Qantas contracting packaging work to cheap prison labour

[anat0l]

Now this doesn't make any sense.

Corrective Services being that for the work undertaken by prisoners, and now it is being sub-contracted back to Sunnyfield?

I'm confused.

FWIW I missed that key line in the original article, which seems to take a nice bash at QF and their insensitivity towards the disabled (with another non-QF reference thrown in for good measure).

 

[serfty]

...
I'm surprised QF had to rethink the tender for such a cheap task, i.e. I can't imagine QF "spent" so much on this task that they had to retender out for it.

If cost cutting was what QF were trying to do then I think they were targeting the wrong area.

Perhaps not.

In October, Qantas carried over 1.9 Million passengers, if just 50% of those opened a recycled economy headphone pack that's nearly 1 Million to be repackaged.

Extrapolate that over 12 months and you have a lot of headphones being repackaged.

And, that's just Qantas Domestic and Qantas link. Consider the 7 Million + annual international passengers ...

 

[UP4014]

Qantas put the activity out to tender and chose the supplier who gave a better offer.

Just because the group that did this work previously was disabled workers, does not mean Qantas has an obligation to keep using that supplier.

In fact I feel that it is discrimination to procure a service and ignore lower bidders because they do not employ disabled people.

They don't have an obligation, but even as a shareholder and customer I kind of like Qantas supporting disabled workers and more than happy to take a 1 cent cut in the dividend for it to continue.

For what is effectively a Govt agency using the cheapest labour possible to undercut an organisation such as Sunnyfield is the lowest of the low.

For Qantas to accept is washing it's hands of local social responsibility.

Matt

 

[UP4014]

So prisoners do not have the right to work as well? To get some experience in jail that might help them with re-establishing themselves in the community? If they end up with a job after prison, there is a much lower chance of them re-offending. Also by keeping them occupied, they have less time to cause trouble inside.

Yes, the likes of TT and ACA would love this story - but I don't see the shock value of it.

Not if it means a single person at Sunnyfield is disadvantaged.

Prisoners have had their rights taken away by Society as punishment for crimes committed against individuals and the community, they don't vote for example.

 

[Mal]

They don't have an obligation, but even as a shareholder and customer I kind of like Qantas supporting disabled workers and more than happy to take a 1 cent cut in the dividend for it to continue.

If you are a shareholder, take it up with Qantas. They should listen to shareholders, like most companies do. Heck, I once got an phoned apology from the 2nd tier of a very large Australian bank because I am a shareholder and told them I was upset at something they did...and they actually did the same thing better the second time they did it based on my feedback.

It didn't matter that my shares in that company were worth less than $2000 at the time.

I disagree with the rest of your comments, but this is not unusual for this type of thread. Everyone has their own opinions.

 

[UP4014]

I agree with you.

The people who think they act "ethically" by complaining about Qantas changing contractors to Prison workers are actually hurting Disabled people more as in the future Qantas and other companies will be very hesitant to ever give work to Disabled workers due to the problems faced if they move away from using them.

Rubbish. Please state a past example of a company not giving work to disabled workers for fear of changing suppliers in the future.

 

[Dave Noble]

Rubbish. Please state a past example of a company not giving work to disabled workers for fear of changing suppliers in the future.

He is referring to the risk of FUTURE actions so there cannot be a past example of a future risk. I do not think that it is rubbish that companies may think twice before instigating a move to using such a service due to the risk of being attacked later if they decide to change

 

[oz_mark]

I'm surprised QF had to rethink the tender for such a cheap task, i.e. I can't imagine QF "spent" so much on this task that they had to retender out for it.

If cost cutting was what QF were trying to do then I think they were targeting the wrong area.

The need to tender or otherwise is dictated by internal rules based on things like the expected value of the contract. It may have been as simple as get a couple of quotes, or it may have been a full blown tender. Whichever it was, it would likely be required by their internal processes and procedures to do this.

 

[markis10]

I have to say that I am a little bit surprised at QF getting the bash here, they put a job to tender and took the best offer, and lets face it the work required would not be suitable for many companies by its very nature.

What I do have issue with is the participation in this process by corrective services, those of you who heard the article on AM last week would have heard the spokesperson for Corrective Services saying they never had the intention of taking the place of another organisation that could not compete on the same commercial terms "LUKE GRANT (Corrective Services): We did not go into this process seeking to out-compete another group of people providing very worthwhile employment opportunities to a very needy group", if that is the case then why did they tender, as no other organisation would have the same cost base they operate on or advantage. The whole interview smacked of backpeddling by corrective services because they were caught trying to compete with other companies while having a very big advantage - low cost labour.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2774135.htm

 

[haydensydney]

Umm, the same *revelation* was in your original article:

Oh my bad - didn't see that in the original article

 

[possumoz]

Australian companies have a long history of corporate philanthropy. Many
of our large public corporations have both disability education and disability employment strategies in place.

I have participated on both state and national charity boards and know that many corporations not only make one off gifts to Not For Profit Organisations but provide ongoing funding for projects of a number of years. Some companies even fund multiple projects within an organisation.

It's been my personal experience that these corporations have a genuine commitment to their chosen charitable organisations.

Qantas in particular has a long history of sponsoring Not For Profit organisations, including (if memory serves me) disabled sporting and children's charities. Indeed its my belief that Qantas also encourages its staff to be involved in volunteering.

In my opinion this current "controversy" in unfair and petty.

note: I do not, and have never worked for Qantas or a related company. Most of my flying to and fro is due to my volunteer work commitments (and largely at my own expense).

 

[Alanslegal]

Alot of you guys miss the point or miss the truth, that even people with disabilities and who work in "sheltered" type workshops get paid measley amounts of $$$. Yes it's a benefit to them to be engaged in meaningful type of work (self esteem, confidence, social interaction etc) but getting less than a regular soy latte an hour, C'mon that's clear exploitation as well.

Also engaging in prison labour? well it is also a benefit as well, as these people (yes convicted crim's) learn and develop skills and hopefully won't need to resort to illegal behaviour once they get out.

It is a truism, that QF could easily send the work to China, India, Sri Lanka or who's knows where, and get the job done for much more cheaper than they could get anywhere in Australia.

 

[Mal]

Alot of you guys miss the point or miss the truth, that even people with disabilities and who work in "sheltered" type workshops get paid measley amounts of $$$. Yes it's a benefit to them to be engaged in meaningful type of work (self esteem, confidence, social interaction etc) but getting less than a regular soy latte an hour, C'mon that's clear exploitation as well.

Also engaging in prison labour? well it is also a benefit as well, as these people (yes convicted crim's) learn and develop skills and hopefully won't need to resort to illegal behaviour once they get out.

It is a truism, that QF could easily send the work to China, India, Sri Lanka or who's knows where, and get the job done for much more cheaper than they could get anywhere in Australia.

Also, the Government would be offering some subsidy to the organisation as well for the employment. They are unlikely to pax tax (or they get tax breaks) as a registered charity. People don't realise it isn't a level playing field either way you look at it.

I agree, Qantas could just send the repacking off-shore. Then everyone can whine about how Qantas sent it off-shore instead.