mvg wrote: ↑
12 May 2019, 06:53
I can understand your frustrations but this is the way Skeyes is functioning. Those rules have been set up (in laws) and the role of the unions is paramount.
Management is indeed using those rules to have their proposals accepted but this is just what the game is about!
Everyone uses the rules when it suits his needs.
So do controllers when it’s about stealing hours, breaking the rules when they are working every day, calling sick when they are not (not always but that happens) and so on.
What do controllers want? Work in a company that does what they want, that adapts the rules to their sole needs and that lets them work as they feel it’s the best?
Well Skeyes isn’t the right place for that. Controllers are only a tiny minority of the employees, it still depends on the State (with all those kind of rules and objectives to achieve).
Of course management also has to follow the rules but at some point you have to realize that your job is to control traffic and that the management is there to manage the company.
Their proposals should at least be given a chance to be put in place and see if they bring results. In any other company it would be like that.
Here we only see that controllers are refusing whatever they are given and whatever is not what they want.
While I appreciate the core of your logic, you must have missed a few of my earlier posts.
- I find it difficult to call this a way of 'functioning', malfunctioning seems more appropriate.
- The previous agreement voted on the PC literally includes an article overruling a European law, supposedly excluding Belgocontrol of the obligation to follow it.
This is ofcourse complete nonsense, we will take this to court among with all the other things we already did. But while the other points are open to the judges interpretation, they can not win this one, their own lawyers know this too.
It simply buys them a bit more time to do what they want untill a judge forces them to comply.
And then, just like now, there will be a "sudden unexpected shortage" and they will ask goodwill to solve it (a joke if you had to fight for 2-3 years to get the law applied in the first place), and since they won't get it, they will take to the next best thing to enforce it. And we will take them to court for this all the same.
They are non stop making holes to close the previous holes, essentially solving nothing.
- If the management would actually manage the company with respect for the rules or for us, we would let them.
But they don't, so we don't.
- Controllers are not a 'tiny minority', there are 265 of us.
10-15 are with acod and none of them agree on this offer as far as I know. No other staff members benefit from this agreement.
Have you read it? "atco this, atco that, service continuity importance, loss of rights for atcos, change of rules for atcos and increased management power, listed in between disclaimers and statements that benefit the CEO."
There is no greater good benefit here, no needs of the many vs rights/needs of the few or however you want to call it, except their precious continuity.
"Safety is in our DNA" he said, for atcos maybe, but this CEO has only numbers floating in his veins.
I know we are not the center of the universe, I agree we shouldn't have our every demand met, but this is the exact opposite.
Not one of our important points got met and we simply got the ACOD trick in our back, again, for the third time.
Untill you change a rule, you are ought to follow it.
As long as you are subject to a law, you're supposed to do the same here, and its not because your employees rights don't match with your target numbers, that you can just discard them of start cancelling whatever you see fit.
A while ago, i posed a hypothetical question to a user (i believe 767copilot) on how many times he would give his ex a new chance. Same story here. We know how this offer came to the table and how it got 'accepted', we know what this offer includes and means, we know who made it and what his mindset was.
This is just same old, same old in a new coat. Giving this a chance means more of the same and worse.
His interview in terzake was a load of lies and pr talk.
Controllers refuse this offer because it solves absolutely nothing.
He used this situation to push something through he has been after for years, and he found the perfect way to wrap and sell it.
Making a nightshift 8 instead of 10 hours will not reduce our fatigue, on the contrary. Early shifts have to start earlier and late shifts have to stay longer.
While it might (big questionmark) reduce our number of hours per week, it actually means working more days per month, making the whole balance problem worse.
They consider the agreement reached, valid and good because it suits them. And while I have to admit that this one is indeed valid according to the rules, any person claiming this is a good, democratic or fair agreement has no clue what they are talking about. They lie non-stop in the media about everything, and we have nothing but anonymous testimonies left to respond.
We got to the point where unions and even some courtcases can not help us anymore (they are overruled or discarded in a very dirty way) because he simply finds a way around.
The only options he leaves us are to accept and shut up or to take action.