Anyone with any sense of solidarity with the engineers should be able to have some fun with that website.:E

Best done with a web proxy.

http://www.ezwebproxy.com/

And to check your IP.

http://www.moanmyip.com/

They advertised for the same positions over a year ago. I applied but was eventually told the opportunity never eventuated?? Same job code too.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=resumedomain

Its not about 5% because they will give us 3%
so is 2% worth all this bullsh$#,we told them what we think hold out for some fringe benfits and remove the xtp and lame to ame clauses and lets settle this thing.. this lock out crap aint worth 2%

I agree with you about the clauses cementhead, but you also have to remember that every time you take a pay rise, which is below inflation, it's a pay cut, and it keeps the LAME pay rates going backwards.

Remember its not just about you and me, it's about everyone who enters this job in the future and the calibre of engineers in the future. Pay peanuts, get monkeys!

I'm already earning less than Qantas's competitors!

So yes it is worth the grief for 2%, id rather sit on my current pay than accept 3%

Thanks LME-400 for that.

Well if they are secretly training guys to be able to sign for QF aircraft,then there must be an instructor from the training school conducting training and examinations.Anybody know who it is?

I doubt if it is Bwarry.He'd be too slow.Just ask any African about the length of time it takes to assess their past training.

This could well be an interesting update
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...344952338.html

IF, Qantas manage to get a team of strike breaking scabs, how do they go about training the scabs considering they require, under the Qantas system of maintenance, and a CASA requirement no doubt, 214 training and differences training ?

Even if they do manage to secure enough scabs, will the staff at the technical training school at Qantas be willing to train a bunch of scabs ?

One thing we do have on our side is there are a lot of bitter redundant ex Qantas workers, who are more then likely going to tell resumedomain.com to stick it as well as the fact that by the rules and reg's of this country state that engineers are unable to maintain their CASA License due to not working on aircraft for a 6 month in a 24 month period.

Anyway, if at the end of the day we are all locked out, lose our jobs and Qantas have an alternative workforce, I for one think its great they would be willing to pay their engineers 200k a year, more then a captain at the same airline. Could it be a sign of the future ?????

How much would it cost to give an extra 2% compared to the millions of $ they're willing to spend on scabs.. Really it does say something about this company's agenda.

just heard the 2gb talkback show with one of the alaea union delegates ,good job too. direct and to the point. I cant believe what i am hearing from some of the guys on this thread on how scared we are. you voted and it was a clear indication of a majority ,so suck it up and stop whining.be prepared for the worst and sometimes youre surprised of the outcome.
have a great xmas to one and all.

Cementhead
 

re post 404. Apparently some 87% of returned votes DO think 2% is worth all this bulls*it. So far as I can tell, NO industrial has yet even taken place. Why are you already conceding defeat? We have never, ever, been better placed to secure a superior EBA outcome. All you have to do is keep information lines open, communicate, trust your executive and stand firm. I believe the new executive have proven themselves so far and as such, deserve and require our continued and unwavering support as we head into the 'real' EBA negotiations. If not, we may as well have signed off on 3% 12 months ago.

I heard today that the Qantas Training School is gearing up for the conversion training for these strike breakers. instructors and administration staff have had there annual leave revoked for the next couple of months.

Resumedomain.com Client is ?????
 

Been doing some hunting, and my info is that resumedomain.com client is Newport Aviation Pty Limited, the Managing Director Bruce MacDonald founder and CEO of FORSTAFF , the bloke that set up Avalon. apparently he sold to Candler McCLeod a couple of years ago for a squillion...there has been some squabbling her but i think that we need to be united and not bag each other, it is important we are solid as they seem pretty serious and have the bucks to throw around

You will be glad to know that at a time when Qantas is in the news re possible Industrial Action, a cool head and a bit of restraint should be shown by it's management team. That's probably why Dixon only had his snout in the trough for 1,000,000 shares at NO COST today, and Gregg felt that he couldn't accept any more than 750,000 shares at NO COST.

