Scare Tactics
 

This just in:

Just watched it on Ch7 news that Qantas is suing Transport Workers Union for the last baggage handlers work stoppages, something like 45 million dollars lost during that stoppage (not sure) Q says its reputation suffered after that baggage handler's work stoppage which caused a whole airport of baggage pile up etc etc as if they were always on time to begin with.

I really thought the team managers could have pitched in to help in that situation seeing 500 managers made no contribution at all and is shown the door.

The news report says this is unprecedented as Qantas had never ever sued a Union before.

Not sure when this will appear in web sites as news.

Let this be a subtle warning from the company that it will not tolerate any industrial action, they will take legal action. Whether you like the outcome of the job slashing or not, it will proceed, and if you take any industrial action, it will retaliate.

I think we are beginning to see AJ's true colors coming out now.:sad:

I guess that is the difference between protected and unprotected industrial action.

Union Stupidity
 

What an illjudged,illtimed thing to do.Striking in this environment.Unprotected strike action to boot.Joyce is showing that he is an excellent bussinessman who will not be treated in such a cavalier manner.
This is 2009 not 1968

Not the smartest move, engaging in unprotected industrial action.

And I believe some "senior" baggage handlers are a little bit nervous, after they traded their "last on - first off" principle in a recent EBA.

I was operating on the day the strike happened...we were on time....until we landed and sat on a taxi way for 40 odd minutes. Our gate wasn't available as other aircraft were delayed due to the strike. Our pax weren't too happy either, standing around for 3 hours waiting for their bags (which, was not anywhere near as long as some other pax waited..)

Im all for standing up for what people believe in..but this strike was in my opinion a complete act of stupidity, and i do not support it in any way. I was actually disgusted with the proceedings that day. I'm glad QF are seeking compensation, the damage done that day was severe, and the TWU need to be held accountable.

All you little kids going about the rules and inconviencies of it all!
I mean come on WTF do you think a strike is about? FFS we have become such little precious Gems get over it!
Workers can and WILL strike regardless of laws and customers it is THEIR right!
Without it the next position is revolution!
I will always support all strike action by any workers it is a fundamental right!
Law means nothing

you shouldn't be surprised this is what Hawke and the fat man did in 1989 !! So I guess the TWU will get the same union support that the pilots got in that year. ZERO

I agree that the right to strike is a fundamental one.

However, you need to pick your battles.

You should strike as part of a proper plan to actually achieve something, not just strike for the sake of it to cause damage to your company, and nothing else.

The TWU made false claims as to the reason for the strike, and didn't have any actual logical demands.

The Engineers action was far more considered and part of a master plan to achieve a goal, and most unionised parts of the company supported them. This was the TWU throwing the toys out of the cot, and so have not enjoyed the same support.

I support unions but, as someone old enough to remember the BLF, the MUA, The Painters and Dockers, the Storemen and Packers and their petrol strikes of the 70's, the British auto unions and some of their irresponsible use of untrammelled power, I agree that checks must be in place to avoid abuse of industrial power. Particularly when it is ideologically based or purely politically motivated.
The main reason the AFAP got creamed because they didn't play by the rules. The TWU is not above the rules either.

Ok So where are the checks of all the outrageous CEO and manager pork barreling?
Its very easy to blame past unions but quite frankly they pale in comparison to the rorting of Company management the last few years honestly. But most just find it east to blame the unions! lol while they relish in the very conditions they gave them!

I disagree its always a workers right to stop work just as its a companies right to get rid of workers come on, it all justice!

Law means nothing.
 

AoA, If you truly believe you have the right to strike no matter how illegal that strike may be you are absolutely wrong. How the hell do you expect to get the public to support you if you conduct "wildcat" strikes, just because you believe you can strike whenever you feel like it.

Simple, Because we Can!

Its a concept not fully understood by modern whipper snappers but basically its a fact because we CAN!

Such a simple fact really! lol!

And under the law of the land, whether one agrees with the law or not, they can take legal action if one engages in other than protected industrial action.

And with no disrespect to any posters this is why the western world as we know it is plummetting while emerging new superpowers like China and India will overtake within several years, the "Can Do" attitude has gone it is all about laws and what we can and can't do, quite sad really...

As I said before Stuff the Law! A Strike is a moral right and until we start doing it in earnest we will keep bickering to a final demise. Who cares about Law, FFS

It will happen but too late I guess we have been too moulded by governments.

think outside your square for once people!

I might consider it a moral right to shoot my neighbour's dog for making an unholy racket.

This would not make it legal. I might still go ahead with that plan but if discovered, I would be charged. I could carry on about how society was going to hell because I couldn't defend my right to peace and quiet, but it would make no difference to the outcome.

As for China, I wouldn't care to hold an unauthorised strike there. :eek:

Some Facts
 

1. the twu asked qantas permission for (15 minute) meetings of it's members around australia .

2.qantas response : 15 minute meeting means docking of twu members pay for 4 hours .

3. aj and qantas speak with "fork tongues" and are not up-front in their dealings with their employee's or the qantas customers or the general public.

4.they want to outsource baggage handling to a "company" that "sign's" people up to johnny howard "work choice" agreements.

cheers
mustard

Enough said! Thats Why the West is doomed! No one is prepared to fight anymore?

Meanwhile back in the Eastern Ranch ..... :E

No idea absolutely no Idea!

Err...yeah...

China and India are emerging because of their strong unions, emphisis on workers rights and Citizens propensity for saying "Stuff the law".

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth.....

probably a moot point, however there is no longer any such animal as

That hero of the trade union movement R J L Hawke as Prime Minister, watched the precedent being set in 1989, despite trades hall being reticent.

So today if a company resorts to that same tactic, then the unions will just have to deal with it. They live under the same laws as the rest of Australia.

I almost let this thread go without a response but I just can't do it.

First, it is not up to QANTAS to decide whether or not to pay for the TWU meeting. If the meeting requires employees to stop work outside of meal breaks then there is a statutory requirement that the employees not be paid for a minimum of 4 hours. There is no choice on the employer to pay because if they do they are breaking the law.

Second, whilst I support the right of employees to take industrial action, until the Workplace Relations Act 1996, there was no "right" to strike. With the implementation of that Act the "right" to strike was introduced along with some fairly specific conditions placed on when and how. This was further clarified with WorkChoices.

So yes, there is a "right to strike" in Australia, subject to certain conditions and limitations. If you believe that your bargaining power gives you the unfettered right to strike and hold a company to ransom then you should not bitch when at the depth of the recession the Company uses its bargaining power to terminate you and your fellows with similar views or reduce your terms and conditions to those of hotel porters (you are afterall just moving luggage from point A to point B, right?) or do both.

and AJ makes how much?

also,
how much does a Singapore 744 Capt make compared to a Q 744 Capt? This is a very top heavy company. Perhaps AJ should follow the lead of JAL before laying people off. Job cuts destroy the public image of Q brand as much as any strike.

Japan Airlines CEO cuts his own salary - now makes less than pilots | Japan Probe

YouTube - JAL CEO Cuts Pay

Mr Epstein (spokesman for QF), pg 4 AFR 23/4/09.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot recall any "industrial action of this nature" being carried out last year.