QANTAS Discussions
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: R1P
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Per Base re-hash
Yes, the re-opening will happen, but my understandig is that it will be a J* International base. Cheap flights, cheap crew, cheap hub. Leisure holiday market to Paris, Franfurt, Rome, some London. More L/H Qantas jobs, no way!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bronte
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Glover's piece in the SMH 1/4/6
April 1, 2006
Page 2 of 2
WHEN you're given a new toy, it's hard to resist giving it a try straightaway. And so it was with Australia's employers, as they unwrapped the Government's shiny new industrial relations laws at the start of the week, and decided to see just what they could do.
They discovered they could do plenty. In various workplaces, faithful old retainers were herded together, sacked and then rehired as contractors. The timing, said various employers, was "coincidental".
Those who have been following the case of Craig Pareezer know all about this word "contractor". It means you can be at the company's beck and call - wearing its uniform, driving its truck, with a company phone nestled in your pocket - but if anything goes wrong, suddenly it doesn't know you.
The main thing being "contracted", in other words, is your rights.
In the case of Pareezer, Coca-Cola refused to even help with medical expenses after the young man was shot in the head, chest, stomach, leg and hand during a robbery attempt while he was refilling one of Coke's machines. The shots blew off half of his tongue, pierced his lung and went through his right hand - injuries for which he is still being treated.
At the time, he was effectively Coke's employee, just not on paper. And so it was a case of "Craig who?" as the company battled him through the courts over compensation. After enduring some particularly brutal publicity over the past fortnight, including a plea for compassion from the Premier, Coke has finally settled with Mr Pareezer - nine years after the original incident.
Others are yet to have their rights "contracted" in this way; they've merely been asked to be more "flexible". Indeed, the Government keeps insisting on the need for a more "flexible workforce" - a phrase that summons up the image of 2000 steelworkers doing tai chi and the odd yoga downward dog. It's hard to know why the Australian economy has been doing so well, beating much of the world in terms of economic growth, considering the sclerotic nature of our workforce.
"Flexible", of course, is just code for "a willingness to be treated like any other commodity - able to work anytime, anywhere, at the same rate, without penalties or loadings".
In first-year economics, labour is just another input cost, just like the raw materials. The coal you pour into the burners doesn't cost more on Saturdays and Sundays, so why should the workers who do the pouring? That's the theory, and you can find it expressed on the website of the H.R. Nicholls Society, as much as you can see it illustrated in the pages of Charles Dickens's Hard Times.
The only snag is that employees are different to lumps of coal. For a start, they have a role outside the production process - as citizens, parents and consumers, among other things. This might seem like stating the bleeding obvious, but there are times when stating the bleeding obvious can seem like an act of radical dissent.
Unlike lumps of coal, employees create the society in which business operates. That's why penalty rates are a good compromise: they don't force businesses to close down on weekends; but they do gently encourage work to be concentrated, where possible, on weekdays.
This allows for two days in which citizens can join together to build social capital - whether that takes the form of attending church, partaking in a boozy barbecue, or driving the children to soccer. All are hard to achieve when there is no shared pattern to our times of rest and work.
The Government keeps insisting penalty rates should be a matter of individual choice. But weekends, by their very nature, are the proper subject of communal decision making. There's no point in me driving my children down to weekend soccer if there's no one there for them to play against.
It's not a problem faced by lumps of coal. Lumps of coal don't care too much about when they are thrown into the burner. Lumps of coal are not asked to play a role outside the economy.
The tradition of Australian industrial relations was famously set in 1907 in the Harvester judgement of Justice H.B. Higgins. He insisted that workers were more than an input cost; that a fair wage had to take account of a worker's ability to function in those other roles, such as citizen, parent or, as Higgins put it, "a human being in a civilised community".
A dusty court judgement, from a century ago. Funny how, in 2006, it suddenly has the ring of a rallying cry.
