Building a stronger Qantas

[markis10]

Considering AJ last week Said sackings will be required there certainly is a lot of rubbish around, but you get that!

 

[harvyk]

That's 1000 jobs. 1000 families. 1000 human beings.

Qantas posted a $250 odd million profit this year.

You do the math.

Will do,

1000 staff, assuming they all earnt an average of $50K per year, would equate to a cost of $50 million per year...

Fire the 1000 staff (via natural attrition where possible, don't want to be paying out too many redundancies) and have it as the only variable which changes and they could make $300 million odd next year...

Now assuming that those 1000 people where dead weight Qantas has made quite a savings.




Pity that the maths is never quite as simple as that, as it's rare that during mass firings everyone is dead weight, and in some cases those positions need to then be outsourced or quickly rehired (look up Commander, fired 600 people in one day, a week later a good proportion of those people where back as consultants charging a much hire rate as the work still needed to be done).

 

[markis10]

If Costello gets into power he is going to cut 15,000+ from his staff,

Costello ??? Someone living in the past on rhetoric?

 

[Simsy85]

Here is some math then:
250 cabin crew need to leave because of announcement
minus
400 who expressed final interest in VR
equals
150 employed that still wanna leave Qantas (but I believe will still be given VR)

So no cabin crew member will forcefully loose their job, and that makes up a part of that 1000 "lost jobs".

I know the same is happening in other departments who have also offered VR. However I know some areas will have to let some staff go which is always disappointing, but it is not 1000 forced.

I've attended a staff call today, and while I cannot share somethings, I can assure you there is a lot of rubbish out at the moment.

I appreciate there are people who want to leave.

You said forced. I didn't. I understand QF is offering VR.

Look - you guys have your sources, I have mine.

I've got mates within the relevant unions with members who are facing the sack.

Lets wait and see. (aside from the fact you only need 50% + 1 to go to Industrial Action - which ISN'T a strike mind you - it's can be any form of action, including lodging an appeal with Fairwork Australia.

As for the $250 million, that has everything to do with it.

If a staff member is going to be retrenched, they should be retrenched properly, or at least offered reskilling.

Imagine yourself in that boat?

 

[Simsy85]

Will do,

1000 staff, assuming they all earnt an average of $50K per year, would equate to a cost of $50 million per year...

Fire the 1000 staff (via natural attrition where possible, don't want to be paying out too many redundancies) and have it as the only variable which changes and they could make $300 million odd next year...

Now assuming that those 1000 people where dead weight Qantas has made quite a savings.




Pity that the maths is never quite as simple as that, as it's rare that during mass firings everyone is dead weight, and in some cases those positions need to then be outsourced or quickly rehired (look up Commander, fired 600 people in one day, a week later a good proportion of those people where back as consultants charging a much hire rate as the work still needed to be done).

AJ actually said the 1000 would bulk be cabin crew/pilots didnt he? (edit: happy to be proven wrong here) so you can crank up that $50,000,000 figure.

BTW I wasn't suggesting that the extra $125 million profit upgrade was linked to the 1000 jobs going.

I'm simply pointing out its a little bit hard to cry poor when your posting these profits (and a little bit rich to "enhance" WP's, but give everything to SG and PS)

You've actually made my point for me...

If a company wants to get rid of a staff member, I have no issue with that, but bloody well pay them a fair retrenchment and don't cry poor about it when your posting a $250 million profit in perhaps one of the hardest economic years we've had.

 

[medhead]

The Australian today says 500 cabin crew, 200 engineering and 180 pilots along with redundancies in management and other areas.

 

[milehighclub]

The Australian today says 500 cabin crew, 200 engineering and 180 pilots along with redundancies in management and other areas.

I don't know about the other two divisions - but I have in front of me right now an e-mail from the manager of cabin crew that says 240 jobs (but no one has to be forced due to a big interest in VR)

 

[harvyk]

You've actually made my point for me...

Happy to oblige...

 

[harvyk]

Just quickly, I'm right in thinking that 24th was suppose to be D-Day for QFi??? Or was everything that was originally going to be announced on the 24th re: QFi brought forwards to the announcement on the 16th? or does the real pain still have to come?

 

[milehighclub]

Just quickly, I'm right in thinking that 24th was suppose to be D-Day for QFi??? Or was everything that was originally going to be announced on the 24th re: QFi brought forwards to the announcement on the 16th? or does the real pain still have to come?

The 24th was the latest the announcement could be made. The announcement was the 16th instead because "A number of the announcements required board approval and once the board had approved these plans there was an obligation to inform the market."

Today was simply financial results, and no new changes were announced, nor is there any other changes planned - they are all out there now.

 

[ajw373]

BTW I wasn't suggesting that the extra $125 million profit upgrade was linked to the 1000 jobs going.

I'm simply pointing out its a little bit hard to cry poor when your posting these profits (and a little bit rich to "enhance" WP's, but give everything to SG and PS)

That is still a poor profit considering the money invested to earn it. No wonder the stock price fell yet again.

