When is the next cull at QF Engineering?

[Bagus]

Who is winning,Unions trying to save jobs,but jobs are being lost,Management are sacking and sending jobs offshore,workers are having sleepless night thinking if his jobs are safe,some doing deals,while management more secret plans organizing.management know unions are divided

SOME ONE NEED TO WAKE UP.

[Nassensteins Monster]

Does anyone have any idea how the years of service component of their "criteria" is actually calculated? 20% of what?

Precisely. The poor wee souls delivering this rubbish don't even know. "It's up for negotiation" they say. But a negotiation must have a starting point or initial position that both sides are aware of, then reach a mutually agreeable compromise. Years of service MUST be considered as per the Workplace Determination. To do otherwise invites legal action in the FWC. So... Put it on the table guys!

I cannot believe that the ops managers are expected to feed these presentations to the guys. On occasion they are being fed to the lions - I sometimes feel sorry for them when they get their ar$es chewed and handed back to them a masticated mess. And delivering the news that "last week you were looking pretty safe but now... not so much" and vice versa at 2am on a nightshift is an emotional roller-coaster and a human factors nightmare. "Oh but it's likely to change after the next consultation" is not exactly easing anyone's mind.

Failing to provide a COMPLETE initial position on licenses, operational skills, leadership AND years of service is to reveal the REAL reason for the selection criteria being disseminated. Conflate a sense of crisis. Have people tossing and turning at night. Scare the horses so they bolt for the exits - redeployment to BNE, PER or VR. Give people the sh!ts so bad that they are happy to walk away from the toxicity for the sake of their mental and physical wellbeing. They did it when they closed down H245 and they're doing it again. It is not consultation. It is fear-mongering. Frankly, it's cruel. And there are laws against it.

From the Australian Human Rights Commission:

What does bullying in the workplace look like?

• repeated hurtful remarks or attacks, or making fun of your work or you as a person (including your family, sex, sexuality, gender identity, race or culture, education or economic background)
• sexual harassment, particularly stuff like unwelcome touching and sexually explicit comments and requests that make you uncomfortable
• excluding you or stopping you from working with people or taking part in activities that relates to your work
• playing mind games, ganging up on you, or other types of psychological harassment
• intimidation (making you feel less important and undervalued)
• giving you pointless tasks that have nothing to do with your job
• giving you impossible jobs that can't be done in the given time or with the resources provided
• deliberately changing your work hours or schedule to make it difficult for you
• deliberately holding back information you need for getting your work done properly
• pushing, shoving, tripping, grabbing you in the workplace
• attacking or threatening with equipment, knives, guns, clubs or any other type of object that can be turned into a weapon
• initiation or hazing - where you are made to do humiliating or inappropriate things in order to be accepted as part of the team.

How bullying can affect your work
If you are being bullied at work you might:

• be less active or successful
• be less confident in your work
• feel scared, stressed, anxious or depressed
• have your life outside of work affected, e.g. study, relationships
• want to stay away from work
• feel like you can’t trust your employer or the people who you work with
• lack confidence and happiness about yourself and your work
• have physical signs of stress like headaches, backaches, sleep problems

Your employer is allowed to transfer, demote, discipline, counsel, retrench or sack you (as long as they are acting reasonably)

When you are being bullied it's important that you know there are things you can do and people who can help.

Responsibility of employers

Your employer has a legal responsibility under Occupational Health and Safety and anti-discrimination law to provide a safe workplace. Employers have a duty of care for your health and wellbeing whilst at work. An employer that allows bullying to occur in the workplace is not meeting this responsibility.

My bold.

To the ops managers, I'd think twice before so amenably presenting more of the same. You're between a rock and a hard place, I know, but you have obligations under the law and the company's own policies that supersede your employment contract.

I think it was Lyell that said incremental change is not an option - they must make step change. People fearing for their jobs are more amenable to step change. THAT is what it is all about. Spreading FUD.

For a little light relief, read the union's consultation 5 update. Laughed? I almost shat.

Hang tough.

[hi-speed tape]

Let the clowns spend all their time formulating manpower graphs etc, etc, etc
Then when they think they're done & are feeling all smug with themselves, hit them with a return to 8 hour shifts for all engineering staff in all ports ! Bet their sums won't look so good then !

[Clipped]

HS tape

That would allow the cards to fall directly into their lap. Texas Tony has said numerous times that he'd relish a change from some of the current 12 hour rosters.

Lose your current roster (shift penalties, DILs, days off pattern), revert to an 8 hour roster for six months (less penalties, travel to/from work more often etc), then accept an 9.5 or similar roster pattern as it is an improvement on that crappy 8 hour roster. Net gain = zero. TT wins.

[Jethro Gibbs]

Qantas staff taking off | Geelong IndependentGeelong Independent

Let me Guess who The Labour Hire Firm are

[Bumpfoh]

Been through that **** before Clipped, workers suffer but ultimately it needs vastly more manpower to operate so no win for management.

