QF CEO receives 'cowardly' death threat

[medhead]

One thing I'm having trouble reconciling is the suggested association of AIPA members and BLF members. Sorry I just can't see that pilot who says hello on the safety brief coming around late at night "for a chat".

 

[drron]

I'm sorry medhead that you cant see the other side of the argument.But Craig thomson's legal costs have been paid by the ALP.Julia stands by her man.I see this as a pathetic attempt to stay in power.
If TA didn't pursue this matter I would regard him as failing in his job of opposition leader.
It is in all the major news today that Victoria Police this week have launched an official investigation into this affair.

 

[medhead]

I'm sorry medhead that you cant see the other side of the argument.But Craig thomson's legal costs have been paid by the ALP.Julia stands by her man.I see this as a pathetic attempt to stay in power.
If TA didn't pursue this matter I would regard him as failing in his job of opposition leader.
It is in all the major news today that Victoria Police this week have launched an official investigation into this affair.

I can see what you think you are saying. But it is an irrelevant point. TA raised the issue, not Gillard. TA initiated the action, not Gillard. I'm sorry that you can't see the genesis of the current situation. It certainly isn't Gillard. I rightly question Abbott's motivation in raising this issue 3 years later.

As for Gillard's response. What do you expect?! He hasn't been convicted, he hasn't been charged. He has a right to the presumption of innocence. Exactly the same as the alleged shoplifting Liberal in South Oz. Major difference on that with the ALP not letting politics trample over the presumption of innocence. Gillard has rightly and correctly defended his right to that presumption of innocence.

Exactly as Howard defended Reith. Of course, the difference being that Reith admitted to stealing public money.

As for the use of ALP money, isn't it a loan? In any case that is not public money. Do you question how any other private organisation chooses to spend their money?

This ALP money thing is a total irrelevance. As is the "official" investigation by Vic police. They've had the file for a month, what have they been doing until now other than investigating. The paper today tell us nothing, unless we assume guilt first..... As the Liberals seem to want to do.

 

[dfcatch]

Medhead - I think drron's point a few posts back is that I'm not sure you would be putting the same position forward if Craig Thomson was a Lib and it was the ALP raising the issue.



We are of course, all permitted our rose glasses - I admit freely to mine.

(Plus I enjoy winding you up )

 

[medhead]

Medhead - I think drron's point a few posts back is that I'm not sure you would be putting the same position forward if Craig Thomson was a Lib and it was the ALP raising the issue.



We are of course, all permitted our rose glasses - I admit freely to mine.

(Plus I enjoy winding you up )

If that was his point I totally reject it. Firstly, we can see from the ALPs treatment of the Lib accused of shoplifting that they would let justice take its course. So a good basis to say the shoe wouldn't be on the other foot.

Once justice was done and if the person was convicted then, of course, I would support the side of politics taking up the matter at the appropriate time. But that is not the case here.

The Liberals' motivation in not letting justice proceed unhindered is suspect. it totally defies logic to suggest that the Liberals are interested in protecting union or ALP funds. By comparison Gillard is simply defending the presumption of innocence. Again regardless of politics I would defend that approach.

The ALP pull this cough so rarely that it is hard to think of an example. Maybe Ros Kelly would be a case where I did not (allegedly)"blindly" defend the ALP.

Finally, it is not valid to defend the indefensible by trying to deflect attention onto non-existent hypothetical situations. The facts of this real situation are clear and I maintain my view that Abbott's motivation is power.

If someone wants to bring up another real situation I'm more than happy to give you my views.

 

[dfcatch]

If that was his point I totally reject it. Firstly, we can see from the ALPs treatment of the Lib accused of shoplifting that they would let justice take its course. So a good basis to say the shoe wouldn't be on the other foot.

Once justice was done and if the person was convicted then, of course, I would support the side of politics taking up the matter at the appropriate time. But that is not the case here.

The Liberals' motivation in not letting justice proceed unhindered is suspect. it totally defies logic to suggest that the Liberals are interested in protecting union or ALP funds. By comparison Gillard is simply defending the presumption of innocence. Again regardless of politics I would defend that approach.

The ALP pull this cough so rarely that it is hard to think of an example. Maybe Ros Kelly would be a case where I did not (allegedly)"blindly" defend the ALP.

Finally, it is not valid to defend the indefensible by trying to deflect attention onto non-existent hypothetical situations. The facts of this real situation are clear and I maintain my view that Abbott's motivation is power.

If someone wants to bring up another real situation I'm more than happy to give you my views.

