Qantas London base

[34R]

Captainrats

Yes I agree with you completely, and I realise my statement was very generalised with regards to the acceptance of the EBA. The people who had the foresight to vote no are the ones more than entitled to say "I told you so!" Unfortunately, that's about all they are entitled to.

Sadly, as the ultimately unanimous view of the department was a yes vote, the LHR base and its numbers, whatever they may be, carries the endorsement of the QF flight attendand group, and that is all management will see in this situation. All the screaming and shouting and talk of industrial action will, in the long run, have very little effect I'm afraid.

For that reason, people like Q-Tee seem to be the only people involved that are treating the situation with the slightest bit of common sense. She knows what management intend to do, and she knows they intend to do it because the flight attendant department, on the whole, allowed them too. That course of action is set and there is not turning back. So now she has 3 choices.

1. Accept the situation and stay here

2. Accept the situation, treat it as a bit of an adventure and be part of the off-shore base and in the process, make sure as many of those positions go to Australians

3. Not accept the situation and resign

All choices are perfectly valid, and any talk of her, or anyone else for that matter, who decides to follow either one of them as being selfish or contributing to the continued decline of your conditions is kidding themselves. That little nail was hammered in the day your EBA was signed off.

[Q-Tee]

leemo ---- sorry I must not have explained myself well ...

I would NEVER try to push my views on crew at briefing or on a flight ....

I was just saying that the accusation of trying to push my views on this forum were ridiculous .... if I wanted to, I could more effectively make my views known to my operating crew, than on this (largely unread) forum ....


I dont have any problem with others that have views that differ to mine, nor would I try to 'sway' them to my point of view .... on this forum, however, I am allowed to voice my view on this issue .... and nor do I really care if here (or elsewhere) people do not see/ respect my point of view .... as others will not change my stance on this issue


and for whoever mentioned it .... if I come back from LHR and the seniority system is gone .... trust me ... I would not care either way .... it might mean I will finally get some decent slips in NRT - which I currently cant bid for I aint that senior

[bunkmaster]

london base

most of the current cabin crew are going to fight this base leading up to december. ( the end of the current eba). watch this space.

[mach2male]

Fight?

BUNKMASTER,
How can you fight something that the majority of your colleagues have agreed to by voting yes to the EBA ?It would also appear that there is a long Q to participate in the base.

[leemo]

There seems to be a misconception here on the board that crew voted out the CAP in the last EBA.

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

In fact at the expiration of every EBA each point within it becomes renegotiable. There is no legal way of altering this so an agreement can be made that the cap will always be there or will exist until a certain date in time. This is set out by industrial law.

So we did not vote to remove the cap on Dec 17th 2004. Thats just the date of the expiration of the EBA. During past EBA negotiations Qantas agreed to have the cap inserted back into the current EBA. This time around Qantas will clearly fight tooth and nail not to have a cap and the crew will fight tooth and nail to ensure a cap is put back in the EBA.


Mach2Male - There may be 400 hundred crew willing to take the LHR base (bad move) but there are a LOT more crew not willing to let this happen.

[mach2male]

EBA

LEEMO
If you get a copy of the EBA you will find that there is a stand alone clause that specifies that the cap expires on 17.12.04 irrespective of the EBA which stays in place until another is negotiated.I have had a conversation with Mijatov regarding this matter.This is why he led the NO vote.It was the way in which this particular clause was structured that caused him so much angst.Talk to him you will see that this is the case.
Oh,and Leemo,I voted no.

[leemo]

M2M - Thanks for that info. Mr. Mijatov's speech recently led me to believe differently hence the post.

We can still, and have to fight this however.

[bunkmaster]

industrial action?

yes there are collegues who are going to put their name down for london but if lets say 10% go for the base, 30 % do nothing and the rest fights the cap then their is certainley room for geoff dixons exit from qf. lets remember that robert ayrling from ba lost 180 million pounds (or thereabouts in a short time) which had ba management begging f/a's to come back. no, qf f/a's arent as militant as their ba collegues but i think we reach to point where enough f/a's contemplate to go sick for a couple of alternate days/weeks. if you convert the remaining 60% or maybe only half to sick leave over christmas and beyond (cant be sacked or intimitated with a certificate) then dixon is out. no company board in any country can sanction ongoing industrial action costing in a short period tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. i am sure they qf works on various plans but again if f/a's keep the sick leave going (as ba did taking alternade days as sickleave) then there is no way qf can keep planes in the air. lets not forget if our collegues on overseas trip decide to ring in sick with various upline illnesses then it would expatite the chaos.
make no mistake i was a very loyal man to the company with lots of sick leave up my sleeve but i have reached the point were it is time to come out fighting.

