Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: homeless
Age: 43
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprising when most head for the hills when the suits show up,however I believe the "filters" did get bypassed and the story told how it really is during the tour.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did they have a manager who escort them around or were the troops free to speak their minds and were CN and AJ free to talk to anyone they wished without being pointed at the "right" people? Two managers gone from up there? Was it because of this unannounced visit?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia & the world
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A view from the other side
This thread has moved into the usual approach and that is playing the man and not the organisation. All the talk about the CNS guys, what GH said what CN did just makes the writers look bitter.
You would all, be better in concentrating on how to get a decent/fair deal, one that satisfys your expectations but allows the airline to continue to function, grow and move forward, some old practices have to change, just as you adapt and change in your personal life.
The ALAEA is negotiating for you and that is appropriate, however you should all look more broadly.
Ask yourself these questions:
1/ If I was the CEO of an icon company would I allow for open ended job security clauses, no CEO worth his salt will allow this to occur. Would you?
2/ If you were the CEO facing a significant loss, would you fold and allow control to be held by others (this applies to all the current open EBA's at QF)
3/ What could I do - shut the airline down (a real possibilty), sell off the divisions (Catering, Airports, Engineering, Freight and just move to core business- flying passengers, move more activity to J*, use the off shore arms of the group to manage core business.
4/ What can I do to ensure that I have a future, or do I continue and price myself out of a market.
If you think I am a company troll, I feel sorry for you, I am however a person who put in many years at QF, I continue to be a LAME (28 years), but I do see things form a different prospective maybe you should too.
MM
You would all, be better in concentrating on how to get a decent/fair deal, one that satisfys your expectations but allows the airline to continue to function, grow and move forward, some old practices have to change, just as you adapt and change in your personal life.
The ALAEA is negotiating for you and that is appropriate, however you should all look more broadly.
Ask yourself these questions:
1/ If I was the CEO of an icon company would I allow for open ended job security clauses, no CEO worth his salt will allow this to occur. Would you?
2/ If you were the CEO facing a significant loss, would you fold and allow control to be held by others (this applies to all the current open EBA's at QF)
3/ What could I do - shut the airline down (a real possibilty), sell off the divisions (Catering, Airports, Engineering, Freight and just move to core business- flying passengers, move more activity to J*, use the off shore arms of the group to manage core business.
4/ What can I do to ensure that I have a future, or do I continue and price myself out of a market.
If you think I am a company troll, I feel sorry for you, I am however a person who put in many years at QF, I continue to be a LAME (28 years), but I do see things form a different prospective maybe you should too.
MM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN and AJ
You could ask them,
Where is the job security for ALL LAMEs?
Why are you seeking the lowest possible standards to meet worlds best practice?
Why are we so concerned about aircraft airworthiness whilst you solely talk of cost?
Why do we need to tender for Qantas and Jetstar contracts? Tenders that have questionable processes.
Why are you not attracting both Heavy and Line contracts? Contracts that were worth $millions in the past.
Why are you questioning our ability to handle the 787 fleet within the Qantas Group?
Why are you not ramping up our training school facilities for EASA and type training.
Why are we continually reminded by you that we are too expensive whilst each of you earn ten times a LAME wage, at least?
Why do you feel the need to continually put us down eg. 'we do not have a monopoly on quality'?
Why am I surrounded by morons, you call leaders?
Why do you despise the ALAEA? We have a democratic right to have our Association speak on our behalf, the ALAEA is US.
Why is it that none of the above has little to do with a wage increase however you label us as greedy?
CN and AJ, I know you're reading this, why do I need to air my views on a public forum because using the Qantas communication tools would have me 'outed'.
Above is not an exhaustive list but I am tired of you both talking engagement whilst quietly destroying the fabric of a once great engineering company.
We Want Clipped!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qf Lame Eba Negotiations Begin have they begun all seems to have stalled what is going on right at this time have there been any meetings or what of late seems nothing is going on.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet-A-one,
Perhaps Mr Nasty is under the impression that the average LAME at QF gets paid the same as the average strike breaker at QF they engaged from the last time you guys went at it.
