Geoff''s love letter.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comparison Eagleman, maybe Strongy has found a way to get groceries to his shops without using fuel!!! Maybe he can pass on the secret to Dicko now that he is on the board. 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: airside
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting story passed to me by a very close friend.
Apparently ,as passed on to my friend ,by a very senior person in Qantas ,an interesting insight into Geoff was recounted as follows, Mr Dixon boasts continually that he has never lost a fight against a union, and he's not about to lose against these "soft cock" pilots.
Consider this unwavering belief with the fact he has now backed Qantas pilots into a corner as a result of the trends set by the JetStar award whereby Qantas pilots will be looking at a 30-40% cut in real wages as well as a massive cut in conditions, sooner rather than later. Very good for the company bottom line ,but hardly conducive for the long term fostering of piloting as a career.
One can hardly blame the Qantas pilots for voting in a group who espouse the taking of "Viagra" rather than continuing to be "soft". It would appear their collective futures rely upon what is bargained for over the next few years.
However, how can one bargain in good faith if one's opposite has such a strong and negative mind set?
Mr Dixon, is that the best way to run a company with regards to it's long term viability, by treating what is probably one of your most valuable assets with such contempt?
Apparently ,as passed on to my friend ,by a very senior person in Qantas ,an interesting insight into Geoff was recounted as follows, Mr Dixon boasts continually that he has never lost a fight against a union, and he's not about to lose against these "soft cock" pilots.
Consider this unwavering belief with the fact he has now backed Qantas pilots into a corner as a result of the trends set by the JetStar award whereby Qantas pilots will be looking at a 30-40% cut in real wages as well as a massive cut in conditions, sooner rather than later. Very good for the company bottom line ,but hardly conducive for the long term fostering of piloting as a career.
One can hardly blame the Qantas pilots for voting in a group who espouse the taking of "Viagra" rather than continuing to be "soft". It would appear their collective futures rely upon what is bargained for over the next few years.
However, how can one bargain in good faith if one's opposite has such a strong and negative mind set?
Mr Dixon, is that the best way to run a company with regards to it's long term viability, by treating what is probably one of your most valuable assets with such contempt?
OMG! I should have made the connection long ago!
You guys are the victims of a FUD campaign. It's a computer industry marketing term. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" and it has been used by generations of computer marketing types to herd their customers in the direction they want them to go.
I was wrong to think you are simply getting the "We'll all be rooned" line from Mr. Dixon. It's more than that, it's a deliberate campaign to destabilise the pilots as a group to ensure that they are incapable of any collective action and decison making.
Fear - as in will I have a job? Get promoted? Will the Jetstar guys take my job?
Uncertainty - If we take action we don't know where it will lead. What if I decide not to pay for a rating? What if I complain?
Doubt - What if Qantas is telling the truth?
The whole process is designed to make you totally risk averse so that you will do anything the company says.
I have been wondering for some time about whether management would deliberately destabilise its workforce or was just inept. I guess the letter home demonstrates that its a deliberate FUD campaign. You guys seem to be constantly the target of rumours and what appear to be petty decision making (or non decision making). Same with the engineers. These rumours, stories and so on are deliberately planted.
At the same time an appeal is made to follow your union leadership, because it is "responsible" (translate - risk averse).
Translation: divide and rule and scare the crap out of you.
Please look up the term on the internet although it mostly relates to computers.
You may say "so what"? Well at least you can put a name to it. You also know the antidote to FUD - truth, although its sometimes hard to find.
You guys are the victims of a FUD campaign. It's a computer industry marketing term. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" and it has been used by generations of computer marketing types to herd their customers in the direction they want them to go.
I was wrong to think you are simply getting the "We'll all be rooned" line from Mr. Dixon. It's more than that, it's a deliberate campaign to destabilise the pilots as a group to ensure that they are incapable of any collective action and decison making.
Fear - as in will I have a job? Get promoted? Will the Jetstar guys take my job?
Uncertainty - If we take action we don't know where it will lead. What if I decide not to pay for a rating? What if I complain?
Doubt - What if Qantas is telling the truth?
The whole process is designed to make you totally risk averse so that you will do anything the company says.
I have been wondering for some time about whether management would deliberately destabilise its workforce or was just inept. I guess the letter home demonstrates that its a deliberate FUD campaign. You guys seem to be constantly the target of rumours and what appear to be petty decision making (or non decision making). Same with the engineers. These rumours, stories and so on are deliberately planted.
At the same time an appeal is made to follow your union leadership, because it is "responsible" (translate - risk averse).