[twiggs]

How can you fight something that the majority of your colleagues have agreed to by voting yes to the EBA ?It would also appear that there is a long Q to participate in the base

Just like to mention that the last EBA was voted in only narrowly, and was done so primarily because it was recommended by the 3 EBA negotiaters who were subsequently forced to resign when the disgust toward them grew as the repercussions of such a recommendation became apparent.
The other factor was the major propaganda campaign that QF implemented scaring most people into thinking that they had to vote yes or risk losing everything.
Mijatov, Smedley and others made a big effort to spread the word that the EBA was flawed but it was not enough.

I just hope that Q-Tee and the other short-sighted people who wish to go to LHR are attending the FAAA meetings so their views are heard and their questions are answered.

[mach2male]

NOT HAPPY JAN

Twiggs
In a democracy a majority is a majority no matter how small.It is now up to the FAAA(with our support)to try and limit the damage.
Someone here suggested a change of government may help.
I am not happy as I have been doing LHRs back to back for years(Even the dreaded QF31/32)This will have a trickle down effect as people like me will have to look for other trips to do.

[Left2primary]

The white hot fury I see and hear from Longhaul CC at the "thug from wagga's" attacks on their conditions will manefest itself at the end of the year in the sort of industrial chaos that QF has NEVER seen before.

Lets hope for the shareholders sake that QF's contingency plans include some sort of revenue generating activity for their expensive 5 story inanimate objects.
Flight deck visits at $10 a pop.
Corporate function perhaps?

What is amazing and unprecedented is that this support for the FAAA's cause spans all FA factions.Girls, guys, straight, gay, language speakers, junior and senior.
QF longhaul have had enough and even the most moderate of individuals are ready and GAGGING to act.
The overwhelming sentiment that I hear is, "bring on December".

QF management are about to have their own words thrown straight back at them in finding that Longhaul will do with THEIR labour, "whatever they want, whenever they want, and there is NOTHING QF management can do about it".

Geoff Dixon's megalomaniacal and reckless management style will ultimately be his own downfall.

One person will ultimately be held responsible for the chaos we are going to see come years end.
His days are numbered.

Analysts predict a 2005 NET profit for QF in the order of AUD $850 million.

QANTAS.THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE.

L2P

BTW Geoff isnt eating on board longhaul AC any more.
Is he on a diet or too scared to eat.....................?

[twiggs]

I was trying to illustrate that even though the last EBA was voted in, it was done blindly, and I believe that there is an overwhelming majority of crew opposed to an o/s base cap increase.

[captainrats]

Blind Injustice

TWIGGS
Even though the EBA may have been signed off under duress it is legally binding.Even though in hindsight many would have made a different decision,the door has been opened.Strike action will not alter the outcome.From what I understand Dixon is spoiling for a fight.Think of all the MAM casuals,Jetstar,Australian Airline crew that can be trained in a day to operate a 747 or A330.
You would be locked out and after a couple of months some would be invited back ON CONTRACT.In the meantime who pays the mortgage.
All of this is unjust and unfair but it is what was negotiated.Add to this the deal shorthaul did with regional flying and bands payments,2003 was a very bad year for longhaul crew.
My friend the days of milk and honey are over.The only person happy about any of this is Dixon

[leemo]

Quote - You would be locked out and after a couple of months some would be invited back ON CONTRACT

captainrats - please let us know why we would be invited back on contact?

The FAAA will do every thing LEGALLY, which mean no industrial action until we are protected (Dec 18th). We will give company appropriate notice to ensure members are taking 'protected industrial actions'.

And the company does not have enough crew from MAM casuals, Jetstar, Australian Airline to cover the flying program for very long.

[mach2male]

Guess

Leemo
What would you do if you were Dixon and a group of employees were trying to bring your business to a halt.Captainrats is i think just trying to offer scenarios.
There are classes of MAM fa`s going through now.There are also 370 AKL and BKK crew not covered by our award.Do the numbers.
WHAT DO YOU THINK DIXON WOULD DO?
He would not sit idly by and do nothing!
Industrial action is a 2 way street.Dixon can do to us what we are doing to him.He is a lot of things but stupid isnt one of them.

[leemo]

M2M, my question to Captainrats was why we would be invited back on contracts?

At the recent FAAA meetings we were told that as the FAAA would take industrial action ONLY when legal to do so i.e. at the expirey of the current EBA, which means we would be taking 'protected industrial actions'. From what the FAAA reps said this means the company cannot terminate / change our existing position in any way. As long as we give the company 3 days notice etc.

My interpretation of Captainrats posts is that if we go on strike, Dixon will only let us go back to work on contracts and not permanent. The company have no legal ground to do this according to the FAAA.

I believe there are 150 casual going through training now, these plus the 370 O/S crew, Jet Star, Australian would not be enough to fully cover the flying program for more than a few days.

Did you attend the FAAA meetings? They said if/when there is industrial action it will be for a longer period this time.

[Argus]

The web site of the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) contains some helpful questions and answers.

The OEA notes that under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, employees have only a limited right to take industrial action.

Can employees ever lawfully take industrial action?

