Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...de4ccee867ec83
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
short flights long nights
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...de4ccee867ec83
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
It’s behind a paywall!!!
The following users liked this post:
And I ask again: What did Aston say about Qantas that wasn't justified?
The story appears to be a lot of mud slinging for which the author was presumably paid. Describing Aston as a "professional mud slinger" therefore evokes for me that metaphor about pots and kettles.
The story appears to be a lot of mud slinging for which the author was presumably paid. Describing Aston as a "professional mud slinger" therefore evokes for me that metaphor about pots and kettles.
The following 4 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Vanessa Hudson back in business (class)
Myriam RobinColumnistOct 8, 2023 – 3.50pmVanessa Hudson is back where she belongs. That is, at the pointy end of the plane. She was spotted on Friday flying business class on QF1507 from Sydney to Canberra.
On the day she was appointed, the new Qantas chief had made a point of flying economy. The PR stunt was prominently reported, the rookie CEO apparently aware that “every decision she made, even picking the class of cabin she flew, was being judged”. Evidently, that didn’t last.
Few top CEOs fly economy, but some do, particularly when flying domestically. Alan Joyce did it – at least once – to demonstrate the safety of flying during the pandemic, and Hudson made a point of it on her first day in a bid to set a new, humbler tone. But that was only ever going to raise eyebrows once she returned to flying in the manner to which, as a longstanding Qantas executive, she has surely been long accustomed.
Asked about whether the new chief had continued flying economy – or, indeed, had done so again after experiencing the indignity in early September – a Qantas spokesman told us Hudson flew in all cabins, and even on Jetstar from time to time. Once in a blue moon, no doubt.
The best of travel, fashion, cars and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our weekly newsletter.
Rear
The following 2 users liked this post by dragon man:
ONCE AGAIN JOE NAILS IT, HUDSON IS HOPELESS . FREEHILLS, FINCH, GOYDER AND PROBABLY SOME OTHERS ALL NEED TO GO
Joe AstonColumnistOct 8, 2023 – 7.34pm
On Friday, Qantas provided answers to questions on notice asked by the Senate committee investigating the Qatar air rights affair.
Qantas has been talking a big game about dialling down the arrogance.
“I think it’s a time for humility,” chairman Richard Goyder claimed a month ago, without specifying a start date.
Team Qantas stuck to the script at the Senate hearing. Alex Ellinghausen “We understand we need to earn your trust back not with what we say but what we do and how we behave,” Vanessa Hudson conceded in her recent hostage video to Qantas customers.
“My history in business has been one of high ethics,” Goyder told the Senate inquiry on September 27. “Clearly we’ve got issues now that we need to face into and deal with
Yet at the first opportunity to demonstrate a change of course, Qantas mooned the Australian parliament. The company elected to face into its customary obfuscation. The start date for humility is apparently the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.
Senator David Pocock asked: “How many free upgrades has Qantas given over the last 12 months [and] how many of these upgrades were to politicians or public servants?”
Qantas responded that “for privacy reasons, we are unable to disclose personal information regarding flights taken by individuals … It is up to members and senators to update their register of interests as appropriate.”
This is dissembling 101. Answer a question you haven’t been asked. Reframe the question to one you couldn’t possibly respond to.
What on earth could the privacy concern be with disclosing an aggregate number? Whose privacy would that breach? Unless the answer was “in the last 12 months, Qantas has given free upgrades to 151 members of the House of Representatives and 76 senators”. That would be naming names!
Let’s not beat around the bush, here. The entire premise of the senators’ questions about Chairman’s Lounge membership and upgrades is that they are bribes. The only way that undue influence occurs is through the auspices of humans who always have names. But in Qantas’ world, those names must be protected at all costs. They’re a matter for someone else to disclose.
So Qantas 2.0 refuses to answer a question on oath from the Senate on the basis its priority is protecting the privacy of people it may have unduly influenced.
We have the highest ethics – try a spritz of our new humility cologne! – and yes, we might have provided public officials with secret gratuities, but that’s really a matter for them to disclose in their pecuniary interest register. It’s just terrific.