Translation: divide and rule and scare the crap out of you.
Please look up the term on the internet although it mostly relates to computers.
You may say "so what"? Well at least you can put a name to it. You also know the antidote to FUD - truth, although its sometimes hard to find.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: BANKSTOWN AUSTRALIA YSBK-BWU
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
save money on the nut behind the wheel
LET ME SAY FROM THE START I DONT WORK FOR QANTAS
But I have worked in a Road transport employer group,One of our members thought drivers should be given a$1 a week and be glad of it (underpay the morons were his words) I reminded him they were in control of his ASSET worth $800,000 with up to $500,00 worth of his customers products on board.
Did he really feel happy about getting a monkey to be in charge of that Liability...???? He took a new look at his drivers when he realized that if the monkey stuffed the gearstick ($18000) or didnt put enough oil in the engine($45000) and the customers product was acouple of days late (not renew the contract) what were the consequences to his bottom line?? ... How nice he became to the monkey ..In fact him and his monkeys are all good mates and now work as A TEAM... it works well, they get productivity bonuses and work together to do things better, he has no problems with unions or DRIVERS and boasts as to how he wont employ monkeys, they had a union rep who was told to "P..s Off"and when one of the drivers displayed monkey like characteristics he was "SHOWN THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS "by his Driver friends,... IR works for TEAM players maybe GD might just read the one man army and this little Missive.. Good Luck
But I have worked in a Road transport employer group,One of our members thought drivers should be given a$1 a week and be glad of it (underpay the morons were his words) I reminded him they were in control of his ASSET worth $800,000 with up to $500,00 worth of his customers products on board.
Did he really feel happy about getting a monkey to be in charge of that Liability...???? He took a new look at his drivers when he realized that if the monkey stuffed the gearstick ($18000) or didnt put enough oil in the engine($45000) and the customers product was acouple of days late (not renew the contract) what were the consequences to his bottom line?? ... How nice he became to the monkey ..In fact him and his monkeys are all good mates and now work as A TEAM... it works well, they get productivity bonuses and work together to do things better, he has no problems with unions or DRIVERS and boasts as to how he wont employ monkeys, they had a union rep who was told to "P..s Off"and when one of the drivers displayed monkey like characteristics he was "SHOWN THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS "by his Driver friends,... IR works for TEAM players maybe GD might just read the one man army and this little Missive.. Good Luck
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be of interest.........given Sunfish's post.
Which sounds a little like this little HR gem from Aer Lingus........
The following is circa 2004 and was reported in the UK's Financial Times-
------------------------
Leaked HR document gives new Aer Lingus boss much to ponder
A controversy over a leaked Aer Lingus HR strategy document has brought into sharp focus the often difficult and sometimes bitter industrial relations environment that has prevailed in the state-owned airline over the past decade.
References in the document, which was drawn up within the Aer Lingus HR department in 2004, are made to what are termed environmental 'push factors' , like the 'tap on shoulder' . There is also a suggestion that a change of uniform for flight attendants could act as a pressure point in the context of the company’s current business plan.
The document was drawn up as part of the radical business plan first put forward by former chief executive, Willie Walsh, in 2004. That business plan is still seen as crucial in securing reduced staff numbers as well as change and productivity improvements as the airline prepares to face up to partial privatisation.
Aer Lingus executive chairman, John Sharman, said the company appreciated that the language used was seen 'as impersonal and clinical' . He expressed 'regret for any offence taken or implied' , but insisted that the push factors were never acted on, a view rejected by the trade unions.
Over the past decade, independent industrial relations observers have seen fit to comment on the industrial relations and HR environment in the company. Even the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Bertie Ahern, told the Dail (Irish Parliament) last year that the level of trust between management and unions in the airline was 'non existent' . Critical comments have also been made by state dispute resolution agencies such as the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the National Implementation Body.
The controversial HR document was leaked to Ireland’s highest circulation daily, the Irish Independent, which carried it as an exclusive front page lead story in July 2005. The row over the document was then given extensive coverage by other media, with the executive chairman, John Sharman, answering questions about it from elected political representatives at a parliamentary committee hearing.
The controversy would not have been as great without the benefit of an 'informed source' , who provided the Irish Independent with crucial elaboration on some of the 'environmental push factors' that caused the furore. According to the Independent, suggestions were made in the document that cabin crew - including 'older air hostesses' - would have to abandon their current uniform for 'jumpsuits and t-shirts' .
The same source revealed that there were suggestions that the airline might bring in a tedious training programme for some pilots -like 'Guantanemo bay' the source was quoted as saying.
