|
Are you able to provide a link to that Fonz? sounds interesting.
I found a French theory. https://www.connexionfrance.com/Fren...aZeneca-issues |
I can’t find the original paper but this article contains a bit more info.
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronaviru...416-2021-07-03 |
Originally Posted by Fonz121
(Post 11082266)
Whilst on the subject of AZ I thought this was interesting.
Data released last week from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that 35 per cent of unvaccinated people aged 50 to 69 and 26 per cent aged 70 and over cited “wanting a different vaccine” as a factor in their “ability to get a Covid-19 vaccination”. This compares with 7 and 9 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 and 35 to 49. But what if the problems plaguing the AZ vaccine were breathtakingly simple all along? On June 29, scientists from Germany authored a paper that was published in pre-print form on the biology server hosted by the world-leading Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. It provided compelling evidence that the clotting syndrome associated with the AZ vaccine is caused by accidental intravenous injection. The paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, showed in animal tests that the clotting can be induced when the injection site nicks a blood vessel instead of hitting the deltoid muscle. It could be avoided with a harmless procedure known as aspirating the syringe, which is standard in some countries around the world. Simply, the health professional draws back on the syringe at the injection site to check for blood before delivering the inoculation. In March, Denmark changed its guidelines to account for this as a precautionary measure. The theory had been circulating for months. The Saturday Paper can reveal the TGA is aware of the paper and is considering its implications. “If the TGA determines that further regulatory action is required on the basis of emerging evidence,” a spokesperson said, “we will make this information available promptly.” |
Originally Posted by Fonz121
(Post 11082342)
I can’t find the original paper but this article contains a bit more info.
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronaviru...416-2021-07-03 |
AJ’s focus is clearly emulating this big airline CEO
I know most have seen it before but thought with what’s going on right now with QF and AJ, this was quite pertinent...
|
Originally Posted by stillcallozhome
(Post 11083150)
I know most have seen it before but thought with what’s going on right now with QF and AJ, this was quite pertinent...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=858t44psmww |
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
Qantas has settled a case brought against the airline by Captain Andrew Hewitt, who had alleged he was the victim of age discrimination. The son of former Qantas chairman Sir Lenox Hewitt was offered early retirement rather than redundancy when the Covid-19 pandemic struck last year, because he was over 63. Qantas’s reasoning was that pilots like Captain Hewitt would reach age 65 before international flying was able to resume, which would rule them out of operating overseas commercial flights. Under international civil aviation laws, a pilot cannot operate international airline flights after reaching 65. Captain Hewitt argued that an early retirement package was worth considerably less than redundancy, at the equivalent of four months pay as opposed to 12 months. |
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11085451)
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...7fda7f5bff3304 |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11083401)
Havent seen it before but a few in this country could & need to take note.
|
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11085451)
Sounds like a bit of a bastard play by Qantas.
|
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 11085520)
How is that? Are you suggesting that QF should have paid him 12 months VR package even though he only had 11 months until retirement age? Where do you draw the line on that? What about someone who had (say) 9 months until retirement? 3 months?
|
The VR offer was not ‘legally necessary’. It was an offer. If a pilot had more than a couple of years the offer was 9 months and three months notice. If the pilot had less than two years it was four months pay and less than 12 months the offer was three months.
Qantas didn’t have to make the offer. They could have offered nothing. They could have worked on the principle that some crew were likely to hit 65 before there was much flying back. They could have offered VR to some and not to others. That is the nature of VR. (In fact they did offer it to some and not others. It wasn’t offered to 737 crew). They chose to make an offer of ‘early retirement’ to those over 63. Even the ATO agreed that those within 6 months (I think) of 65 it wasn’t a ‘genuine early retirement’ and their pay out was taxed differently. Would I have liked to see a better offer? Sure. But the offer was what it was. Again, where does one draw the line in all of this? |
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 11085568)
The VR offer was not ‘legally necessary’. It was an offer. If a pilot had more than a couple of years the offer was 9 months and three months notice. If the pilot had less than two years it was four months pay and less than 12 months the offer was three months.
