Obviously no one considers this may have been a perfectly legitimate and cost effective business arrangement?
After a retendering process, Qantas contracted the work — sealing earphones in plastic bags — to the NSW Department of Corrective Services, rather than its long-time contractor, Sunnyfield, which employs disabled people.
"We undertook a review with all our [packaging] services in NSW," said a Qantas spokeswoman. "Sunnyfield was not successful in this process and the work went to Corrective Services."
The Federal Government's parliamentary secretary for disabilities, Bill Shorten, said he had made inquiries with Qantas over the matter.
The Corrections Department was now subcontracting the work back to Sunnyfield.
I read the above that, rather than have a number of, or multiple contracts for packging (headphones, cutlery etc), Qantas
may have amalgamated a number of sub contracts into one packaging contract, Corrective Services secured the contract on commercial merit and capability and sub contracted one packaging contract back to Sunnyfield? Perhaps Sunnyfield did not have the commercial capability to undertake all packaging contracts?
Rather than the perpetual, boringly repetitious Qantas bias and knocking and selective journalist bias and knocking that gets posted to PPRuNe, this may be a perfectly normal, cost effective business transaction with benefits to all parties?
I have no idea what occurred, but I am prepared to have a far more open mind than many of the anti Qantas brigade that repetitiously post here!
