The special thing about Qantas employees is that they have a Union. This is why the Chamber of Commerce and the Libs are so keen on removing collective bargaining. Collective bargaining means that the employed group have a slightly stronger hand in negotiations with an employer than "Individual bargaining".
From an employee's perspective, Individual bargaining is possibly a better model if you have a specialized or unique skill, and if you have a reasonably higher level of education (and some confidence). If however, you are in a functional and readily replaceable role than Collective bargaining can probably represent your interests better.
Now, let's say in a workforce of 7000, perhaps 1000 jobs are going to be offshored (and/or sub-contracted out to a lower paying shell company) then the 7000 employees will most likely vote (via their Union) to display their displeasure at the misfortune about to befall their 1000 colleagues. The remaining 6000 do this because they know that if/when the gun is now turned onto themselves, they hope for similar support from the collective. This also hopefully explains to the other (ideologically over-invested) posters how their bags will be unloaded in Melbourne.:shock: (I'm shocked that I had to explain this
)
Will the workers/pilots win; probably not. But all those people sacked/made redundant in other industries (to which you refer) did not really have anyone sticking up for them - they just got bullied out the door. So, I like to cut the Qantas workers some slack, because ultimately they will be unemployed and that is sad. But if they can take a pound of flesh from QF management and have some dignity intact on the way out the door, then I won't begrudge them that. And I like to defend them in my small way against posters like yourself who seem to be devoid of compassion to their plight.
1/ I think everyone here is well aware of the benefits of collective bargaining for blue-collar/easily-replaceable/unskilled workers.
Collective bargaining has its place.
Minimum award conditions also has its place to protect low-paid workers who are not in good positions to bargain - again, mainly unskilled shop assistants for example.
You are mistaken however in your comments regarding the Libs/Chamber of Commerce wanting to remove collective bargaining.
Let's go over some facts:
a/ Firstly - I am not a supporter of all of the Workchoices legislation - but that doesn't mean I don't support some of it.
b/ Collective bargaining was NOT outlawed under workchoices - regardless of what the ACTU would have you believe.
What workchoices did do however - was stop unions FORCING employees to collectively bargain against their wishes.
If an employee wanted to collectively bargain (or even individually bargain but through the union representative) they could. As a worker - I had the option at all times.
c/ Now however - I (as an employee) no longer have (what I consider my democratic right) to individually bargain. I am forced to be part of a collective agreement. I am also pressured into taking whatever industrial action my union says I should. If I refuse - I am labelled a scab. Secret ballot or not - same pressure.
d/ Non-union member employees are effectively forced to join the union, as they are benefited/penalised the same as the others when it comes to industrial action.
So by all means compare the benefits of collective vs individual bargaining for certain employees - but no-one - not even under workchoices - banned collective bargaining.
Union influence was however limited to that initiated by the employees themselves - rather than the union being granted unfettered, unsolicited access.
2/ Workchoices went too far IMHO by removing protections.
The FWA replaced protections, but also granted the unions much more power and removed the ability of workers to negotiate individual agreements (if they wished to).
3/ The campaign over IR in 2007 was not about workers rights. It was about unions on death row seeing themselved becoming irrevelant in the modern economy due to masses of former union members no longer staying with the union.
4/ A workforce such as QF's will always be heavily unionised - even under Workchoices or any IR framework.
We all understand why workers stand up for the 1000 being made redundant. But the best form of job security is to make sure you assist your employer in lowering their cost base. If you as the workers collective remain uncompetitive - you just increase pressure on QF to offshore/outsource/JQ or Jetconnect it etc etc.
The ideals you espouse are noble and romantic - but they are unrealistic in the modern world and will paradoxically lead to more job losses in the medium-long term rather than less.
QF will achieve its aims, one way or the other, rightly or wrongly - the unions would do more of a service to their members by accepting this and negotiating a less-worse outcome. Perhaps support for structural changes but with generous redundancy packages......