It sure wasnt this figure the last time I spoke to a couple of friends who work for QF. One from A330 Brisbane hangar on about $70,000 PA, another receiving full shift payments in a purely line maintenance port 2 day 2 night 12 hour roster just broken $100,000 PA for the first time.
Just remember what this guy did to our colleagues over in NZ, and as one of them put it, he did it smiling.
A walk through the workplace in the middle of the night 'engaging' staff is a bit of a pisstake I would have thought. Why has it taken the potential of another loss of $150 million plus for these guys to hit the coalface and meet you guys....Could it be it is a lot easier to shoot a deer at 300 yards with a high powered rifle, than it is to walk up to it, put a revolver barrell between its eyes and pull the trigger!
GB
"The airline says that the average engineer earns $150,000 a year."
It sure wasnt this figure the last time I spoke to a couple of friends who work for QF. One from A330 Brisbane hangar on about $70,000 PA, another receiving full shift payments in a purely line maintenance port 2 day 2 night 12 hour roster just broken $100,000 PA for the first time.
Just remember what this guy did to our colleagues over in NZ, and as one of them put it, he did it smiling.
A walk through the workplace in the middle of the night 'engaging' staff is a bit of a pisstake I would have thought. Why has it taken the potential of another loss of $150 million plus for these guys to hit the coalface and meet you guys....Could it be it is a lot easier to shoot a deer at 300 yards with a high powered rifle, than it is to walk up to it, put a revolver barrell between its eyes and pull the trigger!
GB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qf Lame Eba Negotiations Begin have they begun all seems to have stalled what is going on right at this time have there been any meetings or what of late seems nothing is going on.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fed Sec Question
Hey Fed Sec.
The Big Perth Manager was sacked recently but is staying around until the end of August. Do you think this has anything to do with possible PIA ?
BTW, all you ALAEA guys are doing a sensational job and I thing the last ALAEA elections proved this. Well done all of you.
The Big Perth Manager was sacked recently but is staying around until the end of August. Do you think this has anything to do with possible PIA ?
BTW, all you ALAEA guys are doing a sensational job and I thing the last ALAEA elections proved this. Well done all of you.
I have no skin in this game. Mr Mott, you are making a fundamental wrong assumption: that is that QF Management are bargaining in good faith - time and again this has been shown to be completely untrue.
Mr. Mott:
Mr. Mott:
1/ If I was the CEO of an icon company would I allow for open ended job security clauses, no CEO worth his salt will allow this to occur. Would you?
No, but I would give a guarantee that if performance standards are met I will not take work offshore.
2/ If you were the CEO facing a significant loss, would you fold and allow control to be held by others (this applies to all the current open EBA's at QF)
"Profit" and "Loss" are extremely rubbery figures, as is QF's supposed desire for an "adequate" return. These numbers are never spelt out and they seem to be adjusted when necessary to justify Qf managements position. For example, QF International will never be allowed to generate and "adequate" return while even one of its Australian employees is paid more than Asian wages.
3/ What could I do - shut the airline down (a real possibilty), sell off the divisions (Catering, Airports, Engineering, Freight and just move to core business- flying passengers, move more activity to J*, use the off shore arms of the group to manage core business.
That is exactly what they are doing - moving everything not nailed down out of Australia, but still calling themselves and Australian Airline and demanding preferential treatment from the Government on this basis. I have no objection to QF offshoring everything, just open the skies at the same time so that we can have more competition and more direct flights that don't hub through SYdney.
4/ What can I do to ensure that I have a future, or do I continue and price myself out of a market.
QF can't "price themselves out of the market" when they have 30% + of seat capacity.
If you think I am a company troll, I feel sorry for you, I am however a person who put in many years at QF, I continue to be a LAME (28 years), but I do see things form a different prospective maybe you should too.
MM
I'm sorry for you too.
No, but I would give a guarantee that if performance standards are met I will not take work offshore.
2/ If you were the CEO facing a significant loss, would you fold and allow control to be held by others (this applies to all the current open EBA's at QF)
"Profit" and "Loss" are extremely rubbery figures, as is QF's supposed desire for an "adequate" return. These numbers are never spelt out and they seem to be adjusted when necessary to justify Qf managements position. For example, QF International will never be allowed to generate and "adequate" return while even one of its Australian employees is paid more than Asian wages.
