Aerlingus Cabin Crew want the best of both worlds

cornbb

whycliff wrote: »

Don't comment on something you know nothing about. The 850 hours is 850 hours flight time, not actual working hours. So its basically from the time the aircraft takes of until it lands and reaches its gate.

Having worked in Aerlingus in the past i know how it goes.

As Cabin Crew you check in an hour before a flight, and 2 hours before an Transatlantic flight.

Cabin Crew work unsocialble hours 7 days a week, bank holiday, easter, christmas all year round.

Its not all the glitz and glam that some people would make it out to be.

You fly to a destination, turn around and come back.

If you do happen to do a Transatlantic flight, You fly out for up to a 14 hour duty, and then stay one night away from your family/friends and fly back the following day through the night Irish Time.
You get home and your not worth a sh*t for 2 days because your body clock is all over the place.

There are many different aspects to this dispute. One of which is Aerlingus do not wish to grant a half hour meal break during a duty. A duty could last anything up to a 10 hour day. In what other job would someone not get a half hour break during a 9 hour day?

In saying that, there are plenty of people in Aerlingus that should be glad they have a job.

I'm neither siding with the Union or the Company, but people should know all the facts.

Its an intrinsic part of the career. Its not like this lifestyle was sprung upon cabin crew out of the blue... claiming that AL are discriminating is frankly ridiculous. Regularly flying across the Atlantic is inevitably going to be disruptive to family life, anyone with a head on their shoulders knows that.

I do think a 30 minute break would be in order, but if you get a couple of days off after your shift in lieu of that, then maybe its worth it.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in Aer Lingus who work hard, but I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest. All that I'm detecting out of this dispute is a sense of entitlement without the slightest understanding that when times are tough, you need to work your ass off for you and your company to get ahead.

mikemac

I'd love a neutral explanation on what this whole issue is about, it's getting complicated now by both sides issueing press releases. Surely it's more then a 30 minute break

And the aviation forum has posters taking sides between management and the workers.

I suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle, it's rare one side is completly right and the other side all wrong.

Some mess anyway and it's the passengers who suffer.
And in the long term the airline as passengers worry over flights so book with their competitors

outandabout

Here's a suggestion.

If the Labour Court issues a ruling which is binding and accepted by both sides, there should be a clause stating that if either side breaks the agreement they should be fined.

I'd make the fine substantial, say €100,000 euro, to help ensure that neither side made agreements they had no intention of keeping.

If a particular union or company breaks agreements on a frequent basis then a heavier penalty should be imposed.

kevinmcc

This is what I found on facebook from CC as to their strike reasons!

To all my friends , these are the real truths as to why the cabin crew in aer lingus need to stand up for their rights , could you take this lying down? Please support Aer lingus cabin crew ... all info below available on impact facebook page

All meal breaks removed from European flights. This means cabin crew can work shifts of up to 11 hours with no meal break. There was formerly an entitlement to a half-hour break after six hours duties.

Double shifts where staff must work on flights out and back from a destination twice in a day. (eg: Dublin-London-Dublin-London-Dublin. These ‘doubles’ can also include other destinations of similar distance, eg, Paris; Amsterdam; Hamburg. The doubles mean a working day of up to 11 hours – and more if there are delays for any reason.

Duties can be changed by 3 hours on the day of duty. Eg, you could come in to do a 7am flight to be told you are on a different flight departing up to three hours later – and can finish work three hours later than rostered. A nightmare if you have kids or other caring responsibilities.
Similarly, duties can be changed by up to four hours the day before the rostered shift.

The existing right to request one weekend off duty every eight weeks is abolished under the new rosters.

The minimum of 8 rostered days off per month is reduced to 7.

Cabin crew can be sent to work away from base for 26 days at a stretch. No such duty has yet been rostered, but there are big fears about how this would work in practice, particularly for those with childcare and other caring responsibilities.

