Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[drron]

All I can say is that the Commonwealth and State Governments have been actively recruiting Asians and anyone else to do my job for years.Its a global economy.Thats life.

 

[browski]

All I can say is that the Commonwealth and State Governments have been actively recruiting Asians and anyone else to do my job for years.Its a global economy.Thats life.

Surely you mean Asian Austalians.

 

[medhead]

All I can say is that the Commonwealth and State Governments have been actively recruiting Asians and anyone else to do my job for years.Its a global economy.Thats life.

Ah, that'll change once we get over the baby boom hump and we no longer have excessive need to provide medical services.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[browski]

Just about every other worker in Australia seems to handle this everyday occurrence pretty well. Many have had their industry (forestry, dairy, textile, manufacturing, farmers - and the list goes on) eliminated or ripped apart due to regulatory change, competition, unproductive work practices & agreements.

What I want to know it what is special about Qantas employees?

For me - it's not about ALP v Libs or union bashing. If protective mechanism are seen as critical for QF workers than all Australian workers should receive the same benefit.

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.

 

[ajw373]

This contradicts your earlier post. Provide a link to these reports that you claim happened.

Sorry don't quite see the contradiction. As for providing links for my claims, maybe you can do the same.

 

[straitman]

Where? Because the Australian wrote "Qantas terminated conciliation talks with 2 unions and a third also opted for arbitration". That may mean that 2 unions wanted to continue negotiations. Unfortunately the article does not go on to inform that question.

Not as widely reported as you suggest if it is not in the National newspaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

I only saw it on several TV news reports on multiple channels. If that is not 'reported widely' then our definitions are quite different. It does not have to have been read in a newspaper to qualify IMHO.

 

[dfcatch]

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......

 

[medhead]

I only saw it on several TV news reports on multiple channels. If that is not 'reported widely' then our definitions are quite different. It does not have to have been read in a newspaper to qualify IMHO.

And yet not widely enough to be in a newspaper. I think I've bolded the operative word - only. Widely - "to a large degree in nature or character". IMO being limited to one form of media is rather narrow.

Sorry don't quite see the contradiction. As for providing links for my claims, maybe you can do the same.

You don't see the contradiction in saying that (only) one union wanted to continue negotiations and then changing your view when I quote from The Australian? Ok then.

As for a link have a read of the next paragraph. Then type www.theaustralian.com.au into a web browser and look for aviation. Of course, I did also directly quote my source. Still waiting for a link or even a quote to support you claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[ajw373]

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.

The question is how many more will their actions take down with them. Could be the whole company.

 

[straitman]

And yet not widely enough to be in a newspaper. I think I've bolded the operative word - only. Widely - "to a large degree in nature or character". IMO being limited to one form of media is rather narrow.

To simplify this as you have missed the point.

I saw it on TV because I watched TV. I did not read it in the newspaper as I do not read the newspapers on most days.

 

[ajw373]

And yet not widely enough to be in a newspaper. I think I've bolded the operative word - only. Widely - "to a large degree in nature or character". IMO being limited to one form of media is rather narrow.



You don't see the contradiction in saying that (only) one union wanted to continue negotiations and then changing your view when I quote from The Australian? Ok then.

As for a link have a read of the next paragraph. Then type Cookies must be enabled | The Australian into a web browser and look for aviation. Of course, I did also directly quote my source. Still waiting for a link or even a quote to support you claims.

Sorry think you are trying to tie two comments on different subjects into the one when that is not the case. In the first instance I was replying to your exaggerated claim that Qantas said no to everything. When clearly they didn't say no as they were by all accounts close with one union. You don't get there by saying no, you get there through negotiation.

Heres the text:

"That is a gross exaggeration, especially when one of the unions reported that they were close to agreement with Qantas and wanted another 21 days to continue. Sounds like there was some negotiations going on there. Also the same media reports indicate that the unions too have said no without a counter offer. The pilots union for example demanding that Jetstar and Jetconnect pilots be paid the same as them for example. So it takes two to tango. "

The second was in relation to the unions wanting to continue and Qantas not wanting to. Different thing altogether, so hardly contradicting the previous comment, if anything strengthening it.