3/ What could I do - shut the airline down (a real possibilty), sell off the divisions (Catering, Airports, Engineering, Freight and just move to core business- flying passengers, move more activity to J*, use the off shore arms of the group to manage core business.
That is exactly what they are doing - moving everything not nailed down out of Australia, but still calling themselves and Australian Airline and demanding preferential treatment from the Government on this basis. I have no objection to QF offshoring everything, just open the skies at the same time so that we can have more competition and more direct flights that don't hub through SYdney.
4/ What can I do to ensure that I have a future, or do I continue and price myself out of a market.
QF can't "price themselves out of the market" when they have 30% + of seat capacity.
If you think I am a company troll, I feel sorry for you, I am however a person who put in many years at QF, I continue to be a LAME (28 years), but I do see things form a different prospective maybe you should too.
MM
I'm sorry for you too.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Joyce attacks 'kamakaze' pilots, engineers unions
A day before his meeting with the unions, how nice
A day before his meeting with the unions, how nice
Last edited by Silverado; 19th Apr 2011 at 06:23.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well he had yet another chance to set the agenda........
...............if Worthless was a worthy and effective advisor the game of stab the union would be kept behind closed Exec doors. Nobody wins the industrial chess game when it is played out with childish grabs - the "kamakaze" cliche no doubt was written into the speech for no other reason other than to get the sound bite.
Would have thought the pilots and engineers could have been more professionally challenged (ie 'what can they offer in return etc etc?) - but today's sermon did nothing other than to firm up support for the employees.
- by comparison, not much made about JQ struggling with fuel prices and falling leisure numbers. Also not a word about using the schedule to shift pax traffic onto JQ services.
All very sad really.......
AT
..........in the spirit of quoting all things Japanese maybe 'fall on your sword' might also be on the agenda?
...............if Worthless was a worthy and effective advisor the game of stab the union would be kept behind closed Exec doors. Nobody wins the industrial chess game when it is played out with childish grabs - the "kamakaze" cliche no doubt was written into the speech for no other reason other than to get the sound bite.
Would have thought the pilots and engineers could have been more professionally challenged (ie 'what can they offer in return etc etc?) - but today's sermon did nothing other than to firm up support for the employees.
- by comparison, not much made about JQ struggling with fuel prices and falling leisure numbers. Also not a word about using the schedule to shift pax traffic onto JQ services.
All very sad really.......
AT
..........in the spirit of quoting all things Japanese maybe 'fall on your sword' might also be on the agenda?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the lavender leprechaun
Their actions and inactions clearly reveal their agendas.
Our failing, is that we yearn for that ray of hope, that there will be a turn around for the good, only to be slammed down again and again and again.
I hold very little hope. Led by a dysfuctional management that expends more time, energy and money putting down their own employees than getting on with the task of getting this airline back on track.
For those who missed it here it is
QANTAS chief executive Alan Joyce has accused unions of a "kamikaze campaign" that could seriously damage the airline.
The warning came as the airline lifted its fuel surcharges by in some cases more than 50 per cent, in a move that will add up to $100 to the price of one-way international flights.
Addressing the Australian Institute of Directors in Sydney today, Mr Joyce said Qantas was under sustained attack from certain elements of the trade union movement pushing unacceptable job security demands that amounted to a veto on change.
He said he found it bizarre that Qantas was being singled out when it had lower turnover rate and more long-serving staff than most Australian companies.
“I understand why people want job security,” he said. “But it is no more in my power to guarantee jobs in writing than to promise that Santa will swing by on December 24.”
The airline currently faces wage and job security demands from unions representing pilots, engineers and baggage handlers.
The unions are worried that the airline's expansion into Asia will see Australian jobs replaced by lower-paying offshore work.
Engineers have already voted in favour of post-Easter industrial action and pilots say they are poised to do so if they cannot reach an arrangement. Talks with baggage handlers have yet to start but the Transport Workers Union has also threatened future strike action.
Mr Joyce said profitable expansion by Qantas benefited all employees and Jetstar Asia had protected Australian jobs by sending profits back into the group and feeding traffic into mainline Qantas.