The rest period on transatlantic flights has been halved from 24 to 12 hours. This means that staff can do the outward flight to, say, New York and then work the flight back to Ireland that evening.

drdeadlift

ei need to get there crap sorted or else all the profit saving measures taken so far are a complete waste.
I was going to go away with them next week,but once the cc kick of with more industrial action i decided against going.
If Aerlingus are willing to advertise low cost as ryanair do the company must function similar simple as.

Lord Trollington

will1977 wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but do they not spend 3 nights when they are in the US in 4/5 star hotels before they fly back and then get another 2/3 days off after they come back ??

You are wrong.

For the most part theY spend one night in the US in a hotel. New York, Boston, Chicago.
One might think this would be great, a night in those cities, but its not like that whatsoever.
Fly back the next day through the night Irish time and have 2 days off when you get home.
The 2 days you get off are the 2 days you are entitled to off that week, its not a perk that goes with flying to the USA.

There was a few years ago a flight to L.A where they spent up to 3 nights there, but these weren't daily flights.

ixoy

The thing is some of the wording there: the notice says only the maximum/minimuns. So staff may be asked for a 11hr shift with no break but is it actually likely? Are they only giving extreme scenarios?

Also: Why have so many cabin crew accepted it if it's such a horrendous deal?

And what is the ratio of EI staff per flight compared to Ryanair? As I recall it was much higher but, since they struggled to remove staff, they needed to make savings elsewhere in staff wages. That and other exhorbant costs (e.g. they didn't outsource in-flight meals like everyone else, driving up costs).

De Dannan

SIX PACK wrote: »

I was meant to fly with AerLingus today but flight is cancelled, Why the hell cant the Airline operate & replace the crew with emergency staff so the customers can get to & from their destination, Im so angry Knew i should of flew Ryanair

The staff were looked after so well for so long. they all need a dose of economic reality. If they want to strike, and I would say the same to public servent, dont pay them and get in replacements , they will soon see sense when they start not getting paid at all

mikemac

Impact won't strike, they aren't getting support from the other unions.
Very rare you hear of strikes these days, unions are not what they once were.

This is going to drag on with work to rule and obstruction on one side and issuing on the spot suspensions on the other

This company has always had a terrible industrial relations record, management and the unions are as bad as each other

jackiebaron

SIX PACK wrote: »

I was meant to fly with AerLingus today but flight is cancelled, Why the hell cant the Airline operate & replace the crew with emergency staff so the customers can get to & from their destination, Im so angry Knew i should of flew Ryanair

should have flown with

De Dannan

There are many people in the country who would take those jobs if they were on offer

novarock

In my opinion, the whole country needs to change moreso to the "things need to change, now!" attitude from the "im owed everything" attitude. Everyone is taking a hit, both financially, and in their working conditions. The last thing we need as a nation is stuff like this - Aer Lingus provide a service, a luxury one at that, a lot of the thousands of passengers cant afford to have to deal with a small minority of workers not being happy with conditions.

If they are not happy with what the company feels is necessary to keep flying, then step aside - there are 500,000 people on the register that probably would work with those conditions and that without a moments hesitation.

In all honesty, why get into a profession like that if you are unprepared for the anti-social aspect. Aviation is a 24 hour 365 day business, from the pilots down to the ground crew.

OutlawPete

De Dannan wrote: »

There are many people in the country who would take those jobs if they were on offer

They're not on offer.

jackiebaron

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Load of socialist codswallop.

Best way to ensure our kids have decent employment is to get off our arses and work to earn revenue.

Not hide behind a group of misguided idiots who think the world owes us a living.

And your grandkids are going to be saying "Why the **** can't you work 90 hours a week with no vacation and no insurance and no pension??? Everyone does it!! Damn you!"

Ever deteriorating working conditions over the course of years become the norm and then it's much easier to degrade these conditions even further as long as people like you don't have the wherewithall to question the motives because you're too busy sniping at those who do push back.

You see some people who resist degrading working conditions aren't in fact lazy, good-for-nothing pinkos as you seem to think. Many of them resist these measures because they know that they are part of a larger pattern to squeeze the sh1t out of workers to fatten the bottom line but as long as there are people like you around to beat the "get a job, scumbag!" drum then resistance to these measures becomes all the more difficult.

