Subject: Re: Vote for your Future Date sent: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:15:47 +0800

 More of the same from you Member B, Member C here with more of me.

 Typically you are voicing the need for a change of direction - but you provide little of substance to support the concept. The ramifications are far too important to base an entire reversal of strategy on the throwaway line 'time for a change of direction'.

 I put it to you that it is you that indulges in "ideological rhetoric and does not face the harsh realities". The present leadership has demonstrated their ability to operate in the hard light of day and keep the union together through perhaps the worst event experienced in aviation. Quite obviously Demery stated his confidence before Sept 11 and yet you dismissively speak from hindsight. You agree "with many of the points" in the email yet bin the whole thing because it doesn't suit your argument for capitulation. What I'm conscious of is that your team of 'probes' has met with the same fate as all other attempts to negotiate with this management, again, and yet you collectively demonstrate an inability to learn from the experience. Had you been 'upfront' with the Members on this I would be less contemptuous, rather there are still Members waiting for word of the rumoured 'deal'.

 The harsh reality that seems to escape you is that the opposition do not think like us and never will. They are conditioned to different priorities and their rationalisations couldn't be more different to ours. Having run around undermining people's confidence and promising, yes promising, to save the day; your lot have gone off the radar without even an admission of 'no joy'. This is not a luxury enjoyed by the leadership - nor is it required. Yours is the ideological rhetoric that flies in the face of reality. The GC are bound by transparency and are judged in the court of public opinion. This leaves them open to unsubstantiated rhetoric provided by those considerably less informed than themselves who wouldn't survive under the same scrutiny. I look forward to debating your crew at the imminent EGM where we can compare our contrasting logic - some of you should be able to swing by.

 My contrasting Realities:

 a.. The plan for the GC never runs out because it evolves and adapts to whatever is in the best interests of the Membership at the time. You question whether the AOA has survived and yet you wish to make input into what is quite rightly an intense election for its President. Clearly the union is alive despite your assertions and will continue to act in the best interests of its Members - will you?

 b.. Your description of a bust union as one unable or unwilling to take industrial action is ridiculous. Are you suggesting that we should have taken IA at the beginning? Do you know what a lockout is and why it would be bad for us? Cognisant of your description, were we bust before we began? A union is not defined by its ability to carry out IA. If IA is not suited to a dispute then why try to push the Membership into it - particularly if it is against the best interests of the Membership? Even the strong US unions warn against IA in its conventional form. Had we been pursuing an IA agenda we would have been creamed early but certainly by Sept 11. I also dispute falling Membership as a description of a bust union. Many unions face this during a dispute and strangely even more so in times of protracted peace. I wonder how many of these resigned folks have fallen for the negative rhetoric spread by some within the Membership - for whatever political reason.

 c.. So far the only people who haven't dismissed the idea of second union, and I include mgt, is you (and your fellow political philosophers). No one has made a serious, and I use that word intentionally, attempt to create a rival union. It is far harder than you would imagine and not everyone has created a 'dead pilots society' when faced with the circumstances that were in existence at ANZ - once is hardly a trend. Mind you, if you espouse the idea enough you may get to be proved right;-)

 d.. "It appears that the current GC policy is "all or nothing" with regard to the 49ers". 'It appears' isn't good enough Member B - go and find out first hand. Rather than me bore you with an explanation of negotiating tactics why don't you take a breath and try to understand what you see on the news every night. What people declare as an opening position is exactly that. I think that you will find that not everyone is as ready to give up on their mates as you (perhaps they understand the link to their own job security) and the GC position has been stated as 'fair resolution' to the 49er issue - not the same thing at all. Demery is of course entitled to a personal opinion and when giving it states it as so.

 e.. Member B, you tried to have a go at dictating the "re-employment process" (big assumption right there) when you went to meet Nick and Ken. They dicked you and now you want to blame the GC for your failure - doesn't seem logical or fair to me. I consider your consistent assertions about what mgt do want and don't want to do just a whole lot of arrogant speculation. Clearly you have no better idea than anyone else and in fact you proved that when your negotiating experiment went south. You should know that I am not someone who mistakes pessimism for intelligence, you will have to substantiate your beliefs to me.

 f.. Your timeline may be where you fall down Member B. You seem to go from 'indefinitely' to 'have we achieved it yet' so quickly in your positions. Somewhere in between would be 'is it still worth finishing the legals', 'are we dead yet', 'is it worth being an effective union in the future'? When did your clock run out? Who said anything about doing this forever? There actually is money there and it will last for however long the GC decides it will last because they decide how much they are spending and on what. For example, there are a hell of a lot more options available to go and attack mgt but the GC has picked the smartest and reviews its options regularly. Please justify your premise that this campaign has ended?

 g.. "Wait for upturn" does not automatically solve our problems but it could create some for an unprepared inefficient organisation - especially if they can't trash the Rostering limits. Some folks can juggle several levers at once and this would be but one working toward our position rather than away. How about a question for you, is it better to negotiate as a union when times are financially good or bad for the Company? That's possibly what people are referring to.