But of course the fact that the unions comprise 40% of the voting structure of the ALP may figure into his motivations too

 

[JohnPhelan]

Exactly as Howard defended Reith. Of course, the difference being that Reith admitted to stealing public money.

Umm, Medhead, that is both incorrect and legally actionable. You really need to be careful about saying things like that.

(Reith admitted his son used the phone; but the phone is provided to Ministers as part of their entitlements, and family members are permitted to use them, same as vehicles. You can argue it's morally wrong, but it is not 'stealing public money' which is a criminal offence, and Reith certainly never said that).

After last week's Federal Court judgement in the Bolt case, people making public comments need to be very careful about factual inaccuracies in 'comment'.

 

[serfty]

Forget criminal charges for Thomson; it is likely there won't be any as there is not enough incriminating evidence available.

The thing about the legal fees is that the ALP could not afford a bankrupt Thomson - he would be ineligible for Parliament - then Katter would have control!

As for as the issue with the threat's to AJ goes - it's roots are based on a legacy of the old two airlines system - up until deregulation there was plenty of $$$ to go around.

All got in for their share of the spoils (Company, Aircrew, Ground Staff, Engineers etc ...).

Things are now very different and there is not the fat to go around any more.

All parties are trying to keep their share ... except this cannot happen.

 

[thewinchester]

Gee funny how people believe news limited when it panders to their own world view. Massive call to call people low life scum on the basis of "possible".

Go back and read exactly what I posted medhead:

If this as below is correct as reported<snip>

I don't see a view being pandered here. In fact your post shows you're pandering your own point of view - something about pot to kettle comes to mind.

I stated up front my view of the possibility the story might not be a complete reflection of the facts, or in fact could be out and out wrong.

However, I give the story due credence. This is on the basis that the story came out of an Adelaide paper who is known for being one of the better houses of journalism within the consistently shoddy News Int. stable, and the matters being discussed are quite serious and may impact any legal or criminal action arising.

I'm also confident, based on my knowledge and experience with journalistic practice, that a story like this would not have made it to the front page of a publication unless the key facts presented were solid and could be backed up to the point where the publications' lawyers could defend them without hesitation or reservation.

I've previously expressed my own views on unions, having grown up in a state where the construction unions have held us to ransom for more years than I care to recount. These militant organisations are the reason why our state's new children's hospital and other major infrastructure continue to suffer cost blow-outs and delays. The fact they, on account of the muscle and industrial unrest they will and often do cause, can get away with metropolitan construction trades earning salaries over $120k/yr is both ridiculous and exorbitant.

This is just one of many examples in Australia over the last 30yrs I know of where unions have held business and the economy to complete ransom. We had 11yrs of Liberal govt. which tried its level best to undo this damage and level the playing field, but we're still not far enough along the road to make businesses, unions and their employees behave like equal partners in achieving workplace harmony, productivity and restraint.

And all of that is before we talk about the impact such inflated wages are having on taxpayers whose purse is being drained while we wait for critical infrastructure, the lack of which places further economic and social strain on stretched economies and budgets already trying to keep pace with a basic level of demand.

And while the actions of those involved in possible criminal offences against Joyce and ors. may have been conducted by individuals, they would likely not have done so if their unions hadn't poisoned and positioned the issue in such a way that the individuals felt this was a reasonable course of action to communicate their message. While one might say that guns don't kill people, people kill people - they would not have had the gun in the first place if it wasn't put there by someone. I dare say I just wrote the defence position for them should the case ever make it to trial.

So yes, I stand by my view that the persons or parties involved in this as well as the parties behind them are gutter scum. The unions need to take a good, long, hard look at themselves and their conduct during a grubby industrial campaign.

I stated on Milepoint last week that every move these unions have made is nail after another in the coffin that is their brand and community standing. This story alone, if true, is the one which seals them inside for good which most brand strategists couldn't undo even with a Bunnings warehouses' worth of crowbars.

 

[medhead]

I'm not sure if this is the correct thread or that other long thread about this rubbish topic. But I think some people made comments on the level of dialogue between qantas management and workers here and I just wanted to present an example of how management language about workers is toxic. NB I also acknowledge the toxic union rhetoric.

I sent in feedback yesterday to praise the great job of staff last week during the weather disruptions. I clearly linked the disruptions to the weather in Melbourne. Just got a reply including the following line.

especially considering some of the issues we are currently facing with some of our ground staff

Sorry, regardless of views and sides, that is just not appropriate for a reply to someone praising the staff, even if it is true. This is a public communication that contains a petty insult. They really need to rise above that rubbish.