He said he still hoped to reach a mutually beneficial outcome with unions but the demands being put forward by union leadership “are so extreme and so damaging to Qantas” that he could not accept them.
“Any strike action could be seriously damaging to our performance in the short term,” he said.
“But the long-term effect could be even worse: to drive our international customers into the waiting arms of the competition who are largely not Australian-owned, not unionised and have few Australian workers.
“This is a recipe for permanent damage to our brand, and puts at risk the long-term security of our jobs.”
The warning came as the airline lifted its fuel surcharges by in some cases more than 50 per cent, in a move that will add up to $100 to the price of one-way international flights.
Addressing the Australian Institute of Directors in Sydney today, Mr Joyce said Qantas was under sustained attack from certain elements of the trade union movement pushing unacceptable job security demands that amounted to a veto on change.
He said he found it bizarre that Qantas was being singled out when it had lower turnover rate and more long-serving staff than most Australian companies.
“I understand why people want job security,” he said. “But it is no more in my power to guarantee jobs in writing than to promise that Santa will swing by on December 24.”
The airline currently faces wage and job security demands from unions representing pilots, engineers and baggage handlers.
The unions are worried that the airline's expansion into Asia will see Australian jobs replaced by lower-paying offshore work.
Engineers have already voted in favour of post-Easter industrial action and pilots say they are poised to do so if they cannot reach an arrangement. Talks with baggage handlers have yet to start but the Transport Workers Union has also threatened future strike action.
Mr Joyce said profitable expansion by Qantas benefited all employees and Jetstar Asia had protected Australian jobs by sending profits back into the group and feeding traffic into mainline Qantas.
He said he still hoped to reach a mutually beneficial outcome with unions but the demands being put forward by union leadership “are so extreme and so damaging to Qantas” that he could not accept them.
“Any strike action could be seriously damaging to our performance in the short term,” he said.
“But the long-term effect could be even worse: to drive our international customers into the waiting arms of the competition who are largely not Australian-owned, not unionised and have few Australian workers.
“This is a recipe for permanent damage to our brand, and puts at risk the long-term security of our jobs.”
Cheap.
Last edited by Clipped; 19th Apr 2011 at 07:56.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Division 1,
"change" in the management sense does not exist. It is a complete load of crap dreamt up to justify screwing people over in exactly the same way as CN's latest verbal diarrhoea suggests.
Make no mistake, with his latest crap in the L/E he has nailed his colours to the mast - he is full of management speak and no substance - so he got a couple of 60 year old hangars painted and wants a bloody medal - spare me please.
Do you remember when we actually had real property maintenance sections that knew and maintained ALL of our equipment and infrastructure? I do. All of that has been whittled away over the years (admittedly before CN was on the scene) yet he comes in and gets a little bit of maintenance approved that was about 10 years overdue and thinks he's kicked a few goals - I beg to disagree.
As for his little "change" dialogue, please read the below article that I posted elsewhere on another topic but is just as relevant here. Note also that this article was written by an Adjunct Professor of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology who has also worked in this so-called "change" field. Note his use of the word "toxic" and also I'll quote the key point from the article below,
Noel Turnbull, adjunct professor of media and communications at RMIT University, writes:
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS, SPINNING THE MEDIA
One of the PR industry’s most problematic activities is dreaming up justifications for toxic workplace practices imposed by psychopathic managers.
This week three unconnected incidents reminded me of the problem. First, the PRIA sent me an email promoting an internal communications seminar in which the two words most likely to reduce productivity -- "change management" -- were used; then the latest issue of the Australian Institute of Company Directors journal, The Director, spruiked the need for government to take on board business nous to improve its performance; and, finally a report by a Melbourne University academic estimated that the annual cost of work stress was about $730 million through the impact on individuals of depression.
It was no doubt a PR person who dreamt up the phrase "change management" as a euphemism for destructively turning workplaces upside down, sacking people and generally changing things without making any positive difference at all to an organisation’s outcomes or outputs. In my last book (How PR Works: but often doesn’t ) I included a plain person’s guide to change management, which said: "Over the past two decades a generation of change managers has set out to transform organisations -- from universities and companies to charities and government departments." The guide said "change managers":
1. Announce soon after arrival, and before any analysis that might cloud judgments, that the organisation must face up to the new competitive environment and must change to survive.
