A coffee shop has opened in Cardiff, Wales for people who hate mornings.
Grumpy Fuckers’ Coffee Shop opened its door yesterday and was overwhelmed by demand.
Manager Clive GrimGrits told WalesOnCraic: “I had to get up at 5am to get the bastard shop open. I hated it. Most people are still sleeping at that time. We opened the shop at 6am and by 7am, we’d already sold out of ‘Fuck You Frappuccinos’ as well as our ‘Piss Poor Tea’. Every fucker who came in had a face on them like a slapped arse so I closed the shop at 8am so I could go home and get some proper sleep like most people do.”
One customer said that she would visit the coffee shop again, despite everyone bumping into each other and not saying a word.
“It was perfect for me. I could just sit there, thinking how shit my life is and how I hated going to work. They guy next to me was asking whether they did any cooked breakfasts but the manager told him to fuck off and get a life. Everyone was grumpy, which was fine because we were all grumpy together.”
Two hundred and twenty current and former personnel join class action claiming negligence and breach of contract
The sailors were among 320 men and women who enlisted between 2010 and 2012 on contracts that reportedly said they would receive training to get a certificate IV in engineering in four years.
Sailors who enlisted on the promise of trade qualifications are suing the Royal Australian Navy for failing to deliver, with 220 current and former naval personnel joining a class action claiming negligence and breach of contract.
The sailors were among 320 men and women who enlisted between 2010 and 2012 on contracts that reportedly said they would receive training to get a certificate IV in engineering in four years under the marine technician 2010 category career continuum program, or MT2010.
The lead plaintiff, Clayton Searle, told the ABC the training was never delivered. “At the four-year mark they were offering new courses to act as compensation for where they had gone wrong, but it was still three years before we’d receive a lesser qualification than what we were scheduled to have,” he said.
Jon Henderson, who joined at the same time, told the ABC it was “quite obvious” the recruits were never going to get the promised training and said they were instead frequently left with nothing to do.
“I was basically warehoused in a site called PSU, or personnel support unit, where numerous sailors basically sit around, read the paper, go online,” Henderson said.
“Kids are going in there at 17, 18 and leaving with nothing. There are guys who’ve been in there 10 years and are coming out and having to do excess training just to get a qualification to get a civilian job.”
Stewart Levitt, the lead lawyer on the case, said the sailors were “effectively conned into enlistment”. “They were effectively misled and strung along and left in a position where they were asked to do either other duties or no duties at all,” he said.
Levitt said some had been placed in a room and told they couldn’t leave until they signed a waiver of the training agreement. Three years in, the sailors were reportedly told they could get a certificate III in engineering, a lesser qualification, if they signed on for another term.
“Overwhelmingly they don’t want to remain in the navy because the navy has done the wrong thing by them,” Levitt said.
Levitt told Guardian Australia he had been contacted by recruits in other navy and defence force programs who said they had also not received promised training.
“They say that this is the tip of the iceberg and asked us to take on their cases, which they describe as very similar,” he said.
“It’s wasteful not only in terms of taxpayer dollars but in terms of human resources – there are 320 people who are in the prime of their lives in terms of employability who are frustrated and denied their ability to contribute as taxpayers who are actively participating.”
According to a 2014 report by the Australian National Audit Office, the navy had a “critical” shortfall of 370 qualified marine technicians, or 23.5% of their required taskforce, in June 2014.
That report said the MT2010 program had been intended to address “career dissatisfaction” among marine technicians, concern about their qualifications and “lack of meaningful shore-based jobs”. It said the chief of navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, had ordered the training of junior marine technicians be prioritised.
The class action is scheduled for the New South Wales supreme court on 20 May.
An Alaskan Airlines plane is forced to return to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after taking off with a sleeping worker trapped in the cargo hold.
The Los Angeles-bound Alaska Airlines flight made an emergency landing at a Seattle-area airport on Monday afternoon (US time) after it took off with a worker trapped in a cargo area under the cabin, where he had fallen asleep, the US carrier said.
The pilot of Alaska Airlines flight 448 reported hearing banging from beneath the aircraft after take-off from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, south of Seattle, the statement said.
When the aircraft returned after being in the air for 14 minutes, a ramp agent was found inside the pressurised and temperature-controlled front cargo hold, the statement said.
