Current Union Activity - Tide of support turned against them?

[drron]

And I would rather overnight at DFW,have a bucket of crabs at Joe's Crab Shack,let mrsdrron loose at Grapevine mills and then fly on to JFK.

 

[Scout]

My chosen username of "Scout" reminded me of discussions I had in my first year of work in a large workshop (hundreds of staff)(1964!). As a keen Scout Leader, I talked with George, a union leading light, a very left wing guy. Among many things, I mentioned one of the then Scout Laws- I think it went "A Scout is loyal to his parents, employers and to those under him". George disagreed with "loyalty to employers" but instead firmly stated that it was loyalty to the customer that was paramount. Interesting to reflect on this v/v QANTAS people and the Jetstar check-in staff action of not counting the weight of baggage.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I mean who wants to fly to New York via Dallas Fort-Worth, have layover time there at the airport then continue on to their destination....

Ummm .... me. Much better to go via DFW than LAX. Even more so if your final destination is ORD, MIA, MSY, MCO, IAD.

To get to Hawaii now I know of F/Flyers being put on Jetstar when they have paid through Qantas...

Then they are not very smart. It's quite clear from the booking engine and flight numbers when you are on a codeshare on JQ, as opposed to being on the QF3 or QF4.

 

[rechoboam]

Almost forgot in the heat of the moment...

My Nephew and his wife flew Business Class to New York on Business with Qantas... on the reutrn journey which was only 2 weeks ago..... Qantas " Bumped the wife" and wanted her hubby ( my Nephew) to continue the journey home to Australia.. hence there was a song & dance made to which Qantas put them both up in a hotel, and they continued their return flight home the following Day.... How can Qantas oversell two Business class seats....

" Not Happy Jan "....

Grandma's Wings.

Because all airlines oversell, and will continue to unless you want to pay more to subsidize no-shows!

 

[mtbsafari]

Interesting times, but nothing out of the ordinary.

What we have here is a simple enterprise bargain. Qantas wants to reduce operating expenses to compete more effectively, and the unions want to protect working conditions and save jobs from going offshore. All honourable endeavours. And we see it every year.

What is different this year is that the Qantas CEO has stirred the pot. He is asking for austerity and at the same time taking a big pay rise himself. He asks for compromise, yet offers very little in return. Get a different person at the helm and the heat will be taken out of the negotiations. It will be immediate. You cannot have stubborn people with big egos making decisions in a situation like this. Same goes for the unions. If the parties can't reach agreement, maybe its the people who are the problem.

To be fair, Qantas does have a big problem that it needs to address. It operates in a very completive environment. It has a workforce who are hanging on to working conditions and benefits from a bygone era. From what we are told, its competitors have access to much cheaper staff and services. The unions need to understand this and make compromise. My suggestion is to stick to the things that are important, and compromise on the others. So, let's keep the workforce in Australia (Qantas is our airline after all), and insist on world class facilities and skilled staff (there is no way facilities and people in Singapore or Bangkok can match those here); but make some trade offs. I'm sure there are some perks that could be trimmed if needed.

I'm normally anti-unions, but Qantas has turned me. I think Qantas' PR is aimed at manipulating public opinion in the most sinister of ways. They play on public insecurities and tactically edit the facts. It's all about safety, families, nasty unions, etc. It's all manipulation and should be recognised as such.

The unions aren't all evil, like Qantas might like us think. Their members are mums and dads, brother, sisters and friends; all trying to earn an honest living ... trying to put food on the table ... trying to enjoy life. And Qantas never used to be evil either. Where is corporate social responsibility when you need it.

Finally, wouldn't you be pissed if someone got off a plane from Ireland, took millions out of the petty cash tin and told you that your job was on the line because there wasn't enough money left to pay you? I'm with the unions on this one.

 

[straitman]

The unions do not help their own public image by blocking up the arrivals area of (insert airport name) making lots of noise and generally acting like a bunch of kindergarten kids. At the same time not unloading bags and causing people or bags to be late for where ever they need to go to next.

 

[auspal]

I havent read all of those posts in this thread, but agree with the last poster,  mtbsafari. I had a bad experience recently in Bangkok airport. In my opinion I received terrible service from so called Qantas staff, who were simply Bangkok employees who told me that they were employed by both Qantas and British Airways, just changed their badges to suit.  I have not had an adequate response to my concerns when I contacted customer service here in Australia, far from it, so was delighted when an independant survey company contacted me last night and asked me a series of questions about my experience with my complaint. They told me they had been given a list of customers who had recently had contact with the complaints department and that my responses would be confidential. I think my scores would have brought the average down somewhat.

I was also very disappointed to hear on the radio that several travel insurance companies were not guaranteeing that customers would be compensated for cancelled flights and the flow on results, because the strike action was not unforseen . Qantas needs to get its act together and as quickly as possible. There are other alternatives, I like to be loyal to my bank and they have always resolved issues in my favour, as I know that I am a good and fair  customer, I am also loyal to Qantas, but I dont know for how much longer. Keep the jobs in Australia. A lot of other large companies have gone overseas for their workers, but this is our national airline, I can see Virgin standing in the background waiting to pounce on the disgruntled customers ( from both sides of the fence) and I dont blame them.

 

[Hvr]

And a story on ABC's 7.30 report at the moment. I expert it will be available on the Internet soon enough.

 

[Moopere]

but this is our national airline

Not sure what the PHP markers are about in the above post, but anyway ... its my opinion that we have to get over the "national airline" thing. Yes, QF is a bit of a special case, coming out of its history, and yes, the company itself has played up its Aussie credentials for ever. But its not a "National Airline" in the same way that a _nationalised_ airline would be ... owned, managed and operated by the government.