[email protected]
Previous pagePage 1 2Email Print Normal font Large font
Page 2 of 2
WHEN you're given a new toy, it's hard to resist giving it a try straightaway. And so it was with Australia's employers, as they unwrapped the Government's shiny new industrial relations laws at the start of the week, and decided to see just what they could do.
They discovered they could do plenty. In various workplaces, faithful old retainers were herded together, sacked and then rehired as contractors. The timing, said various employers, was "coincidental".
Those who have been following the case of Craig Pareezer know all about this word "contractor". It means you can be at the company's beck and call - wearing its uniform, driving its truck, with a company phone nestled in your pocket - but if anything goes wrong, suddenly it doesn't know you.
The main thing being "contracted", in other words, is your rights.
In the case of Pareezer, Coca-Cola refused to even help with medical expenses after the young man was shot in the head, chest, stomach, leg and hand during a robbery attempt while he was refilling one of Coke's machines. The shots blew off half of his tongue, pierced his lung and went through his right hand - injuries for which he is still being treated.
At the time, he was effectively Coke's employee, just not on paper. And so it was a case of "Craig who?" as the company battled him through the courts over compensation. After enduring some particularly brutal publicity over the past fortnight, including a plea for compassion from the Premier, Coke has finally settled with Mr Pareezer - nine years after the original incident.
Others are yet to have their rights "contracted" in this way; they've merely been asked to be more "flexible". Indeed, the Government keeps insisting on the need for a more "flexible workforce" - a phrase that summons up the image of 2000 steelworkers doing tai chi and the odd yoga downward dog. It's hard to know why the Australian economy has been doing so well, beating much of the world in terms of economic growth, considering the sclerotic nature of our workforce.
"Flexible", of course, is just code for "a willingness to be treated like any other commodity - able to work anytime, anywhere, at the same rate, without penalties or loadings".
In first-year economics, labour is just another input cost, just like the raw materials. The coal you pour into the burners doesn't cost more on Saturdays and Sundays, so why should the workers who do the pouring? That's the theory, and you can find it expressed on the website of the H.R. Nicholls Society, as much as you can see it illustrated in the pages of Charles Dickens's Hard Times.
The only snag is that employees are different to lumps of coal. For a start, they have a role outside the production process - as citizens, parents and consumers, among other things. This might seem like stating the bleeding obvious, but there are times when stating the bleeding obvious can seem like an act of radical dissent.
Unlike lumps of coal, employees create the society in which business operates. That's why penalty rates are a good compromise: they don't force businesses to close down on weekends; but they do gently encourage work to be concentrated, where possible, on weekdays.
This allows for two days in which citizens can join together to build social capital - whether that takes the form of attending church, partaking in a boozy barbecue, or driving the children to soccer. All are hard to achieve when there is no shared pattern to our times of rest and work.
The Government keeps insisting penalty rates should be a matter of individual choice. But weekends, by their very nature, are the proper subject of communal decision making. There's no point in me driving my children down to weekend soccer if there's no one there for them to play against.
It's not a problem faced by lumps of coal. Lumps of coal don't care too much about when they are thrown into the burner. Lumps of coal are not asked to play a role outside the economy.
The tradition of Australian industrial relations was famously set in 1907 in the Harvester judgement of Justice H.B. Higgins. He insisted that workers were more than an input cost; that a fair wage had to take account of a worker's ability to function in those other roles, such as citizen, parent or, as Higgins put it, "a human being in a civilised community".
A dusty court judgement, from a century ago. Funny how, in 2006, it suddenly has the ring of a rallying cry.
[email protected]
Previous pagePage 1 2Email Print Normal font Large font
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flexible", of course, is just code for "a willingness to be treated like any other commodity - able to work anytime, anywhere, at the same rate, without penalties or loadings"."
Is this is what Pirate Pegasus and his parrot Guardian1 are talking about when they want us to show the company we are flexible?.....pass the lubricant ..we are in for a rough time !!!!!!
