I guess that gives any company the right then to seek to cancel an agreement when suddenly it doesnt suit them any more?

Mate, Qantas pilots wore a red tie and made a PA and were locked out of their work place. Do you really want to pursue that line of argument?

Yes, Australia’s IR regime may be better than most other places in the world. That does not change the fact that they’re still heavily geared towards the employer in most circumstances.

And further to this - not too many Western Democracies limit the time when employees can take their fundamental right of removing their labour (ie take strike action) as Australia does.

Not too many other countries allow the Stand Down of employees as Australia has experienced either. I have friends who work in different industries overseas, and they can’t seem to grasp the concept that the Company I work for can simply stop paying me completely at the drop of a hat.

This case could quickly become one of the bigger issues in the up coming election. It could be a gift for Albo if he played it right. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if his team is smart enough to exploit it to their advantage.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....683a5b584.jpeg
Happier times…

What a rogues gallery of puckered ar*$holes.

just never forget that whatever regime we’ve got, it was designed by Labor’s Julia Gillard while in office.

And the political alternative brought you 'Work Choices'.

Aaaaah “Work Choices” - take what you’re given or quit. That was the only choice involved. The naming of it would have done “Yes, Minister” proud, and the incessant ads in the election lead-up saying how great it was just convinced everybody how really rotten it must be! Cost Howard his job and his seat. God knows what Work Choices Phase 2 would have involved.

Of course it is, look how well it worked for the local manufacturing and car industry.

The problem for both sides of politics is that Australian salaries are to high on a global scale.We are just never going to compete globally in manufacturing or in a service industry with such a high minimum salary. However the government is just as culpable with such high levels of taxation and a vast array of government services. This argument goes back and forth over a few issues so it is not very definitive but we won't survive economically if we keep paying unskilled labour such high salaries. The reason the federal government makes business friendly arbitration is they know that salaries are to high already and if the labour are already on a high salary this drives other salaries and the cost of everything up.

As an aside it is an interesting to see on other public forums the amount of vitriol spewed out at the general cost of tradesmen/childcare/service industry. People who (I'm guessing are from Asian Heritage with the associated migrant work/study ethic) were told to work hard and study so that you don't end up in a manual labour job, end up paying a disproportionate amount of their hard earned salary to uneducated labour whilst the educated population gets hammered down with taxes, high cost of living, inflation and no real way forward whilst trying to compete with some guy from New Delhi with 3 degrees who costs 10% of your salary.

CamelSquadron is a paid shill…one of the “angels”. He or she only ever pipes up when the troops get restless and start voicing dissatisfaction with the EBA or Qantas executive remuneration.

As for Australian labour costs…what do you expect in one of the highest cost countries in the world? Its hard to pay those pesky ingrates less money when they insist on such luxuries as food and shelter.

Yes. That irony is not lost on me!

Yes, she replaced Work Choices with the Fair Work Bill when she was Deputy leader. Not great for workers, particularly since Sophie Mirabella, a vocal advocate for Work Choices, stacked the Commission (and has now been appointed to the job herself), but definitely better than what it replaced.

Ha,thought exactly the same when i saw that name pop up after many months of silence. A company stooge or a paid shill as you say is almost a given but considering who we are talking about,why should we be surprised with the re-appearance at such an opportune time.

She could have gone further but didn’t.
Her Marquis of Queensberry rules for IR produced the Qf lockout in 2011 amongst other unpleasant occurrences.

[QUOTE=neville_nobody;11179564] The problem for both sides of politics is that Australian salaries are to high on a global scale.We are just never going to compete globally in manufacturing or in a service industry with such a high minimum salary. [/QUOTE]

The problem is there are examples of countries around the world where the standard of living is both high and the population is paid well. The true problem is the great Australian political sport of taxing anyone who has the audacity to get off their arse and make something of themselves. The cost of running a business is not found in the cost of its workforce, it’s found in the minefield of BS and multiple layers of government imposed costs.

Mediation by an independent third party tasked with finding a solution which is fair to both sides is probably the way to go. QF want to screw their employees into the ground and the unions expect T&Cs which are unrealistic in the current environment, so something in between will have to do.

