Qantas Fleet Grounded 29/10

[Oneworldplus2]

But really these occurrences support my basic point, the employer needs to be dragged over the coals for any deaths. There are building standards why the hell were the businesses not complying with those standards. Because of dodgy employers who don't give a $&*%%# about their employees. That's when unions are good. There is no need to drag in the federal government on this either; state building standards applied long before the pink batts scheme and they'll apply long after. Exactly how have those state building codes allowed electrical cables to be run on top of roof beams, for example?

Medhead, seriously....

(I'll shout the first 10 beers if we ever catch up)

 

[medhead]

Medhead, seriously....

(I'll shout the first 10 beers if we ever catch up)

Yes, seriously, it is an alternative view to that put forward by the anti-ALP sector. I'm not saying which one is correct, but somewhere between the extremes we will find the truth.

10 beers? Noice!


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

We can talk about this over a beer. l couldn't be bothered on a public forum.

 

[medhead]

We can talk about this over a beer. l couldn't be bothered on a public forum.

Hence, I didn't go into details other than the limitation of what I wrote. It would be an interesting beer.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Anyways, Bloomberg has this article;

Regulator Will Decide in Union Disputes; Qantas

Qantas Airways Ltd. (QAN), the Australian carrier that grounded planes last month to force an end to strikes, said the nation’s labor regulator will decide on new contracts for three unions after talks broke down.
Fair Work Australia will impose a deal after negotiations with long-haul pilots, ground crew and engineers failed to produce agreements by yesterday’s deadline, Qantas said in statements. The Sydney-based airline had 21 days to reach accords following a ruling by the regulator last month.
Qantas Chief Executive Officer Alan Joyce ceded control of talks in exchange for a decision by the regulator in the hope of winning a more favorable deal for the airline than he could get from unions. Joyce put the disputes on a path toward an imposed resolution Oct. 29, when he grounded his main fleet ahead of a lockout of workers in a bid to halt six months of sporadic strikes and a plunge in bookings.
“The unions have been outmaneuvered,” said Allan Drake- Brockman, head of the Australian Workplace Relations, Employment and Safety Practice Group at DLA Piper LLP in Perth, Australia. Still, it “could potentially backfire” as Qantas won’t decide on the final deal, he said.

 

[dfcatch]

It is neither appropriate, nor accurate to describe union actions as Bully boy. It also misleads. When you negotiate from a position of weakness, you are not the bully. That title would go to those with 7 figure incomes who utilise both the strongest of legal minds and have access to both political and media influence.

Actually -it is, and it is....

This has nothing to do with weakness.....

It has everything to do with a dying breed of trade unionists desperate to protect the industry and feather-bedding that they have created for themselves over the years, all the while as the vast majority of workers desert the union movement.

It is bully boy old school tactics - and it needs to be retired as it has no place in the modern world.

If you don't like the conditions under which you're employed - leave!

I see Virgin are advertising for ground staff and engineers

 

[dfcatch]

(Ultimately) Futile. That's normally the end result for those in the weaker position.

It's the result of people who actually couldn't care less about the workers whom they are supposed to represent.

Sheldon doesn't have to worry about losing his job.

The futility is caused by ambit claims and an inability by the unions to negotiate reasonable claims.

 

[dfcatch]

Don't worry about it, comrade! p - to you all) There are a few people here who won't be happy until we are returned to serfdom.

Maybe some of them might still be upset about the industrial relations implications of the introduction of regulations in the UK to limit the use of boys as chimney sweeps; Boys who were treated with great brutality from a young age and when they get to puberty were liable to death from testicular cancer.

Edit: I love how these union bashers are also experts on the structure of the ALP. Alan jones said it, it must be true?

Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

No - I'm from Vic and live in QLD so I don't listen to Alan Jones.

I have however (in a former life) spent countless hours studying and quoting the ALP Constitution - www.alp.org.au

It's not exactly a secret that the union movement IS 40% of the Party.

Oh - yes, unions are good when it comes to OH&S.

Medhead - you should however be using "bruvvers" in the post together with "comrade".

PS - sorry about the post-padding (on the iPhone)

 

[amaroo]

It's the result of people who actually couldn't care less about the workers whom they are supposed to represent.

Sheldon doesn't have to worry about losing his job.

The futility is caused by ambit claims and an inability by the unions to negotiate reasonable claims.

Correct, he'll be off soon enough, most likely as a senator. First step is to secure the ALP national presidency & then the world........all in accordance with the Sussex St, little RED book.

 

[ethernet]

Getting back to core issues, I am depressed about reports FWA may take months and months to reach settlement.
It is not a law court - both sides have forfeited their say - so now we study just the unresolved differences and positions. This should take a week tops.