2. Sack significant numbers of incumbent managers and replace them with friends and colleagues from previous jobs.
3. Increase the number of middle managers and management levels giving new managers titles such as organisational capability development manager.
4. Ensure none of the new managers have definable line management accountabilities or job descriptions written in English.
5. Objectify the people the organisation is set up to serve. E.g. citizens become customers of government departments while students and courses at universities become clients and services.
6. Announce a major reorganisation to affect change and confront the challenges of the competitive environment.
7. Identify another agency or group with which to merge, form strategic alliances or generally hold meetings with.
8. Retrench as many operational staff as possible, singling out in particular anyone with detailed knowledge of how systems actually work.
9. Introduce a culture based on continuous meetings and managerial Newspeak while insulating all managers from any operational realities.
10. Identify any centres of excellence or international best practice in the organisation, close them down and outsource the function to someone more expensive and less effective.
11. Promulgate changes to any systems that effectively meet client/customer needs.
12. Introduce a completely untried IT system designed to integrate all existing systems and produce massive productivity savings.
13. Sack any operational staff who had not previously taken redundancy packages for the failures in these changes to systems and the IT implementation.
14. Announce another major reorganisation to enhance effectiveness and focus more effectively on change.
15. Move on to next job, before the organisation goes into critical state and after including in CV details of change management expertise, to start the process all over again.
Speaking to PR people about change management and its destructive impact you always get rueful agreement on how it works and why it’s bad -- but most PR people go along with it because that’s the way to keep your job.
The Melbourne University study, written by associate professor Anthony LaMontagne, found that 1.5 million workers have, or have had, depression with the condition caused by job strain in the case of 13% of men and 17% of women. The annual cost of this $730 million and this is probably a small part of the total cost of lost productivity from toxic workplaces and mindless change.
At the same time the AICD is advocating more business nous or the government sector -- presumably the same sort of nous that has given us the GFC; psychopathic (sorry I mean charismatic) CEOs who sack people and urge the government to cut spending on social programs to pay for the cost of cleaning the GFC mess up; and, appeals for reforms that always leave most people worse off.
All these business claims have become conventional wisdom as PR platoons promote the platitudes and politicians and the media uncritically accept them.
The interesting thing about this conventional wisdom is that it is buttressed by an arrogant certainty that the proponents of change are right and that there is no alternative. GE CEO Jeff Immelt, during his recent visit to Australia, didn’t shy away from organisations’ need to change (GE is no angel in the retrenchment field) but argued that managers need to listen to others and that "No matter how much you think you are listening, no matter how much you think you are in touch with markets, you can always do better. I think remaining extremely humble about what you know and what you don’t know is crucial".
Listening, of course, takes time. But people rushing to move on the next position before the damning impact of their changes becomes apparent, are also the ones most notorious for arguing that change must be speedy.
*Ritual declaration of interest: the author has worked on change management programs in the private and public sector but no longer does
Acknowledgement also to Crikey.com
.
"change" in the management sense does not exist. It is a complete load of crap dreamt up to justify screwing people over in exactly the same way as CN's latest verbal diarrhoea suggests.
Make no mistake, with his latest crap in the L/E he has nailed his colours to the mast - he is full of management speak and no substance - so he got a couple of 60 year old hangars painted and wants a bloody medal - spare me please.
Do you remember when we actually had real property maintenance sections that knew and maintained ALL of our equipment and infrastructure? I do. All of that has been whittled away over the years (admittedly before CN was on the scene) yet he comes in and gets a little bit of maintenance approved that was about 10 years overdue and thinks he's kicked a few goals - I beg to disagree.
As for his little "change" dialogue, please read the below article that I posted elsewhere on another topic but is just as relevant here. Note also that this article was written by an Adjunct Professor of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology who has also worked in this so-called "change" field. Note his use of the word "toxic" and also I'll quote the key point from the article below,
It was no doubt a PR person who dreamt up the phrase "change management" as a euphemism for destructively turning workplaces upside down, sacking people and generally changing things without making any positive difference at all to an organisation’s outcomes or outputs.
PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS, SPINNING THE MEDIA
One of the PR industry’s most problematic activities is dreaming up justifications for toxic workplace practices imposed by psychopathic managers.
This week three unconnected incidents reminded me of the problem. First, the PRIA sent me an email promoting an internal communications seminar in which the two words most likely to reduce productivity -- "change management" -- were used; then the latest issue of the Australian Institute of Company Directors journal, The Director, spruiked the need for government to take on board business nous to improve its performance; and, finally a report by a Melbourne University academic estimated that the annual cost of work stress was about $730 million through the impact on individuals of depression.
It was no doubt a PR person who dreamt up the phrase "change management" as a euphemism for destructively turning workplaces upside down, sacking people and generally changing things without making any positive difference at all to an organisation’s outcomes or outputs. In my last book (How PR Works: but often doesn’t ) I included a plain person’s guide to change management, which said: "Over the past two decades a generation of change managers has set out to transform organisations -- from universities and companies to charities and government departments." The guide said "change managers":
1. Announce soon after arrival, and before any analysis that might cloud judgments, that the organisation must face up to the new competitive environment and must change to survive.
2. Sack significant numbers of incumbent managers and replace them with friends and colleagues from previous jobs.
3. Increase the number of middle managers and management levels giving new managers titles such as organisational capability development manager.
4. Ensure none of the new managers have definable line management accountabilities or job descriptions written in English.
5. Objectify the people the organisation is set up to serve. E.g. citizens become customers of government departments while students and courses at universities become clients and services.
6. Announce a major reorganisation to affect change and confront the challenges of the competitive environment.
7. Identify another agency or group with which to merge, form strategic alliances or generally hold meetings with.
8. Retrench as many operational staff as possible, singling out in particular anyone with detailed knowledge of how systems actually work.
9. Introduce a culture based on continuous meetings and managerial Newspeak while insulating all managers from any operational realities.
10. Identify any centres of excellence or international best practice in the organisation, close them down and outsource the function to someone more expensive and less effective.
11. Promulgate changes to any systems that effectively meet client/customer needs.
12. Introduce a completely untried IT system designed to integrate all existing systems and produce massive productivity savings.
13. Sack any operational staff who had not previously taken redundancy packages for the failures in these changes to systems and the IT implementation.
14. Announce another major reorganisation to enhance effectiveness and focus more effectively on change.
15. Move on to next job, before the organisation goes into critical state and after including in CV details of change management expertise, to start the process all over again.
Speaking to PR people about change management and its destructive impact you always get rueful agreement on how it works and why it’s bad -- but most PR people go along with it because that’s the way to keep your job.
The Melbourne University study, written by associate professor Anthony LaMontagne, found that 1.5 million workers have, or have had, depression with the condition caused by job strain in the case of 13% of men and 17% of women. The annual cost of this $730 million and this is probably a small part of the total cost of lost productivity from toxic workplaces and mindless change.
At the same time the AICD is advocating more business nous or the government sector -- presumably the same sort of nous that has given us the GFC; psychopathic (sorry I mean charismatic) CEOs who sack people and urge the government to cut spending on social programs to pay for the cost of cleaning the GFC mess up; and, appeals for reforms that always leave most people worse off.
All these business claims have become conventional wisdom as PR platoons promote the platitudes and politicians and the media uncritically accept them.
The interesting thing about this conventional wisdom is that it is buttressed by an arrogant certainty that the proponents of change are right and that there is no alternative. GE CEO Jeff Immelt, during his recent visit to Australia, didn’t shy away from organisations’ need to change (GE is no angel in the retrenchment field) but argued that managers need to listen to others and that "No matter how much you think you are listening, no matter how much you think you are in touch with markets, you can always do better. I think remaining extremely humble about what you know and what you don’t know is crucial".
Listening, of course, takes time. But people rushing to move on the next position before the damning impact of their changes becomes apparent, are also the ones most notorious for arguing that change must be speedy.
*Ritual declaration of interest: the author has worked on change management programs in the private and public sector but no longer does
Acknowledgement also to Crikey.com
.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because they are sick of the systematic dismantling of an Australian icon to achieve shortsighted financial goals, and now that they are locked into the vortex, are just pissed at the bull**** shamelessly peddled.