More blood, sweat and tears before Qantas show is over

Steve says:

09:25am | 31/10/11

If only. Qantas is only the first company to get “roasted slowly” by unions. Unions have all the power now under Gillards Labor Australia.

ZSRenn says:

09:56am | 31/10/11

Not on the Hong Kong and China Mainland News Services. It is the lead story and not very polite to Gillard for her handling of situation.

This worst government in Australian history never ceases to amaze me as to the depths that it can go, to prove to the world they could not run a chook raffle.

This government is a continual embarrassment that needs to be stopped.

Steve says:

10:44am | 31/10/11

Watch out for the explosion in costs of building anything in Australia as the CMFEU begins striking.
A handful of unionists pocket the spoils and the punters will pick up the tab, as usual under a Labor government.

John A Neve says:

10:51am | 31/10/11

ZSRenn,
Perhaps you could advise me as to what this industrial dispute has to do with government?
What we have here is unions and management, both covered by industrial legistlation, so why does government need to get involved?
This is not even by the widest stretch of ones imagination an essential
service, there are other airlines, road and rail transport. In Britain they had an airline dispute for nearly a month, but the country survived.

Gman says:

11:19am | 31/10/11

John A Neve, the government is supposed to look after the publics interest. (can’t believe I just said that) This has disrupted many families and businesses because of the governments inability to act quickly in a crisis. The minister has powers to act on these things immediately. You’re not suggesting that our other infrastructure could have picked up the slack?! That’s hilarious! You’re talking out of your arse!

Steve says:

11:21am | 31/10/11

John A Neve says: 11:51am | 31/10/11
ZSRenn,
Perhaps you could advise me as to what this industrial dispute has to do with government?

The head of the TWU holding Qantas to ransom will be the head of Labor Party soon, the “Fair Work Commission” has been set up by Gillard and stacked with Labor mates that can screw any business into the ground and you dont think it has anything to do with government?
The truth is that when Labor is in power they stick their grubby fingers into every aspect of individuals lives i.e. if you can have a bet on the pokies, who you can marry and if you are allowed to run your own business and compete with the rest of the world.

Dave says:

11:53am | 31/10/11

Steve, perhaps you could point to union members who are raking in as much money as miners, building companies, financial services guys and the usual spivs and con artists. I dont think you could name any. Secondly, perhaps you could look at some facts. Yeah, you know, facts - the things that have never been in your head before. That would show you that no union has been “bleeding” Qantas. Theyve just been annoying the bosses a bit. But bleeding it? No. The boss’s pay rise has cost more than the 6 hours of industrial. thats bleeding? Sorry, youre an idiot. But dont let a few facts get in the way of that mush that passes for your thoughts.

Ben C says:

11:56am | 31/10/11

@ John A Neve

Seeing as though the government’s own regulatory body did nothing and had no intention of doing anything, someone had to step up to the plate.

ZSRenn says:

11:58am | 31/10/11

John A Neve, I am telling you what the overseas press is saying about the government not what my thoughts are. This government is increasingly being reported as government out of control.

Quote from one report. “This is another blow for Australia’s already beleaguered Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s credibility.”

As others have pointed out she does have the power to act but chose not too. Re: Britain. This work action has been going on for over a year in one form or another. It has come to a head only because Joyce was over being bitch slapped by the unions for so long. Gillard should have stepped in months ago.

John A Neve says:

12:20pm | 31/10/11

Gman,
You state “government is supposed to look after the publics interest”, I’d suggest the bulk of the public have not been effected in any way, so your point is?

Steve,
Your views on what the future might hold, has nothing to do with this issue. You also seem to disagree with Gman!
You oppose the “government stick(ing) their grubby fingers into every aspect of individuals lives”! Yet he feels the government should have done something sooner.
Tell us which of you is correct?

John A Neve says:

12:26pm | 31/10/11

ZSRenn,
Based on your post @ 1258, you don’t want a democracy, what you want is dictatorship.
Government should never be about industrial disputation, we live in a free enterprize society, don’t we?