De Dannan

[QUOTE=novarock;70202984
In all honesty, why get into a profession like that if you are unprepared for the anti-social aspect. Aviation is a 24 hour 365 day business, from the pilots down to the ground crew.[/QUOTE]

I would agree. A lot of the cabin crew are women who say the roster changes mess them up becasue they have kids.
If they are raising a family they probably should be working in a job that was less demanding on time. Let younger people do it who are willing to work the crazy hours

cornbb

kevinmcc wrote: »

This is what I found on facebook from CC as to their strike reasons!

I'm dying to see evidence of all this from a reputable source...

Edit: ok, I'll eat my words. I found it here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0121/1224288008887.html?via=rel

However from what I gather, this was all out in the open before the agreement was signed and the unions are the ones reneging on the deal...

Gingersnaps

I love the work class attitude that exists in this country.

f@ck your strike if i cannot get to where i want

It explains why

We have unions with no power.

People on crap wages.

a goverment who plays golf with manageing directors rather than look after us

Ryanair are very unethical in this dispute imo. They have given aer lingus plays at below market rate and these are most likely staffed by people who are more delighted they are in a plane than in there own country.

I just wish for once we could all sit down and look at these situtations and realise that while is making our travel plans difficult

It has the real effect of totally screwing up our kids chances of decent employment as it will become the standard in jobs.

But not to worry you can get where your going so screw everyone else i imagine.

oh well

Well said. I totally agree. Too many employers are using the current recession to exploit workers. Employees are expected to work longer hours and work in senior capacities without extra renumeration.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

And your grandkids are going to be saying "Why the **** can't you work 90 hours a week with no vacation and no insurance and no pension??? Everyone does it!! Damn you!"

Are my grandkids american?

jimmycrackcorm

Cabin crew complain about working 11 hour shifts but only 4 of those hours are actually flight time. So how is it they can't get a meal break in between.

FlutterinBantam

jackiebaron wrote: »

And your grandkids are going to be saying "Why the **** can't you work 90 hours a week with no vacation and no insurance and no pension??? Everyone does it!! Damn you!"

Ever deteriorating working conditions over the course of years become the norm and then it's much easier to degrade these conditions even further as long as people like you don't have the wherewithall to question the motives because you're too busy sniping at those who do push back.

You see some people who resist degrading working conditions aren't in fact lazy, good-for-nothing pinkos as you seem to think. Many of them resist these measures because they know that they are part of a larger pattern to squeeze the sh1t out of workers to fatten the bottom line but as long as there are people like you around to beat the "get a job, scumbag!" drum then resistance to these measures becomes all the more difficult.

Hmmm

Your location rather aptly sums you up friend.

rossie1977

Joey the lips wrote: »

We have unions with no power.

People on crap wages.

what country we talking about here, certainly ain't ireland, we have unions in this country who could bring the entire place to a standstill if they wanted, as for wages we priced ourselves out of the market years ago, thats why the multinationals are leaving

Joey the lips

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Cabin crew complain about working 11 hour shifts but only 4 of those hours are actually flight time. So how is it they can't get a meal break in between.

This dispute is about flight time and thats there point. Its worth being familular with the arguement first.

cornbb

Joey the lips wrote: »

This dispute is about flight time and thats there point. Its worth being familular with the arguement first.

The dispute about flight time is about increasing 800 hours to 850 hours. They signed up to it and yet they are still disputing it. What am I missing here?

vbold

cornbb wrote: »

The dispute about flight time is about increasing 800 hours to 850 hours. They signed up to it and yet they are still disputing it. What am I missing here?

The dispute is about how the company are implementing the agreed flight time.
The crew have no issue with working the agreed extra hours however the company are choosing to implement the rosters in a way which is making it impossible for the staff to work the roster.

david75

Wanna make sure I understand this.

-as they werent happy with new rostering, loads of them took the redundancy and the accompanying handsome payouts last year to leave .

-they left but were still on the books and still working for Aer Lingus but on shorter hours and on the new roster.

