QF Engineers set to strike !

[Mal]

I think you miss my point. Qantas has increased fares in the last few months because the price of fuel has increased. Most of that increase occurred last year NOT in the last few months - commonwealth securities research substantiates that. Therefore the recent fare increases should have been made to substantially cover the cost of fuel.

I believe they are factoring in hedging. Originally they were protected from a lot of the price change because of hedge contracts. These are getting more expensive to obtain now. Hopefully when the results are out there will be more info about their hedging and fuel costs.

 

[bambbbam2]

Not sure what they earn, but there was a story in the paper recently saying that baggage handlers at SYD earn 65k..

 

[simongr]

If that is how they treat customers then IMO they probably being bad to their staff as well.

Glad you are stringing together two unrelated "facts" - adds a lot of weight to your argument...

Hang on - what's this all about - bonuses? I'm starting to think these guys are on a pretty good deal. They probably have only a 38 hour week, with paid overtime etc. I'd like to find out exactly what sort of money they earn. As far as skill goes, I don't see them as any different to any other maintenance people on specialized equipment. If a plane fails, hundreds of people can die. If a bus looses brakes or steering, many people can die. If a train fails, hundreds can die. I appreciate their skill, the same as I appreciate the skill of any trained person. But let's keep it in perspective.

If the engineers are on the same schedule as other maintenance staff then they are likely to be on a rolling 4 days on 4 days off shift pattern working 6AM-6PM or 6PM-6AM rather than a straight 38 hour week. It is a horrendous shift schedule (but no worse than other workers who work shifts) that makes it incredibly hard to schedule family events.

In terms of technical skill there is quite a difference between a jumbo jet and a bus or even a train. In most of the train incidents there are quite a few dead in injured - very aircraft incidents end up with anyone walking away.

Just trying to provide some context. I personally think that engineering union are playing into Qantas's hands with these strikes. This just fuels the argument (public and internally) for offshoring the work.

The most likely outcome is at best a small number of engineers are retained on higher wages and the vast majority retire.

 

[Platy]

-my firm has recently moved to a BFOD deal to cut our costs...the things that drove profits last year arent there going forward....

I'm afraid I don't know what a "BFOD" is?

I assume that you yourself are more than happy to take a pay cut out of respect for your own company's tough times?

What % cut are you prepared to shoulder out of respect for your employer?

How will you judge whether that is a fair arrangement?

 

[bambbbam2]

I'm afraid I don't know what a "BFOD" is?

Best Fare Of the Day - basically you fly with whichever airline offers the cheapest fare on the day you need to travel.

On the main topic, I can foresee Qantas will just move the jobs offshore. Well done union.

 

[simongr]

I'm afraid I don't know what a "BFOD" is?

I assume that you yourself are more than happy to take a pay cut out of respect for your own company's tough times?

What % cut are you prepared to shoulder out of respect for your employer?

How will you judge whether that is a fair arrangement?

My payrise this was 3%. To get anymore I would need to take on more responsibility or have a change in role. I am currently assessing what my options are - I could leave, it's my choice.

I personally don't believe in the right of workers to withdraw labour and expect to stay employed. if someone tells me they don't like the deal they are offering they can choose to find alternate employment. Employees make a contractual commitment to work - striking breaks that contractual arrangement.

 

[Platy]

BOn the main topic, I can foresee Qantas will just move the jobs offshore. Well done union.

Perhaps QF has really been hankering after an offshore solution all along and is deliberately protracting negotiation and being intransigent to force the issue. But then one must assume that the more jobs go overseas and to non Australians the less argument there is for the Fed Gov to protect QF in terms of access to the highly lucrative routes, so QF doeshave to be careful not to lose out on Fed Gov favour.

To put some perspective on this, consider we are talking about 1,500 engineers, looking for 2% more than offered. Even if these people are earning $150k per annum (someone may have a better figure), we are talking about a dispute over (1500 x 0.002 x $150,000) $4.5 million. - that is 25% less than Geoff Dixon's individual package per year!!!

 

[simongr]

So as long as the dispute is around a number less than GD's package then QF should always agree to the union demands? Why not give all 16000 QF staff a 5% raise?

At an average salary of $100K that would only be $80million - probably less than the combined packages of Board and Exec Management - heck why no give them 7%?

 

[Platy]

I personally don't believe in the right of workers to withdraw labour and expect to stay employed... Employees make a contractual commitment to work - striking breaks that contractual arrangement.

Workers need to abide by the prevailing IR legislation, whatever that may be. So do employers!

I myself had to walk away from a contract opportunity earlier this year because the T&Cs were untenable (the employer reneaged on a "hand shake" deal once the whispers of the lawyers got into heir ears whilst rawing up the written contract).

 

[simongr]

Workers need to abide by the prevailing IR legislation, whatever that may be. So do employers!

I agree - I may not agree with strikes but they are legal. Have QF done anything illegal?

 

[rhjames]

Employees make a contractual commitment to work - striking breaks that contractual arrangement.

Personally that's exactly my attitude. To me withdrawal of labour isn't a consideration. Within reason, it's a self regulating system - if you don't like the conditions, go somewhere else. I want to see Qantas do well. I want their service to improve. I want to see their jobs stay in Australia. When everyone else was accepting the CPI increase (end of last year when it was 3%), these guys knocked it back, even though there was an additional 1% super offered. (I think I have this right). I find it hard to feel any sympathy for them. I know about job satisfaction etc, but right now the strike issue is pay rates.