 

[harvyk]

That is still a poor profit considering the money invested to earn it. No wonder the stock price fell yet again.

Q. How do you make a small fortune in the airline business?

A. Start off with a big fortune...



As an airline QF is doing pretty well... (I believe it is still considered one of the most profitable in the world) The fact of the matter is planes are not cheap, (good) qualified people to fly them is not cheap, (good) qualified people to maintain them is not cheap, not to mention that their competitors isn't just other airlines.

That said it's a bit rude to announce a profit on one hand when most of your competitors are announcing losses followed straight away with a "and now we're going to fire people".

 

[Moopere]

The TWU took a vote today and counted 95% of their staff want to start industrial action.

I have to admit, I've never understood this type of thing. I don't mean that I don't agree, or that I do agree, I just don't actually understand. Management says "we want to go this way", and the employees say, "No, we don't want to do that". Hmm. Companies in most of the western democracies are not collectives, I'd have thought that the obvious way for employees who don't agree with their own management to go is out the door and on to a new (and probably better) job ... what am I missing?

Call the trouble making if you want, but if 1000 people in my company we're to get laid off or retrenched, i'd be outraged too.

That's 1000 jobs. 1000 families. 1000 human beings.

Qantas posted a $250 odd million profit this year.

You do the math.

I get the social impact, but for-profit companies are not built and run for the benefit of employees ... surely? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I'm cautious because I know how easy it is to be mistaken in writing posts where so much human interaction is missing.

Companies are run to make money, and more money, and the way to do that is to use the least amount of resources (human and otherwise) possible to generate the greatest return. To argue this point is to argue the whole idea of capitalism as realised in recent times. I'm not sure there is ever a point, in law at least, where we collectively tell a company to stop increasing profit and start running for the benefit of society (which actually sounds like a good idea!!).

Look at banks - some of the lowest paid workers you will find slave away in the bowels of the big banks, this despite staggering profit and year on year growth in that profit. At what point do we decide to nationalise the banks for the good of the working class?

Note that the sterile vision of flesh and blood humans toiling to feed 'the machine' is by no means my own ideal or utopian dream, but it seems to be the reality of accepted capitalism in modern times. To single out single companies for a more socially resposible measure does not seem realistic.

 

[Deleted User]

I have to admit, I've never understood this type of thing. I don't mean that I don't agree, or that I do agree, I just don't actually understand. Management says "we want to go this way", and the employees say, "No, we don't want to do that". Hmm. Companies in most of the western democracies are not collectives, I'd have thought that the obvious way for employees who don't agree with their own management to go is out the door and on to a new (and probably better) job ... what am I missing?




I get the social impact, but for-profit companies are not built and run for the benefit of employees ... surely? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I'm cautious because I know how easy it is to be mistaken in writing posts where so much human interaction is missing.

Companies are run to make money, and more money, and the way to do that is to use the least amount of resources (human and otherwise) possible to generate the greatest return. To argue this point is to argue the whole idea of capitalism as realised in recent times. I'm not sure there is ever a point, in law at least, where we collectively tell a company to stop increasing profit and start running for the benefit of society (which actually sounds like a good idea!!).

Look at banks - some of the lowest paid workers you will find slave away in the bowels of the big banks, this despite staggering profit and year on year growth in that profit. At what point do we decide to nationalise the banks for the good of the working class?

Note that the sterile vision of flesh and blood humans toiling to feed 'the machine' is by no means my own ideal or utopian dream, but it seems to be the reality of accepted capitalism in modern times. To single out single companies for a more socially resposible measure does not seem realistic.

I'll admit I'm on the fence in regard to these Qantas "enhancements" However that's a well written peice there Moopere

 

[ajw373]

Q. How do you make a small fortune in the airline business?

A. Start off with a big fortune...



As an airline QF is doing pretty well... (I believe it is still considered one of the most profitable in the world) The fact of the matter is planes are not cheap, (good) qualified people to fly them is not cheap, (good) qualified people to maintain them is not cheap, not to mention that their competitors isn't just other airlines.

That said it's a bit rude to announce a profit on one hand when most of your competitors are announcing losses followed straight away with a "and now we're going to fire people".

As an airline maybe, as a business, which is what Qantas Airways Limited is, it isn't doing well. Their profit was 4% of business, no wonder the share price is so low and why they need to look at off shore businesses to get growth. And BTW announcing a very modest profit and making people redundant are two separate issues. It is business, not a benevolent society.

 

[11sjw]

I appreciate there are people who want to leave.

You said forced. I didn't. I understand QF is offering VR.

Look - you guys have your sources, I have mine.

I've got mates within the relevant unions with members who are facing the sack.

Lets wait and see. (aside from the fact you only need 50% + 1 to go to Industrial Action - which ISN'T a strike mind you - it's can be any form of action, including lodging an appeal with Fairwork Australia.

As for the $250 million, that has everything to do with it.

If a staff member is going to be retrenched, they should be retrenched properly, or at least offered reskilling.