Not bad, while the LAME's are only asking for an increase that will cover inflation and a bit of a catch up for years of restraint. The leadership in the place are grabbing as much as they can. Must be their reward for trying to sell the company to their mates on the cheap. $68 million if they had got away with it.

wingers
 

good work mate. any info is great. if it's genuine then pass it on to the Bexley Bunker. A few guys I know have been called by this scab-hiring mob. Aparrently very few details on phone but will tell more at interview. Ha fu**ing Ha. Go for the interview and if it's for real then good luck. if it's 'strike' breaking then GOOD LUCK.
Does present q management think that anyone who has left in the last 18 months did it for altruistic reasons? They all left 'cos they hate the way that the company they had loyally served for 30 -40 years had turned into a place where c**nts come to learn about management. These c**nts didn't care for aeroplanes and cared even less for people, people who had spent a life caring for THEIR aeroplanes. I have one reservation in all this, and that is the person driving this was also present during the pilot dispute. Rest assured Mr IO that we are not as easy to replace as your 'glorified bus drivers'. You may pay them more than us, but CASA and the qf system are buggers to get past.
5% is not such a barrier in the shadow of a 1.4 billion profit, is it? What do you want to be remembered by? You are only as good as your last game.

From Bloomberg.com

Qantas Readies Plan to Avoid Passenger Disruptions (Update2)
By Gemma Daley
Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Qantas Airways Ltd., Australia's biggest airline, is preparing a plan to minimize flight disruptions in the face of any action by 1,700 of its engineers seeking bigger raises and an improvement in working conditions.
``We are pursuing a variety of contingency arrangements to ensure our passengers can travel and book with confidence in January,'' Kevin Brown, head of human resources at the Sydney- based carrier, said in a telephone interview today.
To combat the planned industrial action, Qantas is trying to recruit engineers in New Zealand and hire 400 others made redundant last year, the Sydney Morning Herald reported today.
Any action by Qantas' workers would coincide with an improvement in performance. The carrier earlier this month predicted record profit after flying more domestic passengers.
The company's shares have gained 5 percent since the beginning of the year compared with a 0.4 percent decline for Singapore Airlines Ltd. in the same period. They rose 7 cents, or 1.3 percent, to A$5.48 at the close on the Australian Stock Exchange, their first gain since Dec. 13.
Ban on Overtime
Qantas engineers have agreed to introduce a ban on overtime work after negotiations over pay and working conditions collapsed following 13 months of discussions. The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association wants a 5 percent annual pay increase; Qantas has offered 3 percent.
Data show Qantas employees outperformed their counterparts at Singapore Airlines, Asia's most profitable carrier. Qantas' sales per employee exceeded Singapore Airlines' by almost 10 percent in U.S. dollar terms for the most recent 12 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Former engineers and their New Zealand counterparts have contacted the union after being offered work, union spokesman Steve Re said in an interview, adding Qantas is set to resume talks on Jan. 4.
Workers will ban overtime beginning Jan. 9 and will stop all work should Qantas intervene, Re said.
Qantas, the target of a failed buyout bid, has carried 7.1 percent more passengers this fiscal year on higher demand at its domestic and Jetstar low-fare units.
A six-month national dispute in 1989 saw the Australian Federation of Air Pilots impose a limitation to working hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. during a campaign for a 29 percent pay rise. The Royal Australian Air Force stepped in to keep domestic air running smoothly.
To contact the reporter on this story: Gemma Daley in Canberra at [email protected]
Last Updated: December 24, 2007 00:23 EST
Email this article Printer friendly format
Advertisement: Top m Bloomberg.com

Unless I am mistaken the Tech training school staff are under the LAME Tech salary staff award and I doubt that they would be prepared to offer their services to the company to put their colleagues out of a job.

The belief in management is tha the industrial action is being pushed by the exectutive the vote tells another story (no one more suprised by this than me) WE MUST STAND UNITED the stakes are much higher than I think many people realise our media coverage is already comparing our actions to the pilots dispute and unfortunatly they did not get much public support.

On the issue of "scabs' I believe that their would not be too any pilots that crossed the lie who on reflection are happy with the decision they made. We have an anomous forum here if any would like to comment that would be great.