The pilot of Alaska Airlines Flight 448, bound for Los Angeles, reported hearing noises from beneath the aircraft within 14 minutes of taking off. Photo: Reuters
The pilot of Alaska Airlines Flight 448, bound for Los Angeles, reported hearing noises from beneath the aircraft within 14 minutes of taking off. After exiting, the Menzies Aviation employee told authorities he had fallen asleep, Alaska Airlines said in a statement.
How does one just fall asleep in the hold of an aircraft? Surely this has to be a deliberate action on the part of the employee? I would think dismissal is the only course of action Menzies Aviation can take in respect of this incident.
I found this interesting piece about what pilots do (or actually don’t do) in their down time between flights:
As my husband and I settled into a rare splurge on extra-legroom exit-row seats on an early morning flight from a Caribbean island, a pair of uniformed pilots slipped into the row across the aisle from us.
It was like sitting with the cool kids!
I excitedly awaited the opportunity to start a conversation and see what I could learn. After the drink cart passed, I prompted hubby to lean across the aisle and break the ice by asking where they had spent the night on an island where most accommodations limit regular travellers to weeklong stays.
He prefaced the question by telling them that we have been visiting the island for five years and that opened the door to a flood of questions, not from us, but from them! Here’s what we found out.
Pilots long to enjoy the destinations they fly us to
They wanted to know everything we knew about the island. They asked where we eat, where we stay, what our favourite dive sites are, and even what it costs for a week (excluding the cost of airfare, of course). One talked about bringing his wife; the other was scouting honeymoon destinations for his daughter.
It was only after more than an hour of asking questions that they got around to explaining the intricate details of pilot downtime rules that force the need for pilot rotations like the one they were on.
If the inbound flight the night before is delayed even a little, there could potentially not be enough official rest time before morning. (The downtime doesn’t start when the plane lands, but when they are “behind the hotel door.”) The inbound pilots would not be able to fly back out on schedule the next morning.
The guys sitting in coach with us had flown the plane in; a second crew was flying it home. So they often don’t have time to get to know the destination to which they are going.
Coming in for landing at Saint Maarten in the Caribbean.Source: Getty Images
Even pilots have travel bucket lists
It’s hard to believe that two pilots nearing the end of long careers flying the globe could have travel destinations yet to conquer, but both of these guys did. One wants to visit Ireland and has a trip planned there soon. The other confessed that when he travels for fun, it’s usually by car, but that he would love to spend time in Asia.
There are many places they haven’t seen yet.Source: Getty Images
Pilots judge other pilots on their flying skills
It’s like there’s some secret point system. We had an incident on our approach to landing during which both nonflying pilots sized up the guy actually flying the plane. Just as the tarmac appeared beneath our plane, the engines roared and we suddenly climbed hard and began banking. While everyone else craned to look out the windows for an explanation, I looked at the pilots.
Inspecting the plane.Source: Getty Images
The aisle pilot calmly said, “Oops.” The window pilot studied the runway, now far below us, before explaining that it looked like a plane on the ground had not quite cleared the runway while taxiing to its gate.
“No point lost for our guy,” he said. “It was a good call. He did the right thing.”
Pilots sometimes get annoyed with the control tower
The two pilots agreed that such conversations were likely taking place as we circled wide to get back into position again. Our plane actually had to be routed back into the line of planes waiting to land — at the end of the line, our pilots said. “Sometimes they (the tower) will work you into the middle of the line, but it depends on the stack.”
Pilots don’t always tell passengers the truth
Following our missed landing, the pilot flying our plane confirmed over the PA what our aisle buddies had already told us. There had been a taxiing plane not quite clear of our intended landing strip. But not every pilot feels the need to be forthcoming, particularly when they are at fault.
The aisle pilot told a story of a missed approach caused by pilot error. That pilot attempted to hide his mistake from passengers by blaming it on a non-existent plane on the runway. What he did not know was that he told his fictional story to the control tower (which knew better), not to the passengers. Bad piloting and a finger on the wrong communication button put him at the very end of the line for his retry.
Being a pilot can be lonely
My two pilots included their wives and families in every topic of conversation. Their job puts them in exotic destinations, far from their families, in the company of attractive co-workers, but for these two guys at least, it was just another day at the office with an eagerly anticipated return to home and family.
Pilots cherish the time they have with their families.Source: Getty Images
This story originally appeared on Yahoo.com and was republished via SmarterTravel.com.
