MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAF
The aircraft back flying without the ability of the union to stop it.
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
No I can't see that PAF.
a) He doesn't want aircraft flying [and thus making money]
b) He want's aircraft flying with the ability of union to stop it
If you select A) or B) then you're a blind man walking around without a cane.
1. All unions withdraw all claims
2. Accept QF's offer. Its better than nothing
3. The matter must then be removed from FWA as there is no longer a dispute
4. There is no termination of action as there is no longer any action or grievance
5. 6/12/18 months down the track unions are free to do what they want
A far better plan than trying to fight OR having FWA force termination
2. Accept QF's offer. Its better than nothing
3. The matter must then be removed from FWA as there is no longer a dispute
4. There is no termination of action as there is no longer any action or grievance
5. 6/12/18 months down the track unions are free to do what they want
A far better plan than trying to fight OR having FWA force termination
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by c173
FWA approved the unions actions, they shouldnt have the right to disable it now....qantas did this, they are the ones that need punishing
This is Julia Gillard's legislation. She must be stoked. It's working precisely as designed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@QF94 (post 259) - thank you for the answers, it is a pleasure to read thoughtful response and analysis.
I'm in the personal services/health sector (Natural Health Practitioners/Chiropractors/Weight Loss etc) living and working in Australia. Yep, my customers/clients are driven the price/value/quality equation.
You said: "The board having full knowledge during the AGM yesterday of the events that unfolded today, misleading their shareholders AFTER all their resolutions were passed is not a criminal act? Mr Joyce getting his 71% pay increase with the knowledge that he was going to bludgeon the travelling public 24 hours later is not a criminal act. The board creating a $20million a day cost to the company due to their industrial action? Locking out workers that weren't involved in any dispute is not a criminal act?"
Yes, they are not criminal acts. Where is the statute book are these listed as crimes? Some people may judge them as amoral acts, but morality is subjective. Some people (including Qantas employees) may think it's OK to hop the fence and have a dalliance with the neighbours wife, others (including Qantas employees) may not. This is their individual morality call. The law doesn't say it's a crime, and the same applies here.
Qantas was being crippled by the strikes and threats of strikes (by employees/unions). Potential passengers like me were already not flying Q in the past few weeks due to the work stoppages and threats. To us, this is the next step and an attempt to end the slow death. Friday 2 weeks ago I needed to be in Sydney for specific meeting. I cancelled my Q booking and rebooked JS as the legal impications to me of not being in Sydney were potentially $100k. I could not take the chance of my Q flight being delayed due to threatened baggage handler or engineer industrail action.
If you don't believe another board member can be trusted, probably better to leave now. But will it be better elsewhere?
You said: "Either way, losing a few hours/days wages or losing your job to be offshored for the likes of you who are price/value/quality driven. I don't know or care what you earn, but when the cost of living is rising faster than your wages, and believe me 3% doesn't cover the increase, you need to try and keep up. Companies want globalised wages for the workers. How about globalised cost of living?"
The likes of me, who is price/value/quality driven is the norm in the public. We won't pay more than we perceive is the value and quality - this goes for everything, not just airfares. And as per my example of my flying spend, you can see that Q had become priced above other options. This is borne out in another post/s that gave the % market share and how Q has fallen. People can complain as much as they like, but this is the reality of the world today. You can't buy cheap asian electrical goods, clothes & furniture yet try and force Aussies to buy expensive Q airfares. (You can possibly have globalised cost of living, but my guess is that it would have to go hand-in-hand with an equivalent standard of living.)
You said: "The answer to much of the above will be zero, with the exception of the food. I still have a choice with this. It may be a bit more expensive, and I mean maybe only 10% more, but I am supporting an Australian farmer. What's left of them. Why is this? Because we have let Australian jobs go overseas, growing other economies, while we are shrinking our own. This is exactly what is happening to QANTAS today."
The reason you don't have a choice is because of the choices you, I and every other Australian has been making. We no longer have mobile phones, TV's and electronics manufactured in Australia because the last manufacturer (Voxson) found Australians would not pay more for an Australian product; just as our Chesty Bonds are now made offshore, as are America's Levi jeans. This is the price/value/quality equation we apply to ALL aspects of life, including our choice of whether or not to pay higher airfares to fly on Q.
