A Wild Union Appears! QANTAS Uses Selfdestruct!

[Synobun]

Has anyone ever told you to form your own government when you expressed unhappiness about your government's decisions?

Two things.

First off, a government is not a business.

Secondly, I have never formed a union in direct protest of a government because I don't like what they are doing. If I would do such a thing, I would indeed form my own party to rival that of what I'm protesting if what I'm protesting won't change.

Edit: Or I would revolt if it got out of hand (If Canada suddenly became a Nazi regime or something).

 

[emzie]

Stress, yeah. Take off, turn on autopilot, chat with the stewardesses, drink coffee, land.

In my country, pilots are paid about as good as executives in large companies, they're literally filthy rich.

The pilots flying large jets are paid well, yes. I'm not sure why the wouldn't be. For the most part, yeah, their job can be done completely by computer -- including take off and landing. But autopilot isn't fool proof, and if it's going to make a mistake, you want a highly-trained professional to take over. After all, hundreds of lives and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars are riding on the pilots competency.

That's not to mention the trend of moving towards the short hop flights where you fly to a larger airport to board a transcontinental flight. That short hop phase, pilots make next to nothing -- often literally less than a full time job in fast food.

 

[aelf]

Two things.

First off, a government is not a business.

Doesn't make a difference. It's the form of your retort that is ridiculous.

Secondly, I have never formed a union in direct protest of a government because I don't like what they are doing. If I would do such a thing, I would indeed form my own party to rival that of what I'm protesting if what I'm protesting won't change.

Edit: Or I would revolt if it got out of hand (If Canada suddenly became a Nazi regime or something).

Forming a party and forming a union, what makes one legit and the other not? Besides, this seems to have gotten quite out of hand, so the staff might indeed have to revolt.

So, if Canada "became a Nazi regime", would you form your own Canada?

 

[Synobun]

Doesn't make a difference. It's the form of your retort that is ridiculous.



Forming a party and forming a union, what makes one legit and the other not? Besides, this seems to have gotten quite out of hand, so the staff might indeed have to revolt.

So, if Canada "became a Nazi regime", would you form your own Canada?

How is it ridiculous? They are three unions, all with considerable numbers, all not wanting their jobs to leave to Asia, and they comprise of everybody that makes up what they're protesting against except for the big corporate cat. It's pretty clear that Qantas is going to flip them the bird anyways, so why not just form their own? They have the assets: knowledge and ambition. If you have the ambition to protest, you surely have the ambition to make it better?

And if Canada became a Nazi regime, I would revolt. AKA civil war AKA resisting the government. If the government was doing something terrible for its people and flipped the people the bird, it is within the citizen's right to change the situation. You can protest all you want. Eventually the government, or in this case, the company, will crack down. The government does it in ways of violence (see Egypt and Libya), the company does it in ways of screwing everybody. I'm actually now glad you brought up the whole government counterargument as it in reality helped mine.

 

[emzie]

How do you propose the unions get the billions of dollars required to start up a new airline? Where would they get a fleet comparable in size to Qantas? It's an absurd notion to say, "well they should take their ball and go home" in that situation.

 

[Synobun]

How do you propose the unions get the billions of dollars required to start up a new airline? Where would they get a fleet comparable in size to Qantas? It's an absurd notion to say, "well they should take their ball and go home" in that situation.

Well if they can't change it, suck it up. It's clear Qantas doesn't care, to the point that they're willing to flip off its entire work force to prove it. By protesting the change they are wasting their time and that of the other innocent workers that decided they'd rather move on than sulk in the corner. Correct, they will lose their job when this occurs, but they are free to get a job in another department of the airline, or hell, even a completely new airline! Perhaps they could become one of the leading workers of a rival airliner because they have years experience! Perhaps those engineers could become official consultants to the government because of their experience with the big boy jets!