That figures, because it would be a ****load of work to name every person Qantas has slung a backhander to over the years. It would have to ground the fleet again so every employee could work on the gigantic spreadsheet of beholden persons, which would run the full length of Hangar 96.
Or perhaps general counsel (and Patrick Bateman impersonator) Andrew Finch could repurpose his epic own goal from the baggage handlers’ illegal sacking and create another exotic instrument of delegation devolving the entire administrative resources of Qantas beyond parliament’s reach. We have offshored anyone who could answer the question. Qantas head office is now domiciled in Gibraltar, the global capital of online casino games – where your odds are far better than on booking a Classic Reward seat or getting a refund on your flight credit.
Qantas provided these non-answers just seven business days after the hearing. So where are the answers from questions on notice at the cost-of-living inquiry, which Alan Joyce, Jetstar CEO Stephanie Tully and chief lobbyist Andrew McGinnes appeared at six weeks ago? Such as this question, courtesy of Senator Matt Canavan:
“While Anthony Albanese was transport minister between 2007 and 2013, did Qantas provide free, complimentary or discounted flights to the minister, to his family, to a member of his staff or any other person travelling with the minister?”
They’ll say, “if we did provide freebies, it’s up to Albo to disclose them himself”. Except he didn’t. Maybe Albo will declare any free flights when he declares the Chairman’s Lounge memberships of his girlfriend and his son?
The Prime Minister trotted out his son on Saturday for a photo opportunity at a polling booth for the Voice referendum. Albo and Qantas often find themselves on a unity ticket and it turns out that selective privacy concerns are another thing they share.
The PM’s son is a participant in his father’s career whenever it suits his father’s political imperatives. Nathan’s all good for the nightly news grab. But when it comes to his completely unjustifiable Chairman’s Lounge membership or his PwC internship, then “my son is not a public figure.” Albanese carries on as if his son’s boondoggle is a bigger secret than the nuclear codes.
In Vanessa Hudson’s mind, Qantas has changed, yet she’s still got Finch and McGinnes out the back persisting with the hyper-aggressive conduct that helped cause Qantas’ monumental breakdown in public trust. In their minds, complying with the parliament’s reasonable request is optional. A demand from the Senate to produce information, in Finch’s world, is a negotiation. “If we were to release a document to you in confidence, can we be certain that it won’t be released publicly?” he chimed in on September 27. “I’m sorry, can we be certain or can’t we be certain?”
It was unreal. I know you have confidentiality conventions of 122 years’ standing, but how confidential are they? Can we just have a little back and forth over this and then I might, but then I might not. What bargaining power did this f---wit actually think he had?
Hudson has invited us to judge her only on what she does. And what is she doing? She is backing Alan Joyce’s All-Star cast of ghouls. You’d know she was serious if Finch and McGinnes were handing out their resumes in Martin Place.
Yet in spite of what she says, she got the job because she was the continuity candidate and she is now complicit in keeping these people and enabling them as they chuck an enormous brown eye at the Australian public.
Vanessa is right that it only matters what she does. It’s early days, but the signs are terrible. She looks so weak, and the people around her are making it thus.
Qantas moons the Senate
The airline considers itself an arm of government when it wants protectionist policy settings but a private company when any transparency is required of it.Joe AstonColumnistOct 8, 2023 – 7.34pm
On Friday, Qantas provided answers to questions on notice asked by the Senate committee investigating the Qatar air rights affair.
Qantas has been talking a big game about dialling down the arrogance.
“I think it’s a time for humility,” chairman Richard Goyder claimed a month ago, without specifying a start date.
Team Qantas stuck to the script at the Senate hearing. Alex Ellinghausen “We understand we need to earn your trust back not with what we say but what we do and how we behave,” Vanessa Hudson conceded in her recent hostage video to Qantas customers.“My history in business has been one of high ethics,” Goyder told the Senate inquiry on September 27. “Clearly we’ve got issues now that we need to face into and deal with
Yet at the first opportunity to demonstrate a change of course, Qantas mooned the Australian parliament. The company elected to face into its customary obfuscation. The start date for humility is apparently the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.
Senator David Pocock asked: “How many free upgrades has Qantas given over the last 12 months [and] how many of these upgrades were to politicians or public servants?”
