Originally Posted by
AerialPerspective
You're probably right, but on the surface at least, Qantas provided the opportunity for the group affected to submit a proposal which was competitive to the contracted alternatives, they couldn't. They cited the cost of the equipment, it is unsustainable. I see nothing overt in Qantas' decision to contract out the work that suggests it was because it was highly unionised. I'm not saying that's not how the court will see it, just that if it comes down to that, then I think Qantas would have a reasonable grounds to be very angry about that sort of result. There are literally thousands of businesses in this country that have contracted out parts of their workforce, including ones that are highly unionised.
I'm all for protection of workers rights and decent wages, etc. and in many cases, a number of unions have made a hash of their role in the system and union membership has dropped off as a result, I don't think that's a good thing, but do we really want to have a system where a company goes broke in preference to contracting out part of its workforce, where there is a clear economic benefit to do so and facts that support it??
Not that I think Qantas is going to go broke but translate this scenario to a smaller company such as VA, where the equivalent workforce in this area may represent a much higher proportion of overall in-house resource costs and where it might very well be the difference between stopping short of the cliff edge and going over it.
I would consider that a regrettable precedent. I understand the merits of the case have turned on that particular aspect (the unionised workforce element) but if this were replicated elsewhere, the result could be disastrous.
Yes, whether the Court likes it or not, they are essentially ruling on whether a company can outsource any element their business that has high levels of union membership regardless of whether there would have been a valid commercial reason for doing so.