You said: "For a country of less than 25million people, we sure have the ability to be self-sufficient. We have all the natural resources we need, and we have the know-how to make it happen. Sure we need to trade with other countries, but we don't need to sell out to them or give them our jobs. Maybe we should adopt their protection policies. Asia certainly has protection policies.
We don't have the ability to be self-sufficient (maybe the know how, but definitely not the ability). Our steel industry is closing because even though we have hugh iron ore reserves, we don't have the capacity to convert it to usable steel (Newcastle). We hardly manufacture a stitch of clothing in Australia because Australians would not pay the premium prices needed to keep our clothing factories running and paying those wages. We have an insignificant electronics industry as Australian manufacturers cannot compete on cost with international suppliers (and not just Asia). We might have the know how, but we don't have the facilities, the capacity or the labour cost to manufacture at a price Aussies will pay.
I trust I have addressed your questions. Maybe not to your liking, but I have addressed them in the least.
Thank you for the civil and well thought through response. We don't have to agree, but by discussion we can each gain a better understanding of the issues. I have gained more understanding from your post than any other slagging and bagging post.
I'm in the personal services/health sector (Natural Health Practitioners/Chiropractors/Weight Loss etc) living and working in Australia. Yep, my customers/clients are driven the price/value/quality equation.
You said: "The board having full knowledge during the AGM yesterday of the events that unfolded today, misleading their shareholders AFTER all their resolutions were passed is not a criminal act? Mr Joyce getting his 71% pay increase with the knowledge that he was going to bludgeon the travelling public 24 hours later is not a criminal act. The board creating a $20million a day cost to the company due to their industrial action? Locking out workers that weren't involved in any dispute is not a criminal act?"
Yes, they are not criminal acts. Where is the statute book are these listed as crimes? Some people may judge them as amoral acts, but morality is subjective. Some people (including Qantas employees) may think it's OK to hop the fence and have a dalliance with the neighbours wife, others (including Qantas employees) may not. This is their individual morality call. The law doesn't say it's a crime, and the same applies here.
Qantas was being crippled by the strikes and threats of strikes (by employees/unions). Potential passengers like me were already not flying Q in the past few weeks due to the work stoppages and threats. To us, this is the next step and an attempt to end the slow death. Friday 2 weeks ago I needed to be in Sydney for specific meeting. I cancelled my Q booking and rebooked JS as the legal impications to me of not being in Sydney were potentially $100k. I could not take the chance of my Q flight being delayed due to threatened baggage handler or engineer industrail action.
If you don't believe another board member can be trusted, probably better to leave now. But will it be better elsewhere?
You said: "Either way, losing a few hours/days wages or losing your job to be offshored for the likes of you who are price/value/quality driven. I don't know or care what you earn, but when the cost of living is rising faster than your wages, and believe me 3% doesn't cover the increase, you need to try and keep up. Companies want globalised wages for the workers. How about globalised cost of living?"
The likes of me, who is price/value/quality driven is the norm in the public. We won't pay more than we perceive is the value and quality - this goes for everything, not just airfares. And as per my example of my flying spend, you can see that Q had become priced above other options. This is borne out in another post/s that gave the % market share and how Q has fallen. People can complain as much as they like, but this is the reality of the world today. You can't buy cheap asian electrical goods, clothes & furniture yet try and force Aussies to buy expensive Q airfares. (You can possibly have globalised cost of living, but my guess is that it would have to go hand-in-hand with an equivalent standard of living.)
You said: "The answer to much of the above will be zero, with the exception of the food. I still have a choice with this. It may be a bit more expensive, and I mean maybe only 10% more, but I am supporting an Australian farmer. What's left of them. Why is this? Because we have let Australian jobs go overseas, growing other economies, while we are shrinking our own. This is exactly what is happening to QANTAS today."
The reason you don't have a choice is because of the choices you, I and every other Australian has been making. We no longer have mobile phones, TV's and electronics manufactured in Australia because the last manufacturer (Voxson) found Australians would not pay more for an Australian product; just as our Chesty Bonds are now made offshore, as are America's Levi jeans. This is the price/value/quality equation we apply to ALL aspects of life, including our choice of whether or not to pay higher airfares to fly on Q.
