. This is often called ‘permanent employment’ because once the worker has been taken on, they’re an employee of the company they’re working for. However, different rules apply to entertainment and modelling.

Employment businesses

Employment businesses engages a work-seeker under a contract who then works under the supervision of someone else. This is normally called ‘temporary agency work’ or ‘temping’.

Workers under these arrangements are paid by the business instead of the company they’re supplied to.

When a business does both it has to follow the rules for both employment agencies and employment businesses.


In short, the " workers" should be entitled to the same conditions as " employed" workers.. let's see how this one pans out.. It makes sense as now the agency "fees" become internal wooden dollars..

[PEDER737]

Be interesting to see what the Unions say about this. See your point about businesses and agencies but no sure that is relevant...... An airline should employ its own employees and not buy another company to employ them. Be interested to see what happens next

[Direct Bondi]

Someone doesn't like my posts. The bottom line is, this is just another scheme to avoid the labor laws, labor rights and labor principles of a direct employment relationship with the airline. The DoT will see it for what it is, another circumvention. Norwegian does not comply with Article 17 of the EU US Open Skies Agreement, therefore, a US Foreign Air Carrier Permit is unlikely to be granted.

[Avenger]

Bondi did you actually see an employment contract from either OSM or NAS? You presume it "may contain etc etc" but given this relationship between the companies it would appear they meet the commitment kos outlined . With the U.K. Aoc I see no reason for the permits not to be issued. I highlighted Gatwick gossip that the AOC was imminent 6 months ago and the latest gossip at the Belgrano is that the US are "more positive"

[Direct Bondi]

I have such an agency contract.

If Norwegian owns the agency, Kjos is technically fulfilling his June 1 letter to the DoT to offer "employment with a company in the Norwegian Group".

Under this new scheme, will pilots and cabin crew have the right to collective union agreement and representation directly with Norwegian, or only with its subsidiary agency? - which then leases the crew back to various Norwegian Group airlines under separate contracts. The term 'smoke and mirrors' comes to mind. A UK AOC has no bearing on the Kjos labor model his US opponents object to.

Similarly, I have highlighted reasons why it is unlikely the US Permit will be issued anytime soon, if at all. In the history of the Open Skies Agreement, no other application has taken so long to consider.

Don't pay too much attention to gossip from the Belgrano, they're still trying to figure out their Just Culture policy.

[Avenger]

Bondi do you have THE contract with NAS and OSM or just "an agency" contract , there is a difference and your wording is ambiguous . Regarding the Belgrano usually the rumour mill is another word for unofficial communication!

[Direct Bondi]

I do not have THE contract, I have TWO contracts relating to NAS. Each contains the clause that no 'employment relationship' exists with the lessee airline. Notwithstanding, no one has posted that their contract with OSM or Rishworth does not contain the same clause or similar. You seem to forget, the main reason airlines use agencies is to forego any employer/employee obligations.

The Kjos labor model is at best objectionable and at worst unethical. Most criticism of Norwegian's poor labor relations is not from the US but from the Scandinavian media. Earlier this month Norwegian settled a case out of court involving a Safety Officer sacked earlier this year. DN News reports a quote from a union representative:

"It emerged very strong testimony in court which in my opinion very damaging to confidence in the management of the company and created the basis for settlement. A continuation of what we heard on Tuesday would have been so devastating for Norwegian short and long term that the company had no choice but to arrive at settlement"


Link:
Norwegian inngikk forlik med hovedverneombud - DN.no

[Avenger]

Bondi.. not so sure you have the up to date info to be frank.. anyway for general appraisal :

?Norwegian and OSM Aviation join forces to increase global... - Norwegian

"Working conditions and other terms for employees comply with the laws and agreements that apply for air crew in the respective countries."

Odds of 14 Countries getting it wrong are "slim" to say the least

[PEDER737]

So Avenger.......


who do you work for is it OSM or the NAS management as you are not looking at the overall picture. Other than taking temporary workers when required a pilot should work for the Airline he flies for ( that being the AOC holder) this is certainly an attempt to circumvent the labour laws..

[Direct Bondi]

Norwegian's OSM announcement:

"The conditions of employment for pilots and cabin crew remain unchanged"

This answers my earlier question; pilots and cabin crew will have neither collective agreement nor union representation directly with Norwegian, but only with their employer agency (one of which Norwegian now owns, in part).

This begs another question; if Norwegian's labor model is not a circumvention of employment laws, labor rights and labor principles with the effective employer, Norwegian, then why not hire the crew directly in the first place?

Of course Norwegian has to comply with the "working conditions" of Flight Time Duty limitations, irrespective from where it sources its crew. Similarly, the agency employer must comply with local labor laws in respect of its employee crew it leases to Norwegian.

