Qantas Grounded

[Kee]

I know there are two sides to every story but this just seems like the Unions going too far (again). I mean, i'm usually pretty cynical about corporatism but Unions are just trying to bake the cake and eat it. They seem to want it all regardless of other relative actual position of the company.

What's your opinions SAB?

Hehe title meant to say Qantas * *

[santiago]

i think its just greed all round, the airline wants more money, the ceo's want to keep costs down so that they can make more money, the shareholders want more money so they expect the ceo's to make the money and keep the costs down, the pilots want more money, so then do the engineers and the ground crews, cooks and cleaners, the unions want to make more money and then indeed protects their vested interest in employee wages and rights by basically just getting more and more money, the unions are connected to the governments who have all sorts of interests but the botton line is of course national interest which relies again on more money.

the whole lot of them are just as bad as each other and i have absolutely no sympathy for the employees the airline the unions or the governments. i hate employees sometimes, they will say anything and everything to get the interview and then the job, yes yes yes yes....then as soon as they are hired they start demanding all extra rights. get on with the bloody job and stop your whining. then you have the 80000 people who have such an important life they need to be somewhere and they vent their frustration at the only staff not striking the front counter people and then you have a pack of wife bashers trying to gang bang a 21 year old girl or boy just trying to do the job that their greedy counter parts ALL the way up from the dishwasher to the government have left them to take the bullet.

its just greed all the way and anybody within that airline system no matter who they are except those who are doing their jobs should hang their heads in shame. Its all about money and its all about greed, nothing could be simpler. I personally think that the best thing would be if the airline imploded and this taught alot of people a bloody lesson in simple humanity and humbleness.

[occidentalis]

Going too far?

They asked for a 4.5% pay increase - just slightly more than inflation since they had their last pay increase.

Doesn't seem like they were asking for that much to me.

But I think the issue goes much deeper. Many people are saying this is a deliberate act of sabotage by Alan Joyce to create his vision of an 'Asian Qantas' rather than an Australian Qantas. He has intentionally destroyed Qantas by refusing to negotiate. This has been planned for some time, as shown by the fact that Qantas already had thousands of extra hotel rooms booked around the world to accommodate stranded travellers. The unions are just doing what they are paid to do - protect people's jobs and interests.

[Kee]

You do understand the industry in which they work in right? No other airliner in Australia gets their planes serviced in Australia... It's the same mentality which is applied to tariffs and anti-free-trade lobby. Trying to maintain a short term gain for a few at the long term expense of many.. In retrospect would you still support the Australian subsidization of the manufacturing industry? NO of course not. Global economics has one winner, and it's specialization - those who can do it the cheapest will always end up with the work - and Australian plane maintenance is obviously something we're not efficient enough at to keep running through Australian jobs.

Unions in the 21st century are not a pillar of hope but a self-serving organisation which seeks merely to topple corporations which they claim are evil. Unions had a very humbling and important role to play in the early 20th century with regards to workers rights and giving people a minimum standard in working conditions and pay but these days they're nothing more than illogical pests. Look at what they do: Organize strikes costing over 100 million dollars, ask for a pay rise and tell the company that they should keep jobs here? Are they retarded? Do you think any logical human being expects the world to work like that?

Margins in the airline industry are super tights. All you have to do is look at the extent of their price discrimination to know they're squeezing every cent out of each seat. Alan Joyce has one mission, as does any company CEO, and it's to deliver profits to it's shareholders. There is no sabotage here.

Also a final point to make:

4.5% Pay Rise for a handful of Qantas employees vs the enormous costs for stranded travelers? It's not even on the same scale of loss. When i missed my flight from Bali, the cost of a new ticket + last minute accomodation + extras was almost $4000 - IN LUMP SUM (lucky for travel insurance). I can only imagine what a continued shutdown of Qantas services would do for the enormous majority of Australians who travel will them will cost.

