More OZ Airport Chaos coming!

[Mogul]

It is about their rights, up to the employer to not let the public be affected. up to the employer to not be recalcitrant. Or should we all just be slaves.



It's not risky for employers who are prepared to be ethical in their dealings with employees.

So long as the employees are ethical in dealing with their employer.

 

[Hvr]

So long as the employees are ethical in dealing with their employer.

And vice-versa.

 

[anat0l]

If workers never took industrial action which inconvenienced the public we wouldn't have weekends, sick pay, holiday pay or most of the conditions we take for granted.

Meh, most of us don't really have those conditions anyway.

 

[Pushka]

A bit too cute to be comparing the situation with Trump.

 

[medhead]

The problem for most of the union bashing nonsense in this thread is that the union did respect the decision. That decision was for 3 months ONLY. A period of time that has now ENDED. Spare me the blatant union bashing - without unions we would all be serfs. Including all those having a waahaa in thread now.

Slaves and ethical is it? Hyperbole anyone?

More hyperbole. How should they take industrial action? I dunno - how about inconveniencing the management, not the flying public ,who even if they are sympathetic, can't actually do anything in the dispute.

More hyperbole.

Ditto. You don't actually believe that stuff, do you?


Straw man again. None of that is in dispute. Its about the union targeting the flying public, rather than the management they are in dispute with. Soft targets.


Honestly, if the above is the best that can be argued against the proposition "Border Force workers shouldn't target the flying public", then the case is totally made in the affirmative.

In the meantime, here is something to hum along to.

And if management refuses to engage in a negotiation process?

The fact is management should be inconvenienced by this, what is management doing to prevent impact on the public - NOTHING?

BTW refusing workers the right to legal withdrawal their labour is called slavery. That is what you're advocating with your comments in thread.

Agreed - don't like it, can't get your way via the proper negotiation channels - then strike in the form of not processing boring administration paperwork for the minister - the second you take action like this - you can F off and go and find a real job in the private sector with zero empathy from me.

Surely the Essential Services Act covers this kind of thing.....

Essential services. PMSL now what was it again... :?:

Hyperbole anyone?

Meh, most of us don't really have those conditions anyway.

What utter cough - you don't have sick leave, carers leave, holiday leave, minimum pay, paid public holidays, weekends? Maybe not as a uni student, but then you're not employed. And one who doesn't have that is because of the types in here bashing the union.

So long as the employees are ethical in dealing with their employer.

In this case they have been, despite the false hyperbole of some in thread.

 

[wandering_fred]

While I would likely support employees wanting to have consistency in chosing a location for their job, there are a number of occupations where that is not feasible. And the subject of conflicts of interest when governments deal with public sector unions has a large number of people advocating both sides. The nutshell argument you shouldn't have the ability to elect the government and then negotiate with the same government for wages and conditions.

The reference below may not be the best discussion for Australian situations but it does present some of the arguments.

Again your viewpoints will likely vary but I will look at both sides and continue my wandering

Fred
https://ballotpedia.org/Collective_bargaining,_private-public_sector_differences

 

[anat0l]

What utter cough - you don't have sick leave, carers leave, holiday leave, minimum pay, paid public holidays, weekends? Maybe not as a uni student, but then you're not employed. And one who doesn't have that is because of the types in here bashing the union.

Oh when I was employed I had some of those, and looking at my employed colleagues they have some or most of those too.

On paper they were given these; in practice, at least 75% of that time was expended working anyway. Of course, they don't "expect" us to work during those kinds of times, but we all know that if we did not, we would not complete our work and we would not have jobs.

 

[Himeno]

Employers will do whatever they think they can get away with, legal or otherwise, because they don't expect anyone will call them out on it. Given that most employees don't know what their rights are and just tend to believe what the employer tells them.
Of course, when they run into someone who does know what their rights are and calls them out on what they are doing, they don't know what to do and management digs their heals in and makes things worse for everyone.

 

[whatmeworry]

Problem when you merge government departments and want to make staff take the lowest deal on offer. I fully support the workers right to protect their pay and conditions.

***before the attack...no I don't work there, none of my family or friends work there, I would hate to be in their shoes***

I don't know what demands they are making, but talking to some of the guys I know and having interacted with some of the public servants of other departments, they have told me and I have seen that they are overworked as a result of public servant hiring freeze.

So if you have a business (or just a consumer waiting for a package from Nordstorm) and you are trying export/import something, don't blame them if their is a delay in sending/receiving your goods.

The guys in Border force are not happy their work is being politicised for the sake of winning votes but they do like the uniforms.

 

[whatmeworry]

A bit too cute to be comparing the situation with Trump.

I think it is a fair analogy to be making.

People in Australia, the UK and the USA are not happy with the erosion of worker rights, free trade deals (which are not so fair or free) and jobs being offshore all for the sake of big business and the one percent.

So by showing the picture of Trump and that this could happen to us if we go down the path of thatcher/reganomics.

I know the devotees of Ayn Rand can't understand why the economy needs regulation.

 

[dfcatch]

It's pretty simple really:

1- There are lots of jobs where your location can't be guaranteed and you can be moved around. Those jobs aren't for everyone - don't like it - pick a different career.

