Originally Posted by silverado
Please explain, what it is, you think our job security claim is?
Public domain knowledge such as:
All Qantas & Forstaff Members - Notice 016 - RE: Qantas LAME EA Claims
and let's take Ben Sandilands' piece
Qantas, job security and a real discussion | Plane Talking
All of which is pretty reasonable if everyone plays in the spirit of things, the problem comes down to restricting the ability of managers to manage if things are not going well.
Let's take a hypothetical - job security comes in to the extent that all 787 work must be performed by QF directly employed LAMEs.
Can you see the difficulties that MAY produce?
What if QF Eng are not making anywhere near international benchmarks?
Plenty of other adverse outcomes could be envisaged, this security clause *IS* a gun that can easily be held against management's head and should NOT be accepted by sane management.
And that's part of the problem. Contracts, including EBA's and other forms of labour contract, do not deliver anything. Relationships do. Epople do. The contract only really comes in to play when things are going bad. Which means when negotiating everyone MUST consider the worst case because what is written is what they will be bound by.
In a well functioning company it should never get to that. Managers should manage and handle their staff issues with fairness and respect themselves, not by passing it to HR. Sometimes that means tough answers must be given, so be it as long as it is done fairly.