Yes, but only when it fits all of these rules:

• it happens during a properly notified bargaining period (which starts seven days after one party notifies the other and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that it intends to seek to reach a certified agreement);
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement before the action is taken; and
• the employer gets 3 (three) working days’ written notice of the proposed industrial action.

This is called "protected" industrial action.

If an employer is bargaining with employees and unable to reach agreement, the employer can apply to the AIRC to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. If the employer is successful, that puts an end to the protected status of the industrial action. In making its decision the AIRC will consider whether the employer has been trying to seek agreement in good faith.

What action can an employer take during a bargaining period

An employer can lock out its workers and stop them from working if:

• the lockout occurs during a properly notified bargaining period;
• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement;and
• the employer gives written notice to each party with whom it is negotiating – so if there is more than one union involved the employer must give the notice to each union – that it will be locking the gate/telling them to go home.

The employer must give 3 clear working days notice unless the lock out is in response to the union/s industrial action.

Can an employer sack employees who take industrial action?

It is against the law for employers to dismiss an employee if they are taking protected industrial action.

An employer must still follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action. There is no short cut just because they may have broken the law.

Does an employer have to pay its employees when they take industrial action?

It is against the law to :

• pay any employee who has taken industrial action;
• do a deal whereby they get paid for work they haven’t done;
• agree to pay them as part of settling a dispute; and
• for an employee to accept payment for industrial action

What is industrial action?

It’s when employees do something which restricts, limits or delays their work, such as imposing go-slows or work to rule bans –not only when they walk off the job.

[leemo]

Thanks for the info Argus.

[Q-Tee]

L2P

What is amazing and unprecedented is that this support for the FAAA's cause spans all FA factions.Girls, guys, straight, gay, language speakers, junior and senior.

Luv, last year we had 90% support for the stop work meetings .... it didnt stop one single flight, at worst it delayed a couple ...

Now there are 370 overseas based crew, 300+ MAM casual crew, 120 fixed term contract crew (AUS based), and 400+ crew wanting to go to LHR ..... all who will work on a strike to keep the LHR base happening .... is it right or wrong? I dont know.... thats for the gods to decide.....

Is it reality???? Yup, definately ... you have over a third of the total numeber of longhaul crew (plus those who fall out of the above categories who will just wish to work for their own reasons) working during a longhaul industrial dispute ..... that equates to any longhaul industrial dispute being useless .... if the FAAA cant see this, then they are gonna lead the guys to slaughter ....

And yes (as I have done in the past) , industrial action during an EBA period is legal ...... but so is the 'locking out' of striking employees if they arent seen to be working with the company to compromise on the issues ....


Be careful guys......

but good luck too .... if I thought industrial action to stop the LHR base would keep things as they are, then I would go for it too..... I just see the LHR base as a certainty, and dont want to give up everything else to stop it.... so I will take it to make the best of it .....

[Left2primary]

qtee.............luv,

last years stop work meeting was for 14 hours.............period.

QF were forced to pax [They had 370 then] AKL and BKK based crew, days before hand, all over the place to keep AC in the air.

Over 1000 crew attended the meeting at Randwick. Didnt YOU see the footage on TV?

QF also locked out CC emergency proceedures trainers for days, whilst they trained around the clock, office staff as scabs.

Do you think that the office staff will be so willing to scab this time given the promises of FA jobs that never materialised? Once bitten twice shy.

QF don't have a willing pool of line managers to scab either. [ Look at the thanks they got. A right royal shafting, without even a kiss]

You know very well the mood of FA's re these issues. I have been around for close on 20 years and have never seen such hatred for anyone in QF, much less any current CEO.

CC are only one group in QF thats had enough of Osama Bin Dixon. SIT are working to rule and have a ban on overtime as they battle his rampant corporate greed.

Airports are very unlikely to rush out and scab in force during our battle.

Dixon is running this company into the ground in an effort to maximise short term profits and HIS performance bonuses.
He and his fellow" pigs at the trough" have no concern for QF's long term health.

To create completely unnecessary industrial chaos at the same time as OUR company is enjoying its most profitable period in its entire 80 odd year history demonstrates a dangerous, reckless and out of control ego.

There is only ever one way to deal with a thug and bully.
Longhaul are going to hit him as hard as they can, right between the eyes and there is NOTHING he can do about it.

qtee luv.......................what pleases me so much is that YOU know it.

L2P



Quote "but good luck too .... if I thought industrial action to stop the LHR base would keep things as they are, then I would go for it too..... I just see the LHR base as a certainty, and dont want to give up everything else to stop it.... so I will take it to make the best of it .....

Get me a bucket...........you make me sick.

BTW Had it occurred to you that the 120 AUSTRALIAN contractors ONLY stand to gain a position beyond 11 months if the FAAA win their battle?
I guess not.

QANTAS. THE WORLDS GREEDIEST AIRLINE