ksu

According to the pilots, there have been no talks today (Friday). The pilots claim that they have waited for SAS all day. The media speculate that SAS are working out a "new model". Doesn't look too promising for a quick end to the strike.

CPH-Flyer

According to other sources there have been negotiations today.... Just no progress towards a resolution.

https://www.berlingske.dk/virksomhed...se-er-parterne

ksu

Yes, they are ambiguous in their leaks.

CPH-Flyer

Of course, that's how you try to win a media war.....

Though my feeling with these things is that the one party leaking the most is either the one that is in the worst position and trying to use the leaks to better that position outside of the negotiations. The award goes to..... the head of the Danish SAS pilots and Dansk Metal.

FlyingMoose

But taking vacation remains a decision by the employee right? I never said I want anyone not to be issued the option to take vacation, my point was that someone who decides to take vacation vs someone who does not take vacation (and I guess, instead gets those days paid out), can not have the same levels of productivity and the person who doesn't take vacation should be rewarded more for the incremental productivity than the other person. Deciding to take vacation is similar in my opinion to deciding to have children, you purposely decide to limit your productivity but somehow most people in Scandinavia think the system should keep compensating them for the loss of productivity.

ksu

No, in Norway the employee, with some limited execeptions, including for flexibility, cannot refuse to take vacation. Employers are obliged to ensure that employees take their vacation (the official informative translation uses the British English "holidays" for the Norwegian "ferie").

Section 5. Length of holidays

(1) (Normal annual leave in connection with holidays)
Employers are obliged to ensure that employees have 25 working days' leave in connection with holidays each holiday year. Employees are obliged to take holidays each year, cf. however this section (5), section 7 (3), first paragraph, and section 9 (1) and (2).All days count as working days except Sundays and public holidays. (...)

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1988-04-29-21

ksu

According to a major Norwegian newspaper, the main point of disagreement now is the duration of the agreemen (i.e. the period without the right to strike). The former SAS agreement was two or three years (the latter the longest in Scandinavia), when the negotiations broke two weeks ago, and the strike started, SAS demanded ten years, and the unions offered six years. Now SAS demands six years, but the unions won't agree to that ("due to feed-back from our members"), even if they offered that before the strike.

It could be posturing to show SAS that the unions are hard line too, as well as signaling to SAS that "you could have had this, but you were foolish enough to break the negotiations, and initiate the strike": On the other hand, a new negotiated agreement would stop the strike now, but the agreement has to go to a ballot among the unions' members, so there would be no point in agreeing on an agreement that the members don't want.

CPH-Flyer

So the pilot group is the side that puts something on the table and when they get it, they demand more? Which is what they constantly whine about management doing....

Three years is basically the norm in Denmark now, used to be 4. I don't know if there are any left running 4 years. But 3 years is not in anyway an unusually long agreement period, anything below three would be the unusual. I noticed that one of the main agreements in Denmark actually has no direct end point stipulated, just that it can be terminated after a minimum of three years by either party. But in theory it could run longer if both sides are happy.....

ksu

Not really. The offer now is not necessarily the same in other aspects.

Before the strike, the pilots supposedly offered six years as demanded by SAS, and then SAS demanded even more, while still negotiating, whereupon negotiation was broken, and the strike started. When negotiation restarted, former offers that were refused by the opponent were not necessarily still valid, and certainly not binding.

CPH-Flyer

That's how the pilots wants to present it. Presented from the other side, SK asked for 8 as part of the negotiations, pilots offered 6.

The key point seems to be, the pilots wants to strike every two years....

SKT-DK

I think you pretty much just summed up the whole thing there

ksu

And which the SAS administration somewhat misleadingly claim that they do :-)

As the negotiations, according to one of the mediators, concern 25 different aspects, I'm not so sure that any agreement should be evaluated on only one aspect. A contract giving 2% raise every year that is valid for six years is very different from a contract with no raise that is valid for six years,

CPH-Flyer

If the issue with the agreement over 6 years is that it does not adequately allow to manage conditions particularly pay development over 6 years, that is a very fair point. And most fairly to object and say "we can't accept a six (or eight for that matter) year agreement because it will leave us in too much uncertainty with regards to the conditions over the period of the agreement". But the pilots keep coming back to being without the right to strike for an extended period. Which I just can't read as anything but the strikes are a cardinal point for them.

I do understand the flow that any contract negotiation can end up in a strike. That is the nature of labour relations in the Scandinavian region, I don't object to that. I object to the focus of the pilots, the outwardly communicated focus is not on being able to adjust the conditions if the macro economic movements over six years makes the agreement untenable, the communicated focus is on being able to strike. So the focus is constantly on an expectation to strike going forward.

I still come back to the point that when the negotiations stopped and the past agreement expired 31st of March 2022, why did the pilots not send a strike warning as would be the normal thing to do? Why wait for summer peak season to send a strike notice? Because the pain inflicted on management courtesy of people's summer vacations would make them more likely cave to the pilots' negotiating positions?

FlyingMoose

The obvious thing to do is to add language that only validates the x year pay increases if company results allow it so SAS doesn't go back spiraling under union pressure. This is where the unions can show reason by not demanding pay increase from a company that can't afford it.

I agree that the games from the unions and pilots is disgusting.

FlyingMoose

Wow that is insane, I didn't know that. I would be incredibly upset as an employee if I was forced by the state into taking vacation.

Fortunately not the case in most other countries.