More HKG Housing "Grey Area"
06-17-2012, 05:42 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
It appears to me you're reading more into the language than is actually there. In fact, it looks like you're reading "the Company doesn't want commuters in the FDAs" into the language. That may be what was said during bargaining sessions, but I don't read that in the work product. You would know the bargaining history better than most of us.
No, I do not receive the housing allowance.
Shortly after beginning ITU Training for the assignment, I learned that one of my dependent children doesn't fit the Hong Kong mold for dependent children -- Unmarried, Under the age of 18. Difficulties obtaining his visa caused delays getting my own, and therefore delays moving. By that time, the Housing Allowance witch hunt had begun, and I didn't particularly care for the environment it created, the cloud of threat. My wife's enthusiasm for the move quickly waned, so I chose to commute.
We are in complete agreement here.
.
No, I do not receive the housing allowance.
Shortly after beginning ITU Training for the assignment, I learned that one of my dependent children doesn't fit the Hong Kong mold for dependent children -- Unmarried, Under the age of 18. Difficulties obtaining his visa caused delays getting my own, and therefore delays moving. By that time, the Housing Allowance witch hunt had begun, and I didn't particularly care for the environment it created, the cloud of threat. My wife's enthusiasm for the move quickly waned, so I chose to commute.
We are in complete agreement here.
.
It's confusing to me in reading the stories posted here and the the position the Company has released it seems like the basic question at hand is "commuter vs. non commuter". You seem to support the commuter does not get the money yet you say it is also not written in the LOA so I was curious why you would not have completed those simple steps to get the money?
Again, this does need clarity, the crystal type.
06-17-2012, 05:48 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 260
Hmmm
What do I wish for? Rut Row, you don't want me to rant...that could be dangerous...
What I wish for is transparency, honesty, integrity, and acting selflessly...Tony will fit the bill on that.
That doesn't appear to be the deal with what I see, or don't see going on our leadership and our dues dollars.
What I wish for is transparency, honesty, integrity, and acting selflessly...Tony will fit the bill on that.
That doesn't appear to be the deal with what I see, or don't see going on our leadership and our dues dollars.
06-17-2012, 07:38 AM
#113
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 42
The only thing I ask is that he finds it within himself to vote "yes" on "something" (I am not sure if he has ever voted yes on anything).
The bottom line is we need some leadership as there is a bit of poking in the sand right now....
06-17-2012, 08:49 AM
#114
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
I'd go for that. I don't necessarily agree with Tony on everything but he has experience and he does stand his ground. What HKG needs right now is an experienced, tough rep with a cool head and I think he fits that bill. We have been dealt a pretty significant blow out here and we need someone to help lead us out of the ditch.
The only thing I ask is that he finds it within himself to vote "yes" on "something" (I am not sure if he has ever voted yes on anything).
The bottom line is we need some leadership as there is a bit of poking in the sand right now....
The only thing I ask is that he finds it within himself to vote "yes" on "something" (I am not sure if he has ever voted yes on anything).
The bottom line is we need some leadership as there is a bit of poking in the sand right now....
06-17-2012, 09:03 AM
#115
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I believe the base would be better served by someone who lives in HKG and intends to be in the base long enough to serve out the term.
.
06-17-2012, 09:15 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
06-17-2012, 09:16 AM
#117
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
What is put out by both sides is interesting, but the only thing that counts is what is memorialized in language in the CBA and LOA.
... and I guess the part I do not understand is that you read the LOA that you must move your family in order to get the money. No one here upset about the Company looking at the kids, just the uproar over the spouse. You also seem to support the position that if you relocate (even for a short time), get a a place to live and a HKG ID card that that is all that the LOA requires and I am confused why someone like you would not have made that effort in order to get the money?
The kids might not be the subject of investigation today, but I know of several instances where the Chief Pilot badgered pilots about when their 18-year-old children would be in Hong Kong. It's only a matter of time until investigations will look unfavorably at children in private boarding schools outside of Hong Kong.
I never stated that relocation for a short time should be sufficient. What I've stated is that a pilot should only be required to present certain documents from an appropriate list of documents to establish that relocation has been completed, just like the standard in Section 6 of the CBA.
I did not relocate my family, therefore no appropriate documents, and no money.
It's confusing to me in reading the stories posted here and the the position the Company has released it seems like the basic question at hand is "commuter vs. non commuter". You seem to support the commuter does not get the money yet you say it is also not written in the LOA so I was curious why you would not have completed those simple steps to get the money?
Show me where the CBA or LOA says "commuter" and we might have something to discuss. The words you'll find are relocate and residence. I did not relocate, I did not establish a residence. That's not very confusing to me.
Yepp.
.
