MERGED: Alan Joyce and the room of mirrors
 

Alan Joyce - please go into the room of mirrors and have a good long hard look at yourself.

Your message to employees today, "Bullying and intimidation will not be tolerated", reeks of hypocrisy with the way management treat their staff.

. . . and that's before you even look at lockouts, heavy handed responses to protected industrial action, refusal to discuss issues central to EBA's and the "Lurch" and "Scoob" incidents.

Then there is the breathtaking arrogance shown to shareholders over motions proposed for the AGM.

Hang your head in shame. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I suppose bagging all members of ALAEA, TWU & AIPA anytime you hold a press conference, isn`t considered bullying? These people are members of your workforce also Alan!

There's "bagging", and then there's broken car windows, home drive bys, and death threats! :hmm:

A bit of perspective folks!

The overwhelming numbers of QF employees would condemn these threats. Don't tar all Qantas employees and union embers with the same brush. A bit of perspective from all sides would be a great thing.

That includes some empathy from Qantas that the games they are playing industrially involve individual people- many of whom fear greatly for their livelihood. Whilst no reasonable person would condone these threats, AJ et al are seriously ignorant if they don't think that their industrial tactics also don't look like bullying and intimidation to front line staff.

Again they are thin with the truth.

Where in this so called letter (which could have been written by anyone) is there a death threat? I didn't realise that being shoved off out of Australia is equal to death.

Agree that these threats if real are unacceptable BUT everyone please be clear there is simply no evidence as to where they came from, so lets keep an open mind on that.

As an outside observer of the events, it is apparent that any number of parties in these disputes could have been responsible either as a deliberate strategy or as a sign of the ongoing pressure of the moment or even stupidity.

Remember the outcome this morning is overwhelming sympathy for the company and general denigration of the tactics of the unions, nothing more and nothing less and with no fact as to the source.

The other point that should be made is that the actions of the Exec so far go way beyond looking like a threat, they were a threat and delivered in a way over many years that has largely been responsible for the situation that now exists between the Rat and its employees.

Some balance and perspective needed by all I would say on these issues.

I wonder if management wrote the letter themselves.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me.:rolleyes:

ruprecht

Death threats, if true, are way, way over the top and damaging to the cause.
I believe this as well, there is only one way to win this battle, stay cool. The managers will play this tune all the way up to the AGM. I hope the AFP and or the NSW police get to the source of the alleged "threat letter," it's stupid

I have to agree with this, and I am a huge critic of the current management, not just AJ, LC & OW. None of this would be happening if they sat down at the negotiation table with all the relevant unions. The whole thing has been badly handled from the beginning, sad it has come to this.

The sad this about this whole sordid situation is that the respect is gone for this current executive team. How can we even sit down and attempt to discuss our differences with such contempt. These seeds were planted years ago and there has been ample opportunity to act upon the negative feelings. Just look at the (dis)engagement surveys!!! Instead, its steady as she goes while management keep earning those huge bonuses....hopefully the staff won't rock the boat too much.

How does it feel to have a workforce that do the absolute minimum and be in a constant state of agitation? Talk about huge losses in productivity. Look at your sick leave. Notice the trends?

If/when we ever do sit around a table, we will already be hundreds of millions of dollars down, even before we start.

:*:suspect::rolleyes:

A wise man once told me, "When faced with the choice betwen a f%$# up and a conspiracy, go with the f%$# up everytime!"

Someone else famously said, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck!"

From the point of view of the man in the street who has no dog in this fight, Qantas has won the PR battle today. If I were Qantas management, I would be even less inclined now to be conciliatory than I was before.

You guys are clearly living in a long river in Africa!:hmm:

I'm surprised you would be taken in so easily FA.
If it was a credible threat why would it be splashed all over the front page of the media with only one side of the story being told with a glossy PR photo and a readily briefed spin cycle ready to go from the Sunrise program on today?
I'm sure the NSW police didn't advise them to handle it this way.
There is no place for such threats but using it as a PR counter attack just stoops to close to the same level.

So let's be clear then that the Qantas cargo price fixing cartel was merely a f....up. After all, anybody, including very senior Qantas Management, can make an innocent mistake, right?

Possibly the coppers took one look and found nothing of interest. The published exerpts certainly weren't death threats and it was arguable whether they even threatened violence.

It hasn't made this evening's Ten news so far, 'twill be interesting to see if it's on the channel 7 bulletin. EDIT: Coming Up Next...not until 1730 though. Hardly deemed groundbreaking by 10. There was a police statement...about a letter sent in May where the author was identified. Nothing about this one though. :suspect:

I have to agree with FA18 a little.
Qantas got what they wanted today. They got "Death threats" plastered all over the newspapers.
But I think the unintended consequences for them are many. They will never be able to write and email, letter, or say anything to anybody that might be construed as intimidating or bullying. Also, the emails, letters etc that have already been produced, and we know there are many, are now being collated for future use against them. The unions could probably sue, which puts the credibilty of the management on the public stage. And really it seems nobody actually believed it anyway, from the people I talk to. I think the unions coming out early with the "it's all bull****, and we'll prove it" routine was excellent. And the media did help by immediately adding that to the stories, and the headlines.
It has now dropped of every newspaper on line, Probably because nobody cares about Alan Joyce, and I suspect that will be that.