Australia needs to decide if it wants a Scandanavian system which tries to equalize everyone with high wages but sky high prices and taxes. At present, certain groups do well but many are on the margins, whilst taxes and prices are lower than the Nordic countries but still relatively high.

That process is in place and is being pursued now. Unfortunately, mediation cannot force an outcome or change the power or options available to the participants.

The demise of the Australian car industry is commonly blamed on Unions and Australian wages in general.

That is not particularly true.

This guy sums it up pretty well when he notes the early 2000’s mining boom and it’s impact on doubling the value of the Australian Dollar:

He goes on to say:

The reality for automotive production in Australia was that the domestic market was too small to be efficient. The only way to make it efficient was to produce more vehicles, and the only way to do that was to have a large export market - and the resources boom caused the dollar to rise which made exports unviable.

We had our moments in a potential export market. I knew a few people involved in Holden - in the early 2000’s, the Monaro, for example, was exported and was becoming a bit of a hit overseas (in various names - I think it was a Vauxhall in the UK, a Pontiac in the USA, and a Chevy in the ME, but it was an Aussie Monaro, and it was well liked. The Top Gear guys loved it.)

When you compete in a highly competitive industry in which you don’t have the advantage of low cost labour, you must compete in other ways, such as producing an awesome vehicle, like the Monaro was. The Germans obviously learned that trick early - don’t be the cheapest, just be the best. That exact argument translates to Qantas. They can’t compete internationally on cost, so don’t try. They need another selling point. High quality cabin service, particularly in the premium cabin, is something they should be prepared to pay for. That goes a little bit further than training an 18yo to ask “do you want fries with that?”.

Government subsidies are also a red-herring for the car industry arguments. This article from 2013 compared Australian subsidies to other countries. Germany subsidised at the time about 67% of our rate, and the USA about 150%. But the key metric is number of vehicles produced (and, I guess, exported - subsidies make more sense when they support national exports, that’s why we don’t even blink when subsidising mining). Germany had 3 times our population but manufactured 25 times the number of vehicles - obviously a net exporter of vehicles. German automotive employees are well paid, and their government continues to be happy to subsidise their industry.

The total Australian car industry government subsidy was around $400M/year during the decade prior to its demise. (If you had asked the average punter on the street at the time they would often have thought it was a lot more than that). We were producing about 200,000 vehicles per year, so about $2000 per car. They took most of that straight back in stamp duty at point of sale anyway. We were recently outlaying more than that per week just by doubling the dole during COVID (1.6M Jobseekers at an extra $250 odd per week). That alone over a year would have paid for 50 years of car industry support. Qantas spends nearly half that annually in it’s “marketing” budget.

That kind of puts Australia’s attitude towards car manufacturing into perspective.

It wasn’t killing the taxpayer to support the car industry, it was just that the Government decided in its wisdom that it didn’t want to do it any more. Pulling the $400M was enough to make the remaining automotive players in Australia pull out, with devastating effects on all the support and small parts manufacturing in the country.

That move apparently cost about 20,000 Australian jobs across the industry. $400M divided by 20,000 jobs is $20K per job. Given that, on average, each of those workers would probably have been paying $20K tax, they killed an industry for close to zero gain/loss on the books for the Nation.

The high ranking Government employees love it, because whilst they previously had to be chauffeured around in $70K Holdens by Government decree, now they get $400K Mercs and BMW’s because they no longer have to “buy Australian”. Even the coppers are now chasing me down the freeway in a BMW rather than a Holden, although, quite frankly, I think most of them would still prefer a Holden. Please allow me a gratuitous Blues Brothers quote: ‘It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas.”

Regardless, our Government has done its sums on manufacturing in general and decided that we are not the country for that.

We only really have 2 export industries that we do well:

1. Digging holes and sending the ore-rich diggings off-shore on foreign-owned ships;
2. Food production (planting seeds and grazing animals).

Our secondary export industries that we do well are:

3. Tourism - which we destroyed during COVID by not letting them come here; and
4. Tertiary Education - which we destroyed during COVID by not letting them come here.

(Ironically, Scomo pretty much ignored both those industries while he was writing cheques during COVID. For example, University staff were deliberately disqualified from JobKeeper because sometimes they go on to become ABC journalists).