[CoolB1Banana]

So the union are just trying to drag it out with no hope of changing the inevitable. It may keep the old guys happy while they get "just one more year" before they cash in. Meanwhile the younger guys (who are actually the ones likely to be punted) just want to learn their fate and get on with their lives.

Somebody kill me!

[Jethro Gibbs]

So whatever happened to the 5000 redundancies all seems to have gone quite the 1 month extension must be well past by now .

[Jethro Gibbs]

They are doing a good job keeping it out of the media .

[Australopithecus]

Numbers...

I was informed by my cabin crew on a recent flight that there are currently VR EOI solicitations in long haul flight attendant ranks. The expectation is that there will be 400-500 slots available. Coupled with the administration cuts, that will total what? 1,800? ADL catering is closing: there is another hundred or two. So where is the other 3,000?

I submit that the 5,000 number always was a "shock 'n' awe" number crafted to elicit a response from government that subsequently failed. If I was going to extract a number from my well-travelled backside I would at least conjure up the illusion of accuracy by making it something like 4,762. The last significant digit implies a degree of accuracy, and hence competency, that round numbers do not. A lesson apparently untaught at Trinity College. That'll be $80,001 for the maths lesson.

[Pappa Smurf]

AJ did say 5000 over 3 years ,so he must be expecting the business to drop off further with his mismanagement.

[CoolB1Banana]

Looks like 15May is when it will all happen.

I hope they don't seriously consider all that reduced hours/extra annual leave crap. All that does is suit the old blokes that probably should just put their hand up anyway. Give me a full time job or at least open the EOI back up again if we are going down that path.

Let's just get it over and done with.

[The Bungeyed Bandit]

I'm quite happy to take on reduced hours, especially it it is going to save jobs, any form of mitigating job losses is certainly not crap.

Let's see how the numbers stacked up in Steve's survey regarding that question.

Besides, I'm not retiring before 70 years of age. You may be over 80 if we keep going down Abbott and Hockey's track.

[CoolB1Banana]

As long as you are all aware, the only reason the company will agree to reduced hours and/or increased leave is because when they make you redundant anyway that also means a reduced package! Not to mention how it affects the defined benefit portion of your super. It would be the biggest own goal in QF IR history.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

What a load of FUD. Any Agreement we entered into would ensure that service was all calculated at a pro-rata rate.

[CoolB1Banana]

Put the numbers into your FAS/FYS calculation for the defined benefit portion of your super and see how you fair. Anyone who retires in the next few years will have worked for nothing.

I would be very careful commenting on the financial ramifications to members of such a policy if my wages were being paid by member contributions. Especially if those comments could be considered financial advice.

The intent may be admirable but working part time is not the answer.

[Talkwrench]

Put the numbers into your FAS/FYS calculation for the defined benefit portion of your super and see how you fair. Anyone who retires in the next few years will have worked for nothing.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure each individual will consult their respective financial adviser to establish the impact of any decision to go part time or take a package.

I would be very careful commenting on the financial ramifications to members of such a policy if my wages were being paid by member contributions. Especially if those comments could be considered financial advice.

I'm sure I will listen to Steve before I listen to an anonymous pprune poster clearly trying to influence other members to suit his/her own ends.

The intent may be admirable but working part time is not the answer.

Maybe you could add the following disclaimer to your last quote: "for me at this time in my working career"

I'm sure there would be a section of the membership (yes, most likely older, but not yet able to retire) that would consider a part time role to be a far better option than taking a package and then trying to find employment again.

Obviation and mitigation of redundancies is the best outcome. That is why it's in the WD.

[the_company_spy]

Talkwrench, I don't think reduced working hours is intended to be an opt in "part time role"

All lames would be working reduced hours.

Steve, we hear much about the transition to retirement idea but has anyone actually put their hand up yet and said I want to do this? And if so what has been the companies response?

[Millet Fanger]

b1 banana, you must not be too much of a spring chicken with the amount of self interest you are showing in your defined benefit super scheme. How long ago did Q stop putting people into that type of a scheme?


From what I have seen, the ALAEA is run as a democracy. What was it, 70 something percent voted to accept a 36 hour week over seeing some of their colleagues booted out the gate! You are obviously swimming against the tide!Why don't you grab the money (your request would be accepted), take your B1 licence, and explore other opportunities outside of Qantas?

[CoolB1Banana]

Cute disclaimer Talkwrench but the decision to work reduced hours is not mine nor yours individually. As it stands, if some of the executive's plans come to fruition, we'll all be working part time. Gotta love a survey monkey

I appreciate the concept of the collective and what's best for most is best for all etc. but you are right when you suggest reducing work hours should be by individual choice not majority vote.

As for financial advice, I wouldn't be taking it from me or Fed Sec. Get professional advice like I did and get the facts and how they effect your individual circumstance.