If the dispute goes down the same road (which I doubt) the major difference this time is our qualifications are less transportable than the pilots (with the exception of the ex-HM guys) the airline in question this time is both domestic and international bit hard to fly a Herc to london or Lax. Our managers now may be qualified in running LAPs and lame smegma but relatively few are LAMES (because we all know tha that "you don't need to be a LAME to be a manager") they will not be able to certify in our place.

IF and only if we hold the line Maybe just Maybe we can make a difference.

Engineers defiant: Bring it on Qantas, you can't replace us


http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/...ant_replace_us

As always, if you stick together, management will have to eat humble pie.

If you break ranks, you will be toast...

...and management are working furiously on the latter.

Your engineering job is a noble discipline and profession that is well worth fighting for.

This is quite unlike the so-called jobs that are held by some other greedy oxygen thieves that are employed by your airline.

Scharbus and Quesionable fixes
 

During my time with the big red roo i have seen some questionable fixes performed by LAME's that you wouldn't let work on your victa.
However most LAMES i know are very profesional and perform there duties to the higest level.
I take offence that you think only currently employeed LAMES with QANTAS know what they are doing.I have only left QF recently with over 25 years with them and i don't beleave i have forgotton how to perform my duties as a lame and would do so if i was re employeed again in the industry.Please give us ex employees that respect.
Yes i also along with probably 100's more have been approached to come back for the CASH.
and for the record they can go and get f##cked.

I don't doubt you mate, I for one believe Qantas is all the worse off for having made you guys redundant in the first place. Good on you for telling them to stick their job, if Qantas were an ethical company they would offer you guys your jobs back on a full time normal employment, instead they want you to become the wedge between the engineers, your former workmates. It could become as messy as the pilots strike, I for one wouldn't want to be on any list that would hinder my and my families life for the future.

There is a worldwide shortage of engineers at the moment, it is not the time to start accepting substandard pay rises especially since inflation has gone up past our pay rises, interest rates up, everything is up.

Share info - but do not breed fear ... that's what Q mgmt is doing.

Just remember how long it has taken them to introduce any 'efficiencies' over the last couple of years, and what the net worth of this 'change' has been. These twits couldn't organise a .... in a ....... .

That thin layer of fools up there are shi..ing themselves, make no mistake about that. They do not own the company but are accountable. They are in fear and are desperate, hence the measures they seek.

Be sensible, patient and above all be professional.

Be very particular and thorough ... begin NOW.

Impending Trouble
 

I am not a LAME, but am following your dispute with great interest. I also know QF very, very well (that's all i can say).

Your determination is great to see and there is nothing unreasonable about your claims.

But some friendly hints:-

1) Forget about public support or lack of it. In a dispute the public never support a union engaged in stoppages. Also, remember who owns the media (they are not friends of employees).

2) Those of you who actually think QF will agree to wage rises over 3%, think again. I only hope your elected officials don't actually believe they can achieve more than 3%. If they do, all of you are heading for disaster.

QF will defend the 3% cap at all costs- it has implications for all other QF unions if they were to give you a greater increase. Be sure, they will never agree to beyond a 3% increase.

3) BE ready for a termination of your existing EBA , which is a pre-reform agreement . The AIRC (federal commission) would be bound to grant a termination upon QF application.

4) At that point, QF can go down some very nasty paths. One obvious path is to ask the AIRC to withdraw approval for any further industrial action. Other QF options include locking you out and then deciding if they will even talk to you.

For those of you, who think i am some QF supporter think again. I hope your relatively new union leadership does not miscalculate.

I realise you have other important issues other than a wage increase.

My suggestion is that all of you plus your elected reps concentrate on those, rather than a 5% increase.

If you stake all over 5% there will be disastrous consequences for your membership.

Good luck...... you are a decent group of people ! :)

Alpine...It's good to see you over here but I have a question.

It's my understanding that the AIRC is far from being bound to grant a termination but will only do so if there is a compelling argument from the company and that argument has to be a very irresistible and persuasive one.