Mums and Dads, Sons and Daughters, Grannies and Grandpa's own stock in QF and its a for profit business. The Aussie stockholders (and others too) have a right to expect a reasonable commercial level of return on their capital. If we were looking at 20% return year on year then fine, perhaps there is a public argument to be had... perhaps ... but this is not the case currently.

 

[VHOEJ]

The unions only defence is Joyce's salary - even if he didn't get a payrise, they would still target him, saying he is paid too much. Unions always target the management pay - even if they took a paycut they would still use it as thier arguement!

Sheldon and co should tell everyone thier salaries........

 

[Moopere]

Sheldon and co should tell everyone thier salaries........

Ha!

I love it.

In fact, lets open the floor to _everyones_ salary, then have a public vote on whether each worker is worth what he/she is paid. If some of the lowly are considered to be overpaid as compared to their contribution to the company then the management, including payroll, should go on strike until they get paid less. After all, management (and others) jobs are on the line. Overpaid workers who are not contributing 100% to the business could force closures later which will then mean a smaller business needing less management ...

 

[smeacs]

And a story on ABC's 7.30 report at the moment. I expert it will be available on the Internet soon enough.

Was interesting but still didn't really tell us what either party wants. However it did do a reasonable job at presenting the problems that Qantas is facing.

Does anyone know any real details about these job security demands from the union? and what do you define as reasonable job security, assuming i do everything right i can be shoved out the door pretty quickly if my job ceases to exist.

 

[Hvr]

The company is basically saying we're in trouble because we're incompetent managers and therefore you have to suffer.

If the cuts are really necessary then admit what you and/or your predecessors did wrong to get into the current situation and how you will prevent it from happening again and what really needs to be done to put the company in a viable position for many years to come. Ask for suggestions about how you can achieve your goals.

QF management may actually be surprised to find out that they have competent people who know and love the business and can contribute to its future.

Work with your people and trust them with the truth. Share the pain, surely you don't really believe that only front line staff are overpaid and over staffed?

 

[Moopere]

The company is basically saying we're in trouble because we're incompetent managers and therefore you have to suffer.

I understand the argument, but this will never happen as nothing can be proved beyond doubt - its all too subjetive.

QF management may actually be surprised to find out that they have competent people who know and love the business and can contribute to its future.
Work with your people and trust them with the truth. Share the pain, surely you don't really believe that only front line staff are overpaid and over staffed?

Reading this, the thought occurred. Why not put up, as part of the current negotiation, an employee share offer deal? Nothing brings disgruntled workers into business understanding like actually owning part of the business. Instead of a pay rise for the next 5 years we'll give you shares of some value, and it has to be realistic, not some tiny token amount, commensurate with what a pay rise would have been. So, a few years in and the employees have, by and large, a not insubstantial ownership of the business, presumably, looking for returns from those shares by way of dividend.

 

[serfty]

And a story on ABC's 7.30 report at the moment. I expert it will be available on the Internet soon enough.

Was interesting but still didn't really tell us what either party wants. However it did do a reasonable job at presenting the problems that Qantas is facing.
....

It did mention that Qantas are competing against a 25% lower wage cost base than their main competitors.

 

[browski]

It did mention that Qantas are competing against a 25% lower wage cost base than their main competitors.

They certainly are, but I would think that is an poor argument. Nearly everybody in Australia is paid higher than their counterparts in any other country. I'm sure teachers are paid more here than in Singapore, should we reduce their salary?

 

[serfty]

They certainly are, but I would think that is an poor argument. Nearly everybody in Australia is paid higher than their counterparts in any other country. I'm sure teachers are paid more here than in Singapore, should we reduce their salary?

The issue is that most Australians appear to be more than happy to pay at least 25% less for their air travel - domestic and international.

 

[smeacs]

Teachers aren't working in an internationally compeditive business environment like Qantas is.

 

[Moopere]

I'm sure teachers are paid more here than in Singapore, should we reduce their salary?

Yes, probably. If the schooling instution you own is to remain open for business and is returning less than market profitability and you are competing for world and local students with those Singaporean schools and you don't have some other 'killer' draw card which would gazump, in your students eyes, the fact that your fees are far higher for equivalent education.

Its not a race for the bottom with first world companies competing with third world wages (though obviously SIN is not third world). But you can't simply scream at the wind about the mathematical facts of costs being higher and therefore pricing to customers being higher.

If you can't find a way to add value to your product to justify the higher price then you simply go broke - no mystery. We can collectively bleat as much as we like about how unfair it all is ...but when there are tumbleweeds in the ticketing office because your customers have all left you ... what then???


Edit: There is another road of course. Protectionism. You tax all foreign companies doing business to bring their retail cost in line with local business. So, EK or SQ tickets to SIN cost 1500$ just as QF ones do, because QF is taxed at a preferential rate and the EK and SQ fares are taxed at a different rate.

Nothing good, in my opinion, about doing business that way as it simply creates a non competitive local environment and shrinks the market due to airfares no longer being affordable - all the increases simply go straight onto the travellers ticket price.

However, it does get rid of the wage/costs differential argument. Not convinced personally that it creates or retains local jobs though (as the market has shrunk).

 

[greenfish]

Although a lot of the commentary is on the lower off-shore wages, QF is also having a domestic battle with DJ. As I understand it, DJ's salary costs are significantly lower that QFs (like for like).

While this difference was fine while JQ and DJ were battling it out, presumably with similar wage rates, DJ is now rapidly moving upmarket, and will soon be able to compete on price with a similar product to QF.

QF simply cannot afford to allow their costs to increase if they are to maintain market share against DJ.