# Aer lingus ..Cabin crew strike



## thedaras (24 Jan 2011)

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/why-we-cannot-co-operate-with-the-new-rosters/

Here is a letter from a cabin crew member.
Does anyone know what the other sides view is?


----------



## Lex Foutish (24 Jan 2011)

I'm not sure exactly but, every few months, it seems to me that Aer Lingus staff are being asked to give more and more for less and less. It never seems to stop...........


----------



## Bronte (24 Jan 2011)

My understanding is that the running an airline is a competative business and that the staff have to work harder and lose some of their perks if Aer Lingus is to stay in business. Aer Lingus in my mind has also been associated with perks. Now they have to get real and become more like Ryanair, Virgin, Easyjet if Aer Lingus is to survive and they can't compete if their wage bill and staffing levels are higher. 

In relation to the letter you posted it seemed like Impact, a union, were telling the staff when and how to work rather than Aer Lingus their employer. 

Didn't understand the point about mealtimes. If you do two shifts to Paris in a day all of the time is not at work so they can have their lunchbreak then? Also I travelled Aer Lingus shorthall recently and the staff had brought their own packed lunch which they ate during the flight.

In relation to childcare. Surely by it's nature an air hostess job is not a 9 to 5 job nor can it be expected to be.


----------



## orka (24 Jan 2011)

I also don't understand the transatlantic rest issue "_Rest period after a transatlantic flight has been halved from 24 to just 12 hours; effectively meaning that crew can do an outbound flight to New York, for example, and then operate the return flight home to Dublin that same day_".  The first AL flight gets to NY at about 1pm and the last flight leaves before 10pm - that's a maximum 9 hour gap so if they are entitled to 12 hours rest, they can't be asked to work the same day anyway.


----------



## thedaras (24 Jan 2011)

Would it be fair to say that as Aer Lingus have "taken on" the staff by hiring in other cabin crew and aircraft that they cant back down now?
Would it not be a case that if a company go that far that they have to see it through?


----------



## terrontress (24 Jan 2011)

thedaras said:


> Would it be fair to say that as Aer Lingus have "taken on" the staff by hiring in other cabin crew and aircraft that they cant back down now?
> Would it not be a case that if a company go that far that they have to see it through?


 
I think that the senior management want to break the union and if they can manage to get through this issue without backing down, they'll have done so.

The IBOA realised it no longer had the clout to throw its weight around once computerised bank processing came in and since then they have been more of a representative body than a powerful union.

To be honest, the terms and conditions of Aer Lingus look pretty good to me but, as with any job, it is the granting of priveleges and then removing them which people have an issue with. Same with the gardai getting their expenses removed. Yes, the expenses seemed generous but the big issue was that gardai had come to rely on them.


----------



## Petermack (26 Jan 2011)

thedaras said:


> Would it be fair to say that as Aer Lingus have "taken on" the staff by hiring in other cabin crew and aircraft that they cant back down now?
> Would it not be a case that if a company go that far that they have to see it through?


 
It looks like things are starting to take a turn for the worst. I was due to fly home from Hamburg on Thursday but got a text last night telling me that my flight was being cancelled due to the industrial dispute. I rang A.L to rebook to fly home on Friday and I was told that this flight would probably be cancelled too.


----------



## Caveat (26 Jan 2011)

terrontress said:


> I think that the senior management want to break the union and if they can manage to get through this issue without backing down, they'll have done so


 
...and more power to them.

Regardless of the details of this dispute unions certainly need to be broken.


----------



## fizzelina (26 Jan 2011)

I think there has not been enough media coverage of the fact that the Siptu union cabin crew already agreed and work to the introduced changes. It's only Impact cabin crew refusing to.....and even at that some Impact members have backed down. So there isn't even a complete cabin crew stand on the issue......So of course management have the upper hand since the cabin crew ranks are already divided. I don't see how Impact cabin crew can win this argument without full support and with some members already caved in....


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

I reluctantly must agree that this is a dispute that Impact will struggle to win , I think that their only hope at this point in time is a referral to the Labour Court.

I would however be optimistic about the continuing influence of Unions as hopefully Labour will constitute a major proportion of the next Government and will hopefully garner sufficient seats to majorly influence policy.

Encouragingly FG themselves have committed to introducing legislation on collective bargaining rights of workers.


----------



## Caveat (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I would however be optimistic about the continuing influence of Unions


 
Whilst I realise that we would disagree fundamentally about their functional role in the Ireland of today, surely you don't think that the unions should have_ more_ influence - do you?


----------



## Shawady (26 Jan 2011)

fizzelina said:


> I think there has not been enough media coverage of the fact that the Siptu union cabin crew already agreed and work to the introduced changes.


