Hi dfcatch
Since you're in the know, what was it's 'offer'?
I'm interested to know what the workers don't think is acceptable.
Could it perhaps be a below cost of living increase? I notice my airfares have gone up greater than cost of living index (even greater than inflation).
I notice AJ's has gone up ??? how much? wasn't it 47%? And the board is asking the peasant shareholders to award AJ a futher $500k in shares and $1m in options.... While the value of the company has dropped to about a third of it's peak?
It's funny how this is ALL the unions fault to you.
I believe fundamentally, Qantas is a good employer that treats it's employees fairly. However, it has this fascist period every so often where it tries to make up for poor management decisions (ie. relying heavily on a380 and 787 - new technology with significant implementation delays) by simply paying employees less. Paying people less does not equal increased productivity. (Although I think NGCI does increase productivity and is working brilliantly).
By the way, on the Qantasia thing, have you seen the way workers in Malaysia and Singapore are treated? It's appalling in most industries visible to a tourist like me! Even Qantas group screws it;s asian employees. As a customer, I won't support Qantasia.
m.
I agree with most of your comments here - and I've stated several times that I'm not in any hurry to defend QF management.
I don't know what the offer is - but you're right - whatever it is - it probably IS less than a cost of living increase.
Doesn't change the facts:
1/ Cost of living increases are not a given right (although quite a reasonable thing to request);
2/ In the real world, most employees in most companies are not guaranteed cost of living increases;
3/ Not getting an automatic cost-of-living payrise is not "paying workers less". It's simply a payrise that is less than "current expectations of inflation".
I (and most normal people I know) don't go complaining to our employers that we didn't receive an automatic cost-of-living increase.
4/ The union can ask for whatever it wants for its employees. But if QF management doesn't give it to them - and they then choose to throw their toys out of the cot, and hold the company to ransom by disrupting its operations, customers and revenue - then IMHO they do the workers no favours, win no public support, and ultimately may cost themselves (or a portion of them) their jobs.
Everyone (regardless of where they work) is entitled to ask for more money. But ultimately you either have to accept whatever you're offered - or you can go work elsewhere.
Oh what's that?? If they work for other airlines then they get less pay and conditions?? Exactly my point.
And your example about Qantasia (which I agree with you on), is precisely the point I am trying to make regarding the union cutting off its nose to spite its face.
BTW - You complain that your fares have gone up, AJ's salary has gone up, but the employees' haven't (by as much). You too can choose to fly another airline instead, and then you'll sleep better at night not having to worry about QF's unethical approach to the world.
PS. And yes - when it comes to industrial action that disrupts my travel, yes, it's the unions' fault.
If the union was striking because QF was forcing workers to snort asbetos in the lunch room, or to push aircraft around with their hands - then sure, I would support them striking. But not in this case.
My opinions on QF management are a different discussion altogether.
------------------
EDIT: You've inspired me to write about this dispute in my financial management paper.
"Can Qantas maximise the value of the firm to shareholders in a manner consistent with the firm exercising considerable social responsibility?"