Qantas didn’t have to make the offer. They could have offered nothing. They could have worked on the principle that some crew were likely to hit 65 before there was much flying back. They could have offered VR to some and not to others. That is the nature of VR. (In fact they did offer it to some and not others. It wasn’t offered to 737 crew). They chose to make an offer of ‘early retirement’ to those over 63. Even the ATO agreed that those within 6 months (I think) of 65 it wasn’t a ‘genuine early retirement’ and their pay out was taxed differently. Would I have liked to see a better offer? Sure. But the offer was what it was. Again, where does one draw the line in all of this? |
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. |
I think P377's post is actually toned down compared to what he has put out in the past. anyway I am very sure Ken that he will spend less than a nano-second worrying about what you think.
|
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 11086122)
Paragraph377,
Pray tell me, what has Alan Joyce done to you that warrants such vitriolic and hateful posts? I hope you have a good lawyer. Are you serious? Are you an Qantas Angel? |
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 11086520)
I think P377's post is actually toned down compared to what he has put out in the past. anyway I am very sure Ken that he will spend less than a nano-second worrying about what you think.
|
Keg, the line was drawn by Qf and Captain Hewitt. You, or anyone else’s opinion on where the line should be drawn is irrelevant. It appears that Captain Hewitt had a win over Qf. Qf were the defendant, which means that they likely made an offer to Captain Hewitt, which he accepted. This means that Qf must have believed there was a good chance that the outcome of the case would not suit them if tested in court. I have no idea why Qf were concerned about this matter being decided in court, but I bet you have the answer, or at least an opinion on it that will read like fact.
Keg, you don’t appear to be a lawyer, and therefore you are not qualified to be constantly presenting your legal opinions as fact. Presenting your legal opinions as fact makes your posts misleading. Keg, why do you constantly appear to be defending Qf rather than your fellow pilot’s legal rights? Is it because you think that Qf are so big and powerful that they are able to make the law up as they go? Do you think the law does not apply to Qf? Or is it something else entirely? Whatever it is, to those that know a bit more than you, your opinions appear farcical, and border on appearing to be motivated by something other than defending the rights of your colleagues. Qf have recently lost or settled a few significant legal matters. This means they have been found to have broken the law. They are far from infallible. |
News that might cheer P377: "Qantas in court loss to Transport Workers Union over outsourcing"
The Federal Court has found Qantas acted unlawfully in the outsourcing of 2000 ground handling crew by taking into consideration the potential for industrial action by the workers concerned. Judge Michael Lee delivered his ruling on Friday, describing the case brought by the Transport Workers Union as “complex”. Although he dismissed several claims brought by the TWU, Justice Lee said Qantas had failed to convince him that the threat of industrial action was not a factor in the outsourcing decision which amounted to a $100 million a year saving for the airline. The union was due to negotiate a new enterprise agreement for ground handling crews in 2021 which would have carried the risk of protected industrial action, adding to the challenges Qantas was already faced with in the Covid pandemic. “The documents are replete with reference to industrial risk and the likely industrial backlash if outsourcing ground operations was pursued which was no doubt the reason why experienced industrial lawyers were so heavily involved,” Justice Lee said in his judgment. “Qantas’ evidence went to great lengths to paint a picture of internal agonising and studious assessment of the alternatives and detachment up until the eleventh hour, but I am unconvinced that this was the case.” Justice Lee said the court would reconvene on Monday (August 3) to decide upon declaratory relief in favour of the union. The TWU indicated it would be demanding the outsourcing decision be reversed and called the ruling a “watershed moment for workers in Australia”. “This ruling calls a halt to shifting responsibility for workers and outsourcing them onto third parties on a low cost, take-it or leave-it contract,” said TWU national secretary Michael Kaine. “Workers whose lives have been put into turmoil after being kicked out of work will be expecting their jobs as soon as possible and we will be seeking meetings with Qantas to ensure this happens.” A recent survey by the TWU of the outsourced workers found 77 per cent wanted their jobs back, and 75 per cent had been unable to find full-time employment since being axed. Mr Kaine said the judgment raised serious questions for senior Qantas management who “targeted ground workers for outsourcing because they were united to fight for decent standards at the airline”. However Justice Lee found high levels of union membership among the ground handling crews was not a factor in Qantas’s decision. Qantas was reviewing the judgment. The airline and TWU have engaged in several court battles in the last year, including a clash over JobKeeper payments and sick leave allowances. Despite an initial victory over the payment of JobKeeper to employees, the TWU lost on appeal by Qantas, and the union was also unsuccessful in its attempt to have stood-down workers receive sick leave pay. |
Very interesting. We will see whether the ruling sticks or whether Qantas fight the ruling and get a win. This has a long way to play yet. Joyce doesn’t like losing and he isn’t going to roll over that easily.
