Aviation Survey results
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't fight you lose...
Seriously though, you're assuming that the board would allow the staff to be a part of the solution, and that the board wants a solution.
Over the years many Qantas staff, groups of staff and unions (including the ALAEA) have suggested improvements and cost saving options to management, only to be ignored. Many of them are detailed in the pprune vaults. Being nice has not worked, in fact from what I read on here and hear in the real world, being Part Of The Solution is actively discouraged at Qantas.
If the company is run by people who either wilfully want it to fail or are so incompetent that failure appears to be the only possible outcome, then the staff's opinions, motivation or demeanour is unimportant.
Neither the government nor public opinion can prevent a company board from running their company badly, so I don't think either is really all that important.
IMO all that will happen if the staff play 'nice' is that the board and the shareholders will continue to screw them over, but the issue will disappear out of the media entirely. I think that would either be bad for the staff's cause or have no effect whatsoever.
Just my opinion. I think you'd be correct for any normal company, but this isn't a normal company. As the years go by they just seem to get weirder and weirder.
Seriously though, you're assuming that the board would allow the staff to be a part of the solution, and that the board wants a solution.
Over the years many Qantas staff, groups of staff and unions (including the ALAEA) have suggested improvements and cost saving options to management, only to be ignored. Many of them are detailed in the pprune vaults. Being nice has not worked, in fact from what I read on here and hear in the real world, being Part Of The Solution is actively discouraged at Qantas.
If the company is run by people who either wilfully want it to fail or are so incompetent that failure appears to be the only possible outcome, then the staff's opinions, motivation or demeanour is unimportant.
Neither the government nor public opinion can prevent a company board from running their company badly, so I don't think either is really all that important.
IMO all that will happen if the staff play 'nice' is that the board and the shareholders will continue to screw them over, but the issue will disappear out of the media entirely. I think that would either be bad for the staff's cause or have no effect whatsoever.
Just my opinion. I think you'd be correct for any normal company, but this isn't a normal company. As the years go by they just seem to get weirder and weirder.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 29th Jul 2012 at 06:49.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO all that will happen if the staff play 'nice' is that the board and the
shareholders will continue to screw them over, but the issue will disappear out
of the media entirely. I think that would either be bad for the staff's cause or
have no effect whatsoever.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jethrog
this lasted barely half a day in the media and looking at union web sites your scratching to see anything happened at all .
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finding a solution
To find a solution, you have to understand how it got to this point.
A survey on industry employees is a handy tool in examining the differences in sentiment between employee categories and companies surveyed.
The results provide the information that most suspected existed.
Now for the hard part...... using that info in a practical way to influence and bring about change that matters.
A survey on industry employees is a handy tool in examining the differences in sentiment between employee categories and companies surveyed.
The results provide the information that most suspected existed.
Now for the hard part...... using that info in a practical way to influence and bring about change that matters.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff at Forstaff played nice and took no action against Qantas 100 are gone but not one Qantas Staff member amongst them Tullamarine took action 400 are going so what's the solution your screwed either way...
However, that never happens.
Workers, united will never be defeated. The 'united' part is the difficult bit, though. Most of the time people are happy to nod along sagely, saying 'that's dreadful' (or sometimes 'those jumped up snots deserved it, never gave me a job / us the contract / equal access to the favoured carparks'
) when it doesn't directly affect their employment. Meanwhile, conditions get eroded and standards quietly drop. If anyone wants to argue about the standards I have two words: Toll and Menzies. 
When it's their own job? Different story altogether. Of course by then, it's too little too late.
On 'professional.'
The word implies a partnership amongst equals, where professional managers and professional pilots/LAMES/whatevers work together to achieve great things and shareholder value. It's a sunshine-lollipop word, like 'Australian', 'Mum', 'integrity' or 'values'.
These shiny words are regularly used by the unscrupulous to conjure up favourable images in the minds of honest people and make them susceptible to being 
ed over. Words have power, just ask the advertisers...
That's why it gets trotted out regularly by lousy managers when they're worried that the staff are onto them. They don't actually think the staff are professional (more a bunch of talking gorillas) but they know the staff consider themselves to be thus, so it's a useful emotive point in a punch up. Often, management using the word is a token ego-stroke to the workers that can make them nominally happy, while distracting them from the real problems. IME it's a word to watch out for.
BTW this is not aimed at HTH's commentary or his use of the word, but at Qantas and other lousy companies. They love 'professionals'.
They're so easy to separate from the herd of nasty 'workers'.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 'professional.'
The word implies a partnership amongst equals, where professional managers and professional pilots/LAMES/whatevers work together to achieve great things and shareholder value. It's a sunshine-lollipop word, like 'Australian', 'Mum', 'integrity' or 'values'.
These shiny words are regularly used by the unscrupulous to conjure up favourable images in the minds of honest people and make them susceptible to being 
ed over. Words have power, just ask the advertisers...
