A Wild Union Appears! QANTAS Uses Selfdestruct!

[Arwon]

The lockout is actually exactly as legal as the union action, both are protected industrial actions under the Fair Work Act. It's arguably less justified for a company to take such action, because to take protected industrial action a union needs a vote of members and a company merely needs its board of directors as opposed to shareholders who own the company (there was no mention of the intended lockout at the annual general meeting a couple of days ago even though this must have been a week in the planning).

But yeah, it's all legal action, unless there is revocation by the minister. Which looks like occurring here,

But the various union actions (brief stoppages, wearing red ties with slogans and making announcements) are pretty minor compared to the lockup action by the company. It'll all get figured out by the minister and the Fair Work Authority now.


dhighland, the union disruption was fairly minor compared to the bosses' actions here, and could of course have all been avoided with better negotiations and a willingness to engage on concerns about outsourcing and job security.


Also guys it's worth noting if you took a poll a significant majority of this country would be against outsourcing at Qantas and, if pushed, would probably support renationalisation ahead of such a thing.

 

[Synobun]

But the various union actions (brief stoppages, wearing red ties with slogans and making announcements) are pretty minor compared to the lockup action by the company. It'll all get figured out by the minister and the Fair Work Authority now.

dhighland, the union disruption was fairly minor compared to the bosses' actions here, and could of course have all been avoided with better negotiations.

I completely agree. Qantas could have resolved this issue in a much better and more mature manner, but what's done is done.

However, although the union disruption wasn't particularly major, they were breaking company rules and conduct, which can be comparable to you owning a restaurant and having your employees occasionally stop working as your customers shake their fists wildly at you about it. You tell them to keep working, they go, "Okay!" but then do the same thing again the next day. You have two choices at this point, you either fire them, or you close down the restaurant until you can fix the problem. As far as I know (I've done literally no research on this matter except what's in this thread and the median salary), these union members aren't fired, and as the CEO said, it is entirely up to the unions now to back down. They will get laid off rather than fired when the time comes that the outsourcing begins, and probably even get a letter of recommendation for another job in the airline or another job entirely.

 

[Arwon]

Breaking company rules? Tosh.

Protected industrial action is all filed with and approved by Fair Work Australia. It's all approved by them and both parties have the right to file complaints if it's not being done fairly and properly. It's not like there's no recourse or no regulation here.

 

[Quackers]

I hope QANTAS goes bust, i mean what a stupid name for an airline company..

 

[aelf]

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.

And? I don't know why your idea of failure matters more than theirs.

If they have objectively failed, it stands to reason that they have exhausted all avenues of resistance. If that is the case, their efforts would naturally stop. There's no need to tell them to, like I said.

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?

I don't think it takes a genius to point out that the statement 'unions don't compromise' is untrue.

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.

Edit: Proof time!

What do these bonuses provide?

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

It's no less reasonable than the CEO's pay rise.

Also:

And I've already spoken about the outsourcing.

Apparently, when it comes to that issue, reasonable or not, all that matters is that it is within the company's right to do as it wishes. To that, I say it's also within the unions' right to do as they wish. What's the difference?

I completely agree. Qantas could have resolved this issue in a much better and more mature manner, but what's done is done.

However, although the union disruption wasn't particularly major, they were breaking company rules and conduct, which can be comparable to you owning a restaurant and having your employees occasionally stop working as your customers shake their fists wildly at you about it. You tell them to keep working, they go, "Okay!" but then do the same thing again the next day. You have two choices at this point, you either fire them, or you close down the restaurant until you can fix the problem. As far as I know (I've done literally no research on this matter except what's in this thread and the median salary), these union members aren't fired, and as the CEO said, it is entirely up to the unions now to back down. They will get laid off rather than fired when the time comes that the outsourcing begins, and probably even get a letter of recommendation for another job in the airline or another job entirely.

Apparently, d.highland supports unions as long as they have no teeth and would die quietly when the workers are all laid off.

 

[Synobun]

Breaking company rules? Tosh.

Protected industrial action is all filed with and approved by Fair Work Australia. It's all approved by them and both parties have the right to file complaints if it's not being done fairly and properly. It's not like there's no recourse or no regulation here.