Regardless, I am curious as to what the snivelling Qantas Board Directors are going to say about this. It certainly doesn’t paint a great picture for the CEO and his Executives who hatched the initial action to outsource a skilled workforce. But then again, Joyce is the CEO who grounded the international operation which inconvenienced thousands of customers and third party businesses and displaced many staff members. And of course the public shareholders lauded him for doing it. So I’m betting whatever comes of this, the little general will remain comfortably seated in his/her Mascot office. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 11087061)
So I’m betting whatever comes of this, the little general will remain comfortably seated in his/her Mascot office.
|
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11087152)
P377, we get that you don’t like Alan Joyce but taking a cheap shot at his sexuality with that ‘his/her’ comment is beneath you and incredibly offensive. Feel free to argue the case but keep the cheap homophobic shots out of it, mate.
MelbourneFlyer, you really need to toughen up and stop being such an easily offended idiot. |
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
Keg, the line was drawn by Qf and Captain Hewitt. You, or anyone else’s opinion on where the line should be drawn is irrelevant. It appears that Captain Hewitt had a win over Qf. Qf were the defendant, which means that they likely made an offer to Captain Hewitt, which he accepted. This means that Qf must have believed there was a good chance that the outcome of the case would not suit them if tested in court. I have no idea why Qf were concerned about this matter being decided in court, but I bet you have the answer, or at least an opinion on it that will read like fact.
Keg, you don’t appear to be a lawyer, and therefore you are not qualified to be constantly presenting your legal opinions as fact. Presenting your legal opinions as fact makes your posts misleading. Keg, why do you constantly appear to be defending Qf rather than your fellow pilot’s legal rights? Is it because you think that Qf are so big and powerful that they are able to make the law up as they go? Do you think the law does not apply to Qf? Or is it something else entirely? Whatever it is, to those that know a bit more than you, your opinions appear farcical, and border on appearing to be motivated by something other than defending the rights of your colleagues. Qf have recently lost or settled a few significant legal matters. This means they have been found to have broken the law. They are far from infallible. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 11087172)
How is it homophobic? Numerous Qantas managers now include his/her or he/she within on their signature blocks on their emails.
|
Originally Posted by MelbourneFlyer
(Post 11087429)
Wrong again. They include their gender pronoun preference which is either he/his, she/hers or they/theirs. So when you describe Alan Joyce as "his/hers" you're clearly making an attack on AJ by 'confusing' his sexuality, despite your ham-fisted attempts to paper over your homophobic remarks by citing incorrect email signature blocks.
|
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
It appears that Captain Hewitt had a win over Qf.
:ok: Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
Keg, you don’t appear to be a lawyer, and therefore you are not qualified to be constantly presenting your legal opinions as fact.
My opinions are my opinions. I present them here on PPRUNE just as you and others have done so. Feel free to disagree with them, feel free to debate them, feel free to ignore them, but spare me the confected anguish that I any way put them forward as a capital ‘O’ legal opinion. It’s a lazy debating tactic that plays the person rather than the argument. .
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
Keg, why do you constantly appear to be defending Qf rather than your fellow pilot’s legal rights?
This is a great example. Hewitt has the legal right to take QF on. I also have the ‘right’ to hold a personal opinion that I find the case to be a waste of time. I don’t defend QF’s actions at all. For those that knee jerk respond to Hewitt’s case with a metaphorical ‘good on him’ I pose questions such as ‘where is the line drawn between VR/ ER, etc.
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
…to those that know a bit more than you, your opinions appear farcical…
Yahoo for them. Having over the years talked a multitude of these issues over through people who know a lot more than me it seems that at least some of the time my opinions are spot on. When they’re not I’m happy to learn. I tend to engage in discussion and debate on PPRUNE and enjoy learning from those who put forward a different perspective. And yet that’s not what you’ve done here. You’ve launched a personal attack at my motivations of which you actually know bugger all. I think that speaks volumes more about you than it does me.
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
Qf have recently lost or settled a few significant legal matters. This means they have been found to have broken the law. Lol. And you suggest I put forward farcical ‘legal’ opinions? Pot, kettle!
