This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

QANTAS Grounds all Flights

Jump to new
One way or another, smurph, the outcome of this industrial dispute will set the die for many to come.
If FWA sides with the union, it will cause a lot of flow on claims and cause the soveriegn risk debate to rear its head again.

If FWA sides with Qantas the unions will spit it completely with Labor.
Bob will throw a party because he will pick up all the disenchanted Labor voters.

Forgot to mention the Coalition have a field day whichever way it goes.

My bet is the union gets a pay rise and no job security.
 
sptrawler said:
That would be terrific, I would vote for that, absolute job security for my kids.
Yeh bring it on, bet it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
And neither should it happen. To guarantee absolute job security would be to say to privately run companies that they may not run their organisations for their primary purpose of making a profit for their share holders.

No one is guaranteed job security these days.There is already way too much tolerance of incompetent people being permitted to stay in jobs where they are under performing.

The unions in the Qantas dispute, e.g., are apparently unprepared to accept that the newer aircraft coming on line will require less servicing and thus their workers will get fewer hours. Tough. Why on earth should the airline continue to fly ancient, trouble prone aircraft just to satisfy the work hours demands of the unions?????
 
I am a Union member because I believe an organisation should bargain for better wages and working conditions for the workers. These conditions shall be in proportion to living expense changes (e.g. inflation), reasonable sense of job security and company profits of which the workers who do the actual work should be afforded.
What I don't agree with is Union bosses rejecting reasonable offers such as the 3% wage increase (what we got recently) and bullying tactics such as persistent strikes and threats.
 
The union leadership yearns for an Australia that no longer exists. They want to roll back to the good old days. Dinosaurs, they need to realize it isn't the 1950s any more. Watching Doug Cameron on TV is like viewing a historical snapshot.

The unions believed in the White Australia Policy once. They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.
 
It appears Gillard is thinking about having a review of FWA legislation.
This is probably a good idea, but give that job to the Productivity Commission.

Because if the government does it, you can compile the report now and save the money.

joea
 
Logique said:
They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.
Click to expand...

So why should they be welcoming of the above ?

Aircraft maintenance capability in OZ is a good thing for many reasons, give me a few good reasons why the bulk of it should be outsourced overseas.
 
Logique said:
The unions believed in the White Australia Policy once. They're still not very welcoming to the thought of Qantas planes being serviced in Asia.
Click to expand...

cutz said:
So why should they be welcoming of the above ?
Click to expand...

Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else", and he has the gall to question union members concerns that their jobs will be lost to Asia.

I am waiting for more white collar jobs to be lost offshore to provide a bit of balance to this "everything in Asia is cheaper" argument.
 

I think below is what Logique meant. 'Most' of the people in my company are employed on a 'casual basis'. You get more per hour, but no holiday leave and sick leave. Guess it works out to the same, but for the employer, they can lay off a few people easier (i.e., no work this week mate, if it gets slow).

Julia said:
No one is guaranteed job security these days.There is already way too much tolerance of incompetent people being permitted to stay in jobs where they are under performing.
Click to expand...

^Spot on Julia.
 
I'm sure that a lot of white collar workers are in for one almighty shock in the years ahead. That's about the time we'll see the demise of all this outsourcing stuff I'd expect - when it starts to hurt the immediate colleagues of those making the decisions rather than some factory worker they've never met.
 
Without knowing the specific industry in question, there's something missing from that equation.

Cost per hour goes up - agreed.

Easier to lay off staff thus reducing numer of paid hours - agreed.

Loss of staff committment to purpose = massive expense not accounted for.

Loss of corporate knowledge = another massive expense.

Faced with a need to cut costs, my employer has adopted a fairly simple strategy. If it can be done in house then do it in house and eliminate as many casuals, consultants, contractors etc because they are simply too expensive relative to what they actually do.

A point I made at work was about consultants who are put on long term (say, 4 years) for a specific project. Now, I'm not sure how long the average employee remains with the employer but I do know what consultants are paid and it's a ridiculous amount. It would be cheaper to employ someone on staff for 10 years than pay a consultant for 4, and the odds are pretty high that you'd find at least something for them to do during the final 6 years. Consultants have their role, but for ongoing work it's a truly dud idea financially to be paying someone else's profits whilst also trying to make your own.

My experience with outsourcing, casuals etc is that it's cheaper for dealing with spikes in workload, one off's and the like but it's an outright dud of a strategy to use on an ongoing basis unless the job is very simple with no committment or knowledge required. You save a bit of cash but you lose a lot of committment and knowledge.
 
Totally agreed. If modern aircraft need less servicing then so be it.

We didn't stop the use of computers so as to keep typewriter repair people in business and we're not stopping the extension of car service intervals (I'm told that some manufacturers are now looking at 30,000 or even 40,000 km between services for models in development) just to keep motor mechanics employed.