So there are 1000 jobs at stake here - so what? Blue-scope Steel lost 12000 two months ago - it's the way the world works.. Industry's FLUCTUATE. People are stupid and do not like change.. We have a mining industry predicting a need for 170k jobs in the next year and a bunch of Unions resisting the changing times and trying to keep the world the same (DOES THAT EVER WORK?).

Shareholders are Australians too btw? We sometimes forget that CEO's are the voice for anyone with ownership in Australian bluechip companies (which is anyone with a super annuation account).

PSS: More of a general rant than directed at anyone on these boards sorry if it came off that way!!

Edited October 30, 2011 by Kee

[santiago]

really though what does it matter if qantas goes to asia or qantas even shuts down, there is no job in the world in which you get the job and they say you are guarenteed a job for life, sure they are only asking for 4.5% but if i was working for qantas i would be forsaking the pay rise and just working like i am expected to do. sure the airline makes billions of dollars but a pilot who was hired three months ago trying to get his slice of the pie had nothing to do with risking his money a hundred years ago on a fledgling risky idea, his job is to freakin fly the plane take home his very competitive pay every week and shut the fuck up, if he doesnt like not getting a 4.5% pay rise then why doesnt mr pilot go elsewhere. he is rewarded for what he is worth and he has put up little or no risk in securing the companies finances and infrastructure in the first place so the point he wants a pay rise owing to the continued success and billion dollar profits is irregardless of the point. all the unions are are a bunch of standover mafia type thugs and the brainless twits who follow them generally just want paid days off on the union picket line eating free sandwhiches with their buddies.

[Alice]

which is anyone with a super annuation account

 

Which is basically everyone.

[Foo]

4.5% isnt THAT tiny. Public servants have had less then a 3% increase for the past 10 years.

[occidentalis]

Santiago, as I understand this it's not the pilots that are striking - it's the baggage handlers. Who are on less than 50K pa and are likely to be less educated and have fewer options open to them than a pilot.

Eatfoo, I've worked in the public service in the last few years and with the agreement I was under had around 3% per year and slightly more some years. I don't know when these qantas staff had their last payrise, so hard to compare.

I'm not a big fan of unions, but my position is more like that of the pilot. I'm educated, work as a professional in an industry that is in high demand. I don't have debts or kids so I basically get to choose when and how often I work. It's easy for me to be pissed off with unions, which serve little purpose for someone in my position (I saw the baggage handlers walk out of Perth airport on friday while I was waiting for my luggage - slightly worrying - I was on possibly the last Qantas flight to land at Perth before they stopped flying). But unions are made of people, and in this situation I reckon that these people are aware of the fact that they are having an extreme impact on the Australian economy and must feel that their demands are important enough to have that impact. I trust that sentiment more than I trust the CEO who thinks he needs an extra $2 million.

[Distracted]

damn, i wish i was earning 50k a year. maybe i should strike!

[Foo]

Eatfoo, I've worked in the public service in the last few years and with the agreement I was under had around 3% per year and slightly more some years. I don't know when these qantas staff had their last payrise, so hard to compare.

 

True, but the 10 year average is less then 3%

Still who do they think they are? Teachers???!@!?!@

Edited October 30, 2011 by eatfoo

[Darklight]

The CEO of Qantas voted himself a 71% payrise- right in the middle of all the turmoil. How's that work again? If I were after a payrise like that in the middle of a wages dispute I'd bloody well at least keep my head down til I'd resolved some of the problem and maybe wait a bit. This smacks of Howards 'elected with a mandate' arrogance

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-28/qantas-shareholders-vote-in-favour-of-pay-rise-for/3607222?section=business

It's not going to do anything for worker morale and sends a piss poor message to staff- the value of the person who makes decisions about their employment is insultingly increased at a time when it's their concerns which should be on the table. And that the board thinks this is acceptable behaviour- in a CEO.

All the affected people should vote themselves a 71% payrise and club together and hire private jets to get home. Oh... wait.. we'd be lucky to get 3-4%. In six months. Over two years. Maybe.