Is this is what Pirate Pegasus and his parrot Guardian1 are talking about when they want us to show the company we are flexible?.....pass the lubricant ..we are in for a rough time !!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
I think you have your pirates and your parrots confused, but that is not surprising because you have a history of confusion on almost anything you raise in here.
Your utterances are particularly perplexing, one day, it's we gotta be flexible and pro-active and the next day , it's the predictable anti-faaa rhetoric. You have more personalities than the 7 faces of EVE!
A suggestion: keep to your prescription and you won't be parrotting prolific poppycock. And that way if i'm the pirate i won't make you walk the plank, or alternatively if i'm the parrott, i won't crap on your thick skull!
Your utterances are particularly perplexing, one day, it's we gotta be flexible and pro-active and the next day , it's the predictable anti-faaa rhetoric. You have more personalities than the 7 faces of EVE!
A suggestion: keep to your prescription and you won't be parrotting prolific poppycock. And that way if i'm the pirate i won't make you walk the plank, or alternatively if i'm the parrott, i won't crap on your thick skull!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why I am confused by you guys and why you cannot understand those who question you and your decisions.
I posted a quote from you telling us that the previous faaa should have had industrial action instead of capitulating and then you tell us to bend over to threats from the company and grant dispensation on the JFK issue.???????
Which side of the coin do you advocate???
Capitulation or stand up for our rights??????
You criticise someone for giving into the company then you do the same at a later date????????
A suggestion....stick to the same medication and suggest the same course of action when dealing with the company and which one of you girls is Eve??
No wonder you are having an identity crisis
I posted a quote from you telling us that the previous faaa should have had industrial action instead of capitulating and then you tell us to bend over to threats from the company and grant dispensation on the JFK issue.???????
Which side of the coin do you advocate???
Capitulation or stand up for our rights??????
You criticise someone for giving into the company then you do the same at a later date????????
A suggestion....stick to the same medication and suggest the same course of action when dealing with the company and which one of you girls is Eve??
No wonder you are having an identity crisis
Last edited by lowerlobe; 3rd Apr 2006 at 12:41.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article from todays "Australian".
R laws exposed: unions
Brad Norington
April 04, 2006
UNIONS have launched a new assault on the Howard Government's workplace changes after a lawyer from one of the firms that drafted them admitted protected conditions for workers were really "smoke and mirrors".
Anthony Longland, a partner with Freehills, advised employers to watch for competitors who abolished penalty rates and allowances and eased restrictions on working hours.
"They might be able to get a significant advantage over you in terms of labour costs," he told a Sydney legal conference.
ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the comments - reported by online news service Workplace Express - confirmed union claims that workers would not be protected from cuts in pay and conditions under the new industrial laws.
"This is exactly what the ACTU has been saying from the outset," Mr Combet said. "We've been accused of running a scare campaign, accused of trying to elevate unnecessary fears about these laws.
"But here we have a partner of the firm who helped write the laws saying exactly what we have been putting - that the so-called protections under these laws are just smoke and mirrors."
Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews rejected Mr Longland's claim that protected conditions in the laws were "smoke and mirrors".
A spokesman for Mr Andrews said all employment contracts under the Howard Government's Work Choices laws had to be reached by agreement.
Asked about conditions for people seeking new jobs, he said: "They have to be agreed by two parties, so it can't be unilateral."
The spokesman said the Government's position was clear: conditions such as penalty rates or meal breaks had to be specifically removed from agreements or else they would apply.
"The default position is the award, and this has been repeatedly stated," he said.
Under the Government's laws, which began operation last week, five minimum conditions must apply in agreements - a minimum wage, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave and an averaged 38-hour week.
Mr Longland was reported as saying protected conditions for workers were really "smoke and mirrors". They were "protected but not protected" because the safety measures could be forgone if they were overridden.
He declined to comment yesterday, referring queries to Freehills' head of workplace law, Russell Allen.
He said Mr Longland was using a metaphor to explain that workers' conditions were protected except when workers negotiated an agreement.
