Mega Merged: Qantas Long Haul Cabin Crew Eba8 Negotiations
 

THE FOLLOWING NEWSLETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE FAAA. CLEARLY WE ARE IN FOR A DIFFICULT TIME. WHAT DO PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM THINK ABOUT THE UPCOMING EBA NEGOTIATIONS - WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THE FEDERAL VOTING INTENTION OF CREW AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY MORE GENERALLY- WHAT SHOULD THE STANCE OF THE FAAA BE IN THE UPCOMING EBA NEGOTIATIONS?
In a newsletter to you dated 18 August 2006, about the introduction of AWA’s (individual contracts) in Jetstar International, I wrote “the defeat of the Howard Government is essential in order to stop a complete onslaught on our conditions after the Qantas Long Haul EBA expires in December 2007”.
I knew that some members thought that I was exaggerating the risk posed to our conditions, by a determined employer armed to the teeth, by the unfair and extreme WorkChoices legislation. The feedback that the FAAA is receiving more recently indicates that crew now realise that my comments last year were not hyperbole or overstatement.
It is my strong belief that a Howard Government win in this year’s Federal Election will lead to an unprecedented onslaught on Long Haul conditions. An accurate indicator of what will happen to our conditions in the advent of a re-elected Howard Government is the Jetstar International AWA for its international Cabin Crew.
COMPARISON OF LONG HAUL AND JETSTAR CONDITIONS
MAX SALARY $51390 (QF) $33475 (JQ) - 35%
HOURS WORKED FOR SALARY 182.3 (QF) 240 (JQ) -32%
MAX HOURS 199 (QF) 306 (JQ) +54%
ANNUAL LEAVE 42 DAYS (QF) 30 DAYS (JQ) - 29%
SICK LEAVE 15 DAYS (QF) 10 DAYS (JQ) -33%
BID SYSTEM YES (QF) NO (JQ)
REDUNDANDCY CURRENT (QF) 16 WEEKS MAX (JQ)
OVERTIME AFTER 12 HRS (QF) ONLY AFTER 306 HRS/ROSTER (JQ)
ACCOMMODATION FIRST CLASS (QF) AS DETERMINED BY JQ
ALLOWANCES AGREED WITH FAAA AS DETERMINED BY JQ
The above summary is not exhaustive of the woeful conditions inflicted on cabin crew in Jetstar International, who had to accept individual contracts (AWA) if they wanted employment.
It is instructive to remind members that a Jetstar spokesman referred to the salary as “phenomenal” and “we believe the overall package is comparable to other industries with similar skill sets such as cafes and restaurants”.
It is no wonder that when the FAAA approached Jetstar International to forge a professional working relationship, we were told by Jetstar, “we do not recognise your request to meet with you either now or in the future. We consider that we have satisfactory and appropriate arrangements and relationships with our International Flight Attendants and as such we see no need to meet with your organisation on these matters”.
The statements above display the sheer arrogance, hostility and contempt by an employer within the Qantas Group, emboldened by the unfair and extreme power given to it by Mr Howard’s WorkChoices law.
It is also instructive to note the waste of shareholders funds that some major employer groups are currently involved in, to promote Mr Howard’s WorkChoices laws. If the laws are so wonderful and employee friendly, a slightly cynical person might ask, why the need to spend millions defending them? Remember, all the glittery packaging and wrapping in the world cannot alter the fact that you can’t sell smelly fish.
In summary, a Howard Government win later this year, will mean a ferocious industrial onslaught to equalise Long Haul conditions to Jetstar International levels, backed up by all the powers given to employers under Mr Howard’s legislation.
Our members have been warned several times of the repercussions of a re-elected Howard Government. Please heed our warnings and if you value your current conditions of employment, use the next several weeks before the election is called to engage friends in discussion about the unfair and extreme federal industrial laws.
I will shortly issue a reminder of upcoming FAAA members’ meetings. We are about to enter the most difficult and complex EBA negotiations in our history. It is essential that all members attend.
Written and authorised by Michael Mijatov –Secretary International Division
20 Ewan Street Mascot NSW 2020 Tel 61 2 8337 1111 Fax 61 2 8337 1122 Emergency Contact 0414 894 192

Economic Rationale
 

If you are a Jet* crewmember forget about buying a car or a house.
The banks would laugh at you on those wages..
By reducing an individuals income you reduce their demand.
Less cars,less whitegoods,less clothing,furniture and so it goes.
Inventories build,production slows and workers are laid off.
The downward spiral.
All this is basic Keynesian economics.
WorkChoices legislation targets those on lower and middle incomes working for middlesized companies.
It seems that it is a blatant attempt at widening the gap between the haves and have nots.
It will in effect create a working poor or underclass.
Who the hell benefits from this ?
Even the tax base shrinks.As wages shrink so does the tax payable.
Can someone explain to me the advantage of falling wages over time?

