David Isaac Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Jees ... that nice FT, Wayne appears to have an admirer in you. Good on you mate. I have to confess that I very much like the old bugga too. But I am sure he has his faults like all of us. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Although I don't have all the info on what has occurred, it appears from my vantage point that the GM could possibly have been more understanding to Wayne's need for additional assistance....................Maj... Maybe, but from some dealings I had with the GM he appeared to support his staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Did he jump or was he pushed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 His employment was terminated 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandit12 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Seriously, you hear these stories and you wonder whether those that suggested a new organisation be put together weren't actually right. Best of luck with the future Wayne. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 One of the things an employer in the Australian legal context cannot do is disclose details of its dealings with its employees. Employees however don't have this constraint. Consequently, in a forum like this, only one side of the story will ever be heard. Since the employer is legally constrained from putting its side of the story, it has to take a black eye from its critics. An unfortunate reality and a setback on the path to improvement. The employer of the Tech Man is the membership not the executive or the board alone and we have a right to know what is going on, maybe a public forum is not the right place for this information. I suggest anybody who understands the importance of this issue and is concerned should contact a board member of their choice and discuss the matter. Richard. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 David and maj if you remember I said ages he wouldn't handle the job No points for that one, going by history you may well be able say the same about the next Tech Man and the one after if we last that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's a BIG job . IF people stay there a short while and inevitably leave (usually under circumstances they don't agree with, and have moved to Canberra to take up the job) there is something wrong with possibly, quite a few things. The people who appoint have a big responsibility at the selection level, to ensure the appointee has the qualifications , temperament etc Is the job description accurate? Is the Techman given full support when required? Is the position of techman such that he could be made to shoulder more blame than should be reasonably apportioned? Note that in a previous post I mentioned six, which is over a longer period than Davis's three. As a comment.... Continuity in this job is essential. No-one could just walk into it and be instantly on top of it. The situation we are in makes the job harder than it has ever been, and the turn over rate has been remarkably high all along. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Jees ... that nice FT, Wayne appears to have an admirer in you. Good on you mate. I have to confess that I very much like the old bugga too. But I am sure he has his faults like all of us. Credit where credit is due David, Wayne stepped up and gave it a good hard go. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 With the current, ongoing!!! woes in Canberra, Instead of RAA-Aus becoming a serial employer, maybe someone should be outlining what the base issues are, how we fix them, what is required and then bite the bullet, spend the money, get in the expertise as a temp employment thing and just do it. The expertise should not have stupid amounts of money thrown at it, a la previous GM salaries!!, but payment for performance. Spend the money and fix it or there wont be one to fix. RAA-Aus have had a long time to address these problems and don't appear to be getting anywhere fast. The lack of information coming out of Canberra is woefull. If they need the members to help them then how about telling us what the base issues are, what is needed to fix the issues, what help is needed, then ask for goodness sake. After all, it is our organisation and we do have vested interest in its survival!!! Keep the day to day staff running things and make a special project out of correcting the stuffups. There appears, by what we hear out here in the bush, to be a lot of politics being played and to me this appears to be a case of keeping the cocktails coming while the ship sinks. No point in making yourself look really good is the salt water is going to stuff up your suit. The elected reps are put in place by the members to look after the organisartion, not to set up and maintain empires and appease their ego's. Most of the reps, I assume, are genuine and are trying but are they being given all the information they require.? How is it that well qualified people are being scared away, or dropped, from the organisation, regularly. Is there systemic management rot that needs clearing out? I, along with many others, am willing to put my hand up to help but we need to be told what we can do to help. I would like there to be a viable organisation remaining at the end of the day so I can fly my aircraft and enjoy myself. Maybe the idea of a second body is about right to be raised again?..... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Transparency is probably why Wayne was asked to leave, when he first started releasing status updates he included the size of the queue. Once the members became aware of how large the problem was, it was dropped from his reports. The queue in February was according to Runciman 100 planes, last time Wayne published that number it was over 400. How well can you work in an organisation where the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 We speculate too much. I'm not selecting you f t, but generally. there is work to be done and it must be done urgently. I don't think those of the board who are working there now are doing it for the glory, and the GM seems fine. We must not make their job harder if we can avoid it. It's not in our collective interests. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 weeeeee. here we all go again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK58 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 In this case the employer is the membership of RAA, who have every right to know what is going on, and who should be fired. No, the employer is RAAus, an incorporated association in the ACT. The members are, if you like, the owners of RAAus, but the members are not the employer. The legal entity that is RAAus is the employer. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be pretty confident the Privacy Act, the Fair Work Act and any number of other Acts, Regulations, etc. trump the members' right to know all the gory details in instances like this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK58 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Transparency is probably why Wayne was asked to leave, when he first started releasing status updates he included the size of the queue. Once the members became aware of how large the problem was, it was dropped from his reports. The queue in February was according to Runciman 100 planes, last time Wayne published that number it was over 400.How well can you work in an organisation where the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly? Transparency was not the reason. Wayne told me early in June that the reason the reports didn't include the total backlog count was that he actually had no idea how big the backlog was without actually counting the piles of files, which he was too busy to do. Your comment that "the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly" is definitely not true. There may have been a desire by past Execs to downplay the issue - my own view is that the Exec (and Board) was in denial from November (possibly earlier) until at least the February General Meeting. But that certainly is not true now. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 My source is usually reliable - but the office is in such a bugger's muddle at the moment, I'm not prepared to put $2 on the bar that it's correct. The turnover of Tech Managers in the last 18 months is so seriously over the top, that it requires Board investigation - even if this IS no more than a rumour. That said, RAA needs some stability: CASA is NOT going to accept 'monopoly' status for our activities for an organisation that is changing its key personnel faster than a whore changes her underpants when the fleet is in port.. Note: This post was merged in from another thread - Mod xox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Oscar,....third tech manager in 18 months gone.... Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 When are you people going to recognise that you have a fundamentally impossible situation? The structure of the association places professional staff who have responsibilities under the Civil Aviation regulations that are quite complex, under the control of elected representstives, most of whom are (by definition) amateurs with little or no detail knowledge of the regulatory constraints. This always produces a set of working conditions for the professionals that are intolerable; you need top calibre professionals - and they will not tolerate those working conditions (why should they?). RAA will never be able to acquire and keep the quality of professional staff it needs, because the fundamental structure of the organisation makes that impossible. The slippery dip has just about reached vertically down . . . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Best wishes for Wayne in his endeavours . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Transparency was not the reason. Wayne told me early in June that the reason the reports didn't include the total backlog count was that he actually had no idea how big the backlog was without actually counting the piles of files, which he was too busy to do.Your comment that "the management is out to misrepresent the situation so blatantly" is definitely not true. There may have been a desire by past Execs to downplay the issue - my own view is that the Exec (and Board) was in denial from November (possibly earlier) until at least the February General Meeting. But that certainly is not true now. so why was counting the queue stopped? it gives members a real indication of how big the problem is. are the RAA going to start publishing the queue stats again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 "CASA is NOT going to accept 'monopoly' status for our activities for an organisation that is changing its key personnel faster than a whore changes her underpants" I think you're being unkind to working girls 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVID SEE Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I have been reliably informed that Wayne has ceased to be our tech manager, that's three in 18 months, who will be the next head on the chopping block ?.....So much for timely information from our current executive or GM, there has been time to post this info on the RAAus site, but nothing there yet, obviously not a priority to keep the membership informed....................Maj.... Hi Maj. can you give me a call when you get this please mate.. Cheers Davo :o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 No, the employer is RAAus, an incorporated association in the ACT. The members are, if you like, the owners of RAAus, but the members are not the employer. The legal entity that is RAAus is the employer.I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be pretty confident the Privacy Act, the Fair Work Act and any number of other Acts, Regulations, etc. trump the members' right to know all the gory details in instances like this. Yep....Kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 "CASA is NOT going to accept 'monopoly' status for our activities for an organisation that is changing its key personnel faster than a whore changes her underpants"I think you're being unkind to working girls Are you an expert in this area, Geoffrey? Kaz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 He may run a commercial laundry??? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now