MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.
THE Qantas dispute is an example of bad business leadership 
Qantas dispute leadership failure - Shorten | Herald Sun
THE Qantas dispute is an example of bad business leadership, government frontbencher Bill Shorten says.
The assistant treasurer has called for a reframing on the industrial relations debate to examine good business leadership rather than putting workplace laws under the microscope.
And he has poured cold water on calls for the Fair Work Act to be amended to remove job security provisions from the bargaining process.
"If we want to analyse the Qantas dispute ... that was a failure of leadership within Qantas for the years leading up to the grounding of the airline to be able to convince its workforce about workplace change," Mr Shorten told Sky News.
"Too much of the political debate about industrial relations in Australia comes down to a debate about what is the right regulation."
Mr Shorten said business leadership should be on the agenda.
"We get the microscope out to look at the legislation, but when do we start talking about good leadership in Australia," he told Sky News today.
"By and large, enterprise bargaining proceeds pretty well in Australia."
Mr Shorten urged businesses to stop complaining about industrial relations laws and get on with it.
"The time to sort out enterprise agreements, if you want your workforce on a path to change, is the day after the conclusion of the previous agreement," he said.
"Then you work for the next 1100 days. You can't just roll up before an agreement and say we want changes to XYZ."
Asked whether corporate Australia would view Qantas chief Alan Joyce as a hero or a villain for taking drastic action to lock out his workforce and ground flights, Mr Shorten said it was probably a mixture.
"I think there'd be some Australian business leaders who might have a political view, say 'Good on him, he's shown he's tough'," Mr Shorten said.
"I think there'd be other people saying, `Surely there was a better way to do this'."
ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence has described the Qantas grounding as an example of "employer militancy".
He told Sky News the unions had long held the view that bargaining over job security should be allowed.
"Issues about job security are important and I think it's absolutely appropriate bargaining takes place over those things," Mr Lawrence said.
The assistant treasurer has called for a reframing on the industrial relations debate to examine good business leadership rather than putting workplace laws under the microscope.
And he has poured cold water on calls for the Fair Work Act to be amended to remove job security provisions from the bargaining process.
"If we want to analyse the Qantas dispute ... that was a failure of leadership within Qantas for the years leading up to the grounding of the airline to be able to convince its workforce about workplace change," Mr Shorten told Sky News.
"Too much of the political debate about industrial relations in Australia comes down to a debate about what is the right regulation."
Mr Shorten said business leadership should be on the agenda.
"We get the microscope out to look at the legislation, but when do we start talking about good leadership in Australia," he told Sky News today.
"By and large, enterprise bargaining proceeds pretty well in Australia."
Mr Shorten urged businesses to stop complaining about industrial relations laws and get on with it.
"The time to sort out enterprise agreements, if you want your workforce on a path to change, is the day after the conclusion of the previous agreement," he said.
"Then you work for the next 1100 days. You can't just roll up before an agreement and say we want changes to XYZ."
Asked whether corporate Australia would view Qantas chief Alan Joyce as a hero or a villain for taking drastic action to lock out his workforce and ground flights, Mr Shorten said it was probably a mixture.
"I think there'd be some Australian business leaders who might have a political view, say 'Good on him, he's shown he's tough'," Mr Shorten said.
"I think there'd be other people saying, `Surely there was a better way to do this'."
ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence has described the Qantas grounding as an example of "employer militancy".
He told Sky News the unions had long held the view that bargaining over job security should be allowed.
"Issues about job security are important and I think it's absolutely appropriate bargaining takes place over those things," Mr Lawrence said.
Nunc est bibendum
Is the 'new spirit' campaign really necessary or was there nothing wrong with the 'old spirit' until it was destroyed by Dixon, Joyce, Clifford et al?
Personally I reckon this is a better ad for Qantas than much of the recent 'new spirit' stuff with kids on beaches, deck chairs, etc.
As part of a school assignment a child was asked to create a one page newspaper advertisement.
