To Kaptin M

[BrisBoy]

Those who lived through the Hawke years may remember that the Labor party platform opposed uranium mining. Unfortunately there were three mines in the NT that were of significant importance. Contorted arguments that when sanitised of propoganda put forward a view that could best be summarised as, some uranium is good (the mines in question) whilst other uranium is bad.

We find similar logic applied to pay increases. Sandwiching The Airline Dispute were pay increases in excess of 30%. In this time when 'fair and equitable' was the catch phrase neither applied.
Sir Peter Abeles' contract should have been cancelled, assets threatened and his position advertised. Perhaps Gordon Bethune may have been interested in a little CEO work down under.
The politicians should have been next. Parliament dissolved with personal property in jeopardy and replacements sought. Maybe the jolly "Rummy" and henchmen Wolfowitz, Pearle and Rove could have been installed. At least then we could have cut out the middleman and embarrassment of American words spoken with an Australian accent.

As we know this did not occur. If 30% is good enough for the employer then it is good enough for the employee. If 30% is good enough for the politicians then it is good enough for the people. The goose and gander comes to mind and the argument of good and bad pay rises belongs in the same garbage bin as good and bad uranium. To the same bin can be consigned the "you resigned" chorus. No more space need be wasted analysing just how many industrial disputes in Australia's history incorporated common law writs.

What we saw was the spectacle of Bob Hawke slinking from the farmhouse in the dead of night, snout still dripping with 32% pay rise, to the Australian barnyard wall and add that extra line to the way we are supposed to live our lives.

All this as we know, and are reminded, happened a long time ago. So where do we find ourselves today? Recently an executive received a $33M pay out. The justification being increase in profit of the enterprise attributed to him. I would argue that whilst his skill and expertise were indeed a factor for which he should be fairly rewarded, the efforts of all in the organisation were also responsible.
In our own industry we find the words"record profit" and "job cuts" in the same newspaper article and we have executive bonus schemes against a backdrop of reduced working conditions.
Is it any wonder my old friend 'greybeard' (the landing competition is on) asks where the logic is.

I do not for one moment suggest an industrial dispute years ago led to all our problems. However just as the whole consists of the sum of the parts this era when "the Labor governments of the 1980's and early 1990's oversaw the greatest redistribution of wealth in the country's history : from bottom to top" (John Pilger), has it's place.

We can go further and ask how intelligent people condemn at one time, or in some, the very same thing accepted at another, or in others.
This applies as much to the world situation today as it did in 1989.

[TheNightOwl]

I catch a "mouse", amos, every time you respond, 'cos you just can't help yourself, can you?

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[What_Wat_2003]

Kapitan M, there could NEVER be a negotiated settlement because after the resignations, the AFAP represented NO pilots still working for the airlines. They resigned their membership.
Therefore, as Abeles himself said, he had no professional body to negotiate with!
Are you stupid? You gloss over this important point time and again.
I'll say it again. The AFAP represented NO pilots then in the airlines, so there could NEVER be a negotiated settlement. Quite simple. Think hard about it and even you will get it.

[amos2]

There once was a Techie called Owl
Who was constantly acting so foul
Cos the pilots got shafted
And he hated those Bastards
So much that he jammed up his bowels.

[TheNightOwl]

Nice one, amos, almost.
You'll never get it right, will you? I'm convinced you must be lacking in some faculty, mate, 'cos you just don't understand! Time to shout, excuse me! I DO NOT HATE PILOTS! I even have some as close friends, and with whom I fly occasionally. I like most of them, like I like most other people, although there are one or two for whom I will confess a particular distaste, anyone spring to mind? Of course the 89 pilots were shafted, I would never disagree, but it was by their own Federation! W_W_2003 has it right, read his reply to KaptinM!
Of course Brian McCarthy advocated "forgive and forget", his back was to the wall and he wanted a breathing space, but do you expect me to believe that it would have been the end of the Federation's scheming? Not a chance, the body would have retired, re-grouped forces, strengthened their positiion and been back ASAP with renewed demands.
I don't believe that the current attitudes shown to the 89ers is "forgive" and forget, just forget and get on with your lives. If, as KaptinM accuses, Nitpak made a beeline for Aus to get a job, isn't it somewhat hypocritical of him to have nicked off to Asia and taken the position of some aspiring Asian flyer to keep himself with an income?
Now, would it be possible to have a straight answer to a straight, and perfectly innocent, question? I really don't care from where the answer comes, but it has been at the back of my mind all this time, and I'd like to know the truth. NOT the truth as anyone with an axe to grind sees it, just the truth of the matter.
When the dispute arose, is it true that the INITIAL claim arose from the fact that the TN pilots were due a biennial pay revue, and that the AN pilots' revue was due the following year? Please believe there is NO mischief-making behind this question, I'd just like to know the truth.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[greybeard]

