Logo
µn¤J
<<<

¦WºÙ: ±K½X:

¥[¤J | FAQ | Ápµ¸§Ú­Ì
¥þ³¡°Ï°ì > ­Û²z > ªÀ·|­Û²z > CX pilots

­¶¡G  1 ¦^ À³
§@ªÌ ¤º®e

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/6/29 ¤U¤È 02:04:21

Does anyone have anything to say?

Employees gang up against employers. Asking for a sky high raise. Can you always stay on the side of the employees? Who is exploiting who here in this case?

Cissie


Posted -
2001/7/3 ¤U¤È 03:57:18

Let's see whether CX has been making its pilots work unreasonably long hours first.

Âk¤@

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/3 ¤U¤È 04:06:24

°ê®õ³Ò¸êÂù¤è½Ö¬O½Ö«D¡A­Ó¤H¨S¦³¨¬°÷ªº¸ê®Æ¥h§PÂ_¡C§Ú¤Ï¦Ó¦³¥t¤@­Ó·P·§¡G¦b­»´ä¡A°£¤F¾÷®v³oºØ¿W¯Sªº¤uºØ¥~¡AÁÙ¦³¤°»ò¤u§@¤H¤h¡A¦³³o»ò¤jªºÄ³»ù¯à¤O©O¡H
³Ò¤u¶¥¼h¦b­»´ä¡A°£¤F³Q°Ê¦aµ¥«Ý¦ÑÁ󦳨}¤ß¥~¡A«O»Ù·¥¤Ö¡C

Timber


Posted -
2001/7/3 ¤U¤È 04:44:07

¹ï·¥¤F!

´N¹³¬Y¹B¿é¤½¥qªº¥q¾÷, ¤@¤U¤l¥þµ¹¸Ñ¹µ, «o¤S¦³¦P¤@¶°¹ÎªºÄݤU¤½¥q¥ß§Y¥H§C¤F¤T¥|¤d¤¸ªº¤ëÁ~­«¸u¥L­Ì! ³o¤£¬OÅܬ۴îÁ~¬O¤°»ò? ¥´¤u¥J¦³¤°»ò¥i¥H¿ï¾Ü,¥i¥H®i±æ?

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/8 ¤W¤È 04:13:35

³o¬O¤@­Ó¨å«¬ªº¨Ò¤l¡C

¸ê¤è¤@©w¬O­é«dªÌ¡H³Ò¤è¤@©w¬O¨ü®`ªÌ¡H³o¬O¥Ã«íªº©w«ß¶Ü¡H

±Ð·|°V¾É¤]©¿þ³¤F³Ò¤è¦³´ÛÀ£¸ê¤èªº¥i¯à¡H

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/8 ¤U¤È 03:25:27

Steve, I see you here again. I have to disagree with you that the Employers are always the exploiters, or the Employees the victims. I could analyse their relationships and values in detail again. But this is not necessary this time. As I know there have been some excellent theories out there to analysis this type of situation in a Capitalist society. The theory I wish to refer to is the five forces theory by Michael Porter (and its later developments by others). The basic principle of his theory (Yes, I tend to simplify and state the most fundamental issues most of the time which is relevant here), is that a business entity (or any entity) have to face the forces and pressures from different entities it is in contact with, and whoever has more POWER, who will have more control in deciding the outcome.

My point is, the idea that Employers always being the exploiters have been discarded years ago even from the western nations.

In this particular situation, people here tend to concentrate on only two relevant entities, namely the Employer Cathay Pacific, and one group of Employees the pilots. There are other entities as well, such as the shareholders, the consumers, the suppliers, and sometimes the government and other entities.

So this leads to my second point, in this particular situation, it is too early to tell which side is right or which side will win. What I can tell is that these two entities are having a power struggle trying to dominate and to maximise their interests. What I am not sure is when will be the time for the other entities having an interest to come in and fight for their interests they might be lost or interfered with by these two active players.

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/8 ¤U¤È 03:29:20

My third point is, (not relevant to the topic) that I am now having an impression that contributors in this website tend to address issues either from their own subjective understanding, or to relate it to pure and theological theories without too much regard to the theories and values which have been in existence and practiced in the society. In short, it is too unrealistic. I do hope that the contributors here in this website are not too out of the world (well, another value judgment from me, as I believe that should be a good thing). For me, I do not have much theological background, and that is one of the main reason that I join this website so that my (perhaps) too out of the world views could be balanced out by the contributors here (and this is another value judgment from me that the contributors here are doing good things, helping someone like me to understand issues from another perspective). (Those in brackets are written so as to minimise misunderstandings by others.)

Cissie


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤W¤È 09:34:58

The Forum here is basically a place for reflection on teachings of the Catholic faith, quite unlike the RTHK Forum or other Philosophical ones.
That is point "one".
What is 'realistic' is something that hinges on the prevailing value system of our society, which we do assume every body to be aware of. That is point "two".
As far as I am aware, brothers and sisters here share their views from a perspective as their own conscience guides them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is however, NOT a forum for sociological discussion, as it is already abundantly clear that the modern values of our society(ies) are very much deviant from those taught by the scriptures. That is point "three". I hope the above may serve as a rough "orientation" to new comers.
Would other brothers and sisters also share their views in this regard? (Perhaps in CHinese if possible. This is preferred since it is a website meant also for evanglism among non-English speaking readers).