It has to be proven that the case for a termination of the EBA has to be in the public's interest and without it the public would be severely disadvantaged.

Can you give us past examples of a company being successful in this endeavour ?

Hi lowerlobe.

The commission must grant a termination upon application of either party to an EBA unless there are public interest reasons not to grant it.To grant a termination an EBA must have nominally expired, as has the LAME EBA. Also, there is no 90 day notice period required before termination can be granted upon application of a party(as is the case for post reform agreements), as the LAME EBA is a pre-reform agreement.

So, the Company doesn't have to prove that a termination is in the public interest, rather a union would have to demonstrate it's not in the public interest to grant a termination. In other words the onus would be on the union.

Please note that the legislation says the AIRC ( federal Commission) MUST grant a termination, not may.

lowerlobe read the FAAA advice attached to the latest newsletter on its website, it's clearly explained.

By the way merry xmas.


Here is an example :


EBA Expiry Date Upheld Author: Dr Kirk Lovric of Allens Arthur Robinson A Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has restricted the discretion of the AIRC when considering termination of expired certified agreements. This article examines the decision and its impact on the AIRC's role when reviewing the public interest.

Background

On 13 January 2005, the AIRC heard an appeal by Esso contractors KBR and Worley against a commissioner's decision to refuse to terminate an expired certified agreement because this was not in the public interest. In the original application, KBR and Worley applied under s170MH(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) to terminate their certified agreements.[1] Under s170MH(3), the AIRC must terminate a certified agreement after its expiry date, unless that would be contrary to the public interest. The application was made following union opposition to proposed work changes which, in the contractors' view, are necessary for cost and efficiency reasons.

The application failed as the AIRC was concerned about:

• the position of Esso to influence negotiations; and
• the impact on employees' families of a change to a 14-day roster under alternative industrial arrangements.

The public interest test

From the earliest times, the AIRC and its predecessors approached the issue of public interest from the perspective of the community as a whole, not of the parties involved. In some recent cases, such as Geelong Wool Combing ,[2] the AIRC has adopted a much broader view of the public interest test, considering the interests of the parties and the public. In that case, the AIRC refused to terminate a certified agreement due to concerns over the negative impact on employees if the agreement ceased to apply.

The Esso appeal

KBR and Worley appealed to the Full Bench and argued that Commissioner Whelan's refusal to terminate was incorrect. The Full Bench agreed with KBR and Worley and noted:

The public interest test and enterprise bargaining

In overturning Commissioner Whelan's decision, the Full Bench stated that the public interest does not include the interests of the parties unless the legislation specifically requires this. This narrows the AIRC's application of the test to something more akin to the traditional interpretation.

The significance of the narrow interpretation is that termination of an expired certified agreement becomes a legitimate bargaining strategy during negotiations. Faced with an impasse, employers now know that a successful application to terminate an expired certified agreement will result in terms of employment reverting to the parent award, usually on less beneficial rates of pay and other entitlements. In particular negotiations, this may bring matters to a head and assist resolution of outstanding matters.

[1]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd; Worley ABB Joint Venture; Corke Instrument Engineering Pty Ltd , PR951725, 7 September 2004.
[2]Geelong Wool Combing Ltd re: Geelong Wool Combing Ltd Enterprise Agreement 1993 and Others , PR937499, 5 September 2003.
[3]Kellogg Brown and Root Pty Ltd and Others v Esso Australia , PR955357, 31 January 2005.

April, 2005

Terms & Conditions - Privacy - Jobs - About Us - Contact Us - FAQ - Add URL
Copyright© 2000-2007 Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited ABN 64 058 914 668 trading as Thomson's FindLaw Australia http://www.findlaw.com.au/images/spacer.gif
http://www.findlaw.com.au/shared/getAdBinary.asp?id=150
http://www.findlaw.com.au/shared/getAdBinary.asp?id=362

as I said befour lets work at the margins, not the headline (5%)
if all this can turn to sh## and qantas esculates it so we get locked out and lose our redundacy provisions i will be upset

Christmas Cheer
 

Enjoy your family on this day ,relax life is not just about work. Think about others not only in our country but in third world proverty. We have a good life. If your not happy at QE move on,

Alpine57 post422
 

Thanx alpine57, there is some very helpfull information there.

