Qantas London base

[Left2primary]

galley gossiper,

why all the scare mongering................................?

IT WOULD BE UNLAWFULL FOR QANTAS TO LOCK OUT FAs DURING A STRIKE AS THEY WILL BE TAKING PROTECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTION.

FACT.

The FAAA have been at pains to point out to all members that they WILL NOT take any action that in anyway places FAs jobs at risk.

FACT.

L2P "S.T.R"

[Argus]

Left2primary

IT WOULD BE UNLAWFULL FOR QANTAS TO LOCK OUT FAs DURING A STRIKE AS THEY WILL BE TAKING PROTECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTION.

With great respect, you are mistaken or misled.

You may take ‘Protected Industrial Action’ when;

• it happens during a properly notified bargaining period (which starts seven days after one party notifies the other and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) that it intends to seek to reach a certified agreement);

• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement before the action is taken; and

• your union gives 3 (three) working days’ written notice of the proposed industrial action.

If an employer is bargaining with employees and unable to reach agreement, it can apply to the AIRC to suspend or terminate the bargaining period. If it is successful, that puts an end to the protected status of the industrial action.

An employer may also seek an injunction or interim injunction from the Federal Court.

Separately, an employer can commence civil proceedings in relation to tortious conduct by a union, its officers or members after a certificate is obtained from the Commission.

An employer can ‘lock out’ workers and stop them from working if:

• the lockout occurs during a properly notified bargaining period;

• there has been a genuine attempt to reach agreement; and

• it gives written notice to each party with whom it is negotiating – so if there is more than one union involved it must give the notice to each union – that it will be locking the gate/telling them to go home. It must give 3 clear working days notice unless the lock out is in response to the union/s industrial action.

The Courts have interpreted ‘industrial action’ in broad terms. Essentially, it’s when employees do something which restricts, limits or delays their work, such as imposing go-slows, picket lines or work to rule bans –not only when they walk off the job.

IMH experience, it’s not worth starting a ‘fight’ you can’t win. QF management is indicating clearly that it will play ‘hard ball’ on this issue. I take that to mean recourse to the Courts if necessary, to play out a scenario not dissimilar to the Waterfront Dispute. That’s not to say the union can’t vigorously advance its point of view. But, as galley_gossiper points out, in this dispute, the union doesn’t have a strong hand. So the current posturing, as reflected in some of the contributions to this thread, serves only to try and galvanize the troops to give some semblance to union unity.

The practice of Industrial Relations has been likened to ballroom dancing – each side knows, or ought to know the steps. All industrial disputes are settled eventually, even those where industrial action is taken. After settlement, both QF and the Union will still be there, and have to continue to work with each other. Before setting out on the road to Armageddon, it would be prudent to keep this thought in mind. Far better to know "when to fold", and live to fight another day, than to go down in flames and have the union decimated.

Also, while threatening fire and brimstone may win over some of the membership, it also serves to alienate the more moderate elements of the union. An astute union official would be aware of the risk of fracturing their support base; and pitch their agenda (overt and covert) accordingly. As elected officers, their jobs are on the line too. A relevant question to ask would be: "Would the strike motion get up in a secret ballot"?

I wouldn't place any trust in politicians, either. If John Howard wins next Saturday, then the only changes to existing industrial legislation will be to favour small business. If Mark Latham wins, then he won't have time to get any legislative change through the Parliament, even if he's so inclined, before the New Year.

And, before anybody seeks to vilify me, no, I am not connected with Qantas in any way. I have never applied to work or worked for Qantas or any other airline. I do not own Qantas or any other airline shares. I’m just a regular punter who wants value for money when choosing a carrier to fly with. Sadly, that hasn't been Qantas for quite a while. But that's a topic for discussion elsewhere.

[Left2primary]

Ah...................................thanks for that argus.

As I mentioned before.

It would be unlawful for Qantas to take any form of recourse against those FAs choosing to take part in any "protected" industrial action.