Qantas responded that “for privacy reasons, we are unable to disclose personal information regarding flights taken by individuals … It is up to members and senators to update their register of interests as appropriate.”
Privacy concerns
Pocock’s question didn’t even ask Qantas to identify anyone. He asked for two numbers, not anyone’s name.This is dissembling 101. Answer a question you haven’t been asked. Reframe the question to one you couldn’t possibly respond to.
What on earth could the privacy concern be with disclosing an aggregate number? Whose privacy would that breach? Unless the answer was “in the last 12 months, Qantas has given free upgrades to 151 members of the House of Representatives and 76 senators”. That would be naming names!
Let’s not beat around the bush, here. The entire premise of the senators’ questions about Chairman’s Lounge membership and upgrades is that they are bribes. The only way that undue influence occurs is through the auspices of humans who always have names. But in Qantas’ world, those names must be protected at all costs. They’re a matter for someone else to disclose.
So Qantas 2.0 refuses to answer a question on oath from the Senate on the basis its priority is protecting the privacy of people it may have unduly influenced.
We have the highest ethics – try a spritz of our new humility cologne! – and yes, we might have provided public officials with secret gratuities, but that’s really a matter for them to disclose in their pecuniary interest register. It’s just terrific.
Giant spreadsheet
Remember that Qantas considers itself an arm of government when it wants protectionist policy settings or free money but a private company when any transparency is required of it. Qantas is acting like a government department refusing an FOI request because the information “would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the (government) agency from its other operations”.That figures, because it would be a ****load of work to name every person Qantas has slung a backhander to over the years. It would have to ground the fleet again so every employee could work on the gigantic spreadsheet of beholden persons, which would run the full length of Hangar 96.
Or perhaps general counsel (and Patrick Bateman impersonator) Andrew Finch could repurpose his epic own goal from the baggage handlers’ illegal sacking and create another exotic instrument of delegation devolving the entire administrative resources of Qantas beyond parliament’s reach. We have offshored anyone who could answer the question. Qantas head office is now domiciled in Gibraltar, the global capital of online casino games – where your odds are far better than on booking a Classic Reward seat or getting a refund on your flight credit.
Qantas provided these non-answers just seven business days after the hearing. So where are the answers from questions on notice at the cost-of-living inquiry, which Alan Joyce, Jetstar CEO Stephanie Tully and chief lobbyist Andrew McGinnes appeared at six weeks ago? Such as this question, courtesy of Senator Matt Canavan:
“While Anthony Albanese was transport minister between 2007 and 2013, did Qantas provide free, complimentary or discounted flights to the minister, to his family, to a member of his staff or any other person travelling with the minister?”
Unity ticket
Imagine the privacy concerns Qantas will have about that one! Goyder, Hudson and their attorney Patrick Bateman will humbly answer this question – an absolutely legitimate matter of public interest – on the day that hell freezes over.They’ll say, “if we did provide freebies, it’s up to Albo to disclose them himself”. Except he didn’t. Maybe Albo will declare any free flights when he declares the Chairman’s Lounge memberships of his girlfriend and his son?
The Prime Minister trotted out his son on Saturday for a photo opportunity at a polling booth for the Voice referendum. Albo and Qantas often find themselves on a unity ticket and it turns out that selective privacy concerns are another thing they share.
The PM’s son is a participant in his father’s career whenever it suits his father’s political imperatives. Nathan’s all good for the nightly news grab. But when it comes to his completely unjustifiable Chairman’s Lounge membership or his PwC internship, then “my son is not a public figure.” Albanese carries on as if his son’s boondoggle is a bigger secret than the nuclear codes.
In Vanessa Hudson’s mind, Qantas has changed, yet she’s still got Finch and McGinnes out the back persisting with the hyper-aggressive conduct that helped cause Qantas’ monumental breakdown in public trust. In their minds, complying with the parliament’s reasonable request is optional. A demand from the Senate to produce information, in Finch’s world, is a negotiation. “If we were to release a document to you in confidence, can we be certain that it won’t be released publicly?” he chimed in on September 27. “I’m sorry, can we be certain or can’t we be certain?”
