Originally Posted by Ngineer
With respect to losing customer contracts, the only good that may come of this would be to open up the labor market in Sydney for LAME's. This may ultimately lead to better pay and conditions & training over the next 4-5 years with the current skills shortage.
There was also mention of Virgin Airlines opening a maint base in Syd with the creation of 1000 jobs. Apparently an article in Tuesday's Financial Review. Good on 'em for having the insight to grow and invest in their business.
Of course striking, forcing EBA's etc helped "open up the Labor (sic) market".
Excellent idea. Open the market up - no need for strikes. Just move to who pays you more. Who'd have thunk it.
What you mean from all your posts is closed shop for your work location (QF - i.e. no overseas maint, no hiring people on wage levels they are happy with if it's below yours, force the company to pay more - no-one should have to quit) , however you should be allowed to freely move to where ever is paying the most.
Personally I think that if you strike for a given wage level, and get it you should be forced to work for the company under the terms of the EBA for it's duration. Fair is fair. You took away the companies right to accept labour from outside of the company, you should have to sign up to not providing labour outside the company for the same term. If you do then you should pay a financial penalty to QF.
Surely you can see the hypocrisy in your logic. (hmm.. I doubt you will) . The above is obviously tongue in cheek. You should be allowed to move to what ever company you want on terms you individually are happy with , and QF should be allowed to hire whoever they want, on the terms that individual is happy with.
(Anyway, what's this got to do with the QF EBA? Surely time for a new thread to address many of these issues)