Edit: Just to make it clear, I find that Qantas is making a dumb move on its part, but it is an independent company, it can do what it wants. You are free to protest, but if it becomes clear you are wasting your time, why would you continue?

 

[aelf]

How is it ridiculous? They are three unions, all with considerable numbers, all not wanting their jobs to leave to Asia, and they comprise of everybody that makes up what they're protesting against except for the big corporate cat. It's pretty clear that Qantas is going to flip them the bird anyways, so why not just form their own? They have the assets: knowledge and ambition. If you have the ambition to protest, you surely have the ambition to make it better?

And if Canada became a Nazi regime, I would revolt. AKA civil war AKA resisting the government. If the government was doing something terrible for its people and flipped the people the bird, it is within the citizen's right to change the situation. You can protest all you want. Eventually the government, or in this case, the company, will crack down. The government does it in ways of violence (see Egypt and Libya), the company does it in ways of screwing everybody. I'm actually now glad you brought up the whole government counterargument as it in reality helped mine.

What contre said.

Besides, why can't they try to make it better from within? Employees have a stake in the company too. That's what unions try to uphold. Why incur the costs of setting up a new company from scratch, even if that can be done so easily, if you can fight internal battles and try to change the direction the company is taking?

It's analogous to citizens mobilising themselves to fight for change if they are unhappy with the direction the government is taking. That's part and parcel of democracy. People who are dissatisfied shouldn't have to go form their own country. As you say, if the government is being completely unreasonable, it is within the citizens' rights to change the situation. But I don't see why that isn't true even if the government is not a totalitarian one.

Edit: Just to make it clear, I find that Qantas is making a dumb move on its part, but it is an independent company, it can do what it wants.

The government doesn't seem to be interfering in this, so bringing up the company's independence as a private organisation is irrelevant. The struggle is within the company, not between the company and the government.

 

[emzie]

Well if they can't change it, suck it up. It's clear Qantas doesn't care, to the point that they're willing to flip off its entire work force to prove it. By protesting the change they are wasting their time and that of the other innocent workers that decided they'd rather move on than sulk in the corner. Correct, they will lose their job when this occurs, but they are free to get a job in another department of the airline, or hell, even a completely new airline! Perhaps they could become one of the leading workers of a rival airliner because they have years experience! Perhaps those engineers could become official consultants to the government because of their experience with the big boy jets!

Edit: Just to make it clear, I find that Qantas is making a dumb move on its part, but it is an independent company, it can do what it wants. You are free to protest, but if it becomes clear you are wasting your time, why would you continue?

Unions do have legal rights, you know.

 

[Arwon]

It's not just over pay. The actual financial cost of the aproposed agreement is $165 million over 3 years. Hardly backbreaking for a company of Qantas' size.*

*THe $165 million is a quote from a hostile source.

 

[Synobun]

Unions do have legal rights, you know.

What is that supposed to mean? That Qantas should be 100% open to their demands and listen because a union has legal rights? Well it just so happens that Qantas has legal rights too! In fact, it is within their legal right to place jobs wherever the hell they please. I think the union did the right thing in forming the union in an attempt to make sure they keep their jobs and receive some stability and reliable work. I have nothing against unions.

However, Qantas doesn't care. The CEO and the board will continue to outsource no matter what. There are plenty of Asian people that will gladly get a job with Qantas, and it wouldn't be surprising if Qantas decides to completely say "Screw you Australia" if the unions keep pushing the issue. They tried, they failed. It is time to move on.

Edit:

Besides, why can't they try to make it better from within? Employees have a stake in the company too. That's what unions try to uphold. Why incur the costs of setting up a new company from scratch, even if that can be done so easily, if you can fight internal battles and try to change the direction the company is taking?

It's analogous to citizens mobilising themselves to fight for change if they are unhappy with the direction the government is taking. That's part and parcel of democracy. People who are dissatisfied shouldn't have to go form their own country. As you say, if the government is being completely unreasonable, it is within the citizens' rights to change the situation. But I don't see why that isn't true even if the government is not a totalitarian one.

