BNE2?

LOL.......maybe they should have included demands for more chips and chocolate bar vending machines in their lunch rooms to appease their hunger, might have got more public sympathy for that request!

Lonely Flyer

Qantas is not the only airline that relies on the small print.

Lonely Flyer

This decision was taken at board level not AGM or even EGM

BadgerBoi

Perhaps. And it's hard to fit a newly- born baby into a vending machine. Particularly if it's gone full-term.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

yup... negotiating... the USA and USSR managed to negotiate to bring the world back from the brink of nuclear war, but a CEO being paid $5 million can't negotiate with his workforce...

qantas is a brand because it is represents the spirit of Australia... it represents 'coming home' from the moment you step on board (supposedly). part of what Australia represents is a fair go.

the majority of the public don't see this as being a fair go... whatever the economics.

the qantas brand is not built on it's ability to make money for shareholders. it's brand is because it is australian (and because it's safe).

there is a long history in Australia of anti-greed, and of the tall poppy syndrome. we don't like the banks making billions and still increasing rates in excess of the rba, we don't like telecoms making profits and reducing services... and I suspect not many really like the idea of a financially profitable company (as a whole) outsourcing to lower costs.

unions have had a valuable place in our society... the 8 hour day, the fight for pay equality between men and women... same work, same pay (although they haven't quite got there yet).

if this was a fight by qantas to only employ women, on lower salaries, there would be an outcry... same work should equal same pay. but yet if it's a foreign worker on a lower salary that's ok because...??

Coathanger

I'm not personally close enough to the details to make that call. My only involvement with Qantas is as a passenger.

Whilst negotiating definitely plays a part it would be hard for an agreement to be achieved if both sides are working from vastly different realities.

An increase in your share of the pie is only sustainable if the pie is getting bigger for everyone or at least staying the same size. Qantas International is losing market share to SQ, EK et al and Qantas Domestic is operating from a higher cost base than Virgin Australia.

Despite the higher fares my last few flights have been on QF both domestically and internationally. For a start if more Australians were flying with Qantas then perhaps market share wouldn't be shrinking (at least internationally)...and then the negotiating would have a chance?

Lonely Flyer

Man I had not heard about this. I have always said there are not enough days in the week. With unions involved that means a three day weekend doesn't it?

N830MH

Well, what happened now? Is flight will resume normal operation again? I wasn't sure why they were on strike or not??

Chatterbocks

Here is my 2c -

- unions played an admirable and integral role from industrial revolution days until recent history due to the lack of equitable IR infrastructure (legislation etc) around the world
- their role in modern day Australia, with high labour mobility, high comparative salaries etc, is less clear
- their behaviour in recent history has been questionable. Coincidentally, I was close to the massive strike at Robe River in the Pilbara in the late 80s (I lived in Wickham at the time) and close to the waterfront dispute in the late 90s (working for an importer). The Robe strike was initially triggered because they sacked some workers for stealing on a large scale, something which seems cut and dried. Regarding the waterfront dispute, I doubt I would see too many people defending the rorts that were going on at Patricks.

However my two key issues with unions (and this is relevant in this situation also) are -

1. There is considerable moral hazard in how the union system is set up - Unions essentially have to engage in spurious industrial action to validate their existence. If you were a union working in an area with no problems which required addressing, you would quickly lose membership. Hence the need for militancy

2. The whole concept of unions and pay is trying to bypass the most efficient system there is - the law of supply and demand. If I am not happy with my pay or conditions I look elsewhere. As long as a company is not breaking the law, they should have the right to pay me what they think I am worth. Together we reach consensus or part ways.

Unions do a great job defending the rights of those unable to defend themselves like immigrants working for below minimum wage or in countries with less sophisticated IR laws. But I struggle to develop any empathy when they can bring an iconic company to their knees over people already earning (in the vast majority of cases) 100k+.

ps - I will add however that the Alan Joyce pay rise was a case of horrendous timing and poor strategy as it would have pushed a lot of people who were 50/50 in favour of the unions. (I might stress that CEO pays are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as well - as much as they make for an easy and simplistic target for the average wage earner)

yohy?!

The industrial umpire is in session at present and a decision is expected in the next few hours that will either invalidate the grounding indefinitely (and the strikes) or only temporarily to allow further negotiation.

TPJ

NO, still grounded: http://twitter.com/?q=qantas#!/QantasMedia

Dave Noble

Not at all. Most unions in my experience are anything but militant but serve the interests of their members in things such as salary negotiations or in disciplinary matters

In the case of unfair dismissal, many people could not afford to take legal action themselves and a union can assist; I have seen 1st hand the success of this and how it discourages such actions by the company in the future

If you accept to work for a company at a certain level of remuneration it is not unreasonable to expect to maintain it. Not everyone can just go elsewhere; some can just change companies and do the same role, but not all are in such a fortunate position

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

nope. this is where trained negotiators have their role... being able to determine what is on the wish list and what is the actual walk away position (and indeed the middle ground where a deal should be made that keeps both parties happy in the long term).

I'm pretty sure pilots wanting manicures in the first class lounge before departure was on the fanciful wish list... and neither a serious negotiator at qantas or the union would expect that to come to fruition.

other items are more substantive... but a good negotiator will be able to tease out the basic demands from any list and then respond to those. that works for both sides... the trained negotiator at the unions should be able to work out the qantas must have position.


yes yes... corrected to 8 hour day now

desertweasel

Surely this action will have triggered the EU compensation rules by now. It is certainly no act of God and even if their position is unsustainable in the long term the company is very responsible for their passengers in the short term.

TPJ

I wouldn't worry too much - AC and QF use different reservation systems (QF: Amadeus, AC: I am not sure if it is EDS or still BABS, but definitely not Amadeus) - AC wouldn't know you was not on a QF flight, as it takes a couple of hours to update e-ticket with USED status, if check-in is performed in another system. In the worst case scenario - while check-in in SYD is outsourced to UA, there is a service desk maned with AC employees - there will be may cases as yours and I am sure these AC folks will be reasonable with adjusting the rules accordingly.