And yet the fastest growing economies are those employing cheap labor while the western world slowly moves everything offshore.

prunezeuss, perhaps you should do a little more research.

Professor,
If the western worlds company's and boards did not source products and services off shore what would happen?

Let's look at an example of a department store that sold a mans shirt for $39.95 and made a profit with a retail mark up of at least 100%.They decide to have the shirt made in some third world country and close the plant down in their own country.The workers are now unemployed not to mention the impact on the local area where the shirts were made.

The shirt is now made for $5.00 instead of say$15.00 and the department store still sells that shirt for the same price of $39.95 is running out of people to sell them to because they are all out of work.

Who's fault is that?

The workers or the board/owner of the department store?.

prunezeuss is right and the problem with awa's and lower pay on contracts is that the banks will be more reluctant to lend money and this flows on to purchases the worker would/could have made.

Who benefits from this in the short term....The boss/board/CEO etc..with their bonus's for cutting costs.

The question is at what cost?

The Professor...Of What?
 

Western economies are at full capacity constrained by available resources.
The economies you allude to have a generally poor standard of living and an abundance of cheap labour.
Theirr growth is also from a very very lowbase.
A large portion of these economies are still at subsistence levels.
The Indian economy has a population of over 1 billion.As has the Chinese economy.
The American economy is in decline.10 % of the population(26m) live on or below the poverty line.The health system is a farce.
It doesnt seem to bother individuals like you that the Australian economy under Howard is heading the same way.
Where will we be in 20 years.
More importantly where will you be...probably living in China.
The Professor:I'm alright Jack bugger you.
Retired Airline Manager...says it all really

hey proff how about the millions of toys that are being called back because they were not made the right way or have the wrong paint?
can you do the same with your aircraft that are getting a grease and an oil change in thirdworld countries and you find out they screwed up?
i hear the manager in the factory has done himself in.so mate how good is this third world country gig you reckon is the bees knees?

"Who's fault is that?" has absolutely no relevance in the debate at all. The global market will influence capital, labor and production as it sees fit. To assign blame when the benefits don't come your way shows how simplistic your understanding of the subject is.

The analogy used by redtbar is rather basic but lets play along. How many department stores in western countries sell items manufactured domestically. What percentage of the items sold are manufactured in countries with cheap labor?

Prunezeuss, are you aware that some theories posed by JMK have been discredited including, in part, his thoughts on this very subject. In addition, the global economy has changed significantly since JMK was theorizing economics. The liberalization of global capital has totally altered the importance of aggregate demand.

"More importantly where will you be...probably living in China." If thats where the employment opportunities are, then yes, of course.

The argument put forth by you is fascinatingly simple yet totally selfless "I want to get paid more in order to better contribute to the economy".

Fantastic.

Flawed Argument
 

Globalization is manipulated by government intervention.
Particularly in America.thru' government subsidies
I dont want to earn more...I just dont want to earn less.
Prof..you live in California...been to Compton lately?
You are a retired Airline Manager so you probably contributed to the mess that masquerades as an Airline system in the US.
The American attitude to Globalization is ambivalent....
......it is embraced so long as it is not to the detriment of America
Perhaps the economics spouted by JK Galbraith is more to your taste.
You are no longer part of the workforce...so to a large extent you are insulated from what is happening.
An armchair champion who is only too happy to make commentary on the game because there are no consequences for you whatever the outcome.
There are 6 billion people on this planet.
Globalization(sic)benefits around 10%
According to you....too bad about the other 90%

Perhaps john howard aka the professor can explain who will provide for the needs of an underclass of working poor once they reach retirement?

The ones that will be well and truly created once "work no choices" REALLY bites during the next down turn in the global economy.

Ross Gittens has argued that the conservative government [sic] has over the last 11 years shifted the risks involved in running business to the employees.