Nicked off and stole an Asia Flyer's job.

Now that is just a bit rich, we were excluded from any employment in Aust and took no-ones job in Asia, as tell me what company would hire a pilot on Expat terms if a local was available, including 90+ F/Os in SIA on Expat terms.

All who came to Aust had to make a descision of consience, as did the returnees, let the results show who did what, please.

[TheNightOwl]

greybeard: I was comparing the actions, i.e. someone coming to Aus to take an advertised vacancy with someone leaving Aus to take a, presumably, advertised vacancy. Wherein lies the difference? If the comparison is too simplistic, please correct me.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[gaunty]

Eeeerm if my memory serves me correctly, there was at the time prior a worldwide shortage of suitable pilots.

If there were any spare it was because they had not made the grade, and the local domestics were recalling wannabes by the gross who had previously been given either the, go think about another career or don't ring us we'll ring you routine.

Any body hanging around spare, was generally, not hanging around by choice.

There were in fact, many airlines worldwide who could not believe their luck, when a large pool of seriously well trained and experienced crew bobbed up out of the blue.

And then we don't need to exhume the issue of one large European airline whilst trying to lure some Aussies to citizenship to make them permanent, find that they are listed by the country of their birth as political dissidents. In Australia no less

The fact that most of them had little if any trouble getting a seat OS speaks volumes.

I'll spell it out if you want.

[M Nitpak]

Amos2:-

A well known giant amongst literary midgets.

[greybeard]

Night Owl,

Yes that is too simplistic,

Regardless of the "YOU ALL RESIGNED" school of thought, there was an INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE in process, the resignaions being a necessary and tragic part of the process to protect the assets of people who had in the "minds"(??) of the Companies/Government of the day challenged the status quo.

Resigning and it's process was one of the penalities of having some PRINCIPLES, something lacking in the actions of others.

I, among so many others, were still qualified, legal, licenced AUSTRALIAN PILOTS who were denied the moral opportunity of exercising our rights of association and negotiation of our working conditions. Further we were listed as dissidents by our own Goverment, which was a nice touch and also by the production of the "document", listed as not being safe to be in the cockpits of the returned/imported Pilots.

The "RESIGNED" excuse is just one of the sad, sad excuses of the morally bankrupt who will endevour to justify their actions to the masses who enjoyed the fact that the "fat cat" Pilots had been "Sorted".

The actions of some people who have achieved the appropriate historical title will be part of the history of the world for all time.

[TheNightOwl]

Thanks, greybeard, for your reply, and it's civility. I accept that you all thought resignation was the only way to protect your assets and, indeed, so it was. However, having resigned, did you really expect the Companies/Governments of the day to reconsider their actions when they had you on the ropes?
I still feel that the bare bones of the argument comes down to the question: "Were my principles worth the loss I subsequently suffered"? Again, I may be accused of over-simplification but, if the answer is "YES", then you can have no complaint other than about your treatment by your employers and the Government. If "NO", then perhaps it would have been more judicial to swallow your pride, return and re-group for another day.
Please understand, I hold NO brief for the treatment meted out by your masters (for that is how they see themselves in Industrial Relations terms), but a great deal of the advice given by your Federation was, I believe, flawed in its reasoning and basis.
I am not, thankfully, on of the "scabs" you all loathe so avidly, merely one who was closely involved and witnessed the on-going dramas over the months. No doubt amos2 will jump in here to remind me I am a "scab-lover"!
You may well be correct in your view of "Fat Cat pilots being sorted" as that held by the general public, but it is not true of those of us who were, at the time, within the industry. For my part, I feel that 89 was the beginning of the end for AN, we lost far more experience than any airline could afford at ANY time, and we never really recovered from the damage. It was a sad time for the business, and has become even sadder with the passing of time in respect of the on-going rancour still expressed after 14 years by the 89ers. It seems none of you will ever get over it, perhaps it really isn't possible, I don't know. As was said yesterday, no-one will ever forgive but, surely, it would be better to forget and get on with life.