The damage has been done, the public have swallowed the lie "it was on the front page so it must be true" etc.

Guarantee you won't see the newspaper concerned retract the story with a full front page apology to the so called 'union thugs' tomorrow. :mad:'s

Since when did the Rat have its own police force in their Security Dept. They have no more rights than Joe Blow public and certainly are not a police force with statutory powers.

If they come near you tell them to bugger off and there is sod all they can do about it if it is not work related matters they are asking about.

If there was a genuine threat, then there is only one place for it to go and that is either Feds or State police.

As far as I know there are no private armies in Australia but this is the Rat so who knows, they seem to be a law unto themselves on every front.

"union embers" - ironic slip there Keg :) Im sure Qantas would love if the union fire was out.....

This reminds me of the shovel in front of HSU Nat Sec Kathy Jackson's house after she went to the police.

Both incidents (as reported) are pretty shocking IMO

Perhaps they will call in the IRA?

How did the current situation with QF occur?
 

Lads and Ladettes

Please accept my ignorance, its been over 2 decades since I left Australia, but I try to keep up by regularly reading the various Australian newspapers, watching Australian news via the web, and of course, via Pprune.

How did the current situation with QF occur?

As someone who left Australia, and managed to make a go of it with a foreign carrier, it has been saddening to read these pages.

There was a thread which suggested that a LAME was required for every walk around, and many pilots who said that "I am not qualified to do a walk-around". The rest of the world manages it, and I assume you would too if you diverted to an airport without a resident LAME.

There have been many posts suggesting passengers prefer to hear an Australian accent, and like know that an Australian pilot is flying them. Um, if that was the case, flights by Emirates, Etihad, Thai, Cathay, Malaysian etc would not have any Australian passengers on them.

Outside Australia there is no Long Service Leave, and less annual leave, so the cost of employing Australians, in Australia, is comparatively higher than employing people overseas on that metric alone.

Within Australia, the weather is relatively benign, and if you doubt that, visit Europe and North America in winter. De-icing and CAT 3 all day is not cheap.

What changes to salary reductions and working practices changes have the Qantas unions negotiated over the last few years, to ensure they are the people the company wants to do their work? I know of airlines overseas where the employees have voluntarily accepted permanent reductions in salary and made employment concessions. Hence they are cheaper, and therefore more attractive to the customer, but also more attractive to their employer.

And finally, why are you playing the man, and not the ball? There seems to be so much vilification of the QF CEO, and the Spokeswoman. Why are you doing that, and not negotiating with the CEO?

You can say that you are the world's best and safest pilots till you go blue in the face, if the ticket price is higher you will lose out. The future is in your own hands.

Bit away from thread but it seems Cab Sav's starting to question FAAA's position.
 

Extract from letter written by FAAA to all cabin crew.

"Attention all Long Haul Cabin Crew
ME TOO - WHY AREN'T WE OUT ON THE GRASS?

Following the well-attended series of membership meetings, many members have asked regarding the support cabin crew and the FAAA can give to the industrial campaigns of AIPA, the LAMEs and the TWU in relation to their disputes with Qantas. The support you and the FAAA can give is extremely limited.
As mentioned briefly in our newsletter regarding the PAs supporting AIPA's campaign, significant penalties can be inflicted on individual employees and unions that support the industrial campaigns of other unions or employees. These penalties are generally known as "secondary boycotts" and largely prohibit a party not involved directly in an industrial dispute from taking any action in support of another group of employees against their employer.
An employer that is affected by the actions of individuals or another union conducting secondary boycotts can seek an urgent injunction to stop the conduct in the Federal Court. Damages can be awarded by the Federal Court and the employer also has the ability to sue for damages to cover any losses it has suffered.
Damages can also be awarded against individuals and unions that take industrial action outside of the framework of protected action under the Fair Work Act. Qantas was not shy in seeking damages against the TWU when it took unprotected action in 2009. The Federal Court awarded in excess of $700,000 in favour of Qantas against the TWU when the TWU took wildcat strike action at four airports for four hours.
You also need to be aware that comments posted on social networking sites and in emails should be written as if you are addressing your manager at Qantas. Social networking sites are never "private" and emails are often forwarded to individuals they were never intended to be sent to. As an employee, your primary duty is to your employer, not supporting an industrial campaign you are sympathetic with but does not directly affect you.
The FAAA believes that our membership deserves focus on its direct interests, in particular negotiations for the next long haul cabin crew EBA. This is why we sought a five year EBA (the longest possible term) following the last series of EBA negotiations. This is why we met with Alan Joyce regarding the future of the International Division. This is why we have requested that negotiations for the next EBA start early in November to prepare to advance the interests of our members early for the difficulties facing Qantas' international division.
The long term interests of our members are best served by addressing our immediate and future terms and conditions. Cabin crew have experienced more dramatic outsourcing of our work than any other group of Qantas employees. Our long term survival will be addressed by ourselves and no one else in the Qantas group."