Freehills was one of seven legal firms that sent lawyers to Canberra to assist the Government in writing 687 pages of legislation last year. One senior Freehills associate was seconded to Canberra for six months.
Mr Combet said Freehills had kept a "to-do list" so it could help the Government close off a range of protections in the laws. It was now telling employers how to use the laws, he said.
"Mr Longland from Freehills is advising firms that unless they get in quick and cut out the penalty rates of their own employees under the new Work Choices laws, then someone else might get in ahead of them."
----------------
The 730 Report last night suggested that CC hanging out for a redundancy package at QF would be better off waiting for hell to freeze over.
Howards new anti employee laws make the whole concept of redundancies, "redundant".
Staff it seems can now be sacked for "operational reasons" with no payout entitlements regardless of years of service.
The brave new world under jack boot Johnny...........which is of course EXACTLY what the Australian voter wants.............
Brad Norington
April 04, 2006
UNIONS have launched a new assault on the Howard Government's workplace changes after a lawyer from one of the firms that drafted them admitted protected conditions for workers were really "smoke and mirrors".
Anthony Longland, a partner with Freehills, advised employers to watch for competitors who abolished penalty rates and allowances and eased restrictions on working hours.
"They might be able to get a significant advantage over you in terms of labour costs," he told a Sydney legal conference.
ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the comments - reported by online news service Workplace Express - confirmed union claims that workers would not be protected from cuts in pay and conditions under the new industrial laws.
"This is exactly what the ACTU has been saying from the outset," Mr Combet said. "We've been accused of running a scare campaign, accused of trying to elevate unnecessary fears about these laws.
"But here we have a partner of the firm who helped write the laws saying exactly what we have been putting - that the so-called protections under these laws are just smoke and mirrors."
Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews rejected Mr Longland's claim that protected conditions in the laws were "smoke and mirrors".
A spokesman for Mr Andrews said all employment contracts under the Howard Government's Work Choices laws had to be reached by agreement.
Asked about conditions for people seeking new jobs, he said: "They have to be agreed by two parties, so it can't be unilateral."
The spokesman said the Government's position was clear: conditions such as penalty rates or meal breaks had to be specifically removed from agreements or else they would apply.
"The default position is the award, and this has been repeatedly stated," he said.
Under the Government's laws, which began operation last week, five minimum conditions must apply in agreements - a minimum wage, annual leave, sick leave, parental leave and an averaged 38-hour week.
Mr Longland was reported as saying protected conditions for workers were really "smoke and mirrors". They were "protected but not protected" because the safety measures could be forgone if they were overridden.
He declined to comment yesterday, referring queries to Freehills' head of workplace law, Russell Allen.
He said Mr Longland was using a metaphor to explain that workers' conditions were protected except when workers negotiated an agreement.
Freehills was one of seven legal firms that sent lawyers to Canberra to assist the Government in writing 687 pages of legislation last year. One senior Freehills associate was seconded to Canberra for six months.
Mr Combet said Freehills had kept a "to-do list" so it could help the Government close off a range of protections in the laws. It was now telling employers how to use the laws, he said.
"Mr Longland from Freehills is advising firms that unless they get in quick and cut out the penalty rates of their own employees under the new Work Choices laws, then someone else might get in ahead of them."
----------------
The 730 Report last night suggested that CC hanging out for a redundancy package at QF would be better off waiting for hell to freeze over.
Howards new anti employee laws make the whole concept of redundancies, "redundant".
Staff it seems can now be sacked for "operational reasons" with no payout entitlements regardless of years of service.
The brave new world under jack boot Johnny...........which is of course EXACTLY what the Australian voter wants.............
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian voters and the last election
Speedbirdhouse..
I don’t really think that the average Australian voter thinks that far ahead even if they have a plasma screen tv. Not that Howard advertised the new IR laws that much during the election campaign either.
If Labor though had nominated a decent alternative to Howard then maybe the Libs may not have won. Anyone who was thinking about giving their vote to someone else apart from Howard would not and obviously did not vote for Latham because he is about as stable as a chair with 3 legs.
