This is a very relevant question / point......
Except that we're not (or at least I'm not) talking about who is right or wrong in their background motives (eg. whether the employees are entitled fairly to ask for what they are, or whether management has the right to go down the strategy they seek to), nor am I talking about the diplomatic and people skills that any or all sides possess.... These are subjective discussions that no-one will ever be able to win an argument on......
To me - the issue is solely related to "industrial action".
IE. Action taken by a party because they don't like the fact that they're not getting their way and they want to throw their toys out of their cot to make their point. Such action invariably is designed to cause disruption. (I'm not casting judgement on either side here).
A/ Now - the unions have decided at some point that instead of agreeing to whatever was on the table - they would launch disruptive industrial action. (Their right to do so).
B/ In the end - the company responded, not by agreeing to such demands, but with their own disruptive industrial action (Their right to do so).
Regardless of the merits of the arguments - B could only legally occur as a result of A occurring.
That's my point - and that's why I blame the unions.
My view on the industrial action is discrete, separate and isolated from any views I may hold on:
1/ The actual claims by individual parties and their merits;
2/ The performance and abilities of management;
3/ The strategy and direction of the company.
Couldn't this also be written the other way?
I.e. A/ Now - the Qantas have decided at some point that instead of agreeing to whatever was on the table - they would cease negotiations. (Their right to do so).
B/ In the end - the unions responded, not by agreeing to such demands, but with their own disruptive industrial action (Their right to do so).
C/ Qantas spat the dummy and shut the place down including wanting to lock out people who aren't in dispute.
It takes two to tango, and I doubt that either party is completely blameless here. Indeed I don't believe anybody has actually said that.
However, as I have written many times there will be an ongoing relationship after this dispute is over. QF management keep insisting that they are highly competent and need to make major changes to ensure the company's survival in a changing business environment.
Unless they have pilotless planes which don't need any staff then they will need at least some of their current staff. If retrenchments are inevitable then the people who remain need to feel that they have been treated fairly as have their former colleagues.
When work practises change, as QF management insist they surely must then you will need people who feel that their management will treat them fairly as the change unfolds.
A collaborative work environment is essential. We have talked about old guard unionists but surely they are only a reaction to old guard management who seem to want to treat their workers as chattels.
Modernisation and mutual respect is essential for both 'sides'. Qantas management may have a vision for the future but unless it has been shared with their workers then how can they change? Fear of the unknown is what drives reactive actions to protect what you currently have.
It has often been said (and I have written it at least once in either AFF or FT threads) that companies get the unions they deserve. What did the workers do to get this type of management?