The word implies a partnership amongst equals, where professional managers and professional pilots/LAMES/whatevers work together to achieve great things and shareholder value. It's a sunshine-lollipop word, like 'Australian', 'Mum', 'integrity' or 'values'.
These shiny words are regularly used by the unscrupulous to conjure up favourable images in the minds of honest people and make them susceptible to being ed over. Words have power, just ask the advertisers...
'A disciplined group of individuals who adhere to high ethical standards and uphold themselves to, and are accepted by, the public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised, organised body of learning derived from education and training at a high level, and who are prepared to exercise this knowledge and these skills in the interest of others.
Inherent in this definition is the concept that the responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community shall take precedence over other considerations.'
Inherent in this definition is the concept that the responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community shall take precedence over other considerations.'
If every worker in the country united against every lousy/incompetent company management when they screwed up, went broke and took peoples' jobs with them, we would have a different IR landscape.
Let's come back to this thread. The survey... interesting!... probably no big surprises!... but what is the end game??
Hiwaytohell, I accept your definition:
However the Board and Managers of the airline do not fit that definition in my opinion, and that's the rub.
dhere to high ethical standards and uphold themselves to, and are accepted by, the public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised, organised body of learning derived from education and training at a high level, and who are prepared to exercise this knowledge and these skills in the interest of others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate guys. Firstly the survey we did and what will happen with it has nothing to do with a war of words we are having with another union. They have bugger all people left in our industry because they failed to stand up and object to massive ongoing job losses.
Hiwaytohell I think your sentiments are well intentioned and in many cases true. Sunfish is spot on though about the narcisist methods of the Qantas management team. I had to read his posts twice because they are so close to the mark.
As a union we always try and work with a company first. That is how I got involved with collectivism before I was even a Rep. Writing rosters to make things better. This worked well for many years and our input was always welcomed. We proposed efficient solutions that reduced overtime hours and allowed us to win contracts. Now anything that is raised by unions to increase productivity is immediately rejected. It is as if they want Qantas to fail.
Other airlines however welcome our input. Their workforces are happy. Their companies are profitable and growing. We want Qantas to be the same but it's like their is a poisonous barrier there deliberately formed to prevent co-operation. Just for the record we do not see Joyce as the problem, we see him as the front man and ultimate fall guy for a consortium so focused on destruction of an airline that employs so many Aussies. If nobody attacks this machine it will roll on until we no longer have a national carrier.
Hiwaytohell I think your sentiments are well intentioned and in many cases true. Sunfish is spot on though about the narcisist methods of the Qantas management team. I had to read his posts twice because they are so close to the mark.
As a union we always try and work with a company first. That is how I got involved with collectivism before I was even a Rep. Writing rosters to make things better. This worked well for many years and our input was always welcomed. We proposed efficient solutions that reduced overtime hours and allowed us to win contracts. Now anything that is raised by unions to increase productivity is immediately rejected. It is as if they want Qantas to fail.
Other airlines however welcome our input. Their workforces are happy. Their companies are profitable and growing. We want Qantas to be the same but it's like their is a poisonous barrier there deliberately formed to prevent co-operation. Just for the record we do not see Joyce as the problem, we see him as the front man and ultimate fall guy for a consortium so focused on destruction of an airline that employs so many Aussies. If nobody attacks this machine it will roll on until we no longer have a national carrier.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve - you do some excellent work and you make some good points, and as I have always maintained Paul C was extremely professional but tough during JHAS negotiations, but if you're trying to say this
Qantas union row turns into dogfight
doesn't represent a major distraction then I reckon you're kidding yourself. One thing that business has always been jealous of is the Union movement's ability to act in concert. If business does it then all the provisions of anti competitive law fire up against us. Look at Qantas themselves and that freight cartel fiasco.
Hate to say it but the ALAEA is a small fish compared to Howes' AWU shark. What you do is important, if you're going to win you need a very big brother alongside you not pissed off to the extent he works against you. Pissing out of the tent rather than in if you prefer.
Just a suggestion, feel free to tell me to nick off if you so desire.
Qantas union row turns into dogfight
doesn't represent a major distraction then I reckon you're kidding yourself. One thing that business has always been jealous of is the Union movement's ability to act in concert. If business does it then all the provisions of anti competitive law fire up against us. Look at Qantas themselves and that freight cartel fiasco.
Hate to say it but the ALAEA is a small fish compared to Howes' AWU shark. What you do is important, if you're going to win you need a very big brother alongside you not pissed off to the extent he works against you. Pissing out of the tent rather than in if you prefer.
Just a suggestion, feel free to tell me to nick off if you so desire.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A modest AUD 00.20.
ALAEA - Firstly the survey we did and what will happen with it has nothing to do with a war of words we are having with another union. They have bugger all people left in our industry because they failed to stand up and object to massive ongoing job losses.