I'm aware that things like this are legally fine in the eyes of the government and the regulations. It wouldn't even be that bad if the airline business wasn't strict in its conducts and rules. I've seen a pilot once get fired because he didn't say a specific thing in the opening flight speech on the comm. Doing different announcements and changing your uniform could warrant a firing in some places.

I hope QANTAS goes bust, i mean what a stupid name for an airline company..

A lot of airlines have stupid names. I find something generic like Air Canada to be the most complimenting for an airliner business.

 

[Arwon]

I'm aware that things like this are legally fine in the eyes of the government and the regulations. It wouldn't even be that bad if the airline business wasn't strict in its conducts and rules. I've seen a pilot once get fired because he didn't say a specific thing in the opening flight speech on the comm. Doing different announcements and changing your uniform could warrant a firing in some places.

I don't think you are arguing that Qantas pilots (with Fair Work Act approval) explaining their bargaining position and silly ties over the inflight announcement system is or should be a lockoutable or sackable offense, but then I don't understand what you are arguing instead of that.

 

[Synobun]

And? I don't know why your idea of failure matters more than theirs.

The idea of failure is pretty universal

If they have objectively failed, it stands to reason that they have exhausted all avenues of resistance. If that is the case, their efforts would naturally stop. There's no need to tell them to, like I said.

And they have. At this point, the only way they could get what they want is if the Board suddenly gets a change of heart OR the government decides to step in for the union. They will incessantly nag at the feet of the CEO for many more weeks if neither of those two things happen, and they will gain nothing from it, unless the CEO is the type to cave in after enough annoyance (which I find it unlikely to occur because he is the CEO for a reason).

What compromise?

Nothing yet, but the CEO is willing to make a compromise if the union wants, however this union formed under the impression that it wants more money and it wants to keep Qantas from outsourcing their jobs. How can you compromise this? Give the workers a salary boost until they get laid off anyways due to outsourcing? Only outsource 500 rather than 1,000? They're all losing situations for the union.

I don't think it takes a genius to point out that the statement 'unions don't compromise' is untrue.

I stated usually, and it is true. It happens often that a union cannot compromise with the company because what they formed a union about can't have a compromise, unless it is something as trivial as benefits or salary.

It's no less reasonable than the CEO's pay rise.

I agree that CEO's get paid far too much.

Apparently, when it comes to that issue, reasonable or not, all that matters is that it is within the company's right to do as it wishes. I'd say it's also within the unions' right to do as it wishes. What's the difference?

They do have the right to do as they wish. There's no difference except those union workers work for Qantas, and ultimately it is Qanta's decision to outsource and to remain at their already generous salary level for its employees.

 

[Arwon]

I am actually seriously wondering whether a re-nationalised Qantas would be better. Still fairly sure it wouldn't, but yeah, it's worth considering. Many other countries massively back their national carriers, after all.

I stated usually, and it is true. It happens often that a union cannot compromise with the company because what they formed a union about can't have a compromise, unless it is something as trivial as benefits or salary.

Trivial? *eyebrow*

As a proud unionist, I say bugger off.

 

[Synobun]

I don't think you are arguing that Qantas pilots (with Fair Work Act approval) explaining their bargaining position and silly ties over the inflight announcement system is or should be a lockoutable or sackable offense, but then I don't understand what you are arguing instead of that.

It isn't. Right now I'm just discussing with Aelf and stating random bits of information because they are relevant to the conversation. I myself have no issue with the changed announcement, or the changed uniform. I am not a prude and I don't care. However airlines have rules, and even if those rules conflict with the government's rules, they still have to be taken into effect when you look at the scope of this situation. Qantas asked them to stop, and that they are willing to compromise. The unions say no, they continue to increase their disruption, which was upsetting customers and loyal employees. Qantas asks again, unions say no. CEO decides to make an illogical move of a lock out, but it will eventually solve the problem that the unions refuse to talk about (which makes sense, there is no compromise available).

The best move for Qantas would have been to open an entirely new area in Asia while maintaining the integrity of their airline in Australia, however I do not control Qantas and they are probably outsourcing to Asia to reduce costs.