 h.. The statement that we have never won a court case is simplistic. Gardner won half of his legal battle on Rostering (defendant motion to strike out denied) and had to go to trial for the other half (because there were disputes of fact needing argument). Our case against the CAD was effectively settled to our advantage (because certain variations to the draft CAD 371 were dropped as a result) at the request of the judge because he didn't want to ground the airline - do you remember that? There was a famous case longer ago where the finding was that the agreement was 'binding in honour only'. Ever since then we strictly include the provisions legally required to qualify as a legally binding contract so we don't have that happen again (remember the agreement in question was not drafted by us nor were we as educated on the law as we have had to become now). We also have a case that has been 'frozen' without prejudice for several years now to facilitate negotiations - most seem to still think we had to give it a go and we should always act in good faith. Yes it would be important for the NSW case to get some of the 49ers back on the books if only so they can support the rest of the guys and relieve some of the load on the employed Members. Then we have precedent and a formidable contract for those guys - where does that leave our employer now? You see Member B, not is all as simple as you make out in your broad unsubstantiated (or apparently even researched) statements. You don't know the whole story on the legals because you are not a plaintiff and the lawyers don't want to flag their strategies to the whole world. Maybe there would be some jeopardy in trying to terminate the cases before being heard wrt costs awarded - we could be told to pay for mgts costs as well when if we'd stuck it out we were going to win. Did you know that mgt has filed 'no defence' in some jurisdictions?

 i.. Clearly being reinstated would not make you a scab - are you serious? I put it to you that we are able to make much smarter decisions on these issues after we get a finding or two. Rather than ditch the whole strategy as too tedious or complicated, or whatever your real problem is, let's give the blokes due process and see if we can't demonstrate to mgt that sacking blokes to force through another contract won't work. This is as much about the future as anything else.

(Probably not) Finally

Nij and your GC have not failed and I wonder sometimes whether it is just wishful thinking on your part to make it over. You clearly have some phobias about the 'Dead Pilots Society' coming to haunt you in CX but they appear at this stage to be unfounded. Remember these blokes who were never in the union are not necessarily waiting for the next decent one to come along so they can join it. We had these sorts of 'never been a member' proportions for years but you weren't concerned then - quite rightly.

Would it not be more useful to get your profoundly knowledgeable self into a GC seat to vote your conscience there? Time for you to make good on that responsibility of Membership and contribute where you have to back up your position (it is good training I can assure you). We do not have the luxury of change for changes sake. The reality is that this current course of action is a change from our previous capitulation tactic - which got us where? How will you feel when the first couple of cases go well and mgt settle out with the rest? How will you feel when it is back to 4 man on AKL and other sensible rostering mechanisms? Do you really believe that these committed corporate executives are going to come good because they were allowed to win? Does this expectation have precedent? Who do you really think we are up against and what makes you so scared of them?

I will be voting for Nigel because he knows what we are up against and what it takes to resist them.

Member C

Dear XXX,

 Thank you for your email containing the arguments from Member A and I presume Don. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to present an argument to all of the persons that you have sent this email to, many of whom I know. As always a well-written essay and I find myself nodding and agreeing with many of the points as I read it. However it is more of the ideological rhetoric and does not face the harsh realities. I would put it in the same basket as the comment by Nigel at a focus night in August 2001 "I am confident that all of the 49ers will have their jobs back by Christmas"

My Realities

 a.. The Committees' plan ran out about Sep last year, the plan for this year was the survival of the AOA, has this been achieved?

 b.. No one has given me an indication of how I will recognize a bust union. So I would describe it as a body of persons who will not stand up and take industrial action, even if this means hardship for other members. I would also describe it as one with a falling financial membership, and further it is a union that through its actions assists in the creation of another union to oppose it and to negotiate with management.

 c.. It appears that the current GC policy is "all or nothing" with regard to the 49ers.

 d.. Because we have no effective say over the re-employment process I believe that management will not accept all. Therefore I see the effect of the GCs policy as being nothing. I find this unacceptable as I also believe that an interview process will get jobs back - and no I'm not going to talk numbers.

 e.. The AOA does not have the financial resources to continue to fund the GCs direction indefinitely. When it is finally recognized that this campaign has failed there will be no money left to adequately support the 49ers.

 f.. "Wait for the upturn". Anybody heard this before? Anybody seen this change the way management does business?

 g.. OK we have never won a court case, and I stated that even if we did it would not get jobs back. I was assured by a GC member that the Australian courts could order Cathay to reinstate pilots. How does this fit in with the "all or nothing" policy? Would the guys take the jobs, or would they become scabs as the others would still not have jobs?

Supporting Evidence

 a.. Only half of the members completed the survey, showing lack of interest or lack of support for the AOA.

 b.. xxx members have left since July 2001. xxx have left since Jan 2002, making a lie of the comments in the latest AOA newsletter.

 c.. Nothing has been achieved, at all, in the last one year.

The Second Association

We now have xxx pilots who were never in the union, xxx who have left and by the end of 2004 about 250 new joiners. I.e. yyy pilots without union representation. Does anyone doubt that a second union will start?

 Finally Nigel and the GC have tried and failed. How much more time are they asking for? Indefinite?

 I do not accept that turning off all industrial action cannot be reversed. The course proposed by Peter and Phil has been untried to its full extent (I would be happy to vote for Nigel if he would support this course). If it fails then the membership would recognize that there was no other course of action left but industrial and so may be reinvigorated.

 Nigel and the GC through their well meaning and moral actions are ignoring the realities and will end up achieving the opposite. They will lead to the total loss of the 49ers.

 I will not be voting for Nigel as the Association needs a change of direction.    

Member B