Getting an aircraft into the air, delivering a payload and making a profit for the company has always seemed to be a thing of modest pride and much satisfaction – as an 'outfit'. It seemed that the well being of a company depended greatly on a 'team effort' from the management, administration, engineering, pilots, cabin crew, load masters, operational staff and the tea lady (a most important, if unsung hero).
This is, in Australia such a small industry even with the inclusion of ATS (ATC old money) there's hardly enough folk involved to fill Wembley Stadium, let alone have inter union rivalry, disputes, disagreements or even gentile scuffles in the playground.
It appears there's no shortage of meaningful experience in any of the many disciplines required, no paucity of willingness to promote and foster the industry, a veritable feast of knowledge on tap; all available. Put together as a single voice; what a weapon that would make.
I know, I know; pints of what I'm having for everyone – but shoot, it could work. Would I support an outfit like that – Betcha boots.
Federated Australian Aviation Industry Representative Yunion (FAIRY). Wow !!
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Jul 2012 at 07:44. Reason: Yes, yes - back in your box y'auld fool, but they could win Minnie, they could y'know.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus - I do not disagree with anything from your last post. Our dispute with the AWU is no small matter but it has nothing to do with the survey and how it is used. We choose the TWU to be our big brother and its leader Tony Sheldon is prepared to stand with all of us. My distrust for the AWU runs deep after many years of dealing with them.
Kharon - I think what you are saying is that one union for all aviation employees would be best for us. I think so too but reality is that we have many unions built over many years. The TWU, FAAA Dom, AIPA and ALAEA has formed an alliance that cover many disciplines. We would like ATC to join us so we get closer to the one voice. FYI the ALAEA has applied for a rule change to at least attempt to get all Engineers under one banner.
cheers
Kharon - I think what you are saying is that one union for all aviation employees would be best for us. I think so too but reality is that we have many unions built over many years. The TWU, FAAA Dom, AIPA and ALAEA has formed an alliance that cover many disciplines. We would like ATC to join us so we get closer to the one voice. FYI the ALAEA has applied for a rule change to at least attempt to get all Engineers under one banner.
cheers
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Divine Right To Manage
Under Dixon employees were excluded from making any contribution to the business in any shape or form.The intent was to break any emotional connection employees had with the company.It was also an indication to employees that the managment team was infallible and needed no assistance from the shop floor.
Clifford has turned this attitude into an art form.Unions should be seen and not heard.
Exco is not interrested in improving the business and ensuring its success.
Their agenda is driven by greed.Clifford could be a clone of Gordon Gecko.
The ALAEA survey indicates how successful Clifford has been
Clifford has turned this attitude into an art form.Unions should be seen and not heard.
Exco is not interrested in improving the business and ensuring its success.
Their agenda is driven by greed.Clifford could be a clone of Gordon Gecko.
The ALAEA survey indicates how successful Clifford has been
Last edited by Ka.Boom; 30th Jul 2012 at 10:38.
QAN.AXs shareholders vote with their wallets
All employees are entitled to their opinions, and opinions and preferences can be debated. However, the morale of the employees is important to the running of any organisation as it reflects the willingness of individuals to do that bit extra, and the ALEAA surveys give some answers....... .
But you know the real voice comes from the investors who vote with their $$.. Despite numerous announcements from management about new ventures etc, the QAN.AX Share price is now only $ 1.10...... This says a lot more, providing a story consistent with the employee survey without words of explanation needed..... i.e. everything planned so far is economically ineffectual.
The share price is not a consequence of unions or employees voicing opinions or talking the company down. The share price is an objective outsider view of management capability. The QF Board doesn't seem to know this; what world are they living in?
A slow tragedy still happening before our eyes...
SB
But you know the real voice comes from the investors who vote with their $$.. Despite numerous announcements from management about new ventures etc, the QAN.AX Share price is now only $ 1.10...... This says a lot more, providing a story consistent with the employee survey without words of explanation needed..... i.e. everything planned so far is economically ineffectual.
The share price is not a consequence of unions or employees voicing opinions or talking the company down. The share price is an objective outsider view of management capability. The QF Board doesn't seem to know this; what world are they living in?
A slow tragedy still happening before our eyes...
SB
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Solution..?
As a union we always try and work with a company first. That is how I got involved with collectivism before I was even a Rep. Writing rosters to make things better. This worked well for many years and our input was always welcomed. We proposed efficient solutions that reduced overtime hours and allowed us to win contracts. Now anything that is raised by unions to increase productivity is immediately rejected. It is as if they want Qantas to fail.
A solution can be found, but it won't be until the board has got themselves into a completely untenable situation. Then again, These are a bunch of guys that won't admit that they have been wrong.
Stay tuned.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raise you 20c.
ALAEA - I think what you are saying is that one union for all aviation employees would be best for us.
I know it smacks a little of the Elysian Fields, but if by a miracle of concerted effort it worked, the benefits could be stellar.
Just a small, happy daydream to lighten the day's load. Cheers. K.
Last edited by Kharon; 31st Jul 2012 at 22:13.