If the new IR laws are utilized by a significant number of employers then the Lib’s chances of being re-elected would be less than the chances of picking next weeks lotto’s numbers and that is extremely unlikely
By the way did the 7.30 report actually mention CC?
I don’t really think that the average Australian voter thinks that far ahead even if they have a plasma screen tv. Not that Howard advertised the new IR laws that much during the election campaign either.
If Labor though had nominated a decent alternative to Howard then maybe the Libs may not have won. Anyone who was thinking about giving their vote to someone else apart from Howard would not and obviously did not vote for Latham because he is about as stable as a chair with 3 legs.
If the new IR laws are utilized by a significant number of employers then the Lib’s chances of being re-elected would be less than the chances of picking next weeks lotto’s numbers and that is extremely unlikely
By the way did the 7.30 report actually mention CC?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they did not mention cabin crew as to this date darth dixon hasn't exercised this newly found power over us............
The rep[ort was about a NSW meatworks who sacked 25 staff and immediately rehired them on contracts with a resultant drop in pay and conditions.
The legislation allowed the company to avoid paying ANY redundancy to an employee of 35 years service.........
Don't forget that it was dixon who formed part of the steering committee that helped the liberals formulate the INTENT behind the legislation.
Your post demonstrates what is wrong with the rationale behind the way so many of our countryfolk choose to vote.
The cult of personality.
What will it take for people to realise that it is POLICY that determines the outcome of our political process not the personality of whoever is leading the party of choice.
There is only one party of "social conscience" in Australia.
When will our lot realise that it is "WHAT" not "Who" that ought to determine how one votes..........
How does the quote go?
"You can't fix stupid".
Sadly.............
Don't tell us that you bought the lie about interest rates too ?
The rep[ort was about a NSW meatworks who sacked 25 staff and immediately rehired them on contracts with a resultant drop in pay and conditions.
The legislation allowed the company to avoid paying ANY redundancy to an employee of 35 years service.........
Don't forget that it was dixon who formed part of the steering committee that helped the liberals formulate the INTENT behind the legislation.
Your post demonstrates what is wrong with the rationale behind the way so many of our countryfolk choose to vote.
The cult of personality.
What will it take for people to realise that it is POLICY that determines the outcome of our political process not the personality of whoever is leading the party of choice.
There is only one party of "social conscience" in Australia.
When will our lot realise that it is "WHAT" not "Who" that ought to determine how one votes..........
How does the quote go?
"You can't fix stupid".
Sadly.............
Don't tell us that you bought the lie about interest rates too ?
Last edited by speedbirdhouse; 4th Apr 2006 at 03:15.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedbirdhouse..
As I said Howard did not really advertise the new IR laws or his intention during the last election campaign and you cannot argue with the state of the economy at the time of the election.
The personality of Latham is not what I was really referring to,I meant his ability to lead Australia and govern.I do not believe that latham could lead a boy scout troop let alone a country.
You can't really say Howard has an attractive personality either but that people were honestly afraid at the thought of what Latham would or could do.
If we all had crystal balls to see the new IR laws at that stage then Mickey Mouse may have led Labor to victory.
Can you recall any earth shattering policies that Latham had announced before the election?
Personality does though have an important part to play,that is how one Bob Hawke won for example
The meatworks example could actually work in our favour,if the government is worried about the backlash and they should for good reason then hopefully it will have a good effect.Howard would I imagine like to be re-elected and if people are being sacked left ,right and center he might have to do something about it...
Thats the bottom line, a politicians need for re-election,it's the only thing they care about
Everyone should be ringing their local Liberal or National party politician and tell them they will never vote for them again unless they change the IR laws and get rid of Howard....even if you don't vote for them they don't know that...
As I said Howard did not really advertise the new IR laws or his intention during the last election campaign and you cannot argue with the state of the economy at the time of the election.
The personality of Latham is not what I was really referring to,I meant his ability to lead Australia and govern.I do not believe that latham could lead a boy scout troop let alone a country.