But, the automotive industry, along with any other manufacturing we dabbled with, was never on the above list. And reducing minimum wage would not change that. What it would do, is destroy the local economy, as many punters would no longer have expendable cash to keep the local economy pumping. Be careful what you wish for.

The answer lies in finding something you can do well at and specializing in it, also knowing when to move on to something else is important.

Japan in the 1960s was a low cost manufacturing center that moved onto higher quality and prices. China is having to go upmarket as wages are increasing and countries such a Vietnam and Bangladesh are undercutting it at the lower level of the manufacturing spectrum.

QF will never be a major hub airline due to it's location and cost base, they need a selling point to persuade people to pay a little more than the lowest price they can find on Skyscanner. Safety, reliability, punctuality, good cabin fit out etc might make someone willing to pay an extra $150 for a return flight to London over which ever airline is currently having a special fare.

Being better if you can't be cheaper and cheaper if you can't be better is the way to go.

Thing is, the passenger experience as a saleable commodity is a global product. The cost cost of delivering a quality product is dependant on many things, salaries being one of them.
As result, Ts&Cs can only go on a downward trajectory as QF seeks to compete on costs and uses the Asian airlines as the benchmark.
The premium Asian and Middle East airlines certainly deliver an equal or even superior cabin services product than their western counterparts and they can do this with a far lesser cost base.

The future is not rosy. One of the unfortunate outcomes of globalism.

The BIG problem for an airline who’s major selling point is safety but who is hell bent on chasing the dollar and who is brutally driving down pay and conditions is that the end result of that cost reduction is usually an accident. Coffin corner is a good analogy for such a business model and when your only selling point is safety you have nowhere to go but down.

The 18 hour maximum duty limit for international operations in the Minimum Cabin crew award will be interesting in the unlikely event Fair Work terminates their current agreement.

Do you think termination is unlikely because the cabin crew have a weak bargaining position and will agree to what Qantas wants during mediation, or do you think Qantas does not have a strong case for termination? If the EA is terminated, what do you think the interesting outcome will be? An application for Fair Work to make a determination to vary the Award, use of foreign based crew, or a change to schedules to accomodate any limiting crew duty limits?

What risks do Qantas face? Who says Qantas will be successful in termination of the agreement? What ramifications does any decision Fair work make have for multitudes of other employee groups across multiple industries, if Qantas can just show up to negotiate with a bunch of demands, and not compromise with the sole aim of termination being the desired end result? What risk does a decision have on clogging the courts with every other employer trying the same thing should the Qantas tactic prove to be successful?
Who says that Fair Work accepts Qantas position as the only correct and just one? What happens if Qantas are unsuccessful in terminating the cabin crew agreement? Who is to say that this is not just a last ditch negotiation strategy by Qantas?

What risk does Qantas face? Given that the terms of an EA remain in place until replaced or terminated, I would say that the risk for Qantas is little to none either way. Who says Qantas will be successful? There is no guarantee they will be successful, but if you look to the situation the Virgin cabin crew found themselves in early last year, this is what the Commissioner's Recommendation stated:
Not sure if this link will work, but you can search Fair Work Commission Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd T/A Virgin Australia (B2021/72) Commissioner Spencer https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...YnBEYipn9c_dG-

It is worth noting that the Fair Work Act states that an Agreement MUST be terminated on application if it meets the test mentioned by the Commissioner.

In response, this is what the TWU recommended: https://www.twu.com.au/companies/vir...increwyesvote/

What are the ramifications of termination? My view is it is a reminder of what is at risk. When negotiating you need to understand what the costs and risks are for both parties. If you try to press for outcome that is more cost and/or risk than the other party's alternatives, you have pretty much forced them to take the alternate course of action.

I think your other questions are variations of the same theme.

Don't think I like any of this. This is where we are with the current industrial relations laws and decisions made by the current Commissioners. I just want pilots to be fully aware of what is actually happening so that when it comes time to assessing the risks involved with EA negotiations they are dealing with facts versus being in an echo chamber only hearing what we want to hear.

.Would it be a good idea for the union/employees to just continue to "bargain in good faith" during meditation until the FWC makes it decision in April or whenever it is?

Then regardless of the outcome, be it EA termination and reversion to Award or no EA termination, then just continue to "bargain in good faith" just like Qantas always "bargains in good faith" until the outcome of the federal election is known in mid May?