 

[Platy]

So as long as the dispute is around a number less than GD's package then QF should always agree to the union demands? Why not give all 16000 QF staff a 5% raise?

At an average salary of $100K that would only be $80million - probably less than the combined packages of Board and Exec Management - heck why no give them 7%?

Let's not run away with ourselves! The point is that the real cost of settling the dispute by granting the 5% is miniscule.

I believe that QF's position is to try to keep wages growth at 3%. Many posts have argued around CPI as a benchmark and whether people whould expect/deserve etc pay increments of that order. It is quite possible that when set the 3% target was close to CPI. We all know that CPI has escalated in the last 9 months meaning a 3% rise no longer offsets cost of living increases and meaning an effective degradation in salary level.

Incidentally, the difference between a 3% and 5% wage rise based on your figures (I think your avergae salary estimate is very high) is $32 million - again a drop in the ocean when considered against revenue, profit, executive salaries, the $130 million GD would have made out of the equity deal, etc.

Why not 7%? Well quite reasonably a productivity increase should be expected for any wage deal above CPI (unless the intrinsic value of skills is a factor eg. pilot skills shortage).

In reality Qantas management have been paying less for higher productivity whenever they legally can by manipulating IR laws to their advantage and setting new EBAs for new groups - (25% more hours for 30% less pay in some cases) relative to established QF workers.

In that corporate environment it is no wonder the unions feel compelled to look after the interests of their workers just as GD et al are trying to optimise short term profit for the shareholders.

 

[Platy]

Personally that's exactly my attitude. To me withdrawal of labour isn't a consideration. Within reason, it's a self regulating system - if you don't like the conditions, go somewhere else. .

You are most welcome to your opinion and many would agree with you, however, the options open to the workers/unions are bound by IR legislation. Most citizens disagreed with you at the last election.

If you want a fully self-regulating system then you have to have unregulated IR, open skies, etc etc with attendant benefits and drawbacks.

 

[simongr]

In that corporate environment it is no wonder the unions feel compelled to look after the interests of their workers just as GD et al are trying to optimise short term profit for the shareholders.

One of the things is that I don't think that they are working in the best interests of the workers in the long term as it is more likely to push jobs overseas.

 

[Platy]

One of the things is that I don't think that they are working in the best interests of the workers in the long term as it is more likely to push jobs overseas.

I do tend to agree with you. And it is a "game" with considerable strategy and risk. The conflicting parties probably have a lot of information on which to make decisions, which none of us are party to.

I do also think that QF management have gone to extraordinary lengths to reduce their salary bill (legally one presumes) and that has contributed to a sense of unease and disquiet amongst its employees, which creates its own intangible costs, which do not appear as a line item in the annual accounts! It's about people management as well as money management.

 

[rhjames]

Let's not run away with ourselves! The point is that the real cost of settling the dispute by granting the 5% is miniscule.

Incidentally, the difference between a 3% and 5% wage rise based on your figures (I think your avergae salary estimate is very high) is $32 million - again a drop in the ocean

The calculation isn't quite that simple. This increase flows on for ever more - it's not just one year. Plus it sets a precedent which will inevitably flow into other areas.

 

[codash1099]

To put some perspective on this, consider we are talking about 1,500 engineers, looking for 2% more than offered. Even if these people are earning $150k per annum (someone may have a better figure), we are talking about a dispute over (1500 x 0.002 x $150,000) $4.5 million. - that is 25% less than Geoff Dixon's individual package per year!!!

AS I understand it, one of QF's problems is that in the 18 months this dispute has been dragging on for, many other employee groups have accepted the 3% regime. How might they react if the engineers get something better?

Perhaps QF could amend their offer to 5% but eliminate the 1% superannuation rise and exclude the engineers from any bonus participation for the term of the agreement :evil:

 

[serfty]

This is a legacy of the old Oz 2 airline system.

Back in the days of An and QF there was lots of feed in the trough and all parties ensure they received a good part of it.

In 1984 the cheapest airfare MEL-SYD return was $208!

The LAMEs should take the 3%; by off shoring much of the maintenance work, Qantas effectively cut costs - no 3% raise to fund/finance/consider, more like a reduction of 25% or more.

Wrong time; wrong era.

Ask many ex AN LAME how they feel about this ...

 

[Platy]

The calculation isn't quite that simple. This increase flows on for ever more - it's not just one year. Plus it sets a precedent which will inevitably flow into other areas.

Increases in fares and fuel levies also contribute revenue to each year they are levied...so what?

We just went through a hypothetical calculation of the flow on effects to other employees...it actually shows they are not that great!!!

Methinks the Qantas propaganda machine is doing a grand job...bloody unions!

 

[Platy]

AS I understand it, one of QF's problems is that in the 18 months this dispute has been dragging on for, many other employee groups have accepted the 3% regime. How might they react if the engineers get something better?

Perhaps QF could amend their offer to 5% but eliminate the 1% superannuation rise and exclude the engineers from any bonus participation for the term of the agreement :evil:

Perhaps QF should define wage deals according to a covert rationale - CPI seems to be a popular benchmark. Perhaps other areas should negotiate their next deal accordingly thus avoiding the airline's opportunity to pitch one group against another.

Yes, perhaps Qantas could amend their offer instead of refusing to talk.

Perhaps Geoff Dixon has cried the doom and gloom tears once too often.