Job security

Quote:

---

Hey TS, hung around Herc's did ya,

---

Why, yes I did... I jumped out of them 50 times... We tested the stretched Herc as a straight jump platform and then we tested it with a full compliment of airborne _and_ "the Wedge" cargo delivery system.... Yeah, I'm very familiar with the C-130... to familiar...

But when I switched trades to Air Loadmaster there are two tracks you can take, primarily dependent upon "talent"... The Loadmasters remain just that and go to RAF Lyneham and serve coffee on the C-130's... The Crewmen go to Helicopters... As long as you can avoid Chinooks then you are an integral part of the flight crew... I went to Puma's - two man crew - Groups Air Staff Orders stated that when a pilot was happy with his training hours the remaining time was given to me... :eek: Yes, I can survive my landings... even to the point of doing it in a confined area at night... But I liked the "down and dirty", "in the weeds" flying myself... :D

Yep, it cost more to train me than it did some smelly swab they hid in a tube under water... :p

Quote:

---

Yep, it cost more to train me than it did some smelly swab they hid in a tube under water

---

lol....then I guess cost is relative then eh!, we used to write off torpedo's which cost more then it was to train you guy's, lets see 6 tubes fwd and 2 beer tubes aft, hhhmmm, yep lose a torp every now and then, but not the beer..... :drink:

What's Black, Long and filled with seamen........hahaha, "We Come Unseen", truth be told, of all the assets that we could meet in/on/under the ocean, it was the helo we hated, we weren't outfitted with the surface to air missiles the nukes had, so for us a seaking with torpedoes was deadly, but they only had so much fuel.....

Those Puma's must have been a blast, anything like the baby huey's, I like the new Apache's they have out, pretty deadly looking... :cool:

LOL... I knew a couple of pilots that wrote off aircraft that made your torpedoes look like toys... So there... :p Your turn... *giggle*

The Puma is bigger and faster than the Hueys were.... It was a cool kite but you relied upon your pilots low flying ability and your low level nav to protect you from fire 'cos there's no damn protection in them... Stay down in the weeds, below the trees or in folds in the ground or get riddled with holes was the basic plan... if you couldn't read a map and the contours you learned pretty quick...

Now... Stick me in an Apache... There's a fun kite... sneak up the hill... look over the top through the periscope... select target... pop up... fire... drop down... giggle... Yep... Sniping... BIG time... <LOL>

Quote:

---

Now... Stick me in an Apache... There's a fun kite... sneak up the hill... look over the top through the periscope... select target... pop up... fire... drop down... giggle... Yep... Sniping... BIG time... <LOL>

---

See a periscope....we are related......hahahaha ;) :eek:

I thought the same thing as I was typing it... But I didn't want to give you the satisfaction that easily.... ;)

"You mean, if we don't do what they want, they can fire us? - that's a nice quote, but it's nothing more than that: a single quote from one single protestor (if it wasn't made up, that is... nobody can check anyway).

I can totally see where that quote is coming from, though, and you can look at it (the quote) from two sides: the American way, or the European way. Every single industry in most of Europe has collective work agreements - both employers and employees are bound by them.
Take an example: the work week for retail personnel in Belgium is 35 hours. An employer cannot force an employee to work more than that, and cannot fire an employee for not wanting to work more than 35 hours. He can, of course, fire the employee for not wanting to work 35 hours. If you work more than 35 hours, you'll get paid at 150% your normal pay, plus you get to take off an hour for every hour you work more than your 35 hours. That's the law - simple as that. Now, imagine an employer who tries to force you to work more than 35 hours without compensation - that quote doesn't sound so silly anymore, does it? Under current laws, the employer cannot fire you. Under the new law, the employer could fire you for it...

That being said: I believe that Western-European employees are protected a little too much (unless you rape the boss' daughter, he can't fire you...), but I also believe that American employees lack a little protection (in the US, they can effectively fire you for not doing what they want you to do, even if it's absolutely unreasonable - unless your a minority group, of course... then they can't).

Quote:

---

train me as an Air Loadmaster

---

Me so jealous. That was what I wanted to do when I was a sprog. They were only taking on 2 a year when I enquired.

Back on topic - The frogs drive for ever greater job security has left them without enough jobs.
Wouldn't the idiots actually want to work in exchange for a bit less security. If you could leave your job in the morning and walk into a new one in the afternoon would anyone give a toss about job security? The Frogs have got themselves in a vicious circle. Employes are not taking anyone on becuse they can't get rid of them should the business require it, so the frogs with jobs demand even greater assurance that they won't lose those jobs no matter the circumstance, so the employers are even more reluctant to take staff on...........

Is the French benefit system not quite comfy too?

Can't we just rebuild the Maginot line but extend it all the way round France and point the guns inwards?

I thought that most of the planet's workforce understood by now, that there is no such thing anymore as "jobs for life"....security, yeah right, over here not only is the job for life theory no longer applicable, but the term full time is dissapearing, so employer's do not have to pay benefits, so now we are becoming a workforce of "temps", here today, gone tomorrow, here in Nova Scotia, you have to work 48 hrs before you see any overtime (a week).

So watching these Toads whine about the prospect of actually working for a living, and not being guaranteed jobs for life I have no sympathy for..."let them eat Cake"... :mad:

Hmmmm!

Quote:

---

here in Nova Scotia, you have to work 48 hrs before you see any overtime (a week).

---

You are not allowed to work more than 48 hours INCLUDING overtime here :eek:

Quote:

---

So watching these Toads whine about the prospect of actually working for a living

---

Dammit! they are not "toads".........that is English?........"Toad of Toad Hall", "The Wind in the Willows".......................we are talking French here as in "Marche ou Creve"............they are Frogs?

n'est pas?
:D

Sorry nihil, I am so used to referring to "Quebecer's" as toads, that I (wrongly) assumed those other French types were the same....my bad... :p

Yeah, I love how they determine this stuff over here, I know people who are considered "part time" yet can put in 40 + hrs a week, but because they are termed part time the employer is not obligated to pay the benefits they would have to if the worker was on the record as "full time", heck some of these places will even allow the employee to work extra hrs for "overtime" but still only consider them "part time".

Also I believe ( I am Salary so it's 7/24 366), the reason these employers restrict it to "part time" is so they can avoid paying the higher premiums for Worker's Comp or Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan, they even complain when the Gov't up's the minimum wage (currently at $7.25/hr), espescially the food/services groups (bars/restaraunts/MacDonalds etc), yet I have yet to see anyone actually exist on $7.25/hr.....

$7.25/hr x 40 =$290.00 x 52 = $15080 gross (gross)...let's see minimum amt for sitting room a week is $100.00 x 52 =$5200.00 yr, groceries for a single person, hmmm $250.00 Mth x 12 = $3000.00 transportation $4.00 per day (Bus) or $80.00 mth x 12 =$960.00 overall approx $9160.00, this leaves approx $5920.00, now I am not sure about income tax on the gross amt, what the threshold is, or the usual deductions, so lets just say for arguments sake another $1500.00 off of what was left = $4420.00 this is what a single person would have left to spend over the course of a year for other nescessities (beer). kidding aside, just think of the single women who may have a child trying to live on minimum wage, and people can't figure out why most young adults today, don't want to leave home when they have a job...(I know I have one)