Without any input from his Dad (a Qantas pilot) he came up with the following advertisement for Qantas.
It reads:
"Because when machines fail....... we don't."
"At Qantas, we understand that your family is the most important thing to you. That's why we only entrust them to The Best".
Without any input from his Dad (a Qantas pilot) he came up with the following advertisement for Qantas.
It reads:
"Because when machines fail....... we don't."
"At Qantas, we understand that your family is the most important thing to you. That's why we only entrust them to The Best".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Shorten. Was he the **** kicker hack trying to capitalise on those two blokes trapped in the mine in Tassie a few years ago?
Yes, he was.
The problem with the EBA system is that it is biased in favour of the employer. Liken it, if you will to a game of strip poker.
Every EBA, you go back to the table with your log of claims. Every time, your employer wants another piece of your clothing, just for you to keep up with the CPI (in QF's case). Plus a bit more. Why would you give up ANYTHING just for CPI?
Mrs. Jarse gets about 6% every year, for no tradeoff, and she isn't under an EBA.
Soon enough (after 7 or 8 EBA's) you're sitting at the table in your undies, with no more left to give for just the CPI.
AJ says "We'll take those, thanks". And we end up where we are today with QF pilots. A fatally flawed industrial system bought in by the Labor government.
Screw you Bill Shorten, and screw this stupid EBA system.
Yes, he was.
The problem with the EBA system is that it is biased in favour of the employer. Liken it, if you will to a game of strip poker.
Every EBA, you go back to the table with your log of claims. Every time, your employer wants another piece of your clothing, just for you to keep up with the CPI (in QF's case). Plus a bit more. Why would you give up ANYTHING just for CPI?
Mrs. Jarse gets about 6% every year, for no tradeoff, and she isn't under an EBA.
Soon enough (after 7 or 8 EBA's) you're sitting at the table in your undies, with no more left to give for just the CPI.
AJ says "We'll take those, thanks". And we end up where we are today with QF pilots. A fatally flawed industrial system bought in by the Labor government.
Screw you Bill Shorten, and screw this stupid EBA system.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Arnold.
She works in private enterprise (a geotechnics company). There are no EBA's in her company.
They do realistic reviews of staff performance each year around October. She takes on minimal extra tasks each year, and gives up nothing from her existing conditions to achieve the pay rise.
This is how it was for all employees before that dick head Hawke had his way in the early 90's.
She works in private enterprise (a geotechnics company). There are no EBA's in her company.
They do realistic reviews of staff performance each year around October. She takes on minimal extra tasks each year, and gives up nothing from her existing conditions to achieve the pay rise.
This is how it was for all employees before that dick head Hawke had his way in the early 90's.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill Shorten. Was he the **** kicker hack trying to capitalise on those two blokes trapped in the mine in Tassie a few years ago?
Yes, he was.
The problem with the EBA system is that it is biased in favour of the employer. Liken it, if you will to a game of strip poker.
Every EBA, you go back to the table with your log of claims. Every time, your employer wants another piece of your clothing, just for you to keep up with the CPI (in QF's case). Plus a bit more. Why would you give up ANYTHING just for CPI?
Mrs. Jarse gets about 6% every year, for no tradeoff, and she isn't under an EBA.
Soon enough (after 7 or 8 EBA's) you're sitting at the table in your undies, with no more left to give for just the CPI.
AJ says "We'll take those, thanks". And we end up where we are today with QF pilots. A fatally flawed industrial system bought in by the Labor government.
Screw you Bill Shorten, and screw this stupid EBA system.
Yes, he was.
The problem with the EBA system is that it is biased in favour of the employer. Liken it, if you will to a game of strip poker.
Every EBA, you go back to the table with your log of claims. Every time, your employer wants another piece of your clothing, just for you to keep up with the CPI (in QF's case). Plus a bit more. Why would you give up ANYTHING just for CPI?
Mrs. Jarse gets about 6% every year, for no tradeoff, and she isn't under an EBA.