Dont Take It
 

Excalibur, Sounds like your life is great and your happy as you are. When we get the increase i take it your share will go to the salvos or even better back to the union.That would be a good gesture since you are happy with your pay going backwards!!!Nice first post and all the best for xmas and the new year.

Alpine57
 

For those of you who don't follow other threads, A-57 is a regular contributor on CC EBA thread. Common wisdom there is that their union FAAA executive all have numbers as part of their pseudonyms, so it may be that A-57 is worth paying attention to.
But remember we are not CC and it takes a lot longer to train some one to replace us that CC (no offence A-57, just a lot of legalities on top of tech training).
I think he/she's right in that the company won't budge from 3%, but I also think there's more to this than an extra 2%.
It's well known that management think of us as an outrageously expensive part of the business. So why not provoke a blue, lock us all out, have the eba terminated and only ask back the ones they want and on their terms....... in the interim.
Then in the mid to long term sell each part of eng off. We might be Smith's Crisps Aero Engineering Ltd Victoria, or Heinz Air Services QLD etc.
No leave for QF to worry about, no uniforms, super, sickies, nothing except a single monthly/weekly/whatever payment to a contract agency.
The downside of this to QF is no company loyalty (if there's any of that left), just the bare legal minimum of on the job effort. MEL's galore, crappy interiors, delays, pissed off pax, deserting pax and finally no pax.
This could turn out to be the most expensive 2% since Adam gave up a rib. But as Adam also found out, it will make life very interesting and definitely unpredictable.
Enjoy the holidays and celebrate new year as if it's your last, because 2008 will not start with a wimper.

Update On The Companys Strikebreaking Progress
 

Sydney interviews have been mostly completed,the remainder will be end of the week and this weeekend. Not too many takers most people disgruntled and worried about the carrer effects in the future.

Melbourne will be finalised at the end of the week.A few ex tn retirees on board.

Brisbane interviews still pending later this week and weekend as in cairns.

Nz has minor intrest but not enough to make a difference.

The company will keep trying to recruit more. Anyone that is thinking of accepting this 100k over 6months offer should ask for a substantial amount of money up front,because if you are no longer required (ie dispute resolved) you will wear the tag of strikebreaker for years.

Aviation is a small industry.

All members it is time to comunicate with you fellow workmates and other ports.

Stick together and ride this out. Remember the majourity voted this in, now its time to back up this vote with action and pay sacrafice.The company is showing how serious it is by the ruthless recruitment drive to get scabs.( some people have even been asked that the management loaths)

We need to learn from the mistakes people have made with previous disputes. I hate to bring it up but the pilots dispute in 1989 was a classic.

The company basically divided and conquered them. Once the company got some people(i would love to name them but i would run into trouble with the moderator) to scab and come back to work,that was the beggining of the end. One of the scab pilots sons is actually a engineering foreman and he would think it is normal for employees to sell each other out because that is the example his father with no integrity has shown him!!!:=

I have seen this written previously on this thread but i wil say it again UNITED WE BARGAIN DIVIDED WE BEG!!..We need to adhere to this now more than ever,if we do we will ride out the storm and win.:ok::ok::ok:

Reflux 3%
 

Reflux i think you dont know what is achievable until you try.5% on face value is a long shot because of the precedent.But maybee we could bargain for annual bonuses based on company performances,but the payment at the end of 08 should be automatic due to the effect of the industrial action.Also obviously we want the two clauses kicked to the kurb aswell.

The huge enormous underlying assumption made by all Qantas Management is very very simple and very very dangerous to themselves, that is:

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR WILL ALWAYS BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ASIAN LABOUR

I meekly suggest that this is short sighted, but then If I got a bonus every year calculated on my last twelve months performance why would I care?

Strikebreakerbraka 3%
 

I agree there are ways you can mask an increase.Its called creative accounting im sure the company would be able togive us some advice about that.