That's not to say my heart doesn't go out to the stranded. It does. I would be hell frustrated in their position. But I'd be blaming a system where the financial plight of an already overpaid CEO can be addressed at a board meeting ( despite shareholder and staff outrage ) whereas the staff who actually make the thing stay in the air are disposable and in direct conflict with cheaper labour overseas

It was Joyce called the outage. He just got paid a shitload more to run some kind of ransom plan. If he truly and comprehensively fucks the place over he'll still walk off with a golden handshake like they all seem to do. I'd love to have a job like that but I probably couldn't live with myself for being so unethical

I also like to fly in safe planes- one of the things about learning to fly is taking no short cuts with safety. Everything is checked. I don't trust the cheap outsourcing ethic to provide me with safe air transport. I used to like to fly Qantas because at least I could be more sure- not truly sure- but more sure that workers were fit and happy to do their jobs under safe conditions to quality guidelines. These days before booking I'd be asking a pilot buddy who gets the best work done, they know cos they all gossip

[Torsten]

I think there is an even deeper plot. Qantas still has government restrictions on it from it's privatisation, which are a similar millstone burden as telstra claims to have. By causing a huge upset Joyce is probably trying to negotiate a new position that will free qantas of the unions and the government millstone.

That is why it set up jetstar as this is not restricted the same way. So domestic travel is covered by an unburdened subsidiary. It is the international arm that is not competitive because of the restrictions and this is what Joyce is trying to break free from.

So just think how you would feel if telstra cut all services without notice due to a labour dispute just so it can blackmail the government out of the restrictions parliament saw fit to impose as a condition of privatisation. These guarantees the companies have to give to the population are reflected in the price they paid for the company. By removing them they increase the value of the company, but decrease the services to the population or to the employees. Companies tend to wait 10 or 15 years to runs cams like that because after 10 years no oen rememberes the guarantees they gave at the time of privatisation. Boohoo if qantas can't be as profitable as other airlines - that's the agreement they signed to get a national asset.

It should also be noted that the state owned qantas was the worlds top rate airline and it stayed that way during the early years of privatisation. As more and more of the privatisation clauses dropped away, so did the rating. By 2005 is was second. By 2010 it was ranked 9th.

[santiago]

i think the ceo's stance is commendable, by shutting down the airline the staff are now no longer paid for striking. sure he is def not worth 71% but thats a totally different issue. yu would find in any major corp there are hundreds of different pay rates so the old argument of equality is dead and buried logic, you are hired because you agreed to the terms your employer provides on the day you are hired, to then do an about term and bit the hands that feed you is totally disloyal and totally against the company direction (which get over it does not serve the individual). the freakin baggage handlers can go suck my dick and the rest of australias dicks because they are disloyal, arrogant, selfish and greedy and its all backed up with the back shed mafia of the union who are a pack of screwballs at best, if 2 million australians are screwballs well that actually makes perfect sense to me. the ceo should not stop at stopping the company he should get rid of these disloyal and greedy, scamming employees who are directly contravening the contract they have signed at the beginning of employment............are you kidding me 50K to move a few bags, they should pinch themselves that they are not dreaming and see what other industries who have bottom rung type employees that just essentially move shit around make. fire the lot of the pricks because i tell you what i would be happy to work that job for 40K, and i would not be the only one.

the ceo is working on the royal family principal or not eating any food whilst being with the public, they only sniff the food......for if they eat food just once they have to eat it 1000 times and that just sets precedent. what the ceo is doing here is akin the same, he is saying....do not taste the food even once. very brave and ultimately totally correct decision and even though he is a corporate pig, he has made a very brave battle strategy which will hopefully stop the baggage handler type gravy train. this has got nothing to do with occupy wall street, this is about a bunch of monkeys who due to their inherant greed and theivery have no problem bringing down one of Australias one last great icons. i swear to god if i was vlad the impaler or a king a few centuries ago i would behead those qantas disloyal servants.