Late last year a United States law framed in the name of world peace quietly reached its long arm into a small Melbourne tribunal, persuading it to let a large armaments manufacturer override Australian human rights legislation.
In a decision that went largely unremarked upon, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) agreed to let Thales Australia Ltd and its subsidiary ADI Munitions discriminate racially against their employees, job applicants and contract workers.
The companies won a five-year exemption from six sections of the Equal Opportunity Act so they could comply with stringent US export laws that describe who can and who cannot have access to American military technology and know-how.
Simon Rice, an Australian National University law professor, could only sigh. He is an almost lone voice against the Americans’ capacity for such strongarm tactics in Australian courts.
“It’s legal imperialism,” says Rice, who chairs the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council. “It’s the US saying to everybody in the world: You will deal with us on the terms we will dictate to you.”
There have been scores of such decisions in small courts across the nation since at least 2003, when the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal granted Boeing Australia Holdings some of the first such exemptions.
Because the Australian government relies heavily on US military technology, the big defence manufacturers operating here have, for more than a decade, made a practice of applying for exemptions from our equal opportunity laws so they can stay sweet with the US State Department. All applications, except one in Queensland, have been granted, allowing the companies to bar access to certain employees and contractors to positions where they would have access to sensitive US military goods and services.
This means the workforce is segregated, so that the “wrong” people are not given certain positions, as spelt out by the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), according to Rice, who advises our federal parliamentary human rights committee.
Because the ITAR, which governs the terms with which an importing country can use American defence technology, requires companies to discriminate on the basis of birth or nationality, it conflicts directly with Australian state and territory human rights legislation. Companies either persuade our legal authorities to let them off the hook or they don’t get US State Department clearance to access exported US defence technology.
“It is easier for the companies to get a local exemption than to get this clearance,” explains Rice.
Some people are outright denied access to sensitive American defence exports because their country of birth or dual nationality is on an ITAR list of “proscribed” nations.
The list changes from time to time and barred nations currently include Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Syria and Vietnam – the ancestral homes of many Australian migrants.
There was a salient reminder this week of the reasons for US nervousness over technology security. Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed via German magazine Der Spiegel that Chinese spies had stolen design plans for the Joint Strike Fighter, the aircraft meant to reinforce US aerial dominance. Australia is spending billions of dollars on the same planes.
American lawyers specialising in export laws have described the ITAR as unparalleled in scope, as it reaches across the entire globe. It’s not just about arms, but a whole gamut of hardware and software used for military purposes or space research. It includes ships, planes, lasers and satellite technology, and “export” can simply mean transferring information – even, possibly, according to one analyst, sending an email.
Australia’s foremost specialist in space law, Professor Steven Freeland of the University of Western Sydney, sees extra benefits beyond national security for the US as it enforces the ITAR to regulate who can use American satellite technology.
“In the area of space technology, the US are still the superpower and they want to stay there, despite developments in China and Russia, so they’re very sensitive about their weapons technology going to other countries,” he tells The Saturday Paper. “In its simplest terms, space technology is regarded as akin to missile technology.”
While the ITAR has a benevolent motive in wanting to stop sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands, it also has the effect of enabling the US to retain a competitive advantage, he says.
“You won’t find that motivation explicitly in the official documents,” Freeland says.
However, he is less worried than Rice about ITAR’s reach.
“It’s quite common where people are dealing with national security issues to say: Sorry, but we get to choose the sort of people who work there because we don’t want them to have access,” he says.
Rice argues that the state department is dictating the private behaviour of individuals and companies outside the US, causing them to act unlawfully in their own countries.
Fines and jail terms
The state department can fine offending individuals and businesses up to $US1 million per violation for breaching ITAR requirements. It can ban companies from using American military exports and jail offenders for up to 10 years.
In a case that sent a message to universities, John Reece Roth, a former Tennessee professor of electrical engineering, was jailed for four years in 2009 for breaching the ITAR by providing information on drone technology to students from Iran and China.
Boeing was fined $US3.8 million in 2001, $US15 million in 2006 and $US3 million in 2008 for ITAR breaches and other companies have also been hit hard.
By comparison, breaches here of Australian anti-discrimination and equal opportunity law may lead to an apology or “small value financial compensation”, Australian defence industry lawyer Jane Elise Bates pointed out in the journal Security Challenges in 2012.
“From an economic perspective the balance is certainly in favour of continuing the status quo and seeking exemptions as required to permit the conduct of racial discrimination,” Bates wrote.