L2P "S.T.R"

[Argus]

Left2primary

Sorry, that's not what you previously said.

You previously said:

IT WOULD BE UNLAWFULL FOR QANTAS TO LOCK OUT FAs DURING A STRIKE AS THEY WILL BE TAKING PROTECTED INDUSTRIAL ACTION

That is incorrect. Subject to meeting certain conditions, QANTAS can lock out employees during a properly notified bargaining period.

In your later (changed) version, you say:

It would be unlawful for Qantas to take any form of recourse against those FAs choosing to take part in any "protected" industrial action.

That's still incorrect. Certainly, Qantas can't dismiss an employee merely for taking protected industrial action. It must follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action.

But, subject to meeting certain pre-requisites (which are set out in my earlier post), it would not be unlawful for QANTAS to lock out employees during a properly notified bargaining period.

If you take industrial action, protected or otherwise, you can't expect the employer to stand idly by and not avail itself of all available legal remedies to minimise its loss and maintain normal operations as best it can.

[Left2primary]

argus,

Quote-

"Qantas can't dismiss an employee merely for taking protected industrial action. It must follow the normal procedures to dismiss someone who is incompetent, or for taking illegal and unprotected industrial action."

Thanks for clearing that up for us.
You have articulated the point I was trying to make, perfectly.

L2P "S.T.R."

[ferris]

While we're splitting hairs..........(lawyers just love that, eh Argus?)

no ferris, your assumption is wrong. I dont believe strike action is wrong..

I didn't say that. I said your posts rail against the FAAA for threatening strike action. I don't see how keeping the powder dry will sway the company in this situation. The union needs to show it is every bit as serious as them about the LHR base, and get it's ducks in a row to that end.

I just think that it is a 'kamakaze' effort this time round, the company is too prepared, and we will be locked out if we take strike action.They have enough people on their books to last longer than cabin crew without money

Here I beg to differ. The guys that come up with these ideas are at the mercy of bigger pressures than the crew. Their bonuses etc are quite disgustingly large, but it wouldn't take much for them to evaporate. Any industrial action will have a devastating impact on both QF's profit and share price. Does the board have the stomach for that? Especially over an issue that, if handled correctly, could be a PR disaster (sending oz jobs o/s etc).
As for being prepared; have a look at how prepared Patrick's were. Do you believe the QF management to be as committed as PRKs? Where are the Patrick strike-breakers now?

All it takes is unity.

If you put as much effort into building that unity, galley_gossiper, as you do into tearing it down, who knows what could be achieved. Unless, of course, that is the idea

[Argus]

ferris

There are some similarities between the 1998 Waterfront Dispute and the current situation at Qantas.

In 1998, Chris Corrigan wanted a profitable stevedoring company that employed non-union labour. The MUA wanted to maintain both its presence on the waterfront and the continuance of costly and inefficient work practices.

What transpired was a complex saga of intrigue, industrial action and litigation. A substitute workforce was trained in Dubai but never deployed. There was a possibility of a national strike but that never materialised because it would have exposed the entire union movement to damages.

In the end, both sides claimed victory. Corrigan has ended up with a profitable company. The MUA is still on the waterfront, albeit with having to accept redundancies and a degree of casualisation.

The lesson from the Waterfront Dispute is that industrial relations is a complex and difficult business. Finding solutions usually involves more than just applying the law.

And as for splitting hairs, it's more like dividing tresses!