Then maybe further decisions about what might be achievable can be made depending on whether it is Scotty or Albo in charge?

I wonder if much will change in the FWC if Albo wins...

Let’s hope Albo doesn’t win!

Just remember that it was Labor’s Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty’s ACTU that took the flamethrower to the AFAP in 1989.

Or let's hope he does win!

Supporting Qantas Flight Attendants
 

Hi all,

I noticed the thread on this subject but wished to post a link to a petition everyone in aviation should be signing.

https://www.megaphone.org.au/petitio...5A3Q_7dIdSe8wY

Qantas FAs are under fire from the Qantas legal juggernaut. This not a case of 'lucky it is not me'. Engineers and Pilots should be standing by them primarliy because they are our workmates. If that is not enough, the consequences will touch all of us. Qantas are trying to cancel their agreement because they do not like the rostering clauses. If they can do it to them, they can do it to us too. It does not matter what company you work for.

The consequences are dire. If your EA is cancelled, you go back to Award wages. For many FAs, this means about half of their already ordinary wages. I don't even want to look at what a LAME on Award wages would earn. Pilot Award wages would also be a pittance. Awards are not updated and wage rates are often those of 20 years ago.

Hoping as many as possible can support this cause.
cheers
Steve Purvinas - ALAEA Federal Secretary

What I discovered last year was that the award does not include the award work rules. Not sure if it applies in this case however we were staring down award wages with negotiated work rules, not the weekends off, 8 hour work day of the award. I still do not fully understand how you can apply one and not the other however we were given advice from the union that’s how it worked.

Cancelling EBA’s isn’t a new idea, it’s always been a part of the EBA process. A simple search of EBA’s will show the options each party has when presented with certain circumstances. PIA is one of them.

When an EBA is under negotiation it can, and always could, be cancelled. Mostly this would not happen as it would have dire consequences for the companies work force. Ie, the theory is that the company would loose many employees.

I’m not at all a fan of what Qantas is doing but it is their right under the legislation. All we can do as employees is react. What will be interesting to see is whether peeps will do the maths and realise they can do way better elsewhere in the workforce! Plenty of people I know have flourished during covid starting up their own businesses when presented with stand downs ect. It’s honestly amazed me, I feel like when the airlines start asking stood down people to come back they may be surprised!

But of course I hope a more mutually beneficial solution can be found.

This should be posted on one of those QF work sites.

I have a relative who is 1 of those flight attendants who have found other employment whilst being stood down. She has told me that she will not be going back to her flying job under the conditions that are being proposed & the same is being said by those she still has contact with in the industry.
As you say,the answer the airlines will get may surprise them.

The way I see it, this is the answer Qantas wants.

This is the "legacy" agreement, with lots of clauses the company doesn't like. Pay, Fleet, etc. So if they can get 2500 FA's to choose a different path, then that has saved them a bunch of money. Sure, they may be a little under crewed for a while and lose "a lot of experienced crew", but they don't care, the remaining FA's are all on less money and "more flexible" agreements.

It also has fair reaching repercussions for ALL workers on EA's across Australia, not just Aviation. There are plenty of links below to the various "Awards", but just imagine if every worker in the country took a 15% paycut due to being forced back onto their relevant Award. The knock on affect on the housing market, retail spending, the car market, Hospitality etc. would be devastating to an already struggling post Covid economy. Add rising interest rates as flagged last week by the Reserve Bank. Inflation has already risen to above 3% and QF is only offering 2%.

So things are going to get more expensive and we all will be earning less.

P.S. I was speaking to a guy the other day (upper manager in IT), he said "I didn't know we could do this, what a great way to save a bunch on wages"

I'd be guessing that this is exactly what qantas wants.

Two year wage freeze seems fair.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....63194d640.jpeg

Imagine paying 28.9% more for fuel in 2022 on 2017 wages that were already below others, with no new EA in sight. Good luck to the FA I say. QF do not care if they all resign in mass in fact now is the perfect opportunity with international flying so low.

Their outlook on the international travel front may have just changed after today's announcement,maybe some back tracking or 'hoping to negotiate in good faith' announcement on the horizon??