... and I guess the part I do not understand is that you read the LOA that you must move your family in order to get the money. No one here upset about the Company looking at the kids, just the uproar over the spouse. You also seem to support the position that if you relocate (even for a short time), get a a place to live and a HKG ID card that that is all that the LOA requires and I am confused why someone like you would not have made that effort in order to get the money?
I never stated that relocation for a short time should be sufficient. What I've stated is that a pilot should only be required to present certain documents from an appropriate list of documents to establish that relocation has been completed, just like the standard in Section 6 of the CBA.
I did not relocate my family, therefore no appropriate documents, and no money.
It's confusing to me in reading the stories posted here and the the position the Company has released it seems like the basic question at hand is "commuter vs. non commuter". You seem to support the commuter does not get the money yet you say it is also not written in the LOA so I was curious why you would not have completed those simple steps to get the money?
Yepp.
.
06-17-2012, 11:24 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 556
What is put out by both sides is interesting, but the only thing that counts is what is memorialized in language in the CBA and LOA.
The kids might not be the subject of investigation today, but I know of several instances where the Chief Pilot badgered pilots about when their 18-year-old children would be in Hong Kong. It's only a matter of time until investigations will look unfavorably at children in private boarding schools outside of Hong Kong.
I never stated that relocation for a short time should be sufficient. What I've stated is that a pilot should only be required to present certain documents from an appropriate list of documents to establish that relocation has been completed, just like the standard in Section 6 of the CBA.
I did not relocate my family, therefore no appropriate documents, and no money.
Show me where the CBA or LOA says "commuter" and we might have something to discuss. The words you'll find are relocate and residence. I did not relocate, I did not establish a residence. That's not very confusing to me.
Yepp.
.
The kids might not be the subject of investigation today, but I know of several instances where the Chief Pilot badgered pilots about when their 18-year-old children would be in Hong Kong. It's only a matter of time until investigations will look unfavorably at children in private boarding schools outside of Hong Kong.
I never stated that relocation for a short time should be sufficient. What I've stated is that a pilot should only be required to present certain documents from an appropriate list of documents to establish that relocation has been completed, just like the standard in Section 6 of the CBA.
I did not relocate my family, therefore no appropriate documents, and no money.
Show me where the CBA or LOA says "commuter" and we might have something to discuss. The words you'll find are relocate and residence. I did not relocate, I did not establish a residence. That's not very confusing to me.
Yepp.
.
what is bothering me most after digesting the info presented is the apparent total lack of leadership from the MEC on this one. If I have this right, I see the following: 1. Grey area exposed by Company and their displeasure with some behavior a long time ago. 2. Even sitting reps, apparently confused enough to not want to venture into that "briar patch". 3. to date ALPA has at best provided luke warm public support for the pilots involved, why? 4. What is ALPA's position? because in my book just saying the Company position is not correct does nobody any good. 5. If ALPA truly did not know the "requirements" to maintain the HA then bad on us and I would think rather then let 4 (and the others) hang in the wind we should of heard strong and clear communications from our MEC LONG and AGO!!! and those communications should have been either full support of our pilots or pushed the amnesty and fixing this problem.
to make the 4 remaining and any future pilots pay for this lack of leadership is truly sickening to me.
06-17-2012, 12:15 PM
#119
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
ok, then back to the string title "grey area"
what is bothering me most after digesting the info presented is the apparent total lack of leadership from the MEC on this one. If I have this right, I see the following: 1. Grey area exposed by Company and their displeasure with some behavior a long time ago. 2. Even sitting reps, apparently confused enough to not want to venture into that "briar patch". 3. to date ALPA has at best provided luke warm public support for the pilots involved, why? 4. What is ALPA's position? because in my book just saying the Company position is not correct does nobody any good. 5. If ALPA truly did not know the "requirements" to maintain the HA then bad on us and I would think rather then let 4 (and the others) hang in the wind we should of heard strong and clear communications from our MEC LONG and AGO!!! and those communications should have been either full support of our pilots or pushed the amnesty and fixing this problem.
to make the 4 remaining and any future pilots pay for this lack of leadership is truly sickening to me.
what is bothering me most after digesting the info presented is the apparent total lack of leadership from the MEC on this one. If I have this right, I see the following: 1. Grey area exposed by Company and their displeasure with some behavior a long time ago. 2. Even sitting reps, apparently confused enough to not want to venture into that "briar patch". 3. to date ALPA has at best provided luke warm public support for the pilots involved, why? 4. What is ALPA's position? because in my book just saying the Company position is not correct does nobody any good. 5. If ALPA truly did not know the "requirements" to maintain the HA then bad on us and I would think rather then let 4 (and the others) hang in the wind we should of heard strong and clear communications from our MEC LONG and AGO!!! and those communications should have been either full support of our pilots or pushed the amnesty and fixing this problem.
to make the 4 remaining and any future pilots pay for this lack of leadership is truly sickening to me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