Asian Labour
 

It all comes down to you pay for what you get.If Q management want to adjust the landscape using one of their alluminium tubes. Keep sending planes overseas and saving money on maint.False economy.There is places you can save money in the airline industry but i think the travelling public would agree its not in maint.

Strikebb 3/5%
 

Mate you're right about what's possible re 3% plus annual bonus. But as one co-worker correctly pointed out, 5% this year then next year it's 5% of current wage + that 5% and so on, ie it compounds. A bonus is a one off (which all qf staff have received over the last 3-5 years). So you are saying we should go along the same lines as s/h techies which is fine, but remember it's also subject to marginal tax. Therefore if 100k is an ave wage (is it?) 3% is an extra 3k p.a. We would need an extra bonus of 2k in the first year and you can work out the rest if you want to compound it. It's not easy is it?
Then there's those clauses: company says they don't mean much, eba committee doesn't want a bar of them. Committe is negotiating on our behalf so I have to believe them (not a case of not trusting the company on principle) that they are very much on the nose. And if the company is digging in heels to keep them then you can bet the mortgage that 'good faith' is a term that is only being paid lip service in these negotiations.
Come what may we have to stick together when it gets nasty - and it will. Have a look at this link to get some historical perspective and check out the 1 person who was there 20 years ago is very much still a player in 2008. http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...9_document.htm

Cheers

3%
 

Thanx for the link reflux,

I had a quick look.But it looks like a novel i just finished (war and peace).Ill have to review it later when i get more time. But seriously i think everyone should make themselves familiar with it.

Because the cost of living in Australia is higher.

STRIKEBB &primethius
 

Glad to pass on the link. Not a quick read, but save to stick and print out at work. You can read it during the first 4 hour stoppage.
Primethius, you clown. So all higher level lames take a wage freeze and pay the lower levels more? Why not make all level 4s level 8, and all level 12s level 8 and reduce the number of levels? Think about it mate. As I said, it's not easy and all parties want to walk away with no loss of face.
NorthSteyne, what a silly name, but thanks for the support. Go to the interview and waste their time, and if you do sign, wear a hard hat, cos there's sure to be some heavy sockets 'falling off the top of engines' and landing on some scab's head.
Enjoy what's left of Xmas.
R

Reflux,
 

Just a thought,
What if we get 20 good ex employees who know how to inspect aircraft,snag the sh#t out of them every night, go home without completing rectfication as they may be fatigued,work 6 months and donate all earnings to the ALAEA.or even better take the 100k and go and use a ladder where it's not approved and be stood down,or put a cartoon up on the wall in a smoko room of some tossa and also be stood down,I wunder if the policy book will be used for the scabs???

3% is going backwards for anybody in this day and age. The outside world has already past the aviation industry in many ways over the past 5 years.

If you just compare simply management wage increases to yours it is an out right insult and a 5% increase is nothing to request. But as said before 3% is the gate keeper for QF and if they give it to eng, every other union will battle for it aswell. It will be a massive defeat that will be dodged at every corner and angle known to man kind.

I believe engineering should battle like hell for it though, they deserve it for all **** they go through on a daily basis. Every QF employee will support them because they are battleing not just for themselves but for the whole industry, they are in the best position out of the QF group to go for what is well deserved, after the destruction and mess and crappy desicion making that has gone on above them, they have nothing to loose now.

The outside world will be not happy about about delays for these periods but if it goes on long enough, those who no what your fighting for and compare figures will no doubt think your requests are out of question, it will make management look like the crooks that they are.

The more you desturb, the more angry the public will get and questions to what is happening will hit the media which will help make mangement look like crooks and help get what you want.

Outside of Qantas there are aviation engineering companys that EBA's follow almost parellel to QF but are smaller, QF's actions directly result as outcomes for their employees too. So don't believe people are not supporting you they maybe small groups but they are and have been watching closely and are seeing the curuption unfolding by your seniors actions.

Its time to simply just go oldschool and give it to them hard.
EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE!!!