[bunkmaster]

some info is needed

ARGUS,
there are as a matter of fact very little similarities between the waterfront dispute and the current QF situation.
waterfront was very ineffective/unproductive/ did not want to shift aussie jobs overseas and many other little issues.
qf has a very productive cabincrew by international standards, its all about more jobs going overseas at slave labor rates and if you think seriously they can replace 3800 crew in a short period think again. sure they are going to try and again intimitate crew by my guess pushing the envelope to 1 week (maybe lockout or other options), but we operate through 13 international ports and several hundred flight a week. lets not forget the union has a number of legal options as well should GD really gets silly.
bob ayrling of BA lost 125 million pounds in one week during the BA dispute. they begged crew to come back. ayrling was dismissed shorlty after. now i firmly believe there will be a solution in time but as always in current eba's the envelope has to be pushed to the limit.dont forget the ASU is in similar circumstances. GD has to replace then 20000 to 25000 workers.yeah right

[Argus]

bunkmaster

I don't quite follow your logic.

You say:

there are as a matter of fact very little similarities between the waterfront dispute and the current QF situation.
waterfront was very ineffective/unproductive/ did not want to shift aussie jobs overseas and many other little issues.

You seem to be saying that QF cabin crew are productive. By what criteria do you measure their productivity? If we use surveys of passenger satisfaction, in the 2004 Skytrax Cabin Staff of the Year Survey QF didn't make the top 10.

Also, isn't the QF dispute also about (to use your words later in your post:

more jobs going overseas at slave labor rates

And as for "many other little issues", one of the themes common to both disputes was/is the payment of allowances.

Like the MUA (and also the British National Union of Mineworkers in Thatcher's 1980s Britain) your strength lies in being able to take action as an entire entity. If this occurs, it will then be a test of brinkmanship as to what tactics each side uses to advantage. But don't count on any other union support. S45D of the Trade Practices Act generally prohibits secondary boycotts.

[pucci dreaming]

I have just returned from a trip and whilst up the track heard that a senior faaa longhaul union representative and EBA negotiator has his name on the transfer list to short haul -

L2P -could you please confirm this?

[mach2male]

Productivity/Cost Reduction

Prior to 1988 Qantas had 16 crew on a 747-200 with a 16/16/401 configuration.Today it has 14 on a 747-400 and 13 on a 747-300.Prior to 1988 qantas longhaul crew enjoyed 75% standown and were paid a flat wage irrespective of hours worked.There existed a short division and a so called "married division"....trip length limited and flying in pairs respectively.There were two unions....The "boys" union and the "girls"union.
The wages were so poor most crew had a second job and as the Australian Dollar was managed,allowances were worth as much as monopoly money.The only exception being the Bahrain Dinar.An allocated roster was the way work was apportioned.
Around `86, `87 things began to change.The labor government floated the Aussie Dollar.Then thru` a backdoor arrangement with "girls" union(a minority)the so-called bid system was introduced.Crew were paid for hours worked and standown was reduced to 50% rounded down.Taxation on second jobs was flat rated at 50%.
The ball had started to roll.A crew member was removed and the dreaded horseshoe was introduced by Mike Kent.The Chief from P/C was removed and then 2 Senior Flight Attendants(pursers) were removed along with the dedicated Air Chef position.You now had 2 onboard managers and 13 crew.
Sars and the Gulf War hit and severe downturn in pax traffic occurred.Crew agreed to cost reductions and another crew member was removed with a promise from Peter Marsh that the crew contribution would be recognised in the next EBA.A wage freeze was also agreed to.Next Ansett fell over and Air New Zealand became A basket case.Qantas experienced 5 years pax growth domestically in a space of 2 months and had a virtual monopoly on Trans Tasman traffic handed to it on a platter.
Goof Dixon was the beneficiary of some extraordinary dumb luck.
As a result of all this Qantas now has the most efficient and cost effective Cabin Crew on the planet(except for,perhaps Air NZ who have 13 on A 747-400)
In the past twelve months Dixon has reduced wage costs across the company by 6%....With about another 14% to come thru`casualization and partime.
We are talking of 16 years of enormous productivity gains and cost reductions.When do you draw the line? You cut so much flesh from the product you expose the bone.
The service has deteriorated,the food has become a joke and the procedures on the aircraft virtually unworkable....Qantas has become a bus line.Passengers would be better off bringing their own food,water ,magazines in order to make their journey more comfortable.
The pax have copped it in the neck.Qantas marketting creates an expectation of more ,but in reality you receive far less.
Most crew have totally disengaged themselves from the whole process realizing that they can no longer make a difference.In order to be an excellent flight attendant you now need to be able to say sorry in 15 languages.
With LHR base and the change in divisional flying it will only get worse.
The share price languishes at $3.40 senior management pat themselves on the back in congratulations and bury their noses deeper into the trough.Employees are treated with cavalier indifference
So much for productivity and cost cutting.The passengers aren't happy,employees aren't happy and the product suffers.
Qantas has become Animal Farm!!!
Watch this space worse is yet to come