Edit: I don't see very many unions that have actually anything to complain about. If the employees were being truly underpaid, I would understand. However in the past year I've seen two union acts that have hundreds of people complaining that they don't get paid enough when in reality they get paid more than the average wage of an average person. And yes, a union over a salary or benefits is trivial, as it is easily solved (and is often not solved because the company or union is stubborn in their demands or cannot seem to work together).

 

[Arwon]

Yeah I see now your actual stance is borne of something of an opposition to unions in general, rather than the specific thing in the topic. I would like you to explain how "a union over a salary or benefits is trivial" and how such things are "easily solved" without organisation on the part of the workers.

It isn't. Right now I'm just discussing with Aelf and stating random bits of information because they are relevant to the conversation. I myself have no issue with the changed announcement, or the changed uniform. I am not a prude and I don't care. However airlines have rules, and even if those rules conflict with the government's rules, they still have to be taken into effect when you look at the scope of this situation. Qantas asked them to stop, and that they are willing to compromise. The unions say no, they continue to increase their disruption, which was upsetting customers and loyal employees. Qantas asks again, unions say no. CEO decides to make an illogical move of a lock out, but it will eventually solve the problem that the unions refuse to talk about (which makes sense, there is no compromise available).

The best move for Qantas would have been to open an entirely new area in Asia while maintaining the integrity of their airline in Australia, however I do not control Qantas and they are probably outsourcing to Asia to reduce costs.

Edit: I don't see very many unions that have actually anything to complain about. If the employees were being truly underpaid, I would understand. However in the past year I've seen two union acts that have hundreds of people complaining that they don't get paid enough when in reality they get paid more than the average wage of an average person. And yes, a union over a salary or benefits is trivial, as it is easily solved (and is often not solved because the company or union is stubborn in their demands or cannot seem to work together).

I don't think you have evidence for this bolded bit.

 

[aelf]

The idea of failure is pretty universal

And they have. At this point, the only way they could get what they want is if the Board suddenly gets a change of heart OR the government decides to step in for the union. They will incessantly nag at the feet of the CEO for many more weeks if neither of those two things happen, and they will gain nothing from it, unless the CEO is the type to cave in after enough annoyance (which I find it unlikely to occur because he is the CEO for a reason).

So why do you need to preach about it? If you think it's a foregone conclusion, then there's no need for you to beat the dead horse.

Nothing yet, but the CEO is willing to make a compromise if the union wants, however this union formed under the impression that it wants more money and it wants to keep Qantas from outsourcing their jobs. How can you compromise this? Give the workers a salary boost until they get laid off anyways due to outsourcing? Only outsource 500 rather than 1,000? They're all losing situations for the union.

The unions are willing to compromise if the CEO wants. However, the CEO is under the impression that he is entitled to a pay raise while everybody else isn't and should be laid off instead. How can you compromise on that?

I stated usually, and it is true. It happens often that a union cannot compromise with the company because what they formed a union about can't have a compromise, unless it is something as trivial as benefits or salary.

Yeah, and I should just believe that it's true when your reasoning seems to be based on some incoherent maxim about the purpose of forming unions.

They do have the right to do as they wish. There's no difference except those union workers work for Qantas, and ultimately it is Qanta's decision to outsource and to remain at their already generous salary level for its employees.

So because the workers work for Qantas, they have to agree with their bosses' decisions or quit. They way you go about talking about them, people would think unions are some kind of wallpaper.

 

[Synobun]

I don't think you have evidence for this bolded bit.

From Bloomsberg.com:

The suspension will add to the 600 flights already canceled since the walkouts disrupted traveling plans for 70,000 passengers. Among those without flights are 17 heads of state at a conference in Perth.

Msnbc:

Booked passengers were being rescheduled at Qantas' expense, chief executive Alan Joyce said. Bookings already had collapsed after unions warned travelers to fly other airlines through the busy Christmas-New Year period.

"This is a crisis for Qantas. If the action continues as the unions have promised, we will have no choice but to close down Qantas part by part," he added.

In mid-October, Qantas grounded five jets and reduced domestic flights by almost 100 flights a week because aircraft mechanics had reduced the hours they were prepared to work.

Looks like the union shot themselves in the foot to me.

So why do you need to preach about it? If you think it's a foregone conclusion, then there's no need for you to beat the dead horse.

