The Unions make me so mad...!

[Pepscobra]

I was just listening to the hourly news and heard the storey of Qantas cutting 500 jobs.

Then some Union spokesperson came on and said he was unhappy that Qantas hadn't consulted with them... WTF!

Wasn't it the Union that held Qantas over the barrel only recently, causing them to cancel flights and bringing them to their knees? The Qantas name (and share price) has been severly damaged since.

Do the unions even realise that their actions are effectively forcing Companies to take these kind of actions and move operations offshore??

[GhiaEB]

Now I am a member of a union, but I have also seen them drive a company to bankruptcy. They'll tell the members what they want to hear and went the company goes bust.... Well your on your own then.

I always ask the rep when he comes in "How many members fees go to just your car?" 50? 100?

I'm not anti union, but I'm sure not pro union either. I'll stop there or ill end up in a rant about my union and how they care little about the workers and how we are simply a pay check for them.

[gtfpv]

BITES TONGUE . not worth the kilojoules ill burn on the keyboard . 2 lovely people .

[BA-XT]

I'm union and if it wasn't for them I'd be on $17.50 an hour. However, what the unions did to Quantus was just plain wrong. Unlike my company who sponsors no less than 3 V8 Supercar teams, Quantus and the whole air industry has been on their knees for some time.

Sometimes unions go to far.

[BENT_8]

You cant really blame unions for doing their jobs, at the end of the day they have the best interest of the employee at heart.
Thats who pays their wages.

Having said that, we need to look closer at the employee and what they need from their employer.

Unfortunately the price of living has sky rocketed in this country over the last 15 years.
The main offender here is the mortgage.

Employee's need high wages so they can buy the grossely over valued homes they are pressured into buying via scare mongering.

With the price of the most basic of necessity going through the roof, every other part of the economy must rise to compete.

The bloke who works for Ford or Holden needs $1200pw which means the manufacturer needs to sell at a price which can pay the worker and turn a profit.
The guy down the road who grows grain to make bread needs top dollar so he can pay his employee who can then afford to buy a new car, and so on and so on.

The fact is, Australia as a debt fuelled greed monster has priced itself out of its own market and every one of us is to blame, like it or not.

Anyone up for a pay cut to keep local jobs...didnt think so, none of us can afford it.

[Pepscobra]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

I'm union and if it wasn't for them I'd be on $17.50 an hour.

I'm not in a union and i'm not on $17.50 an hour.

What about the people who were forced to strike, ended up getting their pay increase and then shortly after lost their jobs?

The unions have lost the plot... in this day and age and in this economic climate, demands like this cant be made. Local companies are already on the knifes edge.

[flappist]

The topic is unions NOT prices of houses or banks or whatever agenda the usual suspects constantly push.

[gtfpv]

individuals are much better to deal with .

[BA-XT]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

I'm not in a union and i'm not on $17.50 an hour.

What about the people who were forced to strike, ended up getting their pay increase and then shortly after lost their jobs?

The unions have lost the plot... in this day and age and in this economic climate, demands like this cant be made. Local companies are already on the knifes edge.

You earn less than $17.50? I work in security and earn just under $20 an hour. We just got our new EBA and what was put before us with my now previous company was insulting.

I actually brought up the sponsorship money for V8's but not willing to cough up for front line guards like myself.

The company is a huge multinational firm, who could easily cough up the 4% rise we asked for.

[Pepscobra]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

You earn less than $17.50?

No, quite the opposite... the point I was trying to make is that the unions arent the answer to increasing your wages.
I find it amusing that people think by hurting their company by strikes and industrial action is the answer. What about helping to increase the productivilty and profits of the Company first?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

The company is a huge multinational firm, who could easily cough up the 4% rise we asked for.

Yeah?

Had dinner with one of their accountants have you? Sorry.. I'm sure you've done your homework before stating that as fact.

I too need to hold my tongue on this one... I've gotten into one too many heated debates about unions. I'm a construction project manager, running a construction firm, we did a lot of study about the ins and outs and pros and cons of the construction unions including their colourful history... Yeah... I don't agree with what they do.. Especially when Aussie workers are losing their jobs because of shutdowns and strikes and the like...