"Of course they wanted to continue because they didn't receive what they wanted and they know if it goes to FWA they have no chance of getting what they wanted, so were trying to drag it out as long as possible. Clearly Qantas, quite rightly wants it all over and done with. "

 

[drron]

Surely you mean Asian Austalians.

No.It takes them a few years to get that title.I mean straight off the plane from Asia,Africa etc.Surely you remember Bundaberg Hospital.

 

[ajw373]

Ok so a couple of problems here. Firstly, your repeating Joyce's version of events. That is Joyce's version of the meaning of job security claim. Strangely enough it is an extreme version and it does not match the pilot's version. There is little point in just repeating one side of the story, ignoring the other side and not trying to to weight up both sides to make a judgement.

Secondly, I'm not sure how negotiation works for you; but normally it doesn't involve making a claim and then making a counter offer to your own claim.

That's not Joyces claim this is AIPA's claim, they are the ones who want a Qantas pilot on a Qantas flight. As for negotiation, how do you negotiate a claim like this?

 

[medhead]

That's not Joyces claim this is AIPA's claim, they are the ones who want a Qantas pilot on a Qantas flight. As for negotiation, how do you negotiate a claim like this?

Funny those are exactly the words Joyce has used (widely) on TV over the last X months. The actual reported claim is something like qantas flights and codeshares operated by pilots on similar conditions. - going from memory on this, hopefully someone might have the exact words.

Joyce has taken that line to mean Jetstar flights, because yes technically they might be QF codeshares. - this is what you mentioned.

But if we look at the pilots website (first time for me, found it googling for the reported pilots claim). It says interalia "the clause would guarantee that all qantas, or 'red tail', flying would be performed by qantas pilots" etc. That really gives the key issue.

How to negotiate that claim/demand. Listening to the AIPA guy on Sky on 29 Oct he said they'd accept exemptions. Take the above statement of the required outcome and negotiate accordingly. Jetstar, redq, jetstar japan, air pacific, etc. (all non red tail airlines) are exempt, existing jetconnect arrangement is grandfathered. Leaving QFi flights from Australia to everywhere except NZ, to be operated by qantas pilots.

That formalises the status quo and still allows qantas to set up new airlines and fly them to Oz.

It is an ambit claim, the pilots have publicly stated what they really want; besides some acting for the rank and file it shouldn't be that hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[medhead]

No.It takes them a few years to get that title.I mean straight off the plane from Asia,Africa etc.Surely you remember Bundaberg Hospital.

Didn't that involve an Asian American?


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[amaroo]

The special thing about Qantas employees is that they have a Union.

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.

Yes QF employees have unions - I think about 15 of them all up!

That means that there are 12 other unions representing the remaining 80+% of QF employees that are not affected by FWA intervention or undergoing any current IR dispute with QF.

Law of averages would suggest that the 3 unions that are unable to reach agreement are the issue. It's about time they conducted a review of their objective & actions - as the current strategy is not working.

In regards to the other industries that have faced change. I imagine that their are many employees & their respective unions that would take umbrage at your conclusion regarding their lack of ability to counter the inevitable & that other options were available to change their unfortunate circumstances. Industries change and everyone involved needs to evolve with it.

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)

This issue is far greater that just a small minority of the QF employees. Remember that for every one employee that's in dispute.....there are 4 that are not. So in relation to your analogy re, 6000 coming to the add of 1000 - based on a total workforce of around 35,000 there are 28,000 that are staying right out of it & the silence is deafening.

Finally, I have a tremendous amount of compassion for all employees facing change - no matter who they work for or what industry they work in. However, allowing a union to run amok & drag down an organisation is destructive, & ultimately risks the jobs of all employees.

 

[browski]

The question is how many more will their actions take down with them. Could be the whole company.

Answer: None.
Your question is once again misleading though (and blatant scaremongering).

Let me try:
The question is, how many staff will lose their jobs through the spurious and selfserving actions of Qantas CEOs like Dixon and AJ. Could be the whole company.

Ok, now I see how you do it. Cool.

 

[The Rok]

Is it just me or is anybody else dizzy from going round in circles so much?

 

[straitman]

Is it just me or is anybody else dizzy from going round in circles so much?

Yes I am :!:

 

[amaroo]

Is it just me or is anybody else dizzy from going round in circles so much?

Beats arguing with the wife