[Darklight]

sure he is def not worth 71% but thats a totally different issue.

Why? How is his claim for higher wages different to his staff's claim?

you are hired because you agreed to the terms your employer provides on the day you are hired, to then do an about term and bit the hands that feed you is totally disloyal and totally against the company direction (which get over it does not serve the individual)

Why would this argument NOT apply to the CEO pay rise claim as much as it would apply to his staff's? He was employed under certain conditions, and now he wants 71% more.

the ceo is working on the royal family principal or not eating any food whilst being with the public, they only sniff the food......for if they eat food just once they have to eat it 1000 times and that just sets precedent.

Oh, I can well see the sense in you comparing a CEO's unjustifiable actions with the refusal of members of an inbred dynastic anachronism to consume food with the people who actually pay for the food

It should also be noted that the state owned qantas was the worlds top rate airline and it stayed that way during the early years of privatisation. As more and more of the privatisation clauses dropped away, so did the rating. By 2005 is was second. By 2010 it was ranked 9th.

The 'deeper plot' makes sense and the rake's progress above is a reflection on what I've seen over the years

[santiago]

sure he is def not worth 71% but thats a totally different issue.

Why? How is his claim for higher wages different to his staff's claim?

 

so is this baggage handlers wanting a 71% pay rise, in effect this is a mutiny, hmm did captain cook get paid different to his sailors? should captain cook be paid more because he is a captain or the same as his seaman? Forget the 71% look at it in the way a person has a direct capability to affect influence. my guess is that captain james cook influenced the discovery of australia much more than one of his able seamen. people are paid what they are worth that is as far as it goes, crying unfair because somebody is better than you is really cliche thinking and basic.

you are hired because you agreed to the terms your employer provides on the day you are hired, to then do an about term and bit the hands that feed you is totally disloyal and totally against the company direction (which get over it does not serve the individual)

Why would this argument NOT apply to the CEO pay rise claim as much as it would apply to his staff's? He was employed under certain conditions, and now he wants 71% more.

 

he is obviously worth the money or he deserved it, why are'nt you or i there? you cannot run life as we know it on the pure basis of equality, sound good but doesnt work in commonsense situation or else nobody would fill the higher end jobs, so your saying a toilet cleaner should recieve the same wage as a chef. dont let greed cloud your own judgement, have faith in the systems of life and dont be so centred on purely financial statistics. life is not a dollar sign sound like that is a confusing misnomer.

the ceo is working on the royal family principal or not eating any food whilst being with the public, they only sniff the food......for if they eat food just once they have to eat it 1000 times and that just sets precedent.

Oh, I can well see the sense in you comparing a CEO's unjustifiable actions with the refusal of members of an inbred dynastic anachronism to consume food with the people who actually pay for the food

 

an analogy to represent precedent setting, if the qantas ceo caves in now then the employees will want another royal taste next year and the year after that, the qantas ceo stands firm then he doesnt have to keep tasting so on and so on. on a third level the royal family would also be poisened by now if they tasted food.

It should also be noted that the state owned qantas was the worlds top rate airline and it stayed that way during the early years of privatisation. As more and more of the privatisation clauses dropped away, so did the rating. By 2005 is was second. By 2010 it was ranked 9th.

The 'deeper plot' makes sense and the rake's progress above is a reflection on what I've seen over the years

the deeper plot is that apon this earth are people who are in fact smarter than you, that is why they get a 71% pay increase.

[Darklight]

Read. Don't just move your lips so we think you can

The CEO wants a 71% pay rise. The baggage handlers etc aren't looking for anything like this

I'm also aware as to the point of your royalist analogy, I just took it a step further by being surprised you'd choose in the first instance to resort to comparing a situation with a pushy overprivileged CEO to an outdated hereditary political regime

Smarter than who? I don't know the guy. For all I know the bloke has run on a combination of luck and arsiness and thrived on a culture of bullying and privation. If we believed everyone's position in the economic heirachy was based on their brains we'd have the best justification for outright cut-throat capitalistic bloodshed ever. We could even justify eugenics on the basis of wealth.

