I have to admit, I've never understood this type of thing. I don't mean that I don't agree, or that I do agree, I just don't actually understand. Management says "we want to go this way", and the employees say, "No, we don't want to do that". Hmm. Companies in most of the western democracies are not collectives, I'd have thought that the obvious way for employees who don't agree with their own management to go is out the door and on to a new (and probably better) job ... what am I missing?
I get the social impact, but for-profit companies are not built and run for the benefit of employees ... surely? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I'm cautious because I know how easy it is to be mistaken in writing posts where so much human interaction is missing.
Companies are run to make money, and more money, and the way to do that is to use the least amount of resources (human and otherwise) possible to generate the greatest return. To argue this point is to argue the whole idea of capitalism as realised in recent times. I'm not sure there is ever a point, in law at least, where we collectively tell a company to stop increasing profit and start running for the benefit of society (which actually sounds like a good idea!!).
Look at banks - some of the lowest paid workers you will find slave away in the bowels of the big banks, this despite staggering profit and year on year growth in that profit. At what point do we decide to nationalise the banks for the good of the working class?
Note that the sterile vision of flesh and blood humans toiling to feed 'the machine' is by no means my own ideal or utopian dream, but it seems to be the reality of accepted capitalism in modern times. To single out single companies for a more socially resposible measure does not seem realistic.
No no, you make good points, I'm happy to respond - I understand your not being a smartarse.
The first thing i'll say is employee's don't decide the companies direction (well the bulk of the work force, obviously the top bosses do) so i'll assume that you meant in regards to pay conditions etc. In Australia we have Industrial Relations laws - sure laws that have been subject to ALOT of change over the last 10 years, but laws never-the-less. The bulk of issues occur around EB's
PAY/EB negotiations:
Even at (my opinion) their worse, workchoices and AWA's, enshrined in legislation, was the fact that employers MUST negotiate. That is, essentially an employer can't say, this is it, if you don't like it eff off. The reason this was even in Howards legislation is because it recognises that the employer will always want whats best for the company - low employee costs. The Employee will always want whats best for the employee - high employee costs.
The answer, in Australia at least, lies somewhere inbetween - that's why we have EB negotiations.
If a company doesn't negotiate, they can be taken to the Fair Pay Commission, who will independently value the work done and make a legally binding assesment. Both sides can loose here, i've seen cases go against Unions and i've seen cases go against Employers.
Now the question is why?
Because any employer worth their salt (or has any business sense), knows that a good employee who is happy, is worth far more than a underpaid employee who isn't happy nor committed to the business. You have less sick leave, higher productivity and generally better results.
What's happening with Qantas though is a different kettle of fish.
Retrenchment/redundency:
Quite often companies will lay off staff. Most don't like to do it for the reasons above, but it is a reality in business. Now I as a person who believes in the Labour Movement (not ALP although I am a member, I mean the worldwide movement that supports the worker) believe that redundencies are a nescessity in good business. Lets face it, they have to happen.
But they should be for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. And when they happen, they should be fair and at the right price. They should also be a last resort as they are
not cheap.
So why is the TWU and other unions threatening to take Industrial action over this?
Because the very core function of a union is to protect the masses. That is you pick on one, you pick on all. Solidarity. It's not about holding a company to ransom, or being thugs, it's about getting what is
fair for the worker. (i'll admit sometimes it can go too far, but this is the exception, not the rule).
The fact is with the 1000 lay off's there will be sackings. I agree with MileHigh, there will be some VR's, maybe even as much as half, but there will still be people getting sacked. Union members are angry, because it could be one of them, they might be the one laid off.
Now this is where it comes down to the matter of principal. You can either believe an individuals worth, and not worry about others (but when your the one being sacked, dont go looking for support), or you can look at the greater worth of all the employees - we're getting a bit deep now for AFF, but its the very core of what it means to be a member of a union - a united group, fighting to protect the bloke or woman next to them, as much as themselves.
Standing up for your mate - isn't that the real
spirit of Australia? Isn't that what made Australia what it is today? (I don't expect an Irishman to get it..)
Company making money:
Your right. A companies job is to make money - after all if QF doesn't make money, then the other 34,000 employees are in serious cough - so its a fine line. But all companies, as a member of society, have an obligation to their employees and the wider community (not in law, but morally) - not to mention its good business practise.
So you're right. Qantas don't have to look after their employee's. They don't have to worry about the social impact of sacking 1000 staff. They certainly don't have to give two flips about what happens here or to those people that are impacted by the decision, but if they are going to call themselves
The Spirit of Australia, they damn well should!