-now they are striking under the guise of refusing to work the new roster when in fact it is because they are still working even though they took redundancy and now the strike is on in reality because theyve been hit with tax bills for their redundancy money which is no longer exempt as they have continued to work the jobs theyre supposed to be resigned from.

have i got that right??

can anyone else say banana republic?

sack the lot of them. plenty of people would be thankful for the work.

vbold

david75 wrote: »

-as they werent happy with new rostering, loads of them took the redundancy and the accompanying handsome payouts last year to leave .

No, redundant staff are redundant. I don't know where you get this idea that cabin crew got paid redundancy and still had a job ? Perhaps you are mixing them up with the ground staff who migrated to a new contract.

david75 wrote: »

-they left but were still on the books and still working for Aer Lingus but on shorter hours and on the new roster.

Again as above, and how would you get re-employed on shorter hours than you left on in any case ????

david75 wrote: »

-now they are striking under the guise of refusing to work the new roster when in fact it is because they are still working even though they took redundancy and now the strike is on in reality because theyve been hit with tax bills for their redundancy money which is no longer exempt as they have continued to work the jobs theyre supposed to be resigned from.

have i got that right??

No, you don't. I think you are thinking of ground staff or some other departments, none of that applied to cabin crew. Any cabin crew who were made redundant are no longer working for AL.

david75 wrote: »

sack the lot of them. plenty of people would be thankful for the work.

Yes, great proposition, lets sack everybody in the country and re-hire us all on 20% less pay. That'll solve all our problems.... :rolleyes:

cornbb

vbold wrote: »

The dispute is about how the company are implementing the agreed flight time.
The crew have no issue with working the agreed extra hours however the company are choosing to implement the rosters in a way which is making it impossible for the staff to work the roster.

What do the unions want to do, exactly? Draw up the rosters themselves? I find it hard to believe that the rosters are "impossible" to work, given that a large proportion of the cabin crew still say they'd be happy to work them. I think the unions would have been adept enough at labour negotiations to account for implementation details if they had been a real concern.

This type of carry-on has been carried over from the days when the likes of EI were state-owned companies - unions and staff could dick around as much as they liked with minimal consequences. The company would never go under - worst case scenario was that the taxpayer would bail them out.

Its like a hangover they can't/won't shake off. Now that they have to compete in the real world the unions may someday have to face the fact that their antics could make the airline uncompetitive and ultimately send them under.

Either that or Michael O'Leary will step in, and they'll realise how cushy things were all along...

ixoy

According to that Irish Times article, there is no problem with them taking a break. It's just that they can't take it at the same time. What is unresonable about that?

And again: How much of the CC does Impact represent? It seems only a fraction so how are the other staff coping?

Also, once more, what is the staff ratio per plane compared to other comparable airlines? I thought they were relatively over-staffed, hence cost cutting measures required elsewhere.

cornbb

vbold wrote: »

Yes, great proposition, lets sack everybody in the country and re-hire us all on 20% less pay. That'll solve all our problems.... :rolleyes:

If certain parts of the workforce could roll up their sleeves and agree to be a little more flexible, that would actually go a long way towards solving the country's problems.

david75

vbold wrote: »

No, redundant staff are redundant. I don't know where you get this idea that cabin crew got paid redundancy and still had a job ? Perhaps you are mixing them up with the ground staff who migrated to a new contract.



Again as above, and how would you get re-employed on shorter hours than you left on in any case ????



No, you don't. I think you are thinking of ground staff or some other departments, none of that applied to cabin crew. Any cabin crew who were made redundant are no longer working for AL.



Yes, great proposition, lets sack everybody in the country and re-hire us all on 20% less pay. That'll solve all our problems.... :rolleyes:

Thats exactly how it was reported on the news the other night and its being investigated as to why they took redundancy but are still working for the company and now complaining about what they agreed to. It's ridiculous.

vbold

cornbb wrote: »

What do the unions want to do, exactly? Draw up the rosters themselves?