In the latest decision granting Thales Australia exemptions in November, VCAT member Anna Dea said the company’s work for the Australian Defence Force, including ship, aircraft, vehicle and munitions manufacture, generates more than $861 million in annual sales. It employs 871 people in Victoria, with an estimated $2 billion worth of projects lined up over the next eight to 10 years.
Dea listed the same reasons that have persuaded nearly every Australian decision-maker in her position for the past decade or so to grant exemptions, faced with the brutal reality of the US ITAR. The company’s work is important to Australia’s defence capability, the state economy and jobs that could otherwise go elsewhere, she said. She noted that no employees or union representatives made any submissions to the tribunal.
But it was not always so.
When Thales and ADI sought similar exemptions in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia in 2005, the commissioner for equal opportunity, the WA Trades and Labour Council, the state’s Ethnic Communities Council and Western Australians for Racial Equality all objected.
The companies won a five-year exemption anyway.
As Australia negotiated a new defence treaty with the US in 2008, judges and decision-makers for a while bridled at having to bow to American law, after a parliamentary committee recommended the federal government seek exemptions from the ITAR.
In 2007, the then VCAT president, Justice Stuart Morris, voiced his concern about being asked by Boeing Australia Holdings to depart from local legislation to provide jobs.
“Such a departure is only sought because important aerospace technology is subject to an American law which places American security ahead of this human rights standard. One might ask: why should not the Americans give way?” he said.
“One suspects that the ITAR is misconceived … But then, I rather doubt that the United States government will back down from ITAR in the face of a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.”
VCAT deputy president Cate McKenzie described the nationality-based prohibitions in the ITAR as a “blunt instrument” when she granted a partial exemption to BAE Systems Australia Limited in 2008.
“Assessment of individuals on a non-stereotyped basis, or training and education about the importance of the obligation of secrecy, would seem to me to be a better approach,” she said.
Little choice for legal bodies
At the end of 2008, the president of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, Douglas Savage, refused exemptions sought by the Boeing group. The companies’ opportunities should not be at the expense of employees or potential employees, said Savage, whose decision still stands.
He doubted that refugees who had risked their lives to flee nations whose regimes they opposed were a security concern. Any concern could equally apply to US or Australian citizens, he said.
Rice sees such opposition as having faded. In particular, although they have appeared in past hearings, he is disappointed at unions’ failure to take this on as a cause.
“They haven’t been very effective or strategic in their arguments,” he says.
Four years ago, Rice argued in The Canberra Law Review that courts and tribunals in reality “have had little real choice, in the face of employers’ (poorly substantiated) claims that without the exemption the defence contracts will be breached with serious consequences, including the loss of jobs.”
There have been at least 25 more decisions allowing exemptions since he wrote that. Thirteen were in New South Wales, where there are no public hearings and exemptions are gazetted by the attorney-general. Two were in the ACT, two in Victoria, six in South Australia and one in Western Australia.
“I’ve been waiting for one tribunal to break ranks,” says Rice. “It seems to me they’re spooked. They’re between a rock and a hard place. You have to have sympathy. This is a political issue. The tribunals are being asked to decide it and they shouldn’t be.”
However, tribunals should be more rigorous in making these self-interested businesses spell out the exact consequences if they complied with local human rights laws, Rice says.
The tough US laws are unpopular around the world, particularly with close allies such as Canada, and the Obama administration recently tweaked them. But as VCAT’s Anna Dea explained in her most recent Thales decision, “it remains the case that information about a workforce member’s nationality and national origin is still required”.
Freeland acknowledges the role of US domestic politics. “Americans are very good at protecting US interests. It’s what you pay your politicians for, in one sense,” he says.
“We may not like it, but if the American administration were not seen to protect US interests, it wouldn’t last long in government. Americans have a particularly patriotic or provincial view that the US is the centre of the universe.”
Canada, accustomed to its gigantic pushy neighbour, has over the past few years negotiated changes with the US State Department that allow companies to comply with the ITAR as well as Canadian privacy and human rights legislation.
The Canadian government acted following public controversies, including a ruckus when General Motors Canada sent immigrant workers home with pay after the company was fined $US20 million for breaching the ITAR when it manufactured certain military vehicles.
There is no such outcry here. Instead, Freeland says, Australian governments continue to tolerate the ITAR’s workings because of the trade-off of lucrative business investment.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.