Seriously, you believe the bloke is smart? I reckon he's arsey, and a bully- but it's not his money he's playing with, he's just asking for more of someone else's while holding passengers to far more ransom than the unions

Smart, IMO would be to build his company's profile back where it used to be and set it up so that it would be stable and profitable and a first choice booking option for some time even after he left. Guaranteed, whatever the outcome is he'll walk off a fuckload richer and he won't be thinking about long term options- any mess will be left for his replacement

[santiago]

Read. Don't just move your lips so we think you can

sorry i forgot thats how people talk, it is great to pause and spellcheck but i try to pump it out as quick as i can, so it feels more like talking, because overall i find talking so much more desirable. but yes point taken i will spellcheck and pause from now on

oh i dunno about smart, i think perhaps he has just adjusted better or made his own decisions, im not here to defend the ceo....am i getting paid for it, perhaps i should be.

you know im not dissing you personally darklight as a matter of fact your right in the most of what you say...dont shoot the messenger.

[Darklight]

Group hug no wuckas

Oh, and in the light of that, apologies for rudeness, shall I edit?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Darklight

[santiago]

edit....dont be silly, we had the most fun tonight

[Torsten]

I am all for pay structures based on incentive. we know the communist system doesn't work because of the lack of such. But is it really EVER justified that a person at the top of a company gets 350 times the average wage [that is the average difference in the top 100 USA companies]? In the USA the 1% get nearly 19% of the country's total wages.

So yes, I have a problem with him getting that much money and I have a problem with him wanting more while the rest are being refused such raises. The latter is I think the point darklight was making. Most CEOs in industrial action will have the good sense to keep their increases very quiet or even defer them. The fact he didn't shows his arrogance.

Let's make no mistake about the role of the CEO though. he is not there to look after his workers. he is not there to make for a fair workplace or to make the company an example of equality. He is also not there to make the customers happy [although this is often essential]. his job is singularly to represent the shareholders and to maximise profits for THEM. That is a CEO's job as defined by law. A CEO can be prosecuted if he is found to act for any interest other than the shareholder!

Naturally for most companies this means keeping the customers happy and maybe also keeping the workers just happy enough so they don't revolt. As annoying as unions can be and as self serving as they often are, imagine a country without them. If the CEO of a company has no interest in the workers except how to keep them as economical as possible then who is there to represent them? The only reason why we have the luxury of being able to hate unions in this country is because they have been around for a long time and are a powerful force in the system. Without them our wages and conditions would be a lot less than what they are because no government and no company would ever willingly make laws & policies that protect workers. Just have a look at countries where unions are not powerful and consider if you'd prefer to work under those conditions.

[Kee]

Qantas shares up 6% lmao. You watch, after that ballsy show from management you'll see a huge backing over the next week. my guess would be somewhere in the realm of +8% aggregate

Edited October 31, 2011 by Kee

[Foo]

I think this about sums it up

 

 

[santiago]

gawd see the grilling joyce got today from the senate enquiry, senate enquiry my ass...just a big pretend lawyer gangathon. that bob brown guy makes my blood chil, what a complete ass he is and joyce put him right in his place too. i dont pretend to know business or politics but what business is it really of a bunch of politic dudes to grill a dude like joyce, seems like the sentiment of occupy id trying to win some cheap votes if you ask me. i totally couldnt give a toss about qantas but surely being a private company they can stop their own company from trading due to internal sabotage without being grilled by the living pretend wanna be zombie fuckhead like bob brown, wait and see...that guy is the anti-christ.

[ThunderIdeal]

greens have done some good in this country mate, he may not be perfect but your assessment of bob brown is pretty rough. for a gay man with marginal political views it's a wonder he has gone as far as he has. despite his ordinary appearance he has balls like coconuts. we need more people like him in parliament.