Umm, Medhead, that is both incorrect and legally actionable. You really need to be careful about saying things like that.

(Reith admitted his son used the phone; but the phone is provided to Ministers as part of their entitlements, and family members are permitted to use them, same as vehicles. You can argue it's morally wrong, but it is not 'stealing public money' which is a criminal offence, and Reith certainly never said that).

After last week's Federal Court judgement in the Bolt case, people making public comments need to be very careful about factual inaccuracies in 'comment'.

And yet Reith repaid the money. In fact The Guardian has a good summary, first link from a google so don't read too much into it. The story is also rather dismissive of the scandal so hopefully not a biased agenda at play. Australian government rocked by phonecard sleaze row | World news | guardian.co.uk

That story states that the card can only be used for ministerial purposes. It also states that $49050 of calls were racked up not by Reith's family but by random people, who just happen to be flatmates with his son. That $49050 certainly was stolen because of Reith giving out the card that he admits he should not have given to his son to use.

As for the Bolt case, I didn't say anything racialist, so should be ok.

This has just hit the wires within the last few minutes.

If this as below is correct as reported, this is the most grubby and disgusting action of the unions and their membership to date. No wonder the airline is fighting these gutter scum tooth and nail.


[/LEFT]

Go back and read exactly what I posted medhead:


I don't see a view being pandered here. In fact your post shows you're pandering your own point of view - something about pot to kettle comes to mind.

I stated up front my view of the possibility the story might not be a complete reflection of the facts, or in fact could be out and out wrong.

Yep I read what you wrote as quoted above, just to get the full context. You are clearly reading far too much into the story as it panders to your views about unions as expressed below. The fact that you started with "if this is true" does not diminish the extreme view you then express. Then let's consider that, the story sayd the letter "has possible links" to the union dispute. if that is true the letter is still not actually linked to unions. In fact it doesn't even say the letter was possibly done by the unions at all. Sorry but that is not the basis for linking this letter to unions and then calling them and their members gutter scum. Note also that the OP attacks unions directly, not the perpertrators as per the revision below.

Oh and if you think The Advertiser is a high standard paper, I suggest you need to read it some more, once even.

Edit: oh, is this liberal WA government Brian Burke's? Innocent question, I know nothing about WA governments. :-|

However, I give the story due credence. This is on the basis that the story came out of an Adelaide paper who is known for being one of the better houses of journalism within the consistently shoddy News Int. stable, and the matters being discussed are quite serious and may impact any legal or criminal action arising.

I'm also confident, based on my knowledge and experience with journalistic practice, that a story like this would not have made it to the front page of a publication unless the key facts presented were solid and could be backed up to the point where the publications' lawyers could defend them without hesitation or reservation.

I've previously expressed my own views on unions, having grown up in a state where the construction unions have held us to ransom for more years than I care to recount. These militant organisations are the reason why our state's new children's hospital and other major infrastructure continue to suffer cost blow-outs and delays. The fact they, on account of the muscle and industrial unrest they will and often do cause, can get away with metropolitan construction trades earning salaries over $120k/yr is both ridiculous and exorbitant.

This is just one of many examples in Australia over the last 30yrs I know of where unions have held business and the economy to complete ransom. We had 11yrs of Liberal govt. which tried its level best to undo this damage and level the playing field, but we're still not far enough along the road to make businesses, unions and their employees behave like equal partners in achieving workplace harmony, productivity and restraint.

And all of that is before we talk about the impact such inflated wages are having on taxpayers whose purse is being drained while we wait for critical infrastructure, the lack of which places further economic and social strain on stretched economies and budgets already trying to keep pace with a basic level of demand.

And while the actions of those involved in possible criminal offences against Joyce and ors. may have been conducted by individuals, they would likely not have done so if their unions hadn't poisoned and positioned the issue in such a way that the individuals felt this was a reasonable course of action to communicate their message. While one might say that guns don't kill people, people kill people - they would not have had the gun in the first place if it wasn't put there by someone. I dare say I just wrote the defence position for them should the case ever make it to trial.

So yes, I stand by my view that the persons or parties involved in this as well as the parties behind them are gutter scum. The unions need to take a good, long, hard look at themselves and their conduct during a grubby industrial campaign.

I stated on Milepoint last week that every move these unions have made is nail after another in the coffin that is their brand and community standing. This story alone, if true, is the one which seals them inside for good which most brand strategists couldn't undo even with a Bunnings warehouses' worth of crowbars.