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 12:07:59

I am not saying employers are always exploiter....etc.

Isnt it obvious thatI am posting it as a question?....so that contributors can comment.

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 04:02:00

Cissie, why could not you stick to what you have said? Yeah, you said it so pure, reflection of Catholic faith. However, you have posted so many Buddist stuff around, and so many of your irrelevantly personal and subjective comments as well. I have seen you also have a tendency to make unjustifiable comments against others (I have read one of your totally incomprensible criticism against another contributor named Mr. Unification/Mr. One in another thread). I am a Catholic, and I am confident that my basic guiding principle is from my Lord, through the Holy Spirit. When you say what is abundantly clear, it does not mean that it is abundantly clear to everybody, at least it is not to me, and I doubt very much about you yourself. About which language to write, the best I could is to share my comments in English as it is limited by my computer and my typing skills. And I see there are people who have shared in both languages before. What is the big deal? And afterall, nothing you have just said is related to the topic and nothing THEOLOGICAL.

And from your earlier post, is it so abundantly clear that the issue simply here hinges upon

Let's see whether CX has been making its pilots work unreasonably long hours first.

What is your problem? Sorry I do not understand you.

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 04:02:38

Steve, basically it is an assumption [that people (not you) would generally stay on the side of the Employees] that could be inferred from your statement from your first post. Otherwise the question would not be the way you put (in English)

Can you always stay on the side of the Employees?

In any event, my misunderstanding, if any, only relates to your attitude on this issue. It is still ONE of the views that we could take to understand many of the current social issues.

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 04:42:23

Yes, I see what you mean now. My first post is already judgemental. Sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out.

I raise this because of the general assumption that employees are always victims. Even church's teaching ( Guadium et specs a. 68 ) pointed out that strike can be necessary for workers to defend their rights. I guess this has the assuption that workers are victims?????

If everyone can fly a plane, can pilots ask for a raise? Again the wage market is determined by supply and demand. In this case, the supply of labour ( pilots ) is limited, so pilots can get what they want ( exploit their employer as they wish ).

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 04:43:10

By the way, no fingers please.

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 04:46:45

Steve, no problem at all. Everyone including myself, sometimes do not write things clearly, and sometimes forget what we have written. That is communication. And understanding. Have a good day.

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 05:02:19

Hi Ed, its not about clarity. It is because the first post was done a long while ago and I almost forgot how I put it.

Happy chatting.

Cissie


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 05:20:10

Well, Mr E.D., if you had not gone through all the stuff here, please do not point fingers at persons. I have already apologised long long ago to Mr ONE, who is one of our good old friends here.

If you wish to stay afloat here, I would suggest you read what the Admin. says - we prefer Chinese postings. Unless you PC has no Chinese facilities, which I do not think it is so difficult to obtain one - please.

As for different religious references, the primary motive is to throw more light on topics that we are discussing. We do discuss with an open mind, even though we all have to try, as a PRIMARY objective, to keep our own ego under control. It is basically a discussion in search of the truth. No one here can claim that he/she knows the truth. Neither do I, although you may "think" I asset I do - that is only you wrongful perception of what I said, because it happens to differ from what you are thinking!!!

Cissie


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 05:26:52

"...having an impression that contributors in this website tend to address issues either from their own subjective understanding, or to relate it to pure and theological theories without too much regard to the theories and values which have been in existence and practiced in the society. In short, it is too unrealistic. "
Of course, we would like to "relate" things practised in society - but in doing so, we would be even more judgmental - just as you are!
Would it help? Since you first came, you have been so judgmental!!! You found fault with every body here! If you wish to have apologies from me like Steve, let me first see you being non-judgmental first.

Eleventh Dimension


Posted -
2001/7/9 ¤U¤È 06:07:50

Cissie, your comments are noted. I trust God will let me stay afloat, if not, I will see God sooner than you. Thank you for your concern. Prefer is a word which does not mean banning. And I am pleased to see that you say you have an open mind. For your information, I have never said nor claimed nor hinted that you know the truth. My perception is fine. Thank you again. Yes, I admit I am judgmental. Who are not? I do not need your apologies at all. As a matter of fact, I have already forgiven you. Enough said about this. Have a good day to you too.

Cissie


Posted -
2001/7/10 ¤W¤È 11:36:39

E.D. Happy that after all that thrashing you are still afloat. I do not generally "thrash" people the way I did with you.
If you are "for" judgmental remarks, I have lots for you - intellectual arrogance is a major one. Your scorn for communication in Chinese is another (I am equally, if not more, poor at typing Chinese than you. I am much more proficient now after practising HERE for many months, thanks be to God). You tended to look down on every one here. You came here with a mindset that I will contribute TO your ignorance; and you guys here better serve me by answering my questions. That is my judgment - is it justified? I very much am afraid that many will disagree with me.
Yes, your arrogance needs to be thrashed for your own good. God bless you.

steve

ºÞ²z¤H­û


Posted -
2001/7/10 ¤U¤È 12:16:45

I am always thrilled to see new comers posting their opinion. We need more people like ED.

­¶¡G  1 ¦^ À³