 
You are right. I did not know this fact.
Why are two different unions representing different employees in the same grade?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

Caveat said:


> Whilst I realise that we would disagree fundamentally about their functional role in the Ireland of today, surely you don't think that the unions should have_ more_ influence - do you?



Yes !


----------



## Caveat (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Yes !


 
Rightyo.

It's worse than I thought Jim


----------



## fizzelina (26 Jan 2011)

Shawady said:


> You are right. I did not know this fact.
> Why are two different unions representing different employees in the same grade?


 
Siptu I believe have about 15% of cabin crew so the majority are with Impact. But they are not united and it can't help Impact cabin crew's case if their colleagues signed up to it.


----------



## rustbucket (26 Jan 2011)

caveat said:


> rightyo.
> 
> It's worse than i thought jim


 
+1


----------



## DB74 (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I reluctantly must agree that this is a dispute that Impact will struggle to win , I think that their only hope at this point in time is a referral to the Labour Court.
> 
> I would however be optimistic about the continuing influence of Unions as hopefully Labour will constitute a major proportion of the next Government and will hopefully garner sufficient seats to majorly influence policy.
> 
> Encouragingly FG themselves have committed to introducing legislation on collective bargaining rights of workers.


 

For the first time in my life I will consider voting FF in the upcoming general election


----------



## Purple (26 Jan 2011)

DB74 said:


> For the first time in my life I will consider voting FF in the upcoming general election



For the first time in 10 years I'm thinking of doing the same. (I couldn't vote for Bertie. Ever.)


----------



## Caveat (26 Jan 2011)

Purple said:


> For the first time in 10 years I'm thinking of doing the same. (I couldn't vote for Bertie. Ever.)


 
Just labourphobia or something more complex?


----------



## Sunny (26 Jan 2011)

Collective bargaining legislation will not be passed by FG. They simply came out with this with this idea during the Lisbon Treaty and has barely been mentioned since, if at all. There is no desire for it apart from the Trade Unions.


----------



## Firefly (26 Jan 2011)

db74 said:


> for the first time in my life i will consider voting ff in the upcoming general election


 
+1


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

Sunny said:


> Collective bargaining legislation will not be passed by FG. They simply came out with this with this idea during the Lisbon Treaty and has barely been mentioned since, if at all. There is no desire for it apart from the Trade Unions.


 

Whereas there are no certainties in politics in this instance we can only rely on Leo Varadkar's unequivocal statement in September 2009 that the rights of workers to collective bargaining would become a reality in Irish Law , as well as a fundamental right in the European Charter , were FG returned to Government.

Working on a further probability that Labour form a substantial portion of the next Government then they will surely pursue as promised the introduction of this legislation.

Everything stated by FG , Labour and Sinn Fein to date adds weight to the belief that the unions are far from alone in wishing for this legislation.


----------



## Sunny (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Whereas there are no certainties in politics in this instance we can only rely on Leo Varadkar's unequivocal statement in September 2009 that the rights of workers to collective bargaining would become a reality in Irish Law , as well as a fundamental right in the European Charter , were FG returned to Government.
> 
> Working on a further probability that Labour form a substantial portion of the next Government then they will surely pursue as promised the introduction of this legislation.
> 
> Everything stated by FG , Labour and Sinn Fein to date adds weight to the belief that the unions are far from alone in wishing for this legislation.


 
Come on. Political parties promise every bit of legislation asked for by a vested interest group before an election. I am sure Sinn Fein do want it. Labour probably do too but to a lesser extent. FG don't want it. Or at least they won't when they are in power and companies like Intel are offering to invest billions of euro and get in their ear. They never even bothered to come up with an actual policy on the issue. They simply said they would support a law.


----------



## Firefly (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Everything stated by FG , *Labour and Sinn Fein* to date adds weight to the belief that the unions are far from alone in wishing for this legislation.



People of Ireland...is that what we want?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

Sunny said:


> Come on. Political parties promise every bit of legislation asked for by a vested interest group before an election. I am sure Sinn Fein do want it. Labour probably do too but to a lesser extent. FG don't want it. Or at least they won't when they are in power and companies like Intel are offering to invest billions of euro and get in their ear. They never even bothered to come up with an actual policy on the issue. They simply said they would support a law.



I can only base my premise on the avowed intentions of the political parties in question to introduce this legislation.

You may feel that such commitments are pre-election wordplay but there is no factual evidence to support this supposition.


----------



## Sunny (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I can only base my premise on the avowed intentions of the political parties in question to introduce this legislation.
> 
> You may feel that such commitments are pre-election wordplay but there is no factual evidence to support this supposition.