Originally Posted by JBE
(Post 11086995)
They are far from infallible.
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
(Post 11087404)
But that seems to be what Keg does. Mislead and deliberately obfuscate. It’s just a barrage of unqualified rubbish.
Amazing how often people take anonymous pot shots on PPRUNE but never actually have the guts to do it face to face or over the phone. Ah well. It’s been more than 20 years on PPRUNE now. Why would I expect things to change. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 11087433)
Umm, yeah, ok. Whatever helps you sleep well at night. Just get over it will ya. I really couldn’t give a stuff what your thoughts are.There are children starving to death in Sudan and you’re worried about a perceived homophobic remark. Get a life.
You’re wrong, just admit it and move on. |
Originally Posted by Tucknroll
(Post 11087439)
Attacking Alan’s sexuality makes you look petty and immature. It also makes everyone less likely to listen to what you’re saying.
You’re wrong, just admit it and move on. |
I won’t dispute the ‘unqualified’ part but if you came to PPRuNe looking for ‘qualified’ opinions you’ve come to the wrong place.
You have said it clearly yourself Keg. Everything you write is “Unqualified opinion”. 20 years of it in fact. |
You bet. Have never pretended otherwise. Glad you recognise that my opinions hold precisely the same weight on an anonymous Internet forums as yours fearcampaign. Perhaps you might let JBE and knobbycobby know so they can have the same enlightened position as you?
My opinions are my opinions. Take them or leave them. Debate them or ignore them. It really doesn't bother me. I do find the insight into others interesting though. Rather than engage in a discussion on the various issues that arise, instead some prefer to play the man. As I said earlier, it speaks volumes. |
Facts are that Qantas are either settling cases like Andrew Hewitts’ as Qantas didn’t have a strong case or they are losing as is the case with the TWU in the Federal court. The judge was damming of the behaviour of every Qantas executive and how Qantas deliberately and meticulously manufactured legal and industrial responses and strategy. The judge saw through it and ruled accordingly.
Shows what Qantas wants and communicates as facts via media, webinars, company moles on forums, differs to what the court of law says. “Qf have recently lost or settled a few significant legal matters. This means they have been found to have broken the law. They are far from infallible.” Spot on! It shows the importance of asking these questions in court. As opposed to basing decisions or relying on opinion that is completely unqualified on a Qrewroom or slack/Prune. I often think it’s the case of deliberate misinformation masquerading as “just my opinion”. Often it’s an attempt to steer the opinion of the masses toward the companies position as opposed to that which would benefit or be a right of the pilot Shows how important the legal system is proving to be. |
I would say that settling is not having been found to break the law. More likely they were not sufficiently sure that they would be successful and played the odds that a settlement is cheaper without setting any precedent. The other party was also not positive they could win and also took the money and run. Essential both parties edging their bets and not willing to let courts decide in the others favour.
|
Originally Posted by engine out
(Post 11087843)
I would say that settling is not having been found to break the law. More likely they were not sufficiently sure that they would be successful and played the odds that a settlement is cheaper without setting any precedent. The other party was also not positive they could win and also took the money and run. Essential both parties edging their bets and not willing to let courts decide in the others favour.
Also, even though Keg's comments/opinions on this matter may be 'unqualified', I find them to be pretty accurate and sensible. |
Also, even though Keg's comments/opinions on this matter may be 'unqualified', I find them to be pretty accurate and sensible. |
Qantas only settled because they risked losing.
Qantas lost against the TWU and most importantly the judge made damning findings against Qantas management, and their IR and legal approach. These are facts. Qantas are being held to account by the legal system. Not on just one occasion. |
Originally Posted by FightDeck
(Post 11087887)
Qantas only settled because they risked losing.
Qantas lost against the TWU and most importantly the judge made damning findings against Qantas management, and their IR and legal approach. These are facts. Qantas are being held to account by the legal system. Not on just one occasion. |
Qantas settled against Captain Hewitt.
Qantas lost in the Federal court against the TWU. |
Qantas settled against Captain Hewitt. Qantas lost in the Federal court against the TWU. Qantas are being held to account by the legal system. Not on just one occasion. As opposed to basing decisions or relying on opinion that is completely unqualified on a Qrewroom or slack/Prune. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.