The Independent also reported that in relation to a push factor headed 'adverse changes in work/shift patterns' , management could hint that shift patterns could be altered to make life at the company uncomfortable. This particular caused considerable annoyance, in view of the fact that some sections, like cabin crew and ground staff, are mostly female and have strong demands for flexible options.
The company denied that it acted on the suggestions but did not deny that the HR department had devised the strategy document, not did it refute any of the elaboration provided by the Independent’s informed source. In fact, the company itself decided to publish the document due to media and political pressure.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the controversy was the fact the language used in the document was committed to paper, as many of the suggested tactical approaches may not be so unusual in industry. In fact, most of the document is innocuous. If the push factors are excluded, then little by way of controversy would have emerged.
The leak has put the focus squarely on the airline’s HR department and other top managers. The new chief executive, Dermott Mannion, knows that HR and industrial relations issues are critical to the company’s success. Meanwhile, talks aimed at securing work practice changes under the business plan in return for a productivity deal have taken over 18 months to date, with a final agreement expected this autumn.
This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.
------------------
http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2005/09...e0509201n.html
The following is circa 2004 and was reported in the UK's Financial Times-
------------------------
Leaked HR document gives new Aer Lingus boss much to ponder
A controversy over a leaked Aer Lingus HR strategy document has brought into sharp focus the often difficult and sometimes bitter industrial relations environment that has prevailed in the state-owned airline over the past decade.
References in the document, which was drawn up within the Aer Lingus HR department in 2004, are made to what are termed environmental 'push factors' , like the 'tap on shoulder' . There is also a suggestion that a change of uniform for flight attendants could act as a pressure point in the context of the company’s current business plan.
The document was drawn up as part of the radical business plan first put forward by former chief executive, Willie Walsh, in 2004. That business plan is still seen as crucial in securing reduced staff numbers as well as change and productivity improvements as the airline prepares to face up to partial privatisation.
Aer Lingus executive chairman, John Sharman, said the company appreciated that the language used was seen 'as impersonal and clinical' . He expressed 'regret for any offence taken or implied' , but insisted that the push factors were never acted on, a view rejected by the trade unions.
Over the past decade, independent industrial relations observers have seen fit to comment on the industrial relations and HR environment in the company. Even the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Bertie Ahern, told the Dail (Irish Parliament) last year that the level of trust between management and unions in the airline was 'non existent' . Critical comments have also been made by state dispute resolution agencies such as the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the National Implementation Body.
The controversial HR document was leaked to Ireland’s highest circulation daily, the Irish Independent, which carried it as an exclusive front page lead story in July 2005. The row over the document was then given extensive coverage by other media, with the executive chairman, John Sharman, answering questions about it from elected political representatives at a parliamentary committee hearing.
The controversy would not have been as great without the benefit of an 'informed source' , who provided the Irish Independent with crucial elaboration on some of the 'environmental push factors' that caused the furore. According to the Independent, suggestions were made in the document that cabin crew - including 'older air hostesses' - would have to abandon their current uniform for 'jumpsuits and t-shirts' .
The same source revealed that there were suggestions that the airline might bring in a tedious training programme for some pilots -like 'Guantanemo bay' the source was quoted as saying.
The Independent also reported that in relation to a push factor headed 'adverse changes in work/shift patterns' , management could hint that shift patterns could be altered to make life at the company uncomfortable. This particular caused considerable annoyance, in view of the fact that some sections, like cabin crew and ground staff, are mostly female and have strong demands for flexible options.
The company denied that it acted on the suggestions but did not deny that the HR department had devised the strategy document, not did it refute any of the elaboration provided by the Independent’s informed source. In fact, the company itself decided to publish the document due to media and political pressure.
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of the controversy was the fact the language used in the document was committed to paper, as many of the suggested tactical approaches may not be so unusual in industry. In fact, most of the document is innocuous. If the push factors are excluded, then little by way of controversy would have emerged.
The leak has put the focus squarely on the airline’s HR department and other top managers. The new chief executive, Dermott Mannion, knows that HR and industrial relations issues are critical to the company’s success. Meanwhile, talks aimed at securing work practice changes under the business plan in return for a productivity deal have taken over 18 months to date, with a final agreement expected this autumn.
This information is made available through the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO), as a service to users of the EIROnline database. EIRO is a project of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. However, this information has been neither edited nor approved by the Foundation, which means that it is not responsible for its content and accuracy. This is the responsibility of the EIRO national centre that originated/provided the information. For details see the "About this record" information in this record.
------------------
http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2005/09...e0509201n.html