Imagine yourself in that boat?

Qantas doesn't exist to keep your mates employed as much as my company doesn't exist to keep me employed. Redundancy provisions exist so that these people are treated properly.

Imagine myself you say. Been made redundant a couple of times. Always a shock and a P.I.T.B. However life moves on and you get another job.

FYI $250M represents a pretty small % on any measure you care to run over Qantas. It could be severely reduced by another downturn or a decent fuel price hike.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have to admit, I've never understood this type of thing. I don't mean that I don't agree, or that I do agree, I just don't actually understand. Management says "we want to go this way", and the employees say, "No, we don't want to do that". Hmm. Companies in most of the western democracies are not collectives, I'd have thought that the obvious way for employees who don't agree with their own management to go is out the door and on to a new (and probably better) job ... what am I missing?




I get the social impact, but for-profit companies are not built and run for the benefit of employees ... surely? I'm not trying to be a smartass, and I'm cautious because I know how easy it is to be mistaken in writing posts where so much human interaction is missing.

Companies are run to make money, and more money, and the way to do that is to use the least amount of resources (human and otherwise) possible to generate the greatest return. To argue this point is to argue the whole idea of capitalism as realised in recent times. I'm not sure there is ever a point, in law at least, where we collectively tell a company to stop increasing profit and start running for the benefit of society (which actually sounds like a good idea!!).

.

well, following that logic we'd still have seven year olds working down the pit. and thanks to unions we have the 8.8.8 day (8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours leisure). thanks to unions we have holiday and sick pay, and thanks to unions we have serious efforts to equalize the pay between men and women.

there are single parent families that can't simply up sticks and move on to a better job elsewhere. look at what happens in the USA, waiters in many states are on $2.70 an hour and relying on tips just to get by.

that is the end result of unrestrained capitalism...

if companies were truly allowed to run entirely for profit without care or regard for their workers we would live in a sad third world country with no work-life balance.

 

[medhead]

well, following that logic we'd still have seven year olds working down the pit.

chimney sweeps were considered to be past it by the time they were 7. They were callouses from going up hot chimneys and deformed and usually died of testicular cancer.

Toddlers under weaving looms pick up the scraps.

Damn unions

 

[Moopere]

well, following that logic we'd still have seven year olds working down the pit. and thanks to unions we have the 8.8.8 day (8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours leisure). thanks to unions we have holiday and sick pay, and thanks to unions we have serious efforts to equalize the pay between men and women.

there are single parent families that can't simply up sticks and move on to a better job elsewhere. look at what happens in the USA, waiters in many states are on $2.70 an hour and relying on tips just to get by.

that is the end result of unrestrained capitalism...

Sure. No argument from me. I'm aware of the effect of the industrial revolution and the guilds and unions that struggled to keep some humanity in society for those that actually live in it.

Nevertheless, I can't see what can be done, in a practical sense, without tearing down capitalism as we have come to know it post WWII. There's probably a discussion, and a mighty good one, right there, but in light of this threads discussion, what can be done? Limit company profits by legislation and demand a 'super tax' on any margins above that preset level which then must be fed back in a sort of profit sharing agreement with the employees?

Its certainly a balancing act, but without interfering in running businesses, essentially government intervention in profit taking and business direction, what can honestly be done?

The theory with a reasonably free and open market place linked with a reasonably democratic and free society is that folk are free to set up socially responsible business models any day of the week. The staff of QF, (as I try to tie into the conversation by a thin thread indeed), could stage an employee/management buyout and run the business to profit and benefit themselves. After all, shareholder (owners) appoint boards who then run companies in any manner they like (within the law).

So here we are, all pondering if pilots are 'worth' 400K a year, and whether its 'right' to sack 1,000 employees when a week later you announce a 250M profit.

My point, I guess, if I even really have one, is that our current model for companies in the west is devoid of empathy and social responsibility (whatever that even means). Boards are appointed, with a legal obligation, not to improve the lot of the employees, but to act in the best interests of the owners, despite how that sometimes seems to pan out for us poor working class (yep, and I'm one of those).

If, collectively as a country, we don't like this, then politicians and law change is the first port of call in my opinion. Imposing some sort of faux morality on companys who are governed by current corporate law is just screaming at the wind I think.

if companies were truly allowed to run entirely for profit without care or regard for their workers we would live in a sad third world country with no work-life balance.

Ha! I'm glad of the smiley. 'cause I live and work in Australia, and my life work balance is bad

 

[dajop]

Boards are appointed, with a legal obligation, not to improve the lot of the employees, but to act in the best interests of the owners,

Yep, and not forgetting that a lot of employees are actually (indirect) owners of small parts of many companies as well through their invested superannuation, so it is a complicated world!

Also important to remember unions have an obligation to improve the lot of their current members, not all employees. I have seen situations where a union happily cut casual pay rates by 30% as a trade off for some additional benefits for full time staff(as most, if not all casuals were not members). Fair? Maybe it is, as after all union members are paying their dues, and non members are not.