I'm responding to what you say. I apologize if that means I have to repeat myself because you don't understand what I'm saying.

The unions are willing to compromise if the CEO wants. However, the CEO is under the impression that he is entitled to a pay raise while everybody else isn't and should be laid off instead. How can you compromise on that?

See above. I agree that the CEO should not have gotten a raise, the pay raise could have easily gone into worker benefits or something.

Yeah, and I should just believe you that it's true when your reasoning seems to be based on some incoherent maxim about the purpose of forming unions.

I'm sensing a little bit of hostility at this point. Are you a unionist?

So because the workers work for Qantas, they have to agree with their bosses' decisions or quit. They way you go about talking about them, people would think unions are some kind of wallpaper.

They don't have to agree. They did the right thing in forming a union and trying to get the situation changed. I support unions whenever they aren't ridiculous. I also support Qantas being adamant in its position because I feel that airline workers are already well-paid and do not need more. I can support keeping the 1, 000 jobs in Australia, but note that they are doing the outsourcing due to losing money at an increasing rate, and it's also going to be stretched along five years. You can talk with Qantas' internal affairs about getting relocated to another department or assistance in finding another job in that time span.

Edit @Arwon: They are easily solved. It is the actions of the board and certain union members that make such matters not so easily solved, mostly the board though. I support unions when justified, however as a man that has lived under the poverty line all his life with both his parents working and even himself working and still not being able to get above the line because of how low certain wages are, I feel no sympathy and I do not find justification whenever a group of people making at least 5x what my entire family makes by doing less stressful work demands more.

 

[aelf]

I'm responding to what you say. I apologize if that means I have to repeat myself because you don't understand what I'm saying.

Eh, that's the case with you, not with me. I cannot fathom what you've been ranting about. You don't think the unions are going to be able to do anything now. So why bother saying much about it? Just let things take their natural course.

Unless you think the unions are evil and should be stopped, even though they have failed.

I'm sensing a little bit of hostility at this point. Are you a unionist?

And you are very pro-business?

 

[Synobun]

Eh, that's the case with you, not with me. I cannot fathom what you've been ranting about. You don't think the unions are going to be able to do anything now. So why bother saying much about it? Just let things take their natural course.

Unless you think the unions are evil and should be stopped, even though they have failed.

I feel like having a discussion, and you are willing to have one. Why not bother?

I've said on at least 3 occasions now that I support unions. I do not feel like saying it again.

And you are very pro-business?

I am pro-reasoning. I do not agree with Qantas and I do not agree with the union, but I can understand where both of them are coming from.

So, pray tell, what do you think unions should be able to do?

Exactly what they do. If they are successful, cool. If they aren't, at least you tried. Go back to work and begin seeking a new job if it means you'll get laid off eventually, or try again the next year if it's something like salary or benefits (or hell, even then you can look for a potential new job that is better).

Edit: I'm not arguing for anything

 

[aelf]

Edit: I'm not arguing for anything

Yeah, that would seem to be the case. But, if so, I have no idea why you got into an argument with a few people here.

You think the unions are fighting an impossible battle. And you see the need to point out that this makes the unions unreasonable and ridiculous. But, more than that, you think what they've been doing as unions have all along been unreasonable and ridiculous because you think the employees are already highly paid.

I dunno, but this is looking more and more like someone griping about how unfair it is that some people on the other side of the world is earning a lot more than he is and are asking for more. Ever thought of joining an Occupy movement? Your anger could be better directed at those who rig the system in their favour to earn massive profits while a lot of people are actually screwed over by their actions.

 

[Synobun]

Yeah, that would seem to be the case. But, if so, I have no idea why you got into an argument with a few people here.

If you want the full truth, I don't actually care about this situation. I'm here to post my opinion, some facts here and there, and to discuss it with another person. Some consider this an argument, I consider it fun.

You think the unions are fighting an impossible battle. And you see the need to point out that this makes the unions unreasonable and ridiculous. But, more than that, you think what they've been doing as unions have all along been unreasonable and ridiculous because you think the employees are already highly paid.