You said: "For a country of less than 25million people, we sure have the ability to be self-sufficient. We have all the natural resources we need, and we have the know-how to make it happen. Sure we need to trade with other countries, but we don't need to sell out to them or give them our jobs. Maybe we should adopt their protection policies. Asia certainly has protection policies.
We don't have the ability to be self-sufficient (maybe the know how, but definitely not the ability). Our steel industry is closing because even though we have hugh iron ore reserves, we don't have the capacity to convert it to usable steel (Newcastle). We hardly manufacture a stitch of clothing in Australia because Australians would not pay the premium prices needed to keep our clothing factories running and paying those wages. We have an insignificant electronics industry as Australian manufacturers cannot compete on cost with international suppliers (and not just Asia). We might have the know how, but we don't have the facilities, the capacity or the labour cost to manufacture at a price Aussies will pay.
I trust I have addressed your questions. Maybe not to your liking, but I have addressed them in the least.
Thank you for the civil and well thought through response. We don't have to agree, but by discussion we can each gain a better understanding of the issues. I have gained more understanding from your post than any other slagging and bagging post.
No PAF...
"The dispute which started with unionists take strike action..." What?
I thought it started when, after almost a year of unproductive "negotiations", each union approached FWA for a legally binding adjudication on which party had been negotiating "in good faith" up to that point.
Then FWA, having weighed the evidence, approved certain legally Protected Industrial Action options as a mechanism by which pressure might be applied in an effort to get the other, not-such-good-faith party-who-always-said-'no', back to the table.
After incremental (6 hours total) stoppages, and NONE from the pilots, AJ et al have imposed the most massive over-reactive penalty and given a glimpse of the lengths to which they are prepared to go to destroy any possibility that a lasting solution might be found.
I find this explanation the more plausible because, in the absence of a +5mil package, it's the long term employees who have the most to lose if management's irrational behaviour goes unchallenged.
I thought it started when, after almost a year of unproductive "negotiations", each union approached FWA for a legally binding adjudication on which party had been negotiating "in good faith" up to that point.
Then FWA, having weighed the evidence, approved certain legally Protected Industrial Action options as a mechanism by which pressure might be applied in an effort to get the other, not-such-good-faith party-who-always-said-'no', back to the table.
After incremental (6 hours total) stoppages, and NONE from the pilots, AJ et al have imposed the most massive over-reactive penalty and given a glimpse of the lengths to which they are prepared to go to destroy any possibility that a lasting solution might be found.
I find this explanation the more plausible because, in the absence of a +5mil package, it's the long term employees who have the most to lose if management's irrational behaviour goes unchallenged.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Next door to the wrong neighbours
Posts: 243
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if FWA commands all to return to work tomorrow and Qantas to accept they have staff who might sign unattractive work contracts, this is the end of Qantas.
Alan Joyce has damaged the brand beyond the point where it can recover in a global market. No-one will forget that Qantas management chose to leave them stranded far from home, and they will not forgive. Would anyone here on PPrune feel comfortable booking their next holiday with Qantas?
Alan Joyce has damaged the brand beyond the point where it can recover in a global market. No-one will forget that Qantas management chose to leave them stranded far from home, and they will not forgive. Would anyone here on PPrune feel comfortable booking their next holiday with Qantas?
If they conceed the jobs are going to Asia anyway they are better off waiting it out. If Gillard sides with the company she will get pinned with offshoring australian jobs. The fwa ruling could become a political minefield too so let them make the
call
call
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Employee lockout is Protected Industrial Action. The only kind allowable.
As I said, It can only be initiated in response to employee PIA. That's occurred.
Complete red herring. Firstly it's a 2 million salary. Secondly, you, me, everyone in Australia knows that if Joyce said tomorrow "No worries, I'll take $400k" the unions wouldn't agree to the QF offer on the table. So it's a distraction to discuss it.
Union members have been costing shareholders, suppliers etc. It's not pleasant for those locked-out but it's simple a case of finally receiving a response.
As I said, It can only be initiated in response to employee PIA. That's occurred.
Originally Posted by Jetsbest
a +5mil package
Union members have been costing shareholders, suppliers etc. It's not pleasant for those locked-out but it's simple a case of finally receiving a response.