It was unreal. I know you have confidentiality conventions of 122 years’ standing, but how confidential are they? Can we just have a little back and forth over this and then I might, but then I might not. What bargaining power did this f---wit actually think he had?
Hudson has invited us to judge her only on what she does. And what is she doing? She is backing Alan Joyce’s All-Star cast of ghouls. You’d know she was serious if Finch and McGinnes were handing out their resumes in Martin Place.
Yet in spite of what she says, she got the job because she was the continuity candidate and she is now complicit in keeping these people and enabling them as they chuck an enormous brown eye at the Australian public.
Vanessa is right that it only matters what she does. It’s early days, but the signs are terrible. She looks so weak, and the people around her are making it thus.
The Senate can order these people to appear again and provide answers, and they can be held in contempt (and gaoled) if they fail to comply. I'll bet that doesn't happen.
The senators could also renounce their chairman’s club membership but I bet they won’t do that. Do as I say not as I do been their motto.
As I've said before, I don't blame Qantas for offering the largesse. The problem is the normalised deviation of politicians and public officials who think it's OK to accept it.
The following users liked this post:
Non executive staff at CASA are not allowed to upgrade to Buisness Class using their own points or money - lest it be considered a 'conflict of interest'.
Given that, how far from normal has the Director and Board members of CASA deviated if they think it's ok for them?
I give Hudson 6 months. Hopelessly out of her depth. She would have been perfect if Aston hadn't have conducted an impeccable fact campaign.
She does not know airline business, all she knows is corporate arse licking.
The only thing that will save airlines when competition re-ignites is the differences between similar cost bases. Like answering a phone enquiry in under 5 mins (not 4 hours). Upgrading loyal customers not free loading communist politicians, their girlfriends and communist sons, not treating average Joe's who booked fares in good faith like crap, only to be told that their fares are paying out a piece of ****s termination pay out.
The emotional freedom of telling Qantas to **** right off is liberating.
Qantas don't appear to understand that they are a bees dick off the next Pan Am.
She does not know airline business, all she knows is corporate arse licking.
The only thing that will save airlines when competition re-ignites is the differences between similar cost bases. Like answering a phone enquiry in under 5 mins (not 4 hours). Upgrading loyal customers not free loading communist politicians, their girlfriends and communist sons, not treating average Joe's who booked fares in good faith like crap, only to be told that their fares are paying out a piece of ****s termination pay out.
The emotional freedom of telling Qantas to **** right off is liberating.
Qantas don't appear to understand that they are a bees dick off the next Pan Am.
Last edited by Mr Mossberg; 9th Oct 2023 at 14:46. Reason: poor sentence structure
The following 3 users liked this post by Mr Mossberg:
Mt Mossberg, remember there are thousands of hard-working Qantas employees, the front-line workers, that are not responsible for this. It would be a great shame if they were punished because of Qantas' current woes.
The following 4 users liked this post by Capn Bloggs:
Every dark cloud has a silver lining!!
Mt Mossberg, remember there are thousands of hard-working Qantas employees, the front-line workers, that are not responsible for this. It would be a great shame if they were punished because of Qantas' current woes.
How else will change be affected? We can only hope that the Network Pilots hold firm and Pilots from every company support them. There is so much riding on this, more than people realise I feel.
The following users liked this post:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...de4ccee867ec83
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
my perception entirely
forget about reading the room
reading the room equals swallowing the bandwagon
The following 4 users liked this post by JPJP:
From ABC. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-...heft/102953894
The sudden and savage outburst of community disdain for Qantas and its senior executives may have taken the suddenly departed Alan Joyce by surprise. But it was a long time coming.
After a decade and a half of disregard for its once loyal customer base, a bitter war with its own workforce and a poor financial performance — all while delivering fabulous riches to senior executives — it appears the Qantas hierarchy had been lulled into believing its own spin.
The breaking point was the looming deadline over refunds, and its forced admission that it was attempting to thwart customers from retrieving half a billion dollars of their own cash.
When the competition regulator launched legal action, accusing the airline of deliberately selling tickets on flights that had already been cancelled (and under-reporting cancellations), it was game over.