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Kaptin M]

A quick question between flights, for TNO and other "like-mindeds":
Do you justify the actions of the ex-Ansett cabin crew who are taking the place (albeit perhaps temporarily?) of QANTAS cabin crew, because they (the QF F/A`s) are on strike, and the management is free to use use then to keep the service going? And/or because these ex-AN F/A`s have been out of work for a long time, and need the work to feed themselves and their families?

I look forward to your thoughts.

[TheNightOwl]

Try comparing apples with apples, Kap. Question for you - are the striking QANTAS cabin-crews still employed by QF, or have they resigned to protect their assets? If still employed, then no-one should be taking their places. If not employed, then the field is open for anyone to apply for an advertised position, I would have thought. By what reasoning is the management free to use them? What is the relevant union doing about the situation?

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Arctaurus]

If they (QF F/A's) did happen to resign, then surely the jobs are open to anyone.

Any considered argument would suggest that the nexus between a union's industrial capacity and an employer implies that the union represents employees. Therefore, how can a union legitimately represent people on industrial matters who have resigned?

Any industrial law experts care to comment on the validity or otherwise of this proposition ?

[fruitbatflyer]

Thank you Arctaurus. I am not a legal expert, but believe your post to be about the best handle I have seen on this endless debate. The rights and wrongs of this (and many another) issue become irrelevant when the law is applied. The AFAP got dud advice and their lawyers have a lot to answer for, but as happens so often, it is the lawyers who get the mine while their clients get the shaft. Were the lawyers really attempting to protect the assets of individuals, or those of the union? They failed on both counts. Don't get me started on the professional incompetence of lawyers, except to say that if I displayed the same relative competence in my job as some of those turkeys I would have been grounded or crashed and burned long ago.

[Kaptin M]

I see.
So by your reasoning, Arctaurus - with which fbf concurs - the AFAP was irrelevant, because none of its members were employed.

Any considered argument would suggest that the nexus between a union's industrial capacity and an employer implies that the union represents employees. Therefore, how can a union legitimately represent people on industrial matters who have resigned?

By the same logic, following your "considered argument", none of the CX 49'ers have any right of representation by the HKAOA...nor for that fact, do any of the EX Ansett employees have any right to be represented by their unions wrt monies owing - because they are no longer employed.

As a matter of fact, using this same "logic", an employer needs only to dismiss any employees he wishes, and then tell them that as they are no longer a part of the company they can be replaced by whomever he wishes, and that the union has no right to represent the dismissed workers.

Exercise your grey matter a little more people.

The "You resigned" catchcry of the scabs rings as hollow as Arctaurus' "theory", with the help of TNO and a few others.

Why did 1640, well educated, responsible, professional airline pilots RESIGN?
Allow me to briefly refresh the memories of those (such as Night Owl...who have a "convenient relapse" ), or highlight to the likes of fruitbat (who is a relative newcomer), the reasons.
The pilots had engaged in a 9-5 work rule, because - according to Abeles and Hawke, they were "no different to any other employees".
After almost a week of this, the companies phoned EACH pilot, asking him/her if they would return to work as rostered. The response from EACH pilot was "Talk to my representative, the AFAP."
Each pilot was then told that he was "stood aside" - thereby effectively shutting down ALL services.
The companies then started issuing writs on pilots who had not crewed their rostered flights (those outside the 9-5 period) for unspecified/undetermined damages, for loss of revenue during the week of the 9-5 campaign. In other words, the Captain and First Officer were now individually liable to pay back to the company ALL revenue lost asd result of the flight(s) they didn't crew.
Additionally, our legal advice - from one of THE top legal companies in Australia - was that for every day we remained in the employ of our company, we would EACH become liable for payment of lost revenue of flights that we didn't crew.