[Work Horse]

At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable.The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25 million a year.

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the information above I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.

[Kryton]

A good Union will know what the company can offer without risking their own jobs and bringing a company to its knees.
A good Union is willing to work WITH the company to get the best result for BOTH parties involved.
A good Union will look after its members for the long term - and it will also look after the companies as well.
Yes, there are some militant Unions out there - the CFMEU is probably the top of the list in my books, but there are many others that have changed with the times and dont have the "bull dog" attitude of old.
BTW, Union bashing is getting old.

[Pepscobra]

Originally Posted by Kryton

BTW, Union bashing is getting old.

So is Aussie companies going under and people losing their jobs...

[MITCHAY]

I bargain with my feet if I don't like it. Months and months of negotiations for usually bugger all difference in pay and conditions and not surprising a round of job cuts often follows. Seems like a massive amount of time and effort for nothing.

[GhiaEB]

Originally Posted by Kryton

BTW, Union bashing is getting old.

I wasn't bashing the unions. The mob I work for isn't doing to well atm, and when you get a slob of a bloke rock up, who's meant to represent the union, telling all the young workers they should be on x amount of dollars an hour more than what they are (we are paid well above the award) it gets to me. The rep in question hasn't done a solid days work in his life!

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

So is Aussie companies going under and people losing their jobs...

Exactly

Originally Posted by Kryton

A good Union will know what the company can offer without risking their own jobs and bringing a company to its knees.
A good Union is willing to work WITH the company to get the best result for BOTH parties involved.
A good Union will look after its members for the long term - and it will also look after the companies as well.
Yes, there are some militant Unions out there - the CFMEU is probably the top of the list in my books, but there are many others that have changed with the times and dont have the "bull dog" attitude of old.
BTW, Union bashing is getting old.

Good call. Short of the useless last sentence, you make the point I try to make time and again. The idea of protecting the worker is commendable. The militant and outlaw elements of some "unions" all but taints the cause of the good ones..

[BA-XT]

Originally Posted by Danny

Yeah?

Had dinner with one of their accountants have you? Sorry.. I'm sure you've done your homework before stating that as fact.

I too need to hold my tongue on this one... I've gotten into one too many heated debates about unions. I'm a construction project manager, running a construction firm, we did a lot of study about the ins and outs and pros and cons of the construction unions including their colourful history... Yeah... I don't agree with what they do.. Especially when Aussie workers are losing their jobs because of shutdowns and strikes and the like...

Wilson Parking is a division of Wilson Security. I don't need to have any meetings with any accountants to know just how well that company is doing and how many contracts they continually picked up - many of which are government contracts worth a mint.

For the work we do and especially the responsiblility the pay is low. Nobody cares about security until someone brings in a knife or gets bashed. Then it's all screaming and crying.

They are actually a good company. One of the better ones out there. The average guard earns less than $50,000 a year. THat's with a rotating roster working nights / weekends. Pull exta shifts and you'll bump that up a couple of thousand. Work permanent weekens and you'll drag in nearly $60,000 but have no life.

I work day shift only so I wipe $11,500 from that sum of money. Before my recent pay increase of 8% I was on $18.08 an hour. The industry are losing good reliable guards like me because of the low pay.

Did I grow up wanting to be in Security? No. Like many people I fell into it and stayed there.

For the work that we are required to do, it's not a great deal of money.

EDIT: I've heard that construction workers can make over $120,000 a year? With RDO's and a whole heap of other entitlements thrown in? Is this true?

I work with an ex-project manager who was on $200,000+ allowances each year. Owns a few homes, nice cars ect. and was out of work and now works in security. Highly intelligent man, just no work.

[Neale]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

I was just listening to the hourly news and heard the storey of Qantas cutting 500 jobs.

Then some Union spokesperson came on and said he was unhappy that Qantas hadn't consulted with them... WTF!