Read moreJoyce was forced to quit just months out from retirement, and instead of the glorious ending he'd envisaged — showered in riches and hailed by an adoring coterie of business and political leaders — the once feted Qantas boss was left to skulk off into the void. He did, however, still manage to exit showered in riches.
Qantas may well be an extreme example of the greed and hubris that is endemic in the corporate world, but it is far from alone.
There's a word for taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called theft.
The mistake Qantas made, from a tactical perspective, was to attempt a heist on its customers, to take cash for services it knew it would not deliver and then construct a refund process so convoluted and complex that few had any chance of making a successful claim.
Most of its corporate peers instead took aim at their employees, with underpayment scandal after underpayment scandal ricocheting across the economy from the country's largest corporations down, including at publicly funded organisations like the ABC and the Reserve Bank of Australia.
WATCHDuration: 4 minutes 39 seconds4m 39s
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce was forced to bring forward his retirement by two months.
Back in May, mining giant BHP went on the offensive against proposed federal government industrial relations laws aimed at securing equal pay for those doing the same job.
The new laws, it argued, would cost the company more than $1.3 billion annually, a claim dismissed by the government.
A week later, it admitted it had underpaid 30,000 of its employees around $430 millionafter incorrectly deducting leave on public holidays and, in another instance, as the result of an employment contract error.
Almost every underpayment case over the past five years, from retailers and the financial sector through to industrial firms and miners, has been the result of either "complex industrial relations laws" or simple errors.
Read moreOddly, there have been precious few instances, if any at all, where these complexities resulted in overpayment.
The extent of the scandal remains a mystery. According to accounting firm PwC – which has had its own share of scandals in recent times – wage theft has cost Australians roughly $1.35 billion per year, although that figure has been disputed by the Fair Work Ombudsman as "misleading and inaccurate".
What is known is that, despite the extent of the scandal, there has been precious little legal action.
Victoria, which introduced legislation in 2021 to outlaw the practice, launched its first case in November last year against a Macedon restaurant owner. Smaller fish to fry, as they say.
That may be about to change.
Last month, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke introduced legislation outlawing the practice, with penalties of up to 10 years in jail as well as substantial fines.
Back in 2020, it was forced to repay around $7 million to 638 workers, and later that year was accused by a judge of misusing Jobkeeper payments to staff.
Then there is the case of the illegal sacking of its baggage handlers, a case it lost in court, on appeal and then in the High Court.
And almost from the day he was anointed chief executive, Joyce went to war with Qantas pilots and cabin crew.
It was an extraordinary and almost unprecedented attack. Where previous Qantas bosses had attempted to settle industrial disputes behind closed doors, the former Jetstar head went public against his own workers.
Joyce in 2011, after announcing Qantas would cut around 100 domestic flights due to industrial action.(AAP Photo: Mick Tsikas)It all culminated in the dramatic shutdown of the airline on the weekend before Melbourne Cup day in 2011, leaving 98,000 passengers stranded on tarmacs across the globe.
In one fell swoop he alienated his customers, his staff and shareholders who had to bear the brunt of the costs.
That action, spun as an industrial relations triumph by the airline's management, plunged Qantas into its first ever loss since its stock exchange listing two decades earlier.
Worse was still to come. In 2014, Joyce went begging to Canberra for a government bailout after his disastrous attempt to put Virgin out of business.
Incredibly, he also attempted to launch new Jetstar operations in Vietnam, Hong Kong and Japan without seeking proper approvals.
Each ended up a costly failure. After announcing a $2.8 billion loss, the company was forced to sack thousands of workers, but pitched the strategy as a "Transformation Program".
Qantas's reputation with passengers suffered under Joyce's reign.(ABC News: Natasha Johnson)In the following years, each time the airline lifted earnings, the then-CEO proudly took the credit, boasting about the effectiveness of his program. Profit downturns were always blamed on external factors such as higher fuel prices.
The extent of the ineptitude and the spin was brilliantly portrayed by your correspondent's former Fairfax Media colleague, Matt O'Sullivan, in his book Mayday.
Any media criticism of the airline, and particularly of Joyce, was met with a hailstorm of threats and complaints, and demands for apologies from its aggressive legal department and spin doctors.