 
No but I bet I can find a bigger list of promised legislation from FF's and Greens last manifesto that wasn't passed than was actually passed! Same for every Government I would imagine.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

Sunny said:


> No but I bet I can find a bigger list of promised legislation from FF's and Greens last manifesto that wasn't passed than was actually passed! Same for every Government I would imagine.


 
Feel free but the three biggest parties post the coming election - Labour . FG and SF  all have stated that they back the collective bargaining legislation  & as such the passing of the required legislation should be done on the nod particularly as the unions will be strongly pushing for same.

Betcha there was'nt the same unanimity between FF and the Greens on all their proposed legislation !


----------



## thedaras (26 Jan 2011)

Had a look at Leo Varadkars website and here is an extract from it;



> Varadkar rejects Liam Doran’s ‘Uno Duce, Uno Voce’ outburst
> December 3rd, 2009
> Fine Gael Enterprise Spokesman Leo Varadkar TD has slammed union leader Liam Doran for telling critics of the proposed deal between unions and Government to ‘back off and keep their mouths shut’.
> 
> ...



And this;



> Work to rule will hurt vulnerable
> With public sector unions escalating their work to rule this week, Fine Gael Enterprise Spokesman Leo Varadkar TD has warned their action is not an effective way to bring the message home to Fianna Fáil and the Greens, and will have a bigger impact on the vulnerable.
> 
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Firefly (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Feel free but the three biggest parties post the coming election - Labour . FG and SF  all have stated that they back the collective bargaining legislation  & as such the passing of the required legislation should be done on the nod particularly as the unions will be strongly pushing for same.



Do you think with 400,000 people unemployed, the deficit running at 20GB a year to meet current spending, plus whatever we have to put into the banks that the wants of unions for mainly "safe" jobs should be a priority for any new government?


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

Firefly said:


> Do you think with 400,000 people unemployed, the deficit running at 20GB a year to meet current spending, plus whatever we have to put into the banks that the wants of unions for mainly "safe" jobs should be a priority for any new government?



Nope & I never suggested that the collective bargaining legislation was a priority , I merely pointed out that three major political parties had promised to back such legislation which I might point out encompasses all workers - something I welcome but an immediate priority - No , all in good time.

As I have pointed out before FG , Labour and SF are in favour of such legislation - unions are not alone in wanting this.


----------



## thedaras (26 Jan 2011)

Deiseblue;





> As I have pointed out before FG , Labour and SF are in favour of such legislation - unions are not alone in wanting this.



Well anyone who is thinking of voting for the parties mentioned can challenge them on this now.


----------



## Deiseblue (26 Jan 2011)

thedaras said:


> Deiseblue;
> 
> Well anyone who is thinking of voting for the parties mentioned can challenge them on this now.



Challenge them or seek assurances that they will introduce the promised legislation - depends on the prospective voter's viewpoint - couldn't see it as a problem for Labour or other left leaning voters.

Guess this will not be a huge topic on the doorstep though.


----------



## thedaras (26 Jan 2011)

Naturally the challenge would be based on whatever the voters perspective is,somehow or other I think the answer from all the parties will be from the voters perspective also!

Why not email the parties and see what response is given, I would imagine it will be non committal.

If I email them saying I hope they don't intend to go forward with this,they will probably reply ,that they have no intention of,yet if you email them saying you hope they do go forward with it,I would imagine they would say,of course we are committed to this.
Its Mad Ted!


----------



## elefantfresh (27 Jan 2011)

Sick to death of the constant issues with AL. I generally avoid them when I can and fly with someone else.


----------



## JoeRoberts (27 Jan 2011)

Are these the same staff who got a "redundancy" for changing terms & conditions ?


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2011)

Bronte said:


> Didn't understand the point about mealtimes. If you do two shifts to Paris in a day all of the time is not at work so they can have their lunchbreak then? Also I travelled Aer Lingus shorthall recently and the staff had brought their own packed lunch which they ate during the flight.
> 
> In relation to childcare. Surely by it's nature an air hostess job is not a 9 to 5 job nor can it be expected to be.


The point about mealtimes is that they want to 30 minutes of their own break time for lunch or whatever during an 11 hour working day. Eating during a flight is not a break, as customers don't tend to worry about whether staff are on a break when they need their child's bottle warmed or whatever. They're looking for a 30 minute break each day. 

We all work through lunch from time to time, but we also all take some time out from work to enjoy lunch from time to time too. That's all they want for meals.

The childcare thing is a huge issue. Indeed, it is not a 9-5 job at present, and they work around that at present. The company want to be able to extend their shifts on demand with zero notice and add extra shifts on demand. They are trying to turn it into a job that can only be done by the young and carefree (and coincidentally I'm sure, cheap). Anyone with family commitments, whether children or an elderly relative will be unable to stay in the job.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2011)

Complainer said:


> The point about mealtimes is that they want to 30 minutes of their own break time for lunch or whatever during an 11 hour working day. Eating during a flight is not a break, as customers don't tend to worry about whether staff are on a break when they need their child's bottle warmed or whatever. They're looking for a 30 minute break each day.