CC are happy to work the old roster system as was in place until the start of this week. With the obvious agreement that they had to increase their flight hours to 850.

cornbb wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that the rosters are "impossible" to work, given that a large proportion of the cabin crew still say they'd be happy to work them.

again the cc are happy to work the old rosters. The new rosters are onerous in comparison and cause undue hardship to anyone with a family or care responsibilities

cornbb wrote: »

I think the unions would have been adept enough at labour negotiations to account for implementation details if they had been a real concern.

I'm not going to stand up for the union in concern. As far as I am aware this issue has been in dispute for 15 months and the company has only implemented these changes this week.

cornbb wrote: »

Either that or Michael O'Leary will step in, and they'll realise how cushy things were all along...

That's called the race to the bottom.

J K

De Dannan wrote: »

There are many people in the country who would take those jobs if they were on offer

The fact that there are unemployed people in an economy or in society doesn't and shouldn't have any influence or relevance to employee rights or industrial relations issues inside any given company.

Those people who want jobs are being supported financially by people in current employment who are paying taxes which facilitate social welfare payments.

Your plan to sack employees who take industrial action will lead to widespread unrest, strikes, riots etc. Just as well you're not running the country.

vbold

david75 wrote: »

Thats exactly how it was reported on the news the other night and its being investigated as to why they took redundancy but are still working for the company and now complaining about what they agreed to. It's ridiculous.

let me google that for you.

SIPTU and Aer Lingus at issue with revenue commisioners not impact who represent CC - http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0111/aerlingus.html

Ground handling staff await decision on deal with company re: redundancy.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nervous-aer-lingus-staff-await-decision-on-redundancy-liability-2370555.html

david75

"Aer Lingus insists it is entitled to introduce the new rosters under the terms of the Greenfield cost reduction plan, which 93% of cabin crew accepted in a ballot. The airlines says every other grade has fully implemented Greenfield reforms."

So they overwhelmingly agreed to the new rosters but wont work them? wtf?

vbold

david75 wrote: »

"Aer Lingus insists it is entitled to introduce the new rosters under the terms of the Greenfield cost reduction plan, which 93% of cabin crew accepted in a ballot. The airlines says every other grade has fully implemented Greenfield reforms."

So they overwhelmingly agreed to the new rosters but wont work them? wtf?

They overwhelmingly agreed to the increased hours not the implementation method hence the dispute.

kevinmcc

vbold "again the cc are happy to work the old rosters. The new rosters are onerous in comparison and cause undue hardship to anyone with a family or care responsibilities"

And having a job in the airline industry doesn't mean you need to be flexible :rolleyes:

What about when they go to New York, Boston, Chicago, Orlando?
Who looks after their family responsibilities then? Or when they are stuck in an ash storm? They're all pretty happy enough with being stuck in the other side of the atlantic. What happens when a plane goes tech? Family responsibilities my hole!

david75

from rte.ie

RTÉ News has learnt that Revenue has issued tax bills to some Aer Lingus staff.
1 of 1 [URL="javascript:void(0)"][/URL][URL="javascript:void(0)"][/URL]Aer Lingus - 2008 'leave and return' scheme questioned


RTÉ News has learnt that Revenue has issued tax bills to some Aer Lingus staff because the tax body believes a controversial 2008 redundancy scheme was not valid.
Under the scheme, around 715 staff left the airline with a redundancy package worth nine weeks pay per year of service - but returned to work at the airline within weeks on lower terms and conditions.
Both SIPTU and Aer Lingus have insisted that the redundancies were genuine, and qualify for generous tax relief.
Under the so-called 'leave and return' scheme in 2008, almost 1,100 staff left Aer Lingus with the generous redundancy packages. Within weeks, 715 returned to work for the airline.
At the time, some queried whether this counted as a redundancy. If it did, the airline was entitled to a government rebate for part of the redundancy costs. The Department of Enterprise, Trade & Innovation told the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee that the rebate could be worth €5m to the company.
For their part, the redundant workers would get favourable tax treatment of the package - which could cost the taxpayer millions in tax foregone.
But late last year, when the Dublin Airport Authority tried to do a similar deal for staff transferring from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2, Revenue told it this did not qualify as a redundancy - a ruling the DAA has appealed.
It then emerged that the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Innovation still has not approved the so-called 'leave and return' scheme as qualifying for the State rebate. The normal time for processing an application for the rebate is six months.
Meanwhile, just before Christmas, some Aer Lingus staff who had applied for tax relief on their redundancy lump sums were told that they did not qualify for redundancy tax treatment, and would have to repay any relief they had been given.
This afternoon, SIPTU confirmed to RTÉ News that members had received such tax demands. A union spokesperson said that as far as it was concerned, its members in Aer Lingus had been made redundant, and appointed to completely different jobs where they were paid up to 20% less. On that basis, SIPTU believe these were actual redundancies.
Revenue said it could not comment on individual cases. The Department of Enterprise, Trade & Innovation said it was still dealing with issues of clarification with Aer Lingus. It said tax demands were a matter for Revenue.