[argusmoon]

Dixon the Marsupial Fornicator

From M2M`s post,longhaul crew don`t have to S.T.R.Sounds like Kingrat Dixon is doing it for them and being overly renumerated for the pleasure.

[Left2primary]

pucci dreaming/galley gossiper,

I guess your question to me implies that I am an FAAA representative or communicate with those that are, on a regular basis.

If this is the case you are wrong on both counts.

Your accusation about {Smedley???} being on the shorthaul transfer list rings a bell with the nasty Broome, Warner and Brem led campaign during the last FAAA election.

I went to the trouble of asking Smedley about this during the campaign.
It seems that he has been on that list for many years and had\has NO intention of taking it up.

He will do/has done what the VAST majority of longahul choose to do when their number is up - Thanks but no thanks.

L2P "S.T.R."

Oh BTW, you made a post saying you are excited about Shanghai, so it seems you are on the transfer list too.

The difference I guess is that you'll be taking it up.

[str]

M2M

Excellent post, you should send it to the Sydney Morning Herald or The Australian, even better the Financial Review because lots of Dixon's mates read that paper while sitting in the 'invitation only' chairmans lounge.

After just four your with QF I am getting extremely tired of working my butt off in an undercrewed full cabin and serving a crap product to our customers. Each time I go out into the cabin and see the poor people crammed into the Y cabin eating 'Braised Lamb in Tomato sauce' (I wouldn't give it too my dog) I cringe thinking that they've paid several thousand dollars when they could have flown Singapore Airlines and received much better food, on demand video's and 21 crew members instead of 14. I try and make their trip as enjoyable as possible but its very difficult when the product is so bad.

The marketing dept at Qantas clearly have too much budget allocated to them and the people in marketing must only ever fly business/first (both very good on Qantas international) because what they market and what the customer gets, in Y, is so far apart its embarrassing.

L2P is correct - most long haul crew have their name on the divisional transfer list. Its common knowledge at QF that you should have your name on every list possible to maximise your flexibility should something happen i.e. I personally thought I would never go to short haul but if the London base goes ahead I will probably transfer to short haul when I get the offer to transfer.

[Argus]

mach2male

Agree with str, an excellent post that puts some relevant background and balance into the debate.

So far, the focus of posts has largely been on loss of allowances and jobs going overseas.

From what you say, the underlying issue is the minimum number of cabin crew on each particular flight and aircraft type. This goes to issues of workload, safety requirements, duration of flight and crew rest times, which in turn lead to poor morale and a decline in service.

Has anyone given any though to having the crew numbers matter arbitrated? Is it possible for both QF and the Union to agree to the appointment of an expert and independent person to carry out a detailed review, and provide recommendations that both parties agree to accept?

[pucci dreaming]

RE LONGHAUL UNION OFFICIAL'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST

the fact that one of the faaa union officials who will be attempting to negotiate EBA 7 is on a transfer list to short haul should be of grave concern to the membership

how can you fly around the country , attending meetings where you are part of an executive which harangues & cajoles its members to take prolonged strike action from dec 18 -when you youself have every intention of JUMPING SHIP as soon as you can? (it is not acceptable to just say "he has no intention of taking up the offer.....")

when the smoke clears and the strike has failed because the likes of ex union officials such as Sheer Nylon and Lance the Line Man have jumped on a cart together -when the longhaul membership are queued up outside lesley grant's office, pen in hand , ready to sign individual contracts that contain new conditions similar to the LHR base, where will this union official be?