Not impossible. I think if they suggested something else they might have gotten somewhere, or if the unions didn't blatantly say no to the offering of a compromise. And rather than sit down for talks, they performed a walk-out that stranded thousands of passengers because they're not happy with their 80k salaries and that they will not keep it for another full 5 years. I understand that they would of course like to keep it, I support that they tried to make it so, but there are some things that cannot be changed, and because of their actions, they screwed over a lot of other employees that wouldn't be affected by the outsourcing. A cynic's view could potentially say that since the union is going down, they're taking everybody else with them because they promised to keep going regardless of the lock out.

I dunno, but this is looking more and more like someone griping about how unfair it is that some people on the other side of the world is earning a lot more than he is and are asking for more. Ever thought of joining an Occupy movement? Your anger could be better directed at those who rig the system in their favour to earn massive profits while a lot of people are actually screwed over by their actions.

It's not unfair. It is how the economy world works. But I feel that if you make a lot of money, you shouldn't ask for more. You can live comfortably with forty thousand dollars a year. The average salary is double that. If they were under-paid I would support it, but the fact is, they aren't. They are well-paid, they shouldn't get more. They have the right to complain that the CEO got a pay raise, but not the right to complain that they didn't get it instead.

I do not support the Occupy movement. While I support the original premise of the movement, I do not support what it has become. Some of the demands the new movement leaders have made are so ******** that it would completely collapse the global stock and trade market. But I do agree that major financial institutions should be changed and the world economy and society should become more favourable for all individuals and not just the big time players that exploit and manipulate and earn a fortune doing it.

Also, you are confusing bluntness with anger.

 

[luiz]

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/

The issue is whether or not his pay as CEO is reasonable under current conditions, and wether or not the union's demands are reasonable under current conditions. From what is written, his pay seems to be aligned with the market, and did take a considerable hit when things were bad. If anything is obfuscating it is talking about a "71% pay increase", which is being calculated over a very reduced base.

Considering Qantas had a $200 million loss last year, increasing their costs by $165 millions in 3 years seems highly unreasonable. Additionally, it seems that the employees (at least pilots and engineers) are already reasonably paid.

Now, I absolutely do not condemn the union for doing it's job (trying to advance the interests of its members), but I also don't condemn management for fighting back. Both actions are legitmate, and locking down the fleet does hurt management pretty badly as well. So if they're willing to do that it means the unions demand would hurt them even more. Now they'll have to sit down and try to reach an agreement, and if that can't be done there's nothing wrong with outsourcing a good part or even most of the operation. It's business.

 

[Defiant47]

If you don't like the pay, quit and find another job. If there is no better pay elsewhere, then accept that this is what you're worth.

Seems like QANTAS is proving to the members - they'd rather have no job at all (but are selfish enough to strike and try to keep it just in case they can squeeze some extra).

 

[Arwon]

The issue is whether or not his pay as CEO is reasonable under current conditions, and wether or not the union's demands are reasonable under current conditions. From what is written, his pay seems to be aligned with the market, and did take a considerable hit when things were bad. If anything is obfuscating it is talking about a "71% pay increase", which is being calculated over a very reduced base.

Considering Qantas had a $200 million loss last year, increasing their costs by $165 millions in 3 years seems highly unreasonable. Additionally, it seems that the employees (at least pilots and engineers) are already reasonably paid.

Now, I absolutely do not condemn the union for doing it's job (trying to advance the interests of its members), but I also don't condemn management for fighting back. Both actions are legitmate, and locking down the fleet does hurt management pretty badly as well. So if they're willing to do that it means the unions demand would hurt them even more. Now they'll have to sit down and try to reach an agreement, and if that can't be done there's nothing wrong with outsourcing a good part or even most of the operation. It's business.

So Joyce hasn't been able to his job and run the company well, and is effectively running to the government to fix it for him. Does not sound like he's worth a 71% pay hike to me.

And for those saying they support unions but not this, you have to understand this is a really significant battle and if the unions at Qantas lose this you're going to see many other CEOs emboldened to try the same strongarm tactics. Hopefully the Transport Minister and Fair Work Australia do the right thing and give Qantas a kick up the arse for this over the top, unprecedented and disproportionate action.

If nothing else, they're locking out their short haul domestic pilots, whose contract is not even up for renegotiation. This would appear to be flagrantly illegal under the Fair Work act.