I answer most of this above towards Contre. The unions tried, but when it is evident that it will not work, you should stop. They can get another job, get a job in another department, or simply move on after this. They are going to be beating a dead horse if they continue after this.

 

[Leonel]

The CEO gave himself a 71% raise in his pay...

The aristocrats!

 

[aelf]

I answer most of this above towards Contre. The unions tried, but when it is evident that it will not work, you should stop. They can get another job, get a job in another department, or simply move on after this. They are going to be beating a dead horse if they continue after this.

I have no idea what makes you the arbiter of whether the unions have failed or not. If they have indeed failed, that means there's nothing more they can do. If that's the case, then they would certainly "move on". If they haven't yet stopped, it means they don't think they have reached the point of failure.

I also don't know why you think you know better than these people what they should be doing about their jobs when you don't even have a stake at all. You're not an employee. If, by any chance, you are a Qantas shareholder and you think the outsourcing is profitable and inevitable, why would you care?

 

[Synobun]

I have no idea what makes you the arbiter of whether the unions have failed or not. If they have indeed failed, that means there's nothing more they can do. If that's the case, then they would certainly "move on". If they haven't yet stopped, it means they don't think they have reached the point of failure.

I also don't know why you think you know better than these people what they should be doing about their jobs when you don't even have a stake at all.

"We are locking out until the unions withdraw their extreme claim and reach agreement with us," Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told a press conference today.

"This course of action has been forced upon us ... by the actions of three unions," Mr Joyce said.

I'd say this is proof enough. Reaching a compromise is not a success, a union usually stands for nothing except an absolute, especially if the compromise doesn't involve everything that they want changed.

Using simple reasoning skills does not mean I know better than these people. This is, after all, their job. It is basically their blood in this life and era, but there comes a time when you should seek an alternative because you have failed in changing the hand of a company.

 

[Arwon]

I'll probably have more to say tomorrow. Suffice to say Qantas has made a terrible company-destroying decision here over what is a fairly minor dispute amounting to 165 million dolalrs and fears over outsourcing. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

The leadership of Qantas has essentially said "we are incapable of negotiating in good faith, here, government, please do our job for us". I do not think Fair Work Australia will find in their favour.

Richard Branson is ejaculating into a pile of money right now.

 

[aelf]

I'd say this is proof enough. Reaching a compromise is not a success, a union usually stands for nothing except an absolute, especially if the compromise doesn't involve everything that they want changed.

Using simple reasoning skills does not mean I know better than these people. This is, after all, their job. It is basically their blood in this life and era, but there comes a time when you should seek an alternative because you have failed in changing the hand of a company.

It appears that you didn't understand my post. If they have truly failed, then there would be nothing more they can do and they would naturally have to move on. You don't have to tell them to move on.

Also, your assertion that "a union usually stands for nothing except an absolute" is baseless and plain ridiculous.

 

[Synobun]

It appears that you didn't understand my post. If they have truly failed, then there would be nothing more they can do and they would have to move on whether they like it or not. You don't have to tell them to move on.

Also, your assertion that "a union usually stands for nothing except an absolute" is plain ridiculous.

Most people don't understand when they have failed and beat the dead horse. I include myself in this category also. Failure is not an enjoyable experience and many will try to salvage it relentlessly unless ripped away from it. I'm not forced to tell anyone to do anything, I am simply stating what the best and most reasonable thing to do right now would be.

How so? In this case they can't stand for a compromise, it would go against what they formed a union for.

Anyways, I did some checking on the median salary of people working in the aviation sector in Australia, and with all benefits included, the median is around 92, 000 dollars. These people cannot complain about their salaries, at all. Ridiculous to demand more.

And I've already spoken about the outsourcing.

Also, rather than say every argument I make is ridiculous, could you please just respond seriously to it? What do unions usually stand for, wise sage?