Standing in the back galley of a 767 having a coffee & a quiet chuckle - WINGING HIS WAY TO COOLINGATTA!!

These EBA negotiations are way to serious to be left in the hands of those attemting TO HAVE AN EACH WAY BET !

you're either IN FOR THE LONGHAUL OR ELSE YOU'RE OUT!

YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR INDUSTRIAL CAKE & EAT IT TOO!

If as L2P alleges that it is indeed Mr Smedley who has his name on a tranfer list to short haul - then it is only right and proper that he shows his hand, declares his intention publicly - AND RESIGNS FROM THE EBA NEGOTIATING TEAM IMMEDIATELY!
THE MEMBERSHIP WILL ACCEPT NOTHING LESS!

(it is still every members right to go to short haul if it suites their lifestyle -but when you take public union office and start making decisions that affects the lives of all those in a division that you are intending to leave....please, give us a break)

[str]

pucci dreaming,

Doesn't bother me one bit if Andrew, or any other FAAA official, has their name on the divisional transfer list. I believe they are professional enough to do the job they have been elected to do in their current long haul role.

Would you rather have the old FAAA officials back? You remember? The ones who campaigned for a YES vote for the current crappy EBA full of loopholes which QF is now using to their advantage.

Did you attend any of the FAAA meeting in August? If so you would have seen the commitment and passion Andrew and his team have for current long haul crew. They only want the current terms and conditions to remain. Thats why almost 1000 crew voted by show of hands and privot ballot to support the FAAA in protected industrial action.

[argusmoon]

Pucci Dreaming

Whoa! Calm Down!In any union you have apathy.With the vote on the last EBA 60% of eligible crew voted.Talk to the executive of any union and this is considered to be quite high.Doesn`t matter if Smedley is shorthaul,longhaul or U-Haul he is still committed and has my total confidence.
There has been reference to your medication several times already.You have only been a PPruner for a minute.Relax and soak up the broader perspective.

[bunkmaster]

MORE INFO ON WHY WE ARE NOT FEATURE ON SKYTRAX

Argus , I have been away but let me explain my logic.

You refer to skytrax and here are the reasons why we are no longer up there.
1) de-crewing we have smaller numbers of cabin crew on most aircrafts then our competitors. We have a ratio of 1cabin crew to 53 passenger in economy. Australian airlines has 1:34. and most of our Asian competitors have similar or less ratios then Australians. Most Asian and middle east carriers earn the same but pay a lot less tax and receive big bonuses or perks (like free housing,etc) .
2) our hard product the entertainment system is average and has a lot of problems. The reason is GD did not want to spend the money on something up to date. We ended up with the same system as BA (as we share the same entertainment engineers at most ports) which has the same problems. Singapore, Cathay,
Emirates have on-demand with up to 500 movies. To update now would cost A$ 600 million
3) Food is an entire chapter , sorry novel in itself. Ask any economy or frequent flyer.
4) Moral, it seems to me that every 2 years now we have to go through major grandstanding when it is EBA time, which as an very BIG effect on moral. Given the HUGE increases GD and his mates get (every time)it is fair to say a few crumbles are expected downline.
5) Travel allowances are based on public sector rates and are a substantial part of our very complicated pay structure.
6) By setting up another base with cheaper crew but more expensive support staff it is unlikely they safe that much money. Don’t forget initial and ongoing training costs, support staff etc. it is purely a union busting exercise. Bangkok and new Zealand crews fly in for the 6 monthly training and exams (it also costs allowances and hotel costs)
7) Our domestic colleagues who again backstab longhaul crew get their allowances paid into their salaries.
8) Since Lesley grant (group general manager customer or as I would say cover up service) and mark hassell (GM) turned up there is no longer any trust given they ongoing lies they keep telling us.
9) Finally we are going down the same path as air new Zealand did under Lesley grants stewardship so if you are passionate about your job IT IS A MUST TO FIGHT THEM.
10) Its not just cabin crew but also the ASU, Engineers ,Pilots who have great difficulty at the moment with their EBA’s and management.