Possible scenarios ... unless there are others:
The bottom line is that the workers are likely to get something, but not fully what they wanted and management won't get what it FULLY wants ... which won't be enough for it. It's all or nothing for management.
What happens then? ... buggered if I know.
- FWA suspends all action .... 21 days to get an agreement or have FWA come up with an agreement. I daresay that agreement will be more favourable for staff than management ... as management want the whole box and dice
- FWA terminates all action ... and then comes up with its own agreement ... same as above
- FWA does nothing ... then Government will call on its powers and decide on agreement ... see above
The bottom line is that the workers are likely to get something, but not fully what they wanted and management won't get what it FULLY wants ... which won't be enough for it. It's all or nothing for management.
What happens then? ... buggered if I know.
what happens then! Easy the board resolve to acknowledge the failings of its CEO and resolves to replace him. New CEO is appointed with a mandate to resolve the issue.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens then? ... buggered if I know.
ie. QF must ground all 767s due to poor advanced bookings, then all 747s grounded same reason, Qf International will fly LHR & LAX only, team a380 will be the only engineers to survive the cull, A licenses will run the domestic.
JQ fly to RedQ hub where all the 787 call home.
20,000 QF staff dumped and on the dole queue.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
20,000 QF staff dumped and on the dole queue.
AJ & LC sip champagne with Reith Minchin Howard & Costello and giggle as lives are devastated...Dixon comes over to join in of course
AJ & LC sip champagne with Reith Minchin Howard & Costello and giggle as lives are devastated...Dixon comes over to join in of course
PAF
"Employee lockout is Protected Industrial Action. The only kind allowable....."
But, instead of having said 'no' all this time then claiming "no other option", I would have thought that actual negotiation might proceed something like this:
"OK 'union X'. We feel that what you're asking is unreasonable for these reasons; a/b/c/d.
We can't agree to such limitations but we understand your concerns. We are prepared to discuss what it would take to be able to include you in QF's future. We will discuss our truthful cost comparisons, and intended target efficiencies with you. We will allow you to respond to those figures as a basis for finding common ground. We also undertake not to mis-represent your position and current conditions in the media if you refrain from the same; we regret that you were labelled kamikazes. We acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of QF staff have a vested interest in the success of QF and should be well-informed about the direction the company is taking. We look forward to an expeditious resolution to any differences of opinion and, therefore, working together in a new spirit towards a greater Qantas.
Right, so where do we start?....."
And then I woke up!
ps Why is it that when a union stages a 1-hour protected action notified 3 days in advance, they're the scum of the earth but when the company grounds the whole fleet with 3 hours notice, the unions are again the scum of the earth?
But, instead of having said 'no' all this time then claiming "no other option", I would have thought that actual negotiation might proceed something like this:
"OK 'union X'. We feel that what you're asking is unreasonable for these reasons; a/b/c/d.
We can't agree to such limitations but we understand your concerns. We are prepared to discuss what it would take to be able to include you in QF's future. We will discuss our truthful cost comparisons, and intended target efficiencies with you. We will allow you to respond to those figures as a basis for finding common ground. We also undertake not to mis-represent your position and current conditions in the media if you refrain from the same; we regret that you were labelled kamikazes. We acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of QF staff have a vested interest in the success of QF and should be well-informed about the direction the company is taking. We look forward to an expeditious resolution to any differences of opinion and, therefore, working together in a new spirit towards a greater Qantas.
Right, so where do we start?....."
And then I woke up!
ps Why is it that when a union stages a 1-hour protected action notified 3 days in advance, they're the scum of the earth but when the company grounds the whole fleet with 3 hours notice, the unions are again the scum of the earth?
This could go either way. Qantas wants finality to a situation of it's own creation. The action of qantas of a lockout may be seen as appropriate but grounding the fleet? well, that's debatable.
What this has done has effectively sidelined the ir processes of fwa. Remember there were concilliation steps being undertaken. No resolution would of meant arbitration in due course. Qantas is attempting to accelerate that process without the arbitrator, ie fwa nor the other participants input. The interesting point now, will be how fwa views Qantas' approach. When final arbitration occurrs.