Soon enough (after 7 or 8 EBA's) you're sitting at the table in your undies, with no more left to give for just the CPI.
AJ says "We'll take those, thanks". And we end up where we are today with QF pilots. A fatally flawed industrial system bought in by the Labor government.
Screw you Bill Shorten, and screw this stupid EBA system.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-Jet, shame on you for stealing my fantasy!!
Hugh Jarse, spot on, EBA's are a crock, they are like a glitter coated turd, once the layer of glitter wears off it is ****e underneath. The worker always gets screwed with an EBA, there is always a trade off, somewhere, something, somehow, fact.
Management give with one hand and take back with two hands. I have not seen an EBA or equivalent in my airline since 98 where the final outcome of the bargaining ends up favorable for the workforce in the long term.
Hugh Jarse, spot on, EBA's are a crock, they are like a glitter coated turd, once the layer of glitter wears off it is ****e underneath. The worker always gets screwed with an EBA, there is always a trade off, somewhere, something, somehow, fact.
Management give with one hand and take back with two hands. I have not seen an EBA or equivalent in my airline since 98 where the final outcome of the bargaining ends up favorable for the workforce in the long term.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HJ
Bill Shorten. Was he the **** kicker hack trying to capitalise on those two blokes trapped in the mine in Tassie a few years ago?
Keg
I think that is the best ad for the Rat I have seen in a long while...
Just shows that we should probably put a 12 yo in charge of the company.
As the AJ/BB vision of tapping the Asian pot of gold. They and their boards are totally delusional. Whatever they conjure up is Air Asia/ SQ/ CX road kill.
The legacies in Asia will just allocate enough of their capacity at prices appropriate to kill them off.
As to the FarQ mirage, there is already enough exec jet capacity in the region to kill it before it gets off the ground and Tony has just added the icing on the cake.
The sooner we Australians realise we have nothing to offer the sooner we can get back to turning the Rat into the great airline it was and can be again.
Distractions are the smoke screen of those who have neither the ability or intestinal fortitude to play the hand they are dealt.
Sadly the Rat is now in the hands of Rentokil.
I think that is the best ad for the Rat I have seen in a long while...
Just shows that we should probably put a 12 yo in charge of the company.
As the AJ/BB vision of tapping the Asian pot of gold. They and their boards are totally delusional. Whatever they conjure up is Air Asia/ SQ/ CX road kill.
The legacies in Asia will just allocate enough of their capacity at prices appropriate to kill them off.
As to the FarQ mirage, there is already enough exec jet capacity in the region to kill it before it gets off the ground and Tony has just added the icing on the cake.
The sooner we Australians realise we have nothing to offer the sooner we can get back to turning the Rat into the great airline it was and can be again.
Distractions are the smoke screen of those who have neither the ability or intestinal fortitude to play the hand they are dealt.
Sadly the Rat is now in the hands of Rentokil.
This is how it was for all employees before that dick head Hawke had his way in the early 90's.
I sat in on my first EBA back in '98, and I can tell you Hugh's analogy is spot on. At the time I naively thought we would first settle the company commitment to make-up for the 2 year pay freeze we gave them (due to losses incurred because of poor management decisions), then automatically increase wages in line with CPI, and then talk about productivity. How wrong I was. What I saw was 12 months of company industrial thuggery (they would justify it as simply playing "hard ball").
At the time we were in a weakened state due to circumstances beyond our control, and then as well as later on they ruthlessly took advantage of us in their never ending quest to cut wages and conditions. Do you know why? Because it's easier than doing their jobs!
I have no particular affection for the EBA system, but what's the alternative? If IR laws can be tightened to truly compell employers to bargain in good faith, and I mean truly, then maybe some good may come of it. One thing's for sure, they'll never do it off their own bat, of that I am totally convinced.
At the time we were in a weakened state due to circumstances beyond our control, and then as well as later on they ruthlessly took advantage of us in their never ending quest to cut wages and conditions. Do you know why? Because it's easier than doing their jobs!