It appears that there are a few brave men here on PPRuNe, with a depth of legal knowledge that exceeds those of Australia's leading barristers!
Men who would NOT have followed the expensive legal advice paid for by the AFAP, but who would have been willing to lose ALL of their material property to stay represented by their union.
That IS what you are advocating, isn't it TNO, Arctaurus and others?

And of COURSE, had we been on strike, NONE of the scabs (that drop in here occasionally) would have gone to work to "save" the airlines.

[Wizofoz]

So why did the AFAP instruct you to take part in the 9 to 5 campaign in the first place, when it exposed you to such massive liability?

[flyboy6876]

Kaptin M

2 points if I may.

1. Any employee that is involved in a companys failure does not need to be represented by a union for monies owing as there is a legal obligation to pay them the monies owing for the company going belly up. They are primary creditors as regards to any monies that are available, followed by the ATO (it used to be the other way round).

2. The "same logic" does not apply where an employer dismisses an employee. If it is a wrongful dismissal then the union can represent the employee. I think the difference is where employees resigned, which indicates a voluntary seperation from the employer, therefore what is the driving force behind the unions representing the employee?

This is by no means a comment regarding 89, but simply looking from any industry view point.

[TheNightOwl]

Apart from Wizofoz"s point, did the AFAP instruct the Canberra crew to leave an aircraft full of passengers at the gate because it was 5 o'clock? Perhaps more importantly, Kap, does it not strike you as rather petty that your response to Abeles' comment that you "were no different to any other worker" was to assume that every other worker worked 9 - 5? It was more of a convenient peg on which to hang a very tenuous argument, and all you managed to do was to destroy what little public support remained. When you think about it, you WERE/ARE no different, in that you were/are an employee doing what you were/are paid to do. For your information I, for one, until AN's collapse, had NEVER, in 41 years in aviation, worked other than shifts all my working life.
Once more, I emphasise my repeated arguments, I hold NO brief for the unconscionable behaviour of management, government, et al, and I agree that you were all put in an invidious position. Not for a moment could you, as a body, have accepted the consequences of the writs being served on you but, again, I say that the advice from your Federation and its officers was flawed in the extreme. I believe to this day that they miscalculated the situation from the word "GO", painted themselves into a corner by the belief in their infallibility and YOU (as a body) suffered the consequences. Don't forget that you (as a body) were willing to have the rest of the country's workers accept the restraint asked of them by the government of the day, justified or not, while not being willing to exercise the same restraint because of the perceived notion that you were slipping in the pay parity stakes with "like professions"!!
Don't try to denigrate our opposition to your beliefs with the sneering references above, it won't wash any more. You resigned to protect yourselves from prosecution by the companies, and to ensure that they couldn't get at you financially. I don't know the law, and I'm willing to believe that your legal advice was the best, what else could one expect for a pilot? Equally, don't forget what you left behind in your quest for self-preservation was an industry suddenly bereft of experienced tech. crews who had to be replaced from somewhere for the industry to survive. I know it won't have escaped your notice that only the pilots left, the rest of us were left to pick up the pieces of the shattered industry as best we could, and you wonder at the resentment remaining.

Further to my question above, answered whilst you were flying, what does the fact that, as you refer to them, ".....ex Ansett cabin crews " have to do with QF's problems? AN collapsed a long time ago, surely whoever is being used by QF has no relevance to Ansett? Or is it that this is too good an opportunity to pass to have another snipe at AN and its erstwhile staff? Perhaps you should remember that it isn't TOO long ago that you sat in the RHS of one of our aircraft, Kap, where's the loyalty now?

Kind regards,

TheNightOwl.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

kaptinM reckons Night owl has a convenient relapse. i don't think so. when the feds were running around the countryside drumming up support for this stoush with the airlines and government the good news then was

"don't worry about writs, they are just bluff by the companies. we are expecting them. just ignore them!"

tune changed didn't it ? 1640 intelligent responsible piolts resigned because the AFAP got lilly livered about the writs and TOLD THEM TO !!!!

very intelligent move that. a masterpiece in industrial tactics!!!!!!!

don't beleive me have a read of GO Around No 19.