Edit: Proof time!

Median Base Salary: $85,000
Upper quartile: $195,000
Lower quartile: $60,500
% of people who receive bonuses/commissions: 25%

What do these bonuses provide?

Median Total Salary Package: $92,650
Includes 9% superannuation, not including non-cash benefits
% of your peers who receive benefits
Benefits received:
Car park 30%
Company paid training 30%
Flexible working hours 20%
Extra annual leave 15%
Mobile phone/mobile allowance 15%
Additional Superannuation 10%
Health care subsidies 10%
Overtime payments 10%
Stock options 10%
Child day care 5%
Legal Services (in-house) 5%

Perhaps they could use a little bit more benefits, but all in all they are well paid.

 

[luiz]

It's not just over pay. The actual financial cost of the aproposed agreement is $165 million over 3 years. Hardly backbreaking for a company of Qantas' size.*

*THe $165 million is a quote from a hostile source.

It is, considering they had a $200 million loss last year. Also, the article you quoted puts managerial pay in perspective:

Qantas said the $165 million claim would take an average engineer's pay to $170,000 by January 2013.
The union had warned Qantas it would step up action after the school holidays unless progress was made, with a go-slow, overtime ban and day-long strike at Melbourne's heavy-maintenance facility
It comes as Mr Joyce hit back at critics of his salary, which sits at base pay between $2-$3 million this year- 9 per cent lower than last year - but could earn him up to $5 million with shares and other bonuses.
He said he had been paid less than what he received as chief of Jetstar and 15 per cent below his predecessor Geoff Dixon.
"We hadn't had pay increases for management for two years during the GFC and last year I actually got paid 90 per cent below what I got paid the previous year," he told the Herald Sun.
He said he was not the highest-paid person at Qantas on an hourly basis, with Airbus A380 captains on about $380,000 a year for 480 hours flying taking that mantle.

 

[Arwon]

That's obfuscating bollocks from the Irishman there. If he wants a 71% pay increase he has no grounds to attack a pay rise request elsewhere in the company.

Especially when it's clear that he's given up on figuring out a way forward and i trying to force the government to intervene.

Incidentally this will be the best blog for following the dispute going forward - http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/

 

[emzie]

What is that supposed to mean? That Qantas should be 100% open to their demands and listen because a union has legal rights? Well it just so happens that Qantas has legal rights too! In fact, it is within their legal right to place jobs wherever the hell they please. I think the union did the right thing in forming the union in an attempt to make sure they keep their jobs and receive some stability and reliable work. I have nothing against unions.

However, Qantas doesn't care. The CEO and the board will continue to outsource no matter what. There are plenty of Asian people that will gladly get a job with Qantas, and it wouldn't be surprising if Qantas decides to completely say "Screw you Australia" if the unions keep pushing the issue. They tried, they failed. It is time to move on.

It's supposed to mean that a company doesn't have the right to take retaliatory measures against a union. Or at least that's how I understand it. Australian laws might be different. Anyway, point becomes I'm not going to dispute Qantas' right to outsource. I do dispute their right to shut down all work over this. As Arwon notes, it's not acting in good faith and when the government comes in to arbitrate I'd imagine Qantas will have a very weak position.

 

[Synobun]

It's supposed to mean that a company doesn't have the right to take retaliatory measures against a union. Or at least that's how I understand it. Australian laws might be different. Anyway, point becomes I'm not going to dispute Qantas' right to outsource. I do dispute their right to shut down all work over this. As Arwon notes, it's not acting in good faith and when the government comes in to arbitrate I'd imagine Qantas will have a very weak position.

Perhaps, but you have to take into account that the unions were beginning to disrupt the work environment because Qantas continuously refused their demands. A union can be a huge killer for work ethic and business for a big company like Qantas, and while I agree that completely locking down was sort of an illogical move, it will hopefully quell the unions so that life can return to normal.