Not that it was often required. Just as Qantas had bought off most Canberra politicians with membership of its Chairman's Lounge, it had almost the entire Australian press in its pocket, flying reporters around the globe on junkets — with a select few flying gratis on holidays or with generous upgrades.
During his 15-year reign, he earned somewhere north of $125 million.
That's where board responsibility kicks in. Richard Goyder, as Qantas chairman, would be on first-name terms with every politician in the land (especially if they are members of the Chairman's Lounge).
Politicians, of course, are subject to the Westminster system of parliamentary responsibility, which dictates that you assume the blame for anything that goes wrong, whether you are at fault or not.
By refusing to accept responsibility, and having been awarded a significant pay lift himself, he's guaranteed a fiery reception at next month's annual general meeting.WATCHDuration: 4 minutes 33 seconds4m 33s
Australian Shareholders' Association chief executive Rachel Waterhouse says it's time for the Qantas board to reflect on its role in the recent turmoil.Again, that is not a situation unique to Qantas. Despite the incredible array of underpayment scandals, our business leaders have spent the past 18 months desperately trying to thwart pay rises for their workers battling soaring costs of living and mortgage bills.
They've been incredibly successful. Annual wage rises have been well below 4 per cent, significantly less than inflation.
The justification is that productivity growth has stalled. That is true. One of the major factors for low productivity, however, is that business investment across the developed world has stagnated. That's a decision made by chief executives.
Nevertheless, it hasn't slowed the growth of executive salaries. According to one study, Australian chief executive salaries this year have risen 15 per cent, well above the rate of inflation.
At least the Qantas flame-out is keeping everyone else off the front page.
The Qantas flame-out is a symptom of something much more serious
By business editor Ian VerrenderThe sudden and savage outburst of community disdain for Qantas and its senior executives may have taken the suddenly departed Alan Joyce by surprise. But it was a long time coming.
After a decade and a half of disregard for its once loyal customer base, a bitter war with its own workforce and a poor financial performance — all while delivering fabulous riches to senior executives — it appears the Qantas hierarchy had been lulled into believing its own spin.
The breaking point was the looming deadline over refunds, and its forced admission that it was attempting to thwart customers from retrieving half a billion dollars of their own cash.
When the competition regulator launched legal action, accusing the airline of deliberately selling tickets on flights that had already been cancelled (and under-reporting cancellations), it was game over.
Joyce's fall from grace is something to behold
Alan Joyce will leave Qantas after 15 years with $125 million, while the airline's operations have suffered and its reputation has been trashed.Read moreJoyce was forced to quit just months out from retirement, and instead of the glorious ending he'd envisaged — showered in riches and hailed by an adoring coterie of business and political leaders — the once feted Qantas boss was left to skulk off into the void. He did, however, still manage to exit showered in riches.
Qantas may well be an extreme example of the greed and hubris that is endemic in the corporate world, but it is far from alone.
There's a word for taking something that doesn't belong to you. It's called theft.
The mistake Qantas made, from a tactical perspective, was to attempt a heist on its customers, to take cash for services it knew it would not deliver and then construct a refund process so convoluted and complex that few had any chance of making a successful claim.
Most of its corporate peers instead took aim at their employees, with underpayment scandal after underpayment scandal ricocheting across the economy from the country's largest corporations down, including at publicly funded organisations like the ABC and the Reserve Bank of Australia.
WATCHDuration: 4 minutes 39 seconds4m 39s
Wage theft made easy
The irony couldn't have been more pronounced.Back in May, mining giant BHP went on the offensive against proposed federal government industrial relations laws aimed at securing equal pay for those doing the same job.
The new laws, it argued, would cost the company more than $1.3 billion annually, a claim dismissed by the government.
A week later, it admitted it had underpaid 30,000 of its employees around $430 millionafter incorrectly deducting leave on public holidays and, in another instance, as the result of an employment contract error.
Almost every underpayment case over the past five years, from retailers and the financial sector through to industrial firms and miners, has been the result of either "complex industrial relations laws" or simple errors.