Wasn't it the Union that held Qantas over the barrel only recently, causing them to cancel flights and bringing them to their knees? The Qantas name (and share price) has been severly damaged since.

Do the unions even realise that their actions are effectively forcing Companies to take these kind of actions and move operations offshore??

Alan Joyce was the one that cancelled all of the flights in the hope that it would make the unions look worse & get the public on his side by making the whole thing look worse than what it was.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226180303475

There is a whole lot more to this story than the general public knows because the QANTAS only lets the media print what they want people to know.

My dad was one of the workers that got offered a redunancy recently & was told less than a month ago buy the head honchos that QANTAS would not be putting any more people off in the forseable future. Less than a month later they say that they are putting more people off because new planes now dont need maintenance, WTF ???

When QANTAS goes broke it will be because of years of planning by the suits

[Pepscobra]

Originally Posted by Neale

Alan Joyce was the one that cancelled all of the flights in the hope that it would make the unions look worse & get the public on his side by making the whole thing look worse than what it was.

I am aware of what happened. But I dont believe it was done as a publicity stunt. Do you honestly think he would sacrifice the reputation (and value) of Qantas just to try to make the Union look bad in the papers? The union does a good job of that themselves anyways.

No, it was done because he simply had had enough and wanted to make a stand. The recent strike action and disruptions were hurting the Company big time. When you boil it down, strike action is basically extorsion. I say he was just standing up to a bully.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

I am aware of what happened. But I dont believe it was done as a publicity stunt. Do you honestly think he would sacrifice the reputation (and value) of Qantas just to try to make the Union look bad in the papers? The union does a good job of that themselves anyways.

No, it was done because he simply had had enough and wanted to make a stand. The recent strike action and disruptions were hurting the Company big time. When you boil it down, strike action is basically extorsion. I say he was just standing up to a bully.

If you read my post above that is exactly what he is trying to do.

[opto]

Ahh Unions, the necessary evil, if you didn't have them you would have no bargaining power. You, solo versus a large organisation doesn't have a chance. Maybe, those of you who complain about the Unions should try and work for $2.00 per hour and have to do 70 hours a week, no holidays, if you don't show, you lose your job, no sick leave. No safety requirements.
The Unions are fighting to keep your entitlements at a level current with the cost of living. Personally, I get ****ed off when I spent 4 years, and a fair bit more to obtain 3 trades, when you get paid the same as a standard tradie its not fair, not only that, but you have the cost of multiple licenses to carry. When you hear of an unskilled labourer on the same payrate as yourself, you wonder why did I do all the training, the skill level aquired, is it worth it ? Think about it !

[b0son]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

You cant really blame unions for doing their jobs, at the end of the day they have the best interest of the employee at heart.
Thats who pays their wages.

HSU ... enough said.

Unfortunately the price of living has sky rocketed in this country over the last 15 years.
The main offender here is the mortgage.

And the main cause of that was easy credit. If your force employers to help you pay for the house you realistically couldn't afford, they put up their prices, and you whinge even more that the cost of living has gone up.

With the price of the most basic of necessity going through the roof, every other part of the economy must rise to compete.

Rubbish. Its keeping up with the Jones's that's making people struggle financially, not the cost of the basics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-0...essure/3984690

Anyone up for a pay cut to keep local jobs...didnt think so, none of us can afford it.

What would you prefer? A pay cut, or lose your job so that the bloke next to you can get a raise?

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

For the work we do and especially the responsiblility the pay is low. Nobody cares about security until someone brings in a knife or gets bashed. Then it's all screaming and crying.

The average guard earns less than $50,000 a year. THat's with a rotating roster working nights / weekends. Pull exta shifts and you'll bump that up a couple of thousand. Work permanent weekens and you'll drag in nearly $60,000 but have no life.

I work day shift only so I wipe $11,500 from that sum of money. Before my recent pay increase of 8% I was on $18.08 an hour. The industry are losing good reliable guards like me because of the low pay.

Did I grow up wanting to be in Security? No. Like many people I fell into it and stayed there.