I work in a maintenance industry where, due to technological change, maintenance work per unit of output has been trending down since the 1960's with fairly steep falls recently. Needless to say, we've reinvented and diversified ourselves into other activities in order to remain a long term viable operation.
 

I have never seen this claim do you have a link?
 
Smurf1976 said:
Faced with a need to cut costs, my employer has adopted a fairly simple strategy.
Click to expand...
Hi Smurf, can you pin point the cause of 'need to cut costs' and why the cost of doing business (creating electricity?) can't be passed on to the consumer?

That is the correct basis to employ casuals/contractors, not to reduce the permanent workforce to save a dollar in the short term.
 
Wysiwyg said:
Hi Smurf, can you pin point the cause of 'need to cut costs' and why the cost of doing business (creating electricity?) can't be passed on to the consumer?
Click to expand...
I can't be too specific on a public forum but "desire to cut costs" would have perhaps been a better statement than "need" as such. It always makes sense in any business to be efficient, and it's just a case of management taking a pretty hard look at things at the moment in view of the broader economic circumstances.

For those who've been around long enough, it's a case of seeing what came in during the 90's be thrown out now. Back then the mentality in a lot of similar industries was along the lines of outsource, outsource and outsource some more along the "informed client" model. Trouble is, the only way you can really remain a truly "informed client" is to have your own team actually doing comparable work in house. Then the inevitable happens and someone compares the two options - and that raises a few eyebrows once it's realised that in house costs are less than half that of "competitive" contractors.

I'm not saying that noting should ever be outsourced or that there's anything inherently wrong with it per se. But in the case of Qantas I do think they'd be foolish to lose the skill base even if retaining it isn't strictly economic. Once the in house skills are gone, well then that's when the contractors all start ramping up their prices.

Having skills in house also proves its worth during an emergency situation - you can set the priorities of your own team but there's far less ability to push your problem through the queue with a contractor.

To use another example, the local council uses a contractor to run the entire garbage collection service. Now, I just can't see what is preventing the council from buying a few trucks, employing some drivers and running the service in house. They could team up with neighbouring councils if scale of operations is an issue. Collecting rubbish isn't rocket science and I just can't believe that there isn't a valid opportunity to cut out the middle man here and save some $. That's a really classic example of a contractor that are in practice defacto employees. May as well just employ them directly - surely this would have to be cheaper?
 
I can tell you why smurf and that is because the council will deliver the contract on performance. It is another way to run a business without the hassle of lazy employees, sick pays, workers Union agreements, holiday pays, consumables, safety equipment, uniforms etc.. If the contractors don't meet the expectations of management then their contract won't be renewed and that is the incentive for productivity. John Howard is all for this type of employment a la Work Choices.
 
IFocus said:
I have never seen this claim do you have a link?
Click to expand...
No. It was discussed by various aviation commentators during the height of the Qantas dispute. I heard it aired multiple times on ABC Radio. I am not going to go trawling through all the current affairs programs of the time to look for a link.
Fine with me if you choose to disbelieve it.

But, just do yourself a favour and think about it for a minute. New technology, as in cars etc is eliminating the need for frequent servicing. Obviously the same is going to apply to the new aircraft Qantas sensibly intend to acquire.

To do otherwise would lay them open even further to accusations of running out of date, past their use by aircraft, and thus to more accusations of disregard for safety.
They can't win.
 
IFocus said:
I have never seen this claim do you have a link?
Click to expand...

I have never seen such a claim either and I think the reason for this is that there is no such claim. I think it is a nonsense statement.
Click to expand...

Wow you sound surprised when we all know what lengths unions will go to ensure workers don't work or stupid systems are kept from the days when 5 guys were employed to watch one guy work. I'm knee deep in unions both friends and others that can only be described as zealots and nothing would shock me as to what goes on. Keep pushing the lie guys. And welcome to the throwback days of grand old Labor.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/both-sides-of-qantas-dispute-dig-in-over-safety-checks-licences/story-fnaskcqt-1226181950587
 
Macquack said:
Logique's attitude is "my job is safe so **** eveybody else"...
Click to expand...
It is? Where did I say that? Unlike the ACTU leadership I suppose, on the conveyor belt to a safe seat.

My attitude is that Qantas hasn't been nationalized, and the unions don't sit on the board. This is a turf war, encouraged with shameless partisanship by the federal government.

They wanted to pillory Alan Joyce, yet Bolt reports this morning that Joyce is a life long lefty and a gay. Scarcely the cigar chomping industrialist of union imaginings.
 
I must say that I really don't understand the management thought process which seeks to punish workers whilst spending more money to do so. If it actually saved money maybe I could see the point, but this business of paying extra, putting in a middle man and shafting the workers doesn't really stack up any way I look at it unless the objective is non-financial in nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
M
FEA - Forest Enterprises
Replies
8
Views
5K
So_Cynical
M
ASIC to review stock 'loaning' racket
Replies
15
Views
6K
Whiskers
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...