2- There's plenty of folks (like the 80% of the workforce who aren't unionized plus some who are) that get through their lives without needing to strike and inconvenience others. Despite the Marxists here - no-one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to work for the public service and get above market working conditions in many areas such as super.

3- Don't like working in the public service - leave.

4- Pay rates for Border Force are **** - but if you don't like it - quit

5- If enough people quit - then market forces dictate that the wages go up... it's pretty simple really - and everyone who has real jobs in the private sector - or dare I say the folks who actually risk their own money to run small businesses, employ others, and actually contribute to the economy understand this as well.

6- I do feel for the BF employees as the pay is ****, and it's a tough gig - but going into that job was a voluntary choice, fully knowing the wages and conditions - you can't have a dummy-spit just because you don't get the pay rise that you're chasing.

 

[TonyHancock]

Employers never give workers a benefit because they're kind or because they think it's fair.

I am not a great fan of the political threads on AFF and do wonder why they are allowed to continue........but as an employer I have to say that being "kind" and fair is central to the way a modern business needs to operate. The goal is to create a workplace where employees can challenge their superiors, receive a fair wage, and enjoy a decent workplace, this leads to a successful business.

My business could, and in fact does, have the best products in the world in the field in which we operate, but without a skilled team to build, market and sell them they are worthless. My goal is to create an environment where people enjoy their work and feel part of a team. Their goal is to give me hell when that is not working properly.....and they rightly do when it isn't. Consequently we have a high retention rate and also a strong desire to learn. We pay for further education, we are also desperately keen to encourage a return from maternity leave with flexible hours and provision of tools to allow work from home. (I do wonder why some companies do not do this. :?: )

It has become a cliche but in any business people are the only "thing" that matter.

Funnily enough there is no desire to be part of a union..........but I can see why there is a need in some larger companies.

 

[muppet]

Straw man argument. It's not about their rights, it's about them taking their grievances out on the travelling public, who have no say either way.

The travelling public could have prevented this at the ballot box.

The travelling public knew the government's policy was to cut wages and conditions and knew, from last year, that the unions response was cause delays through industrial action.

Don't whinge when you make a choice (collectively) and have to wear the entirely predictable consequences.

The travelling public had their say ...and here we are!

 

[MarkD]

One of the main issues is that staff can be posted anywhere/anytime, refusal is not an option. Compassionate transfers are being tightened up also. Not exactly a family friendly situation.

Plenty of people work like that. The department i work for can shift me pretty much whenever they feel like it under certain conditions. I knew that when i applied for the job. If they dont like the job or conditions perhaps they should not have applied, or leave if conditions have changed.

 

[Pushka]

I dont know your industry Tony Hancock but my son has just joined an Australian company as an apprentice and I have been blown away by their culture. They really want every employee to feel valued and part of the team. Strangely enough there is no union involvement at all.

Its insulting to say that employers are out to screw their employees. But it seems that it is ok in some quarters to say that, but not the reverse. Interesting.

 

[TomVexille]

I dont know your industry Tony Hancock but my son has just joined an Australian company as an apprentice and I have been blown away by their culture. They really want every employee to feel valued and part of the team. Strangely enough there is no union involvement at all.

Its insulting to say that employers are out to screw their employees. But it seems that it is ok in some quarters to say that, but not the reverse. Interesting.

Unfortunately I think that's more the exception then the rule

 

[puppysparkes]

Plenty of people work like that. The department i work for can shift me pretty much whenever they feel like it under certain conditions. I knew that when i applied for the job. If they dont like the job or conditions perhaps they should not have applied, or leave if conditions have changed.

Fair enough too but this is a new policy initiative that BF staff are unhappy with. This wouldn't be an issue for anyone recently employed. Given there has been a hold on recruiting, it doesn't apply. It seems they are attempting to use the existing resources according to business requirements. The problem is nobody wants to go to DRW. Yes the salary is woeful for what they are required to do. For some this is offset by the remote salary payment, which is also being negotiated away. This impacts staff such as those those in DRW. Rent and electricity on a BF salary without remote allowance, likely unworkable. They already struggle to retain staff.

For the record I'm not union affiliated nor am I a BF officer.

 

[Pushka]

Unfortunately I think that's more the exception then the rule

Probably. I'm not convinced that Government employees fall into the same work environments and conditions that industrial workers experience. Although I understand the work conditions of Holden workers were exceptional. And now their jobs are going offshore.

 

[Limewood]

Standing in that queue for so long during one of these rolling strikes with about 1000 other passengers along with the old people and one guy on crutches did it for me and after a very long flight from Doha, and they waited until 3 international aircraft landed to pull this stunt, bloody awful behaviour in anyones book.

At least the the young guy in front of us sure gave them a gob full as we finally exited the long queue when the boss and his workers came out from their office bunker, it sure made my day as a few clapped.

Look these guys do a great job but hell - treating the flying public like this especially after the long haul is just not on.

 

[trooper]

As puppysparkes has pointed out..this mobility requirement appears to be something new.

Yes.. its FINE to demand such things..on initial employment. To unilaterally CHANGE employees conditions to include such things is NOT....