You can't really say Howard has an attractive personality either but that people were honestly afraid at the thought of what Latham would or could do.
If we all had crystal balls to see the new IR laws at that stage then Mickey Mouse may have led Labor to victory.
Can you recall any earth shattering policies that Latham had announced before the election?
Personality does though have an important part to play,that is how one Bob Hawke won for example
The meatworks example could actually work in our favour,if the government is worried about the backlash and they should for good reason then hopefully it will have a good effect.Howard would I imagine like to be re-elected and if people are being sacked left ,right and center he might have to do something about it...
Thats the bottom line, a politicians need for re-election,it's the only thing they care about
Everyone should be ringing their local Liberal or National party politician and tell them they will never vote for them again unless they change the IR laws and get rid of Howard....even if you don't vote for them they don't know that...
Last edited by lowerlobe; 4th Apr 2006 at 05:24.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yummy
So have you read the one in CCN that says we have to eat our crew meals "discretely" in the galley?
When will they start treating us like adults.
If some pig-faced, stuck up pommie bitch (read suzanna h) thinks she can arrive in this country on a meal ticket from QF and start telling me where and how to eat she has another thing coming.
I will eat my crew meal in a dignified, human, adult fashion and I will suggest my crew do the same. If that means that one of our precious guests spots me taking a bite because I like to sit down to eat - TOUGH TITTIES!
Go back where you came from with that other now departed dwarf...
When will they start treating us like adults.
If some pig-faced, stuck up pommie bitch (read suzanna h) thinks she can arrive in this country on a meal ticket from QF and start telling me where and how to eat she has another thing coming.
I will eat my crew meal in a dignified, human, adult fashion and I will suggest my crew do the same. If that means that one of our precious guests spots me taking a bite because I like to sit down to eat - TOUGH TITTIES!
Go back where you came from with that other now departed dwarf...
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The need to eat
Perhaps the company has been receiving complaints about the crew eating…..GOOD
Then let’s start eating at our jumpseats as the commissioner has suggested and really get some passenger feedback
Then let’s start eating at our jumpseats as the commissioner has suggested and really get some passenger feedback
opportunity
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be perfectly Francis do you think that this latest survey will actually achieve anything other than letting them know what we think about them(which they know already and couldn't care less about)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 April, Cabin Crew Website
Dear Colleague,
As advised in my letter dated 24 March a further hearing in relation to the certification of the Short Haul EBA 7 was listed in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on Tuesday 4 April. During the hearing yesterday the Commission was presented with further information in relation to the EBA and the matters for certification.
The Commission has once again made a decision to delay the certification of the agreement to allow consideration of the information presented in yesterday’s hearing and further information which is due to be lodged with the Commission no later than Monday 10 April. We are hopeful that the Commission will then make an order to certify the agreement in due course.
Until the EBA is certified by the Commission, which we hope will not be delayed much further, the current EBA 6 continues to apply.
We are committed to communicate with you any further developments should and as they arise.
Dear Colleague,
As advised in my letter dated 24 March a further hearing in relation to the certification of the Short Haul EBA 7 was listed in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on Tuesday 4 April. During the hearing yesterday the Commission was presented with further information in relation to the EBA and the matters for certification.
The Commission has once again made a decision to delay the certification of the agreement to allow consideration of the information presented in yesterday’s hearing and further information which is due to be lodged with the Commission no later than Monday 10 April. We are hopeful that the Commission will then make an order to certify the agreement in due course.
Until the EBA is certified by the Commission, which we hope will not be delayed much further, the current EBA 6 continues to apply.
We are committed to communicate with you any further developments should and as they arise.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the faaa domestic website:
Prior to the commencement of certification proceedings a third party sought to intervene to stop the certification process on behalf of two Qantas Short Haul Flight Attendants. They argued that certification should be delayed to allow arguments to be put on behalf of their clients regarding alleged discriminatory clauses “rostering arrangements” within the proposed agreement.