They will bare the brunt of the hard times with company profits and executive bonus's :yuk: insulated through business's new found ability to slash and burn great swathes of their workforces.

Howard and his thugs have even legislated a name for it. It'll be done in the name of,"OPERATIONAL REASONS".

I for one am sick to f#cking death of living in an "economy".

It's about time the Australian people woke up to the fact that we live in a society.

We live in Australia for f@cks sake.

What utility is gained by creating an underclass of working poor?

The Professor posts "How many department stores in western countries sell items manufactured domestically. What percentage of the items sold are manufactured in countries with cheap labor"

Brilliant and exactly my point and why is that?

Did the Department stores lower the price of the shirt when they moved manufacturing offshore? No of course not because they want bigger profits but at what cost and no it is not irrelevant if it's your job that was lost.

Of course the professor has the answer.

We all move to China and will the last person out the door please turn the lights off.

The thought of the country that we were, where we could have been heading and the direction that Kim Il John Mugabe Howard is taking us is very very sad.:{:=

But I suppose someone like aircraft could justify it all in their own peculiar perverted way :rolleyes:

Speedbird house
"I'm sick to death of livingh in an economy and want to live in a society" Very well said indeed!:D

Tbar..I like the bit about the professor moving to China.Has he seen the pollution levels lately?

Beijing makes LA look crystal clear.The athletes will have to compete wearing a PBE mask.;)

If half these clowns who talk about market forces and globalisation being a good thing ever worked in the real world they might have a different view.

Mods,

Perhaps the title of this thread can be changed to reflect the fact it represents Cabin Crew EBA 8 negotiations. Qantas Longhaul pilots are also in EBA8 negotiations. I just wasted a minute of my time reading the usual dribble from the usual suspects.

TL

TL,it took you a minute to work out this is a cc thread?.
mate stick to checklists then.

Slooooooow on the uptake?

Hey guys, why don't you go play in the Cabin Crew forum? Oh that's right, you got kicked out of there for carrying on like pork chops.

Now I can see why they didn't want you there...grow up!

........AND precious.:D

hey TL have you read some of your threads against J*
what was that you said about pork chops gunga din and you made a post on a cabin crew thread.
do you listen to your own advice mate

Prunezeuss asks “Prof..you live in California...been to Compton lately?”.

No, Compton is not a suburb I would frequent. Are you suggesting that I am unaware of the crime and poverty that exists in this part of LA? Do you think market capitalism benefits everybody?

You have missed the mark somewhat, I live in the US but I am not American and I have never worked in the airline system here.

Speedbird house asks “Perhaps john howard aka the professor can explain who will provide for the needs of an underclass of working poor once they reach retirement?”

Why would the market place provide for a group of people that are no longer components of the market place? This is the reality of capitalism that is well advanced in Britain and the US and is slowly becoming apparent in Australia.

RedTbar asks “Did the Department stores lower the price of the shirt when they moved manufacturing offshore? No of course not because they want bigger profits but at what cost and no it is not irrelevant if it's your job that was lost.”

I don’t think you fully understand the comment I made with regard to manufacturing moving offshore. Of course the department stores want bigger profits, that’s what market capitalism is all about, maximizing profit. If moving the production facility to a country with significantly lower labor costs provides a greater return on investment then such a move will be considered. This is not an opinion; it’s not something open for debate. The fact is that every high labor cost economy has seen a decline in traditional manufacturing conducted onshore. Textiles in China, India and Vietnam are manufactured by employees who earn as little as $1000 USD per annum. Can an Australian employee compete with that? Should they even try? Many economists would argue that western countries will eventually abandon any attempt to compete in the manufacturing sector as a result. Western countries have traditionally relied on trade restrictions and agreements, trade barriers and tariffs etc to enable them to compete in the global manufacturing market. Unfortunately, such protectionism leads to significant institutionalized inefficiencies that inflict more harm than good in the long term. This is evident in the airline industry. Take a look at where the aircraft orders are coming from.

I find it interesting that people like TP finds it inevitable and almost mandatory that offshore sourcing will and should happen.

So what happens Professor when the cost of living in these third world countries goes up to the point where their labor is no longer cheaper?

All the skills that WERE in your country have long gone.

A smart business and a smarter government would realise that you can't just give away your manufacturing base.Sooner or later this great paper theory of yours will turn around and bite you.