MARCH2MALE HAS PUT IT IN SIMILAR FASHION.SPOT ON
as i keep saying treat this excercise as a business case and take the emotions out of it .

The turnout for most meetings organized by the faaa is usually small. Having close to a thousand people turn up and voting is a very substantial step forward. For those who have been away or decided to go for lunch or else they also had a change to have there voice heard. Just a little reminder that in today’s world we have emails, fax, phones, pagers etc. to communicate. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world or for lunch if you want to be heard or have your SAY get “OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT”.
So puccidreaming and galleygossip , guys grow up stop whining you are supposed to be adults.

Pay dispute in the wings for Qantas
By Paul Robinson
Workplace Editor
The Age, 5th October, 2004

Qantas shareholders have been urged by a leading institutional investment adviser to reject the company\'s plan to lift directors\' fees by more than 66 per cent.
The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors yesterday advised its 32 industry and public sector fund clients to vote against the proposal at the company\'s annual meeting in Brisbane on October 21.

ACSI, which has also been a vocal opponent of News Corporation\'s proposed reincorporation in the US state of Delaware, has conducted detailed research on the Qantas proposal and believes it is excessive and not in line with market trends.

Its executive officer, Phillip Spathis, said client funds controlled more than $85 billion of investment and were significant players on the Australian investment scene.

Mr Spathis said the plan would boost Qantas\'s wage bill for directors from $1.5 million to $2.5 million, which he said was "excessive". He said the company\'s justification, that the increase was needed to attract high-calibre directors and was in line with market conditions, was "hard to sustain".

Research by ACSI showed the total remuneration of Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson to be $484,000 last financial year. It showed the mean remuneration of a non-executive chairman of an ASX top 100 company was $308,000, and the median was $285,000. Mr Spathis said Qantas paid much more than other top 100 companies: "We cannot really support the magnitude of the fees that Qantas is seeking. In the past we have approved increases in excess of 30 per cent because companies were seeking new directors, or were expanding the number of directors in the pool. But it is not clear that Qantas wants to expand the pool."
A spokesman for Qantas said yesterday that the company had decided to plan ahead by providing an increase in directors\' fees that would apply over the next two or three years. This would prevent the need to go to shareholders each year for approval.

The spokesman said the proposal, which was set out in detail for shareholders, would also require directors to perform at a higher level on a range of new committees: "We think this is a reasonable proposal that will be well received by shareholders."

ACSI\'s decision comes as Qantas is embroiled in an industrial struggle with two in-house unions that are demanding pay rises of 12 per cent over the next two years.

Flight Attendants Association of Australia secretary Michael Mijatov has warned of industrial action after the current agreement expires in December, which could destabilise airline travel over the summer. In response Qantas has begun training new flight attendants, whom the union has labelled strike-breakers.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[str]

pucci dreaming, at least a QUARTER of crew bothered to turn up to hear what the FAAA has to say. You admit yourself that you would rather be shopping than fighting to protect our future, disgraceful.

The FAAA aren't 'railroading' anyone. They organised a paper ballot of the 1000 crew who 'bothered' to turn up at the FAAA meetings. The members decided to go ahead with industrial action IF talks break down.

The FAAA recently posted out ballot papers to every members home address asking the same question. When the answers are collated this will give a better impression of how many crew support the FAAA.Thats of people, like you, can be bothered to pick up a pen, tick a box and post the pre-paid ballot form back to the FAAA.

MOD EDIT - Make your case by all means, but play the ball, not the player!