Not withstanding opposition by the Association and Qantas to the intervention the Commission (AIRC) exercised discretion to allow the intervention and set further dates covering process and hearing. What is particularly disappointing about the delay in certification is the arguments mounted relate to pre-existing clauses and other avenues were available to these individuals.
Bye-Bye seniority system
Prior to the commencement of certification proceedings a third party sought to intervene to stop the certification process on behalf of two Qantas Short Haul Flight Attendants. They argued that certification should be delayed to allow arguments to be put on behalf of their clients regarding alleged discriminatory clauses “rostering arrangements” within the proposed agreement.
Not withstanding opposition by the Association and Qantas to the intervention the Commission (AIRC) exercised discretion to allow the intervention and set further dates covering process and hearing. What is particularly disappointing about the delay in certification is the arguments mounted relate to pre-existing clauses and other avenues were available to these individuals.
Bye-Bye seniority system
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been one to believe in coincidences especially where Qantas is concerned but the timing of this dispute allegedly from 2 crew on the grounds of discrimination and the introduction of the new IR laws is more than a little suspicious.
It would be helpful if either the company or the faaa could put out a newsletter describing the basis or nature of the claim .Whether this dispute or complaint is based on or partly using discrimination as a basis would be interesting to know or whether they are not happy with some part of the S/H EBA.
I realise that there are a number of crew unhappy with the seniority based bidding system but you would have to imagine that the company is rubbing it’s hands together thinking of the possibilities that this court case could bring in conjunction with the new industrial laws.
To those who think this is a godsend be very careful of what you wish for as you might very well wind up with a rostering system that you have absolutely no control over.
The company would be ecstatic beyond belief at that thought
It would be helpful if either the company or the faaa could put out a newsletter describing the basis or nature of the claim .Whether this dispute or complaint is based on or partly using discrimination as a basis would be interesting to know or whether they are not happy with some part of the S/H EBA.
I realise that there are a number of crew unhappy with the seniority based bidding system but you would have to imagine that the company is rubbing it’s hands together thinking of the possibilities that this court case could bring in conjunction with the new industrial laws.
To those who think this is a godsend be very careful of what you wish for as you might very well wind up with a rostering system that you have absolutely no control over.
The company would be ecstatic beyond belief at that thought
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lowerlobe
I dont plan on being in this company long enough to get any decent seniority (read 30 years). And as we never hire permanent longhaul crew, it would be that long before I even get a weekend off! Am happy for some things to stay on seniority (holidays etc) but the flying should be fairly and evenly distributed.
I will be happy with any allocated roster system that works on a fair and even distribution of trips and destinations. So will a lot of people!
Assigned trips = no expectations or disappointments.
As I have said before, if the company can find a way to get rid of the seniority bidding system, they wouldnt have to pay redundancies ... the very seniors would just leave !
They may just have found that way !
Bring it on !
I dont plan on being in this company long enough to get any decent seniority (read 30 years). And as we never hire permanent longhaul crew, it would be that long before I even get a weekend off! Am happy for some things to stay on seniority (holidays etc) but the flying should be fairly and evenly distributed.
I will be happy with any allocated roster system that works on a fair and even distribution of trips and destinations. So will a lot of people!
Assigned trips = no expectations or disappointments.
As I have said before, if the company can find a way to get rid of the seniority bidding system, they wouldnt have to pay redundancies ... the very seniors would just leave !
They may just have found that way !
Bring it on !
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont feel special Cart, in S/H they haven't taken any fulltimers (apart from PER base) for nearly 4years either.
AS for the rumour mill regarding this whole court matter.... it is very quiet in the SYD base - NOTHING is being said. No one knows what it's really about and until then no one seems to care.
Anyway.... back to those aprons and fantastic PA's.....
AS for the rumour mill regarding this whole court matter.... it is very quiet in the SYD base - NOTHING is being said. No one knows what it's really about and until then no one seems to care.
Anyway.... back to those aprons and fantastic PA's.....