Because Dixon & Co wanted to beat the LAMEs at any cost (hundreds of million of dollars in fact) but with only a few 4 hour
stop work meetings and no overtime all management got was years of backlog work which will be a burden to QANTAS for many years to come.
The outcome was that LAMEs proved their worth, diligence and highlighted the incompetence of the managers running the place.
Win - win for LAMEs
Loose - loose for management.
I think you'll find it was loose - loose [sic] for everyone.
Let's put it another way
Because LAMEs wanted to beat their own company at any cost (hundreds of million of dollars in fact) but with only a few 4 hour
stop work meetings and no overtime all their own company got was years of backlog work which will be a burden to b]their company[/b] for many years to come.
The lack of understanding is incredible. To "financially hurt" QANTAS was a win. Then when a "financially hurt" QANTAS must cut jobs it's bad.
The logic in this thread is astounding. When you see money flowing in it's money you earnt and deserve a share of. When the money is flowing out it's management's money flowing out.
If you claim you are a "stakeholder" in the company (when times are good) and deserve money, how on earth do you justify that you shouldn't be a stakeholder in the loss?
The outcome was that LAMEs proved their lack of interest in the company, selfishness and highlighted the fact that despite their claims they are not true stakeholder in the company
Fair weather stakeholders...
Here is your shareholder equivelent:
Times are good:
"Cool, profits, money please"
Times are bad:
"Umm.. pay me money please even if it means you'll make a larger loss"
MY suggestion:
IF you want no redundancies :
Keep working
If the company goes broke you lose all your entitlements / money.