Tick Tock Man

Another problem with the "last in, first out", is that some of the older staff can be very reluctant vote for new temporary agreements, only because they know they won't get laid off... So where a time/salery reduction would've kept everyone working, albeit less with equally less payment, they'd rather see colleagues get fired.
Often you'd end up hearing arguments where the employee has completely forgotten that he is actually that... an employee.... who is working because the employer needs him.
Sure, technically the companies can just fire the whole bunch, and then re-hire the ones they want again.

Now I'm not against rights for employees etc, but the situation is a bit special, and the only way to help getting through it, would be to move in close with management and figure out what to do (if we want to keep everyone working).

Close enough to bury the knife in to the hilt

Amen, brother!

jmmoric

I would be very reluctant to accept any concessionary contract. Us pilots did this post 9-11, and as a result it took these pilots 10-15 years to regain their previous wages. Further concessionary contracts DON'T equate to contractual job retention. Ie you could take the paycut only to be made redundant a few months later, only now having your new redundancie pay calculated on your newly reduced pay. In my opinion easyjet is going to crew subject to short/medium term crewing requirements. And PB has been hired to ensure that happens at a minimum cost to the company.

".......jmmoric

I would be very reluctant to accept any concessionary contract......"

A very good point and part of the management 'dirty tricks' toolkit. There is virtually no answer to this unless you could get 100% of pilots to threaten 100% strike action unless the management listens. Management know that this is vanishingly unlikely which is why they get away with the stuff that they do.

It is an often used playbook that works pretty much every time: Threaten mass redundancies and generate massive fears. That way pilots always, and i mean always, start to offer concessions without anybody asking for it. And of course the management then takes those ideas and runs with it lowering T&Cs substantially. Usually it takes at least 5 to 10 years to crawl out of that again, and by that time the next crisis looms.

I see more and more EZY pilots looking for work on both LinkedIn and in various Facebook groups. Sad news. I hoped that at least they will keep their pilots especially after (successful?) negotiations with unions. Or was it only the case in the UK?

The only compulsory redundancies so far has been in Germany.

I do hope that with at least according to seniority/date of joining and a letter of intent that they'll be the first ones to be recalled before hiring external pilots in the future.

The law in germany is slightly more complex than that.

A matrix was built where points were given based on your age (1 per year), years of service (1,5 per year of seniority), 7 points per dependant child, 5 points if with a registered partner, plus points for disability.

All of this per rank. Meaning that many guys with 1/2 years in the company, for example coming from Air Berlin, were saved, and other with 10 years in the company, but younger in age and less kids, were kicked out.

Thanks dirk85,

This seems to be the other extreme case on the scale with wizz on the far side (redundancies based on who is liked/disliked by their relevant managers). Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the ex-AB guys in this case however this is not the way to treat pilots who dedicated years of their lives in service to ezy. Having a child, or two in that matter is a personal choice, so as being married, etc. I don't see it fair that this personal choice being rewarded by letting to keep your job. I am absolutely pro-seniority, based on the date of joining. None of the European companies seems to get it right, unlike their US counterparts.

In principle I don’t disagree with you, what happened in Berlin is very unfair towards long serving easyJet pilots.

There was a little manouvring space in terms of points given for each criteria, but not much, and in germany using seniority only would have been illegal.

The company went for the option more likely to hold up in case of court cases.

That's more of a philosophical argument; To coin a cliché, children are our future, and marriage is a common foundation for a family. Like it or not, many Western, and particularly European countries make provision for the welfare of children, in various ways such as reduced taxation, free schooling (paid by all taxpayers), and family support and incentives - And unemployment of the main earner is deleterious to a child's wellbeing. It is also far more difficult for a family to relocate to find a new job, or if a new job is away from home, it breaks up the family for long periods, and that tends to have negative effects on children.

The advantage given to age is slightly surprising given the ageism rules in the ECHR.

In many national legislations, there's no such thing as seniority. Length of service could be factored in one way or another when making the hard decisions, but not in every country and usually not as the sole criterion but as one of many. As no internal policy of the company can override the national legislation of wherever the contract was signed, it leaves the decision makers with little choice.

Although I am very sorry for everyone affected, this sort of matrix was still more of a fair game, as compared to what the magenta brigade did a bit further eastbound (again, making use of loopholes in national legislations which allow for redundancy criteria to be as simple as "I don't like you"). At least it was somewhat more of a transparent process in Germany, with the law overriding any hard feelings middle management might have had for any locally-based employee.

I don't think it's a fair game for someone to be out of a job where previously him/her was in the highest tax bracket due to being single with no kids.

In germany there is a huge focus on protecting families and especially children. Not surprising considering germany has one of the lowest birth rates worldwide, although it has recovered quite a bit in recent years. And of course, the usual pilot lifestyle of having more than one marriages could have helped here, a divorced, but still dependent partner has to be considered same as the currently married partner (or legal partnership). From what i hear, there were quite a few short notice marriages that in some case actually saved an income.

Although i know how it feels being in the highest tax bracket, try having a kid, those are very expensive, and without them a country will experience huge problems as japan, italy and germany are currently learning. And of course, those that are unattached are deemed more mobile and able to find work elsewhere without having to move a whole family.

Is there a transparent process for re-hiring? Or can middle management work out its grudges there? Or any right to be considered before any outside applicant at all? Those things are, after all, not required by law in germany and have to be negotiated between unions and management.

Valid questions. Hopefully it'll work out for those affected. Let's hope that the orange lot won't try and learn/take anything from the magenta outfit a few hundred kms east...

Ridiculous. Even 3 points would be pushy. How much did women got, 30 points? :ugh:
Having a kid might come down to personal choice (except that one layover), not having one isn't always down to own choice.

Precisely. Particularly unfair to those suffering fertility problems. Unjustifiable IMHO.

Child allowances/leave/job protections etc are not a perk - they are a measure to try and partially offset the costs and difficulties associated with working and keeping a family together.