vbold

kevinmcc wrote: »

And having a job in the airline industry doesn't mean you need to be flexible :rolleyes:

The CC are flexible and have worked rosters for many years. Many have been in the industry for many years and are used to the lifestyle that the type of work entails. Could it be inconceivable to you that the new rosters are making family life and care responsibilities impossible.

kevinmcc wrote: »

What about when they go to New York, Boston, Chicago, Orlando?
Who looks after their family responsibilities then?

A partner, childcare or family, what do you think, bears ???

kevinmcc wrote: »

Or when they are stuck in an ash storm? They're all pretty happy enough with being stuck in the other side of the atlantic. What happens when a plane goes tech? Family responsibilities my hole!

Humm, an emergency situation, probably a partner, childcare or family ?

Do you really think all 2000 staff would be happy to be stuck somewhere without being able to get home to family? Quite a general statement really isn't it.

kevinmcc

vbold wrote: »

Do you really think all 2000 staff would be happy to be stuck somewhere without being able to get home to family? Quite a general statement really isn't it.

Yes actually I do, I worked at the airport in New York during the ash storm, and all crew who I spoke to stuck there were loving it, raking in daily allowances whilst sitting in the Radisson or Marriott's.

vbold

david75 wrote: »

from rte.ie

RTÉ News has learnt that Revenue has issued tax bills to some Aer Lingus staff.
1 of 1 [URL="javascript:void(0)"][/URL][URL="javascript:void(0)"][/URL]Aer Lingus - 2008 'leave and return' scheme questioned

Both SIPTU and Aer Lingus have insisted that the redundancies were

and you didn't bother to quote the second article but i've highlighted the important bit from the first text for you.

And here is the quote from the second one.
"It emerged yesterday that two years after the 715 ground handling staff "

again ground handling staff - no cabin crew.

david75

It's a bit selfish to have children and have that kind of job anyways. Some mothers..suppose that explains the whole 'want our cake and eat it' mentality they have.

vbold

david75 wrote: »

It's a bit selfish to have children and have that kind of job anyways. Some mothers..suppose that explains the whole 'want our cake and eat it' mentality they have.

So now it's fault for having children is it..... I'll leave the rest of that absurd statement of yours...

kevinmcc

vbold wrote: »

So now it's fault for having children is it..... I'll leave the rest of that absurd statement of yours...

vbold why don't you go back out to EI HQ to your little march, your not getting any sympathy here :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

vbold wrote: »

So now it's fault for having children is it..... I'll leave the rest of that absurd statement of yours...

Realistically, it's not exactly a job that completely meshes with children. There are many factors that could cause delays of hours or days - if they're really that worried about their children, they'd try to get transferred into only short-haul or ground crew job.

cornbb

vbold wrote: »

That's called the race to the bottom.

That may be so, but its also reality and Aer Lingus have to compete with it, toes to toe. The unions need to wake up and realise this if they want to have any staff left to represent. Like it or not, people simply have to work hard when the economy is doing badly. If they do so, everyone benefits. If they dick around like what the unions are doing now, no-one wins.

vbold

OisinT wrote: »

Realistically, it's not exactly a job that completely meshes with children. There are many factors that could cause delays of hours or days - if they're really that worried about their children, they'd try to get transferred into only short-haul or ground crew job.