There is a formula and method wise people reach when making rulings
We will call party1 union position and Party 2 QF

1) Compare unresolved Party1 wants with Party2 wants
2) Strike out any unlawful claims on either side - like must employ Union Members
3) Strike out any one sided claims on either side
4) Add back fairness and reasonableness
5) Do not consider International factors - limited to Australian law
6) Moderate 5 with respect of Sale of QF Act.
7) Apply differences to base agreement as it stands now (much less work).

Now if QF did their homework, this will work to their advantage, and if the unions were pushing ambit claims
then it goes strongly against them - outmaneuvered - and looks like they stepped in it.
Point 2 should be worded like as employ as many union members as possible, giving preference to Australian union members if all other things are equal.
It also give QF room to sidestep - contractors/outsourcing, as any breaches here would be a matter for step 6.

If they can be bought or are toadys, set the agreement to expire after the latest date for an election so the Libs inherit the problem.

 

[medhead]

The futility is caused by ambit claims and an inability by the unions to negotiate reasonable claims.

Actually the employer also has a massive part in negotiating a reasonable outcome. An ambit claim by definition is not the real claim, and so is always open to a counter offer. All the media reports suggest that Qantas has refused to counter with anything and has just said NO. That position is not going to help the situation at all.

Oh - yes, unions are good when it comes to OH&S.

Two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other, bruvver.

As for the unions and the ALP, IME an ALP government has no problem screwing over a union.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[dfcatch]

Actually the employer also has a massive part in negotiating a reasonable outcome. An ambit claim by definition is not the real claim, and so is always open to a counter offer. All the media reports suggest that Qantas has refused to counter with anything and has just said NO. That position is not going to help the situation at all.



Two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other, bruvver.

As for the unions and the ALP, IME an ALP government has no problem screwing over a union.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

The difference is that Qantas (as the employer) has the right to say no. And the union has no right to demand anything - they can "ask" for whatever they want though.

Qantas (like any employer) is not a charity - its up to them who they employ and how (within the confines of the law).

Your example is more suited to a standard civil suit.

Oh - and unions are great at running super funds

 

[amaroo]

Getting back to core issues, I am depressed about reports FWA may take months and months to reach settlement.
It is not a law court - both sides have forfeited their say - so now we study just the unresolved differences and positions. This should take a week tops.

If they can be bought or are toadys, set the agreement to expire after the latest date for an election so the Libs inherit the problem.

FWA, do not have a great track record for producing results at break neck speeds....other than the ruling to terminate protective action in the QF dispute.

The Craig Thompson, affair has been on their table for 3 odd years.....maybe their plan is to leave everything to the Libs/Nats:!:

If FWA can sort QF out in one week - it should take FWA, about 5 mins to sort out the sordid affair surrounding the Hon member for Dobell.

 

[Simo]

I believe the basics are QF wants to give nothing more and the unions want way more than what is viable for the airline.

It will be interesting what the final outcome is from FWA.

I hope FWA looks at QF's financial side of the argument and not just workers rights so the airline can stay profitable and also keep jobs in Aust.

I don't believe FWA will look at all sides of the argument such as financial and workers rights and the impact that some decisions might have on parts of regional Australia.

In some places QF are the link to the outside world for tourism and also urgent freight/medical supplies.

 

[medhead]

The difference is that Qantas (as the employer) has the right to say no. And the union has no right to demand anything - they can "ask" for whatever they want though.

Qantas (like any employer) is not a charity - its up to them who they employ and how (within the confines of the law).

Your example is more suited to a standard civil suit.

Oh - and unions are great at running super funds

Not sure what example you mean. Anyway.

Of course any employer has the right to employ who they want. But if you look at it that was never really in question. Everything that I've read has shown there was plenty of wiggle room in the pilots claim on job security, for example. I'm not sure about the other unions. Yes, they made an ambit claim on codeshares and everything, but the obvious real issue has always been protecting current QF pilots current activities. So it could have been as simple as saying QFi will still operate QF1,2,5,6,7,8,31,32 etc. This would match the management line that the new airlines were about expansion not killing off QFi. If that were really the case it wouldn't hurt qantas to concede that point.

Now putting aside conspiracy theory, I think the reported inability of qantas to even try to commit to the current status quo on this point tells us something about future plans.

Super funds - best one I've had is run by the qld govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[amaroo]

Oh - and unions are great at running super funds

And their pretty deficient at running Governments

 

[amaroo]

Not sure what example you mean. Anyway.

Of course any employer has the right to employ who they want. But if you look at it that was never really in question. Everything that I've read has shown there was plenty of wiggle room in the pilots claim on job security, for example. I'm not sure about the other unions. Yes, they made an ambit claim on codeshares and everything, but the obvious real issue has always been protecting current QF pilots current activities. So it could have been as simple as saying QFi will still operate QF1,2,5,6,7,8,31,32 etc. This would match the management line that the new airlines were about expansion not killing off QFi. If that were really the case it wouldn't hurt qantas to concede that point.