For the work that we are required to do, it's not a great deal of money.

EDIT: I've heard that construction workers can make over $120,000 a year? With RDO's and a whole heap of other entitlements thrown in? Is this true?

Mate you might want to consider a career change if you aren't happy! Like it or not security isnt, skilled work, nor is it overly hard for the majority of the time.
You dont need to have extensively studied or done an apprenticeship to do it, and it really isn't tough, hard, labour so you wouldn't really expect to be paid more than a skilled tradesman or university qualified proffessional would you?
As for construction guys earning big money, you have to work the hours. It sounds like you are an 8 hour a day, 5 day a week kind of guy. Thats not how you earn the big bucks in any industry. A guy working long hours ( overtime every day) 6 days a week could earn what you have stated if they on the right site with the right conditions.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

I actually brought up the sponsorship money for V8's but not willing to cough up for front line guards like myself.

Sponsorship = advertising. Advertising gets the work that keeps you employed. Far more clever people than you are employed by this company to determine whether the sponsorship is returning on its investment.

The company is a huge multinational firm, who could easily cough up the 4% rise we asked for.

4% over 1 year? 2? What % was the last pay rise?

What productivity improvements were offered in return for the payrise?

[Neale]

Originally Posted by Pepscobra

I am aware of what happened. But I dont believe it was done as a publicity stunt. Do you honestly think he would sacrifice the reputation (and value) of Qantas just to try to make the Union look bad in the papers? The union does a good job of that themselves anyways.

No, it was done because he simply had had enough and wanted to make a stand. The recent strike action and disruptions were hurting the Company big time. When you boil it down, strike action is basically extorsion. I say he was just standing up to a bully.

Work Horse hit the nail on the head (except for the bit about QANTAS never crashes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...atal_accidents )

Originally Posted by Work Horse

If you read my post above that is exactly what he is trying to do.

[nstg8a]

Unions are definitely a necessary evil IMO. Is always a fine line when one side has too much power.
But you guys have it much better here, at least the unions here still have clout. NZ basically made unions redundant with the employment contracts act in the 90s. Although it did lead to me getting my first job, by crossing a union picket line. Was interesting times as a 17 year old.
Thing is when the economy is down, and employment is high there is always people looking for jobs, which negates a lot of the employees perceived bargaining power.

We all like to think we are indispensable, but we are not. People are easily replaced.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Mr_BA2003

I work with an ex-project manager who was on $200,000+ allowances each year. Owns a few homes, nice cars ect. and was out of work and now works in security. Highly intelligent man, just no work.

Because in his role as a project manager, he had a lot of responsibility, and the decisions he made could cost/save a lot of money for his employer.

Like it or not, your job is relatively replaceable. Don't need much training or technical know-how. So you're never going to earn the big bucks.

Pay is all about supply and demand. Its hard to find someone with the right skill-set for a difficult job, it isn't for an easy (I mean intellectually easy) job.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by b0son

Sponsorship = advertising. Advertising gets the work that keeps you employed. Far more clever people than you are employed by this company to determine whether the sponsorship is returning on its investment.

I reckon they probably earn more then $18.08 an hour working it out too!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by b0son

And the main cause of that was easy credit. If your force employers to help you pay for the house you realistically couldn't afford, they put up their prices, and you whinge even more that the cost of living has gone up.



Rubbish. Its keeping up with the Jones's that's making people struggle financially, not the cost of the basics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-0...essure/3984690



What would you prefer? A pay cut, or lose your job so that the bloke next to you can get a raise?

This is why i said we are all to blame.
It is this expectation to live beyond our means which requires us to be paid more to fund it.
Your link underlines my point as 6 years ago we still had a level of stability in our manufacturing sector, the fact that we are better off financially 6 years later just proves wages have been pushed higher to sustain our living habits there is no evidence to support a decrease in living expenses.
As a result we have lost MMAL and the other 3 are clinging by their fingertips.

If we werent all out blowing our hard earned on a whim, we might be able to support ourselves on a lower wage and industry could survive.

My 2c worth, nothing more.