 

[rechoboam]

Gee medhead if you are offended by the reference to "problems" with "ground staff" please don't read any comments I may or may not make next week when trying to get the the LOTFAP!

 

[dk4]

Management was right to go public with this information.

Speaking as someone who has had a brick through their car window, during a dispute with union members, and also as someone vocal about the opportunity for change at the top of Qantas, let me express my both my sympathy to QF management and outrage at the extremists in the unions, for these events. It is clearly unacceptable behaviour from a minority of idiots.

Unfortunately, and beknown to the cowards involved, it is unlikely to ever be proven.

Sympathies again to the victims of this crime.

 

[medhead]

Gee medhead if you are offended by the reference to "problems" with "ground staff" please don't read any comments I may or may not make next week when trying to get the the LOTFAP!

I assume your forgot a smiley on that. I didn't say I was offended at all, and I'm not offended*. My point is that the language is completely inappropriate. I know they are having a dispute. No need to use my feedback as a means to belittle the staff who are striking. Especially when the main delay was weather related. Also I'm puzzled as to why they are trying to drag me into their fight. What do they want me to do? Unprofessional much. It's a little thing but for me it highlights how management are just as bad as the unions/workers.


*the petty insult was the insult directed at "some of the ground staff"

 

[rechoboam]

Firstly, I would argue that it wasn't the person responding to you who was dragging you into the dispute, rather the striking staff who were causing delays (probably far less than the weather admittedly) for the passengers. If my staff were causing my clients to miss flights and harming my businesses goodwill I would have no problem apologising to my clients for their behaviour, indeed I assume that is what I would be expected to do.

Secondly, I don't know who answered your feedback but given the chaos last week a relatively junior staffer may have said more than they should have.

 

[medhead]

Firstly, I would argue that it wasn't the person responding to you who was dragging you into the dispute, rather the striking staff who were causing delays (probably far less than the weather admittedly) for the passengers. If my staff were causing my clients to miss flights and harming my businesses goodwill I would have no problem apologising to my clients for their behaviour, indeed I assume that is what I would be expected to do.

Secondly, I don't know who answered your feedback but given the chaos last week a relatively junior staffer may have said more than they should have.

But I wasn't affected by the dispute. So yes the reply did drag me into it. The comment was not relevant to the feedback I submitted - i.e. Bad couple of days, obviously due to weather, staff were great despite the obvious stress they had. I didn't tell them my flight number, I didn't say anything about my flight being delayed or not. The comment was totally out of context of my feedback.

They didn't apologise, because one was not needed at all. Thanked me for the feedback and pleased to have provided good service. Anyway, I'm sure you wouldn't apologise by saying "sorry my staff are rubbish", even if they are rubbish.

I send the feedback this week. Customer care executive - junior or senior? I don't know. It is a funny comment to send out in the circumstance.

 

[drron]

Sorry medhead but you have your facts wrong on TA and the Thomson affair.Here is JG defending him on AM after the Leader of the Opposition had called for his resignation-
AM - Gillard says accused Federal MP should not stand down 08/04/2009

Of course KR was still PM and the Leader of the Opposition was........drum roll.........Malcolm Turnbull.

So it is not TA dragging up the affair 3 years after the event.
And Craig Thomson was challenged in the 2010 preselection by a local who thought the affair could blow up and harm the Government.

 

[medhead]

Sorry medhead but you have your facts wrong on TA and the Thomson affair.Here is JG defending him on AM after the Leader of the Opposition had called for his resignation-
AM - Gillard says accused Federal MP should not stand down 08/04/2009

Of course KR was still PM and the Leader of the Opposition was........drum roll.........Malcolm Turnbull.

So it is not TA dragging up the affair 3 years after the event.
And Craig Thomson was challenged in the 2010 preselection by a local who thought the affair could blow up and harm the Government.

Your just proving my point, it has been done before and by better as you correctly state. Why did Abbott and Brandis bring it up only 1 month ago? Nothing new involved.

 

[Noob]

This has just hit the wires within the last few minutes.

If this as below is correct as reported, this is the most grubby and disgusting action of the unions and their membership to date. No wonder the airline is fighting these gutter scum tooth and nail.

That's a pretty bold comment, blaming such a disgusting death threat on an entire Union and it's membership....

Sounds like a very angry individual with a few personal issues to me. Extremists like this are what give unions a bad name.

 

[thewinchester]

That's a pretty bold comment, blaming such a disgusting death threat on an entire Union and it's membership....