 
Actually the issue is not that they are not getting a break, its that they are being given staggered breaks and they want their breaks off the aircraft.



Complainer said:


> The childcare thing is a huge issue. Indeed, it is not a 9-5 job at present, and they work around that at present. The company want to be able to extend their shifts on demand with zero notice and add extra shifts on demand. They are trying to turn it into a job that can only be done by the young and carefree (and coincidentally I'm sure, cheap). Anyone with family commitments, whether children or an elderly relative will be unable to stay in the job.


 
No - the company want to change a shift by up to 3 hours on the day it is rostered, and by up to 4 hours if any more notice than a day is given. They are not trying to add extra shifts on demand either.


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2011)

truthseeker said:


> Actually the issue is not that they are not getting a break, its that they are being given staggered breaks and they want their breaks off the aircraft.


The issue isn't 'off the aircraft' - the issue is 'away from the customer', i.e. a real break.



truthseeker said:


> No - the company want to change a shift by up to 3 hours on the day it is rostered, and by up to 4 hours if any more notice than a day is given. They are not trying to add extra shifts on demand either.


They are adding extra shifts on demand. One of the suspended staff members was given 90 minutes to get to the airport to start a full shift on her day off. She couldn't get there, and was suspended.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2011)

Complainer said:


> The issue isn't 'off the aircraft' - the issue is 'away from the customer', i.e. a real break.


 
No. The issue is that the company want to stagger the breaks. The staff claim there is not time for a 30 minute break in the air on a short flight with the duties to be carried out. Hence, they claim, people who have their break staggered during flight time wont get a break. So they want their break off the aircraft.



Complainer said:


> They are adding extra shifts on demand. One of the suspended staff members was given 90 minutes to get to the airport to start a full shift on her day off. She couldn't get there, and was suspended.


 
Linky?

btw - I do not agree with the heavy handed actions of the company, but they negotiated with the union and the union agreed to the changes, but now that the company are implementing these changes they are all saying they did not agree to how the changes were implemented. Im not sure what the staff want, changes have to be made, their union agreed them. I doubt the company would want to renegotiate as whats to stop another lengthy round of negotations followed by the union reneging on agreements?


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2011)

truthseeker said:


> No. The issue is that the company want to stagger the breaks. The staff claim there is not time for a 30 minute break in the air on a short flight with the duties to be carried out. Hence, they claim, people who have their break staggered during flight time wont get a break. So they want their break off the aircraft.


No, it's not a question of their physical location for the break - whether on or off the aircraft. The question is about not being visible to (and therefore available to) passengers during their break. So on aircraft is fine, if there are no passengers on the aircraft at the time of the break.

They want a break where they are not going to be interrupted.


truthseeker said:


> btw - I do not agree with the heavy handed actions of the company, but they negotiated with the union and the union agreed to the changes, but now that the company are implementing these changes they are all saying they did not agree to how the changes were implemented. Im not sure what the staff want, changes have to be made, their union agreed them. I doubt the company would want to renegotiate as whats to stop another lengthy round of negotations followed by the union reneging on agreements?


The union didn't agree to removal of an unterrupted break, or to operating on call.


truthseeker said:


> Linky?


 Probably Morning Ireland interview, as I don't get to listen to anything else much at present, but honestly, I'm not 100% sure what interview I heard.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2011)

Complainer said:


> No, it's not a question of their physical location for the break - whether on or off the aircraft. The question is about not being visible to (and therefore available to) passengers during their break. So on aircraft is fine, if there are no passengers on the aircraft at the time of the break.
> 
> They want a break where they are not going to be interrupted.
> 
> ...


 

Perhaps Morning Ireland interviews with specific staff members are not presenting all the info?

From what Ive read, heard, and spoken to staff members about the facts are slightly different to how you are presenting them.


----------



## Complainer (28 Jan 2011)

truthseeker said:


> From what Ive read, heard, [...]about the facts are slightly different to how you are presenting them.


Linky?


----------



## truthseeker (28 Jan 2011)

Complainer said:


> Linky?


 
Various newspapers, tv programs, radio programs, online forums and conversations with private individuals - sorry, nothing easy to link to although the thread over on boards contains a heap of links and interesting conversation on it.


----------



## thedaras (31 Jan 2011)

http://www.thejournal.ie/begg-appointed-to-aer-lingus-board-as-talks-continue-2011-01/
Begg appointed to  Aer Lingus board...


----------