I have no particular affection for the EBA system, but what's the alternative? If IR laws can be tightened to truly compell employers to bargain in good faith, and I mean truly, then maybe some good may come of it. One thing's for sure, they'll never do it off their own bat, of that I am totally convinced.
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 14th Nov 2011 at 20:08.
I think you will find that "Good Faith" is going to be redefined by amendment to the act. It is quite clear from the comments here that QF have not been doing anything in good faith.
At some point this will come back to bite them, but that is cold comfort for you.
At some point this will come back to bite them, but that is cold comfort for you.
Arnold - Were you involved in performance reviews for your paper run in the 60's, or does something else not add up in your claims?
Also note that on another thread as an apprentice in 1969, we were the first group of apprentices in Australia to take industrial action and walk out the door. ( industrial action by apprentices in those days was illegal )
Last edited by Arnold E; 14th Nov 2011 at 21:22.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at my age, I started my apprenticeship on Jan 12th 1966.
Also note that on another thread as an apprentice in 1969, we were the first group of apprentices in Australia to take industrial action and walk out the door. ( industrial action by apprentices in those days was illegal )
Also note that on another thread as an apprentice in 1969, we were the first group of apprentices in Australia to take industrial action and walk out the door. ( industrial action by apprentices in those days was illegal )
The issue is that there are two sides to each story, and in today's climate a balance is necessary between production and profitability. My gripe is that 'enterprise bargaining' and associated terms are farcicle, there is no balance, and the cards are always stacked in favour of the corporate noose holder.
The best way to boost productivity and profitability is through profit share. It is a relatively easy concept that basically means everybody gets to eat a slice of the profit cake. Southwest as an example mastered this, as have many other businesses. Herb Kelleher worked out how to engage his workforce - share the money !! And let's be brutally honest, money is the motivating factor for the absolute majority in going to work, from the sweeper to the CEO.
Unions are paramount as there is no other protection for the worker against a tyranical management team. Yet the management team should be able to make the hard decisions that may legitimately affect the workforce and not be held to ransom as a result of making those tough decisions.
But it takes a management team who are not egotistical and are not narcissistic to accomplish this, sadly many of these executives would rather bankrupt a company rather than see the humble sh#t kicker duly rewarded for going above and beyond. 'Dick swinging' competitions are what drive these greedy execs in today's environment, so how do you change that mindset?
Even without profit share you can see an amzing 'about face' within a workforce when you see how Fyfe and Borghetti manage the workforce. Although Virgin and ANZ may not be perfect, you can see the connection from the top filtering down to the bottom, isn't that enough evidence that a workforce's culture will be a relfection of the profile of top management?
So Arnie, how do we find or achieve a balance or that magical line that sits fairly and squarely in the middle of the sand? Good question, but a starting point would be the word bargaining, in the true sense of the word.
Last edited by gobbledock; 15th Nov 2011 at 00:06.
gobbledock
I agree with most, if not all, of what you say, in the past it was not necessary to walk out the door on every employer. In fact it is not necessary today with every employer. My current employer is one that is very fair and reasonable and pays his people well, but, not every employer is like that, either today or in the past. QANTAS is a perfect example of the opposite of my current employer. IMHO people should not just give up because its too hard or "somebody " says times have changed. Its not likely, but if I found myself back in a position where my employer was carring on like Q, I would not just lay down and play doggo.
Qantas won’t budge, say unions
Three unions say they making little headway in talks with Qantas, as the countdown continues towards possible arbitration of new enterprise agreements.
Qantas won't budge, say unions
Three unions say they making little headway in talks with Qantas, as the countdown continues towards possible arbitration of new enterprise agreements.
Qantas won't budge, say unions
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas won’t budge, say unions
Three unions say they making little headway in talks with Qantas, as the countdown continues towards possible arbitration of new enterprise agreements.
Qantas won't budge, say unions
Three unions say they making little headway in talks with Qantas, as the countdown continues towards possible arbitration of new enterprise agreements.
Qantas won't budge, say unions