Sounds like a very angry individual with a few personal issues to me. Extremists like this are what give unions a bad name.

My view of unions

Having seen first hand the problems caused at the hands of unions both as an employee, executive and a media/communications operative, I hold the view that for the most part such organisations in their current form and modus operandi have no place in a civilised society.

You just have to look at how the unions have conducted themselves in this matter as clear proof of what's wrong with them. Rather than try to build bridges and deliver collaboration/consensus to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, they have taken on a viscous public persona using every chance they have to swipe and scream at the company in question. Yet somehow, what's not obvious to them but is for everyone else including blind Freddy, their actions and tactics have yielded them nothing.

What will happen to QF if the unions don't start being reasonable

Need evidence of what will happen to airlines which don't have efficient cost structures and flexible workforces? Look to their fellow *O partner American Airlines (AA) right now. The companies share price has dropped 75% since the start of 2011, and there is serious talk the airline will have to enter a US Chapter 11 bankrupcy proceeding to exit their current financial and cost woes - and this is the only US carrier which hasn't yet had to declare bancrupcy.

And why is AA in this state? Because for the most part, the unions have stiffed them with such a high cost of labour which they won't be able to restructure without pursuing a bankrupcy path. And funnily enough, their competitors have more reasonable conditions and concessions from labour unions which allow them to be far more competitive compared to AA. Jeez, doesn't that sound remarkably similar to the deal the unions did with Virgin Australia... why of course.

This quote from a Morningstar analysts quoted on the AP Wire:

Morningstar airline analyst Basili Alukos was among those advocating that American seek bankruptcy protection.


"For a long time, I've thought that the company has been at a disadvantage," Alukos said in an interview.


Alukos doubted that American can bring down its labor costs or high debt payments without going through bankruptcy court. American's competition has already gone through that process and reduced those costs.

And further from the same AP Wire article:

American is the only major [US] airline that has lost money this year — $286 million in the second quarter alone.

I've also spoke in previous unrelated topics of how a business is not a charity. They exist to deliver profit for shareholders - and unless they are making profit, they can't keep people paid and employed. If they can't keep people employed, the business ceases to function, and ultimately ceases to exist. It's a simple paradigm which the unions fail to grasp.

Is some of what the unions are asking for actually illegal?

This is something which hasn't been discussed AFAIK in the context of the current labour negotiations and points the unions seek to include, and I think it is one well worth visiting.

What the unions are trying to do in these negotiations goes well beyond their remit of ensuring members receiving reasonable pay and conditions for services and expertise rendered. This is about feathering the nests of their employees, providing them with cosy conditions and benefits - the likes of which are rarely seen in this day and age, and making their job as easy and essentially overpaid as possible. This is more unethical and unreasonable, but sadly for the most part not illegal thanks to Rudd, Gillard and their winding back of important industrial reforms introduced under Howard.

Where the legal issue do arise is in how the union is seeking through their bargaining points to essentially have direct control over what the business can do, and how it can do it, and prevent them doing certain things in certain ways which are legal.

In my lay view, I consider such conditions in bargaining unacceptable, and I'd really love to see a test case against the unions for misuse of market power (Sect. 46, Competition and Consumer Act (Cth) 2010) - referred to herein as CCA. There could be a good case here considering the conditions they seek to impose would;

(b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or
(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.

A case of this nature gives rise to some very interesting issues, such as revisiting of the activities test in respect of the unions in the context of the Constitution's definition of a trading corporation (Sect. 51(xx)) . If it could be reasonably shown that the union would meet the constitutional definition of a trading corporation, then it could be reasonably shown that the unions attempt to enforce bargaining points beyond wages and conditions violate both the plain text and spirit of CCA S46.

Summary

Aviation is in essence a small sector within Australia, and in the worst case scenario it'll be hard for most Qantas employees to get a job if the company goes under - Ansett is proof positive of that. They will find it difficult to get jobs without having to uproot families and lives and go overseas, going to companies and countries who give far less of a toss about a fair workplace.

And while they might suggest that another airline might set up shop, that'll take ages to do assuming the industry isn't already scared witless that a powerhouse such as Qantas has collapsed.

The issue here is simple - unless the unions get their stick out of their bum, start being reasonable and help the business to become more efficient so it can be lean, efficient and pursue/profit from relevant opportunities both at home and abroad - their members will soon be without jobs and job security.

 

[Vinny]

Interesting to see the political views of posters and their chance to spread their message either way.

And I'll leave it at that and for the police to investigate.