Rather than consider the self-serving announcement from Norwegian's hard working publicity office, why not consider the affirmation from those on the sharp end, or rather blunt end, of Norwegian's labor model:

"Half of Norwegian's pilots want to quit" and "75% of the 800 pilots surveyed would not recommend Norwegian as an employer" - Links:

Aftenposten - Halvparten av Norwegian-pilotene ønsker å slutte - Aftenposten

DN - Halvparten av Norwegian-pilotene ønsker å slutte - DN.no

E24 - Halvparten av Norwegian-pilotene ønsker å slutte - Jobb - E24

Not surprisingly, Kjos was named 'Leader of the Year' by temporary staffing agency Manpower Inc.

[Kirks gusset]

Bondi, did you ever consider the possibility that some pilots may not want collective agreements or union representation. My experience of Unions is they are feckless and toothless when the time comes to act. Crews can feel "bullied into joining" and personally, in the past with BALPA taking 1% of my salary I would rather have taken take money and bought beer, The NAS action of last year proved this fact..Of course, one can argue that everyone should have a " choice" but there are many employers where no unions exist..just a thought!

If people care to see where their money goes:

https://www.balpa.org/About-BALPA/Pu...unts-2014.aspx

" delegate costs" AKA booze up's increased 400%

The real issue with NLH and NAS is that outside of the Scandi Countries the Pilots are just a resource, never have been, and never will be, close to the mothership. But the majority accept this and just want to get on with their work, get paid and go home..

[LeftHeadingNorth]

The NAS action of last year proved this fact..Of course, one can argue that everyone should have a " choice" but there are many employers where no unions exist..just a thought!

You for real?! The strike directly safeguarded the core pilot group keeping the employer from completely ripping the CLA wide open. The union has protected the interest of the pilot group on countless occasions ( for example when the employer decided to change the pension system and was found guilty in court of being in gross violation with the CLA) so yea, I think the guys prefer the union instead of the alternative found at FR.

[SR71]

The real issue with NLH and NAS is that outside of the Scandi Countries the Pilots are just a resource, never have been, and never will be, close to the mothership.

And one wonders why?



Astonishing short-sightedness.

But the majority accept this and just want to get on with their work, get paid and go home...

I'd hazard a guess, the majority would like an Employer that treats them with a modicum of respect...or, since they're constantly bleating on about it, a contract that at least matches an Easyjet contract. Why is it that, in this industry we put up with behaviour that would be an anathema in so many other sectors of industry?

And if your 1% gets you a 2% pay-rise, pension contributions etc etc you're already quids in....

Its a good job some folk in NAS/NAI/NAR (whatever it is this day of the week) still believe in trying to push water uphill for the sake of the common good....

[Avenger]

Actually Peder I don't work for either! You opened the thread and one assumes this was to encourage debate. If you simply wanted to make a statement without debate you could have posted your thoughts. The business relationship between the two organisations was the focus however once again the thread has sunk to the banal statements regarding circumventing labour laws etc etc. Curious the support for unionisation is immediate by the core pilots whom are already protected by their own strong labour laws. Perhaps there is a slight chance this business relationship was entered into to increase OSM resourcing capacity in general ? There appears to be a lot of paranoid prunners about !

[PEDER737]

" banal statements" and who are you to judge I might ask. there are other benefits when being a direct hire? You haven't answered the poignant question and the basis of this is why should an Airline buy a recruitment company not just to look for crews but to payroll and employ them . Surprised if the European Commission allows this

[A and C]

Academic argument

It matters not who on paper the employer is if there are no employees.

In a rising market the T's & C's being offered are falling increasingly short of the mark and combined with the fatigue inducing poor rostering practices are resulting in a rate of resignations by both fight deck and cabin crew that can't be matched by training system replacement capacity.

Daily requests are broadcast for crews to work days off to cover for lack of crews and those who have gone sick with fatiuge are the indication of a problem that will only continue to grow unless the management de-select ostrich mode and do something, first about the rostering and then about the T's & C's.

[Kirks gusset]

LHN, in 2011 some ex colleagues joined NAS as DEC and were categorically told that after 2 years as a " contractor" they could become CORE but only as FO, however, keep their seniority, reason being the the CORE group had a preserved seniority list, in my opinion, that's "kind of "fair enough. Two years later they were told there would be no more CORE conversions from contractor and their agency was changed yet again. The comments you make relate solely to the privileges of the CORE group and do no represent the interests of the majority of crews where the real expansion has occurred outside of the Scandi countries. During the industrial action from the unionised group pilots from other bases, mainly Spanish, were rostered to " cover flights", this itself is divisive action and shows patently their is little or no cohesion amongst the pilot groups. The argument generally was that non unionised pilots could not reasonably support a strike they were not "officially" part of, these same pilots, if they refused the duties would have their contracts terminated as they were not " protected" by the stronger employment laws relating to CORE pilots. In the ideal world, the whole pilot workforce would be one amalgamated group, but to do this their would have to be compromise by the CORE pilots, are you going to be the first to throw yourself on your sword?
Back to the OP, the acquisition of OSM shares must surely reduce recruitment costs as commissions become internal wooden dollars, however, the " arms length" relationship between agency and employer is severely tested with this model and as we say " poacher becomes gamekeeper"