Realistically, for many very many staff, they do manage work and family life.
The issue is that the new rosters will and do take away many of the options and facilities which allow the (mostly) women to do their job and have a family life

What if the new roster does not allow short haul only options or options which are early morning starts to cater for being home in the evening for childcare ?

Lets be clear here - from the Irish times report
(linked as some have trouble with google http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0121/1224288008887.html?via=rel)

Here is a selection of the changes in the roster

The right to request one weekend off duty every eight weeks is abolished.
Duty hours can be changed by three hours on the day of duty.
Duties can be changed by up to four hours on the day before a rostered shift.
Minimum of eight rostered days off a month is reduced to seven.
Cabin crew can be sent to work away from base for 26 days at a stretch.

Delays and emergencies are part and parcel of that job and can be dealt with however if you can't see that the above changes to a roster would cause quite a problem to anyone's life then there is very little point discussing it with you.

And to be clear, staff are being asked to agree to the above conditions when they arrive in to work and are then "taken off the payroll" if they don't.

FreudianSlippers

vbold wrote: »

Realistically, for many very many staff, they do manage work and family life.
The issue is that the new rosters will and do take away many of the options and facilities which allow the (mostly) women to do their job and have a family life

What if the new roster does not allow short haul only options or options which are early morning starts to cater for being home in the evening for childcare ?

Lets be clear here - from the Irish times report
(linked as some have trouble with google http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0121/1224288008887.html?via=rel)

Here is a selection of the changes in the roster

The right to request one weekend off duty every eight weeks is abolished.
Duty hours can be changed by three hours on the day of duty.
Duties can be changed by up to four hours on the day before a rostered shift.
Minimum of eight rostered days off a month is reduced to seven.
Cabin crew can be sent to work away from base for 26 days at a stretch.

Delays and emergencies are part and parcel of that job and can be dealt with however if you can't see that the above changes to a roster would cause quite a problem to anyone's life then there is very little point discussing it with you.

And to be clear, staff are being asked to agree to the above conditions when they arrive in to work and are then "taken off the payroll" if they don't.

Look. You went into arbitration, a decision was made - deal with it.

vbold

cornbb wrote: »

That may be so, but its also reality and Aer Lingus have to compete with it, toes to toe. The unions need to wake up and realise this if they want to have any staff left to represent. Like it or not, people simply have to work hard when the economy is doing badly. If they do so, everyone benefits. If they dick around like what the unions are doing now, no-one wins.

The increase in flight times can be done without the changes the company want to make to the rosters.

If you'd prefer you could fire them all, put 2000 people on the dole. hire a load of east Europeans who are willing to work any contract under any conditions and are burnt out in a couple of years. It would greatly benefit the economy...!

coylemj

I'm afraid that the people who work for Aer Lingus don't get much sympathy from the general population. For years they availed of high wages, protected jobs and working conditions and they lorded it over everyone who was unfortunate to live in the Swords/Malahide part of Dublin and had to put up with them bragging about the foreign holidays they were able to take for next to nothing. As if that wasn't bad enough, they had Roisin Shortall T.D. on a short leash to go on the tele when told to by SIPTU to fight the union's corner in any PR battle that needed fighting.

The maintenance guys in TEAM Aer Lingus really took the biscuit. This company was built up using Aer Lingus (i.e. taxpayers) money which built that huge hanger in Dublin Airport. Yet when the company was sold to SR Technics, Aer Lingus was so delighted to be rid of the workers that the money they received for the company was handed straight out to the workers in return for them surrendering the 'letter of comfort' each had received as a guarantee of a job back in Aer Lingus if the company was ever sold.

Then when SR Tecnics discovered that they could do the maintenance cheaper in Zurich, Switzerland of all places, they rightly walked away from the spoilt brats they had taken on in Dublin whereupon the unions blamed the government for the loss of their jobs!

vbold

OisinT wrote: »

Look. You went into arbitration, a decision was made - deal with it.

good comeback.