What this has done has effectively sidelined the ir processes of fwa. Remember there were concilliation steps being undertaken. No resolution would of meant arbitration in due course. Qantas is attempting to accelerate that process without the arbitrator, ie fwa nor the other participants input. The interesting point now, will be how fwa views Qantas' approach. When final arbitration occurrs.
IMHO this whole 'Asianisation' threat is overblown.
The main intent is to get QF staff working more cheaply by whatever means that takes, the offshoring is an issue but not the main one.
The damage to the QF Brand is also overplayed. Korean Air and China Airlines (Taiwan) crashed aircraft all the time and yet still people fly with them. The Brand is resilient. Any publicity is good publicity.
The QG Legal folks will have analysed the legislation endlessly and will believe they are indestructible to be sure, pending FWA suspension/termination whatever.
Questions however arise from this action, the most evident of which are:
In the short term: did AJ fail to disclose information at the AGM that materially affects decision-making by all shareholders (not just Super-Fund buddies)? If so, is such failure to disclose legally punishable either against the individual or the corporation he represents?
There was a similar occurence after the failed private equity bid. GD stood up the next day and outlined a hugely different corporate strategy, one that should have been mentioned to shareholders - it was most certainly material to them. I suspect the law may be murky in this regard? Any lawyers out there to clarify this issue?
In the long term: Which QF Board and Management members stand to gain directly and/or indirectly from;
a) the offshoring of QF (ie: do past or present QF Board-Members or Management have shareholdings in say aircraft leasing companies who lease aircraft to any new QF-affiliated airline etc),
b) The long-term weakening of the QF share-price, repeal of the QF Ownership Act and potential takeover by QF Board/Management-connected individuals or corporations.
I can see real merit in that long post detailing the corporate ethic and the fact that the Board are devoid of any emotion except their own personal gain. The arrogance with which they are (successfully) manipulating Gillard is concerning and frankly just very sad.
As such, it would certainly be worthwhile seeing the Board reaction if the Federal Government went Chifley on the bastards!
Re-Nationalise QF, purchase majority shareholding (now very cheap thanks to Corporate buffoonery - I bought mine at $4.50). Keep QF in Australia and restore the company to the position it once was before the corporate pigs got their selfish snouts in the trough. I know it's a pipe-dream but it would be a might great trump card!
The main intent is to get QF staff working more cheaply by whatever means that takes, the offshoring is an issue but not the main one.
The damage to the QF Brand is also overplayed. Korean Air and China Airlines (Taiwan) crashed aircraft all the time and yet still people fly with them. The Brand is resilient. Any publicity is good publicity.
The QG Legal folks will have analysed the legislation endlessly and will believe they are indestructible to be sure, pending FWA suspension/termination whatever.
Questions however arise from this action, the most evident of which are:
In the short term: did AJ fail to disclose information at the AGM that materially affects decision-making by all shareholders (not just Super-Fund buddies)? If so, is such failure to disclose legally punishable either against the individual or the corporation he represents?
There was a similar occurence after the failed private equity bid. GD stood up the next day and outlined a hugely different corporate strategy, one that should have been mentioned to shareholders - it was most certainly material to them. I suspect the law may be murky in this regard? Any lawyers out there to clarify this issue?
In the long term: Which QF Board and Management members stand to gain directly and/or indirectly from;
a) the offshoring of QF (ie: do past or present QF Board-Members or Management have shareholdings in say aircraft leasing companies who lease aircraft to any new QF-affiliated airline etc),
b) The long-term weakening of the QF share-price, repeal of the QF Ownership Act and potential takeover by QF Board/Management-connected individuals or corporations.
I can see real merit in that long post detailing the corporate ethic and the fact that the Board are devoid of any emotion except their own personal gain. The arrogance with which they are (successfully) manipulating Gillard is concerning and frankly just very sad.
As such, it would certainly be worthwhile seeing the Board reaction if the Federal Government went Chifley on the bastards!
Re-Nationalise QF, purchase majority shareholding (now very cheap thanks to Corporate buffoonery - I bought mine at $4.50). Keep QF in Australia and restore the company to the position it once was before the corporate pigs got their selfish snouts in the trough. I know it's a pipe-dream but it would be a might great trump card!