Now putting aside conspiracy theory, I think the reported inability of qantas to even try to commit to the current status quo on this point tells us something about future plans.

Super funds - best one I've had is run by the qld govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

I don't understand what the unions fear! Can you tell me?

What makes QF employees any different to the rest of the community.

How did we react when all sorts of manufacturing businesses started to cease employing Australian workers - most of us rejoiced by buying cheaper goods! Filling the aisles & checkouts of Woolworths, Bunnings, Coles, Dan Murphy's......that's right, every sip of that NZ Sav Blanc is killing another Aussie job.

I don't get it - QF wants to grant salary increases but that's not enough for the unions.......I don't say employees as it's probably the case that most just want the money & do their job!

 

[ajw373]

All the media reports suggest that Qantas has refused to counter with anything and has just said NO. That position is not going to help the situation at all.

That is a gross exaggeration, especially when one of the unions reported that they were close to agreement with Qantas and wanted another 21 days to continue. Sounds like there was some negotiations going on there. Also the same media reports indicate that the unions too have said no without a counter offer. The pilots union for example demanding that Jetstar and Jetconnect pilots be paid the same as them for example. So it takes two to tango.

 

[simongr]

Getting back to core issues, I am depressed about reports FWA may take months and months to reach settlement.
It is not a law court - both sides have forfeited their say - so now we study just the unresolved differences and positions. This should take a week tops.

There is a formula and method wise people reach when making rulings
We will call party1 union position and Party 2 QF

1) Compare unresolved Party1 wants with Party2 wants
2) Strike out any unlawful claims on either side - like must employ Union Members
3) Strike out any one sided claims on either side
4) Add back fairness and reasonableness
5) Do not consider International factors - limited to Australian law
6) Moderate 5 with respect of Sale of QF Act.
7) Apply differences to base agreement as it stands now (much less work).

Now if QF did their homework, this will work to their advantage, and if the unions were pushing ambit claims
then it goes strongly against them - outmaneuvered - and looks like they stepped in it.
Point 2 should be worded like as employ as many union members as possible, giving preference to Australian union members if all other things are equal.
It also give QF room to sidestep - contractors/outsourcing, as any breaches here would be a matter for step 6.

If they can be bought or are toadys, set the agreement to expire after the latest date for an election so the Libs inherit the problem.

I agree with 90% of what you have posted but object strongly to the preference for Australian union membership? Why should someone who is a member of one club get preference over someone else? That sounds like discrimination in its most basic form...

 

[medhead]

I don't understand what the unions fear! Can you tell me?

Well, of course, I can't tell you. But my guess/feeling is they fear there not being any jobs for international pilots in Australia. They fear Qantas operations being curtailed. Looking across all the things happening with Qantas, the ducks are being lined up to kill off QFi, IMO.

What makes QF employees any different to the rest of the community.

How did we react when all sorts of manufacturing businesses started to cease employing Australian workers - most of us rejoiced by buying cheaper goods! Filling the aisles & checkouts of Woolworths, Bunnings, Coles, Dan Murphy's......that's right, every sip of that NZ Sav Blanc is killing another Aussie job.

I don't get it - QF wants to grant salary increases but that's not enough for the unions.......I don't say employees as it's probably the case that most just want the money & do their job!

Nothing makes them any different. Please don't be confused by Joyce's party line. Asking for job security can mean a whole range of things. It does not only mean Persons X, Y and Z have a job for life; It is really insulting to our intelligence to try to suggest it does, as Joyce has tried to do. There is no point having a massive pay increase if your job is gone in 18 months. It is difficult to sustain the idea that Qantas is anything like australian manufacturing. Your wine industry analogy is rather poor given the success of the Australian wine industry and the region limitations on growing certain grape varieties.

If the union members have consistently voted to take action over the union claims, I think that indicates support by those employees.

That is a gross exaggeration, especially when one of the unions reported that they were close to agreement with Qantas and wanted another 21 days to continue. Sounds like there was some negotiations going on there.

Which union? One union moved to arbitration themselves and Qantas pushed that button on the other 2 unions. Hardly a sign that one union wanted to keep negotiating.

Also the same media reports also indicate that one some issues the unions too have said no without a counter offer.

Link?

The pilots union for example demanding that Jetstar and Jetconnect pilots be paid the same as them for example. So it takes two to tango.

Ok so a couple of problems here. Firstly, your repeating Joyce's version of events. That is Joyce's version of the meaning of job security claim. Strangely enough it is an extreme version and it does not match the pilot's version. There is little point in just repeating one side of the story, ignoring the other side and not trying to to weight up both sides to make a judgement.

Secondly, I'm not sure how negotiation works for you; but normally it doesn't involve making a claim and then making a counter offer to your own claim.