 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Chairman’s message 5th November 2009 Comrades, As of this message, several of the initiatives launched to defray excess manpower costs and the capacity cuts have been running for some time. However, though the principles of our ‘Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower’ stresses on applying the measures adopted equally across the ranks, the reality is that the pain suffered is harder on our comrades earning lower wages. Some members who have been feeling the burden of some of the measures have highlighted their struggles to us and we have engaged Management to mitigate some of the measures implemented for this group. Considering further that the CNPL for our comrades on the ground has resulted in excessive workloads in some departments due to understaffing, our initial approach was to ask Management to relook the CNPL scheme for certain segments of our work force. As of now, Management has agreed to reimburse staff earning a basic pay of $1800 and below, a fixed lump sum payment of $270; regardless of their exact basic as long as it is $1800 and below. This translates into at least a 50% reimbursement of the MVC cut of 10% that has been deducted over 3 months as of August. (i.e. out of the maximum $540 that is deductible for this wage group in total over 3 months, a fixed sum of $270 (50%) would be reimbursed.) Our initial focus was on those earning a basic salary of $1500 and below but this was brought up to $1800 to address the concern that no individual would be overly burden with the MVC cut and CNPL schemes. We seek the understanding of all members that any mitigation done for this wage group is necessary and would only be extended for this group. The date for this payment would be made known in due course. A380 HKG Turnarounds. Management justifies mounting the COP claiming that it is within established CAAS FLT rules and that we need to rationalize routes to maximize our returns. Management however has to look beyond the technical rules imposed by CAAS stating that this flight is within the permissible limits. CAAS FTL rules do not differentiate between the continuous non-stop demands or on the high service standards demanded on SIA flights and the managed workload on other airlines and Management has to recognize this. With the various cost cutting measures and the ever-increasing demands from various departments on the crew, the strain and fatigue in operating this COP is exceptional and would have an impact on the health and morale of the workers if adequate time to recuperate is not given. Management has to understand and mitigate this. Our concern is to keep the crew motivated during the transit, which currently is at 2.5hrs and has been a key factor in the fatigue experienced by the crew. To this end, Your Union has worked with Management to implement the following : a) Top up of 01 additional crew regardless of loads In addition, We URGED Management to actively try to reduce the transit time by another 30 minutes. If a crew was activated via standby call up for this COP, they can request control centre to take them off any other A380 HKG turn they may have been rostered in that month. SGN Long transit Turn-around After addressing some of the FTL issues that we were facing, Your Union managed to secure a dayroom for crew to rest for the SGN COP that has the longer transit of approximately 9 hours. Management told Your Union that COPs will change in line with network schedules changes in order to meet passengers demand. Recent initiatives from COPM. When Cabin Crew Management proposed to SIASU on asking Cabin Crew to take the Cabin Crew Pledge on the 1st day of every month, SIASU agreed to the proposal as the objective was to reinforce our commitment to service standards and our core values. However, this was taken a step further and another CCC was issued suggesting that crew, whenever possible, to walk together after the PFS, as apparently this would create a positive impression on the public. Your Union was not consulted on this. This practice is causing some stress and inconvenience to our crew and the impact such instructions create has to be considered in totality. CICs need to brief Complex Leaders after the general PFS. Where will the non-ranking crew wait? Further, a number of crew also have their family members waiting to send them off especially before a long COP. Do we now wait together for them too? COPM issued this instruction to model/copy the practice of crew walking together outstation. However C.I.Q formalities outstation require such a practice to ensure a smooth and efficient C.I.Q clearance, whereas this is not required ex-sin. SIASU urges Cabin Crew Management to understand the importance of EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION and look at the implications of certain policies in totality. Consideration has also to be given to the fact that there are various other departments also imposing their standards on the crew and policies introduced have to be consistent and manageable by the crew. CRS There are segments of crew who have rosters completely consisting of just 3 days COPs with 01 OFF day in between in a month, and in some cases for 2 months. There are segments of crew who are rostered all the West Asia (DEL, CCU, MAA) COPs plus turnaround COPs in a month. Then there are segments of crew who are rostered linked long regional turnaround COPS (MNL, HKG, etc) back to back. Finally, there are segments of crew who are rostered back-to-back long COPs and also having long COPs roster after roster. In the October roster cycle, there were three SQ 12 COPs with 08 JFSSs rostered. These abnormalities were addressed after rosters were published. When all these grievances and abnormalities are brought up, Management's standard replies ranged from 'the system needs some time to stabilize' to the 'crew being caught in the downward swing of the system because of their high allowance level in previous months'. Unfortunately, the same explanations will not work for the banks that the crew owe mortgages to or to landlords when rent is due. Management must understand that it is very difficult for employees to manage his/her financial planning when in the first instance the employer is unable to ensure a universally accepted principle of income stability for its employees. The CRS is supposed to address this BUT it is taking too long to achieve what it was meant for or it is doing it in a financially insensitive and painful manner for some of us. After all these years of operation and after repeatedly highlighting to Management the need for Cabin Crew to be sure of a stable income throughout the year, the fact remains that any delay in ensuring an equitable rostering system is intolerable. Your Union and its members do understand that there may be some teething problems in any new system, but the extent of the roster discrepancies caused by CRS on introduction makes it very difficult to accept. A significant portion of Crew’s income has always been variable and we cannot afford drastic fluctuations, as there may be subsequent repercussions on oneself and one’s family, even though most crew do consider the variable nature of their income in their financial planning. Once and for all, Management has to strive to ensure income stability and equitability on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis and equitability in station variety, distribution of tough COPs and rest. Instead Management has one department trying to create a sense of belonging and a positive image with new initiatives whilst another department is unable to ensure a level of income stability that would address the crews’ concerns over their basic needs. Comrades, I assure you that SIASU is actively seeking solutions to these concerns and many others, some too sensitive to be addressed in this website. Do approach your union representatives for any concerns that you may have and they will try their best to resolve them. Yours truly,
|
|
| Copyright © 2007 SIASU Cabin Crew Branch |