Fair Work Ombudsman vows to clamp down on wage theft
Newly appointed ombudsman Anna Booth vows to use yet-to-be-legislated criminal penalties against employers who deliberately underpay or rip off their workers.Read moreOddly, there have been precious few instances, if any at all, where these complexities resulted in overpayment.
The extent of the scandal remains a mystery. According to accounting firm PwC – which has had its own share of scandals in recent times – wage theft has cost Australians roughly $1.35 billion per year, although that figure has been disputed by the Fair Work Ombudsman as "misleading and inaccurate".
What is known is that, despite the extent of the scandal, there has been precious little legal action.
Victoria, which introduced legislation in 2021 to outlaw the practice, launched its first case in November last year against a Macedon restaurant owner. Smaller fish to fry, as they say.
That may be about to change.
Last month, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke introduced legislation outlawing the practice, with penalties of up to 10 years in jail as well as substantial fines.
Over Joyce
Not one to be left out, Qantas too has been involved in the underpayment scam.Back in 2020, it was forced to repay around $7 million to 638 workers, and later that year was accused by a judge of misusing Jobkeeper payments to staff.
Then there is the case of the illegal sacking of its baggage handlers, a case it lost in court, on appeal and then in the High Court.
And almost from the day he was anointed chief executive, Joyce went to war with Qantas pilots and cabin crew.
It was an extraordinary and almost unprecedented attack. Where previous Qantas bosses had attempted to settle industrial disputes behind closed doors, the former Jetstar head went public against his own workers.
In one fell swoop he alienated his customers, his staff and shareholders who had to bear the brunt of the costs.
That action, spun as an industrial relations triumph by the airline's management, plunged Qantas into its first ever loss since its stock exchange listing two decades earlier.
Worse was still to come. In 2014, Joyce went begging to Canberra for a government bailout after his disastrous attempt to put Virgin out of business.
Incredibly, he also attempted to launch new Jetstar operations in Vietnam, Hong Kong and Japan without seeking proper approvals.
Each ended up a costly failure. After announcing a $2.8 billion loss, the company was forced to sack thousands of workers, but pitched the strategy as a "Transformation Program".
The extent of the ineptitude and the spin was brilliantly portrayed by your correspondent's former Fairfax Media colleague, Matt O'Sullivan, in his book Mayday.
Any media criticism of the airline, and particularly of Joyce, was met with a hailstorm of threats and complaints, and demands for apologies from its aggressive legal department and spin doctors.
Not that it was often required. Just as Qantas had bought off most Canberra politicians with membership of its Chairman's Lounge, it had almost the entire Australian press in its pocket, flying reporters around the globe on junkets — with a select few flying gratis on holidays or with generous upgrades.
When too much is barely enough
Despite the airline's poor financial performance even before the pandemic hit, Joyce managed to secure himself eye-watering salaries.During his 15-year reign, he earned somewhere north of $125 million.
That's where board responsibility kicks in. Richard Goyder, as Qantas chairman, would be on first-name terms with every politician in the land (especially if they are members of the Chairman's Lounge).
Politicians, of course, are subject to the Westminster system of parliamentary responsibility, which dictates that you assume the blame for anything that goes wrong, whether you are at fault or not.
By refusing to accept responsibility, and having been awarded a significant pay lift himself, he's guaranteed a fiery reception at next month's annual general meeting.WATCHDuration: 4 minutes 33 seconds4m 33s
Australian Shareholders' Association chief executive Rachel Waterhouse says it's time for the Qantas board to reflect on its role in the recent turmoil.Again, that is not a situation unique to Qantas. Despite the incredible array of underpayment scandals, our business leaders have spent the past 18 months desperately trying to thwart pay rises for their workers battling soaring costs of living and mortgage bills.
They've been incredibly successful. Annual wage rises have been well below 4 per cent, significantly less than inflation.
The justification is that productivity growth has stalled. That is true. One of the major factors for low productivity, however, is that business investment across the developed world has stagnated. That's a decision made by chief executives.
Nevertheless, it hasn't slowed the growth of executive salaries. According to one study, Australian chief executive salaries this year have risen 15 per cent, well above the rate of inflation.
At least the Qantas flame-out is keeping everyone else off the front page.