Glen M says:

01:39pm | 31/10/11

John a Neve considering the government set up the Fair work Australia act which allows Unions to hold employers to ransom with industrial action they should be somewhat responsible for the outcome.

frankr says:

02:12pm | 31/10/11

John A Nerd,
You’ve be belted about ten times in the first article of the day.
Think you should crawl back under your rock for another month or so, dont forget to take your pills and dont let mummy find out you’re on the computer again
have a nice day coward

Steve says:

02:20pm | 31/10/11

Dave says: 12:53pm | 31/10/11
Sounds like you and your mate Craig Thomson are thick as thieves. Worried about your union credit card and perks mate?? (Touched a raw nerve did I)?
500k a year for flying 500hrs a year not enough $$ for you??? Everyones a spiv except you and your union mates hey Dave?
Start your own business if you are such a clever dick Dave, or does that seem like a bit too much like hard work?

John A Neve says:

03:31pm | 31/10/11

Glen M,
There are aspects of the Fair Work Act I don’t like. However, in no way does it “allow unions to hold employers to ransom”.
If I have missed some thing, please post the appropriate clause.

jf says:

03:48pm | 31/10/11

John A Neve says:04:31pm | 31/10/11

“There are aspects of the Fair Work Act I don’t like. However, in no way does it “allow unions to hold employers to ransom”.
If I have missed some thing, please post the appropriate clause.”

I’ve not read the full act and doubt that you have either. However I’ve heard a number of instances where employers have been “held to ransom” by employees(metaphorically of course) without repercussions ergo, the law allows them to do that.

Steve says:

03:55pm | 31/10/11

John A Neve says: 04:31pm | 31/10/11
Glen M,
There are aspects of the Fair Work Act I don’t like. However, in no way does it “allow unions to hold employers to ransom”

Are you kidding??!!
Look at the stats of how many small business have already pay “go away” money to employees. Unfair dismissal is a total shakedown on small businesses, you pay up or get a visit by union thugs. The “commissioners” are all ex union mates, businesses are given a choice pay up now or pay up x 2 next week. “Show me the clause” ..... thats a good one.

John A Neve says:

06:41pm | 31/10/11

JF & Steve,
Hearsay only, what part of the Act are you talking about?
Or are you both, just talking?

John A Neve says:

06:53pm | 31/10/11

frankr,
Love your insightfull comment. It’s good to see that you have moved on from scrawling on toilet walls. Now keep going and see if you can improve your vocabulary.
I await your new contribution to this debate.

dovif says:

07:10am | 31/10/11

Except, our government was told by Qantas that they are struggling, and were told safety was an issue, was told that Qantas was losing millions, was told by tour operators that their business were significantly affected.
But the Gillard Government decided to sit on their ass and do nothing
Gillard must be worried that the Unions who put her in power, might decide to remove her

d says:

07:33am | 31/10/11

“Except, our government was told by Qantas that they are struggling, and were told safety was an issue, was told that Qantas was losing millions”

But still the CEO can get millions in a payrise?

Its a great world when CEO’s dont have to make a profit and can set their own bonuses…

And somehow it is the governments fault? but isnt regulation bad? isnt it a nanny state when the government gets involved

Jeff from Meroo says:

08:19am | 31/10/11

@dovif, you are 100% right that Gillard is now worried about her job and that is what makes Alan’s decision to force her hand worth every penny of his 2 million dollar raise.  She would have NEVER stepped in to sort this mess out because Tony Sheldon, the TWU National Secretary, is tipped to become the next national Labor Party president this December.  If she would have stepped in earlier the unions could have negotiaged a suspension and the unions would have been in a stronger position.  Now they’ve lost their (only?) leverage in negotiating and Sheldon won’t forget this in 5 weeks time.  Alan pulled the ultimate ninja move in flipping from being railed over a barrol by the unions to railing the gov’t over the same barrol.  I want this guy to go into politics so I can vote for him!

Mahhrat says:

08:20am | 31/10/11

So it’s okay for private enterprise to enjoy the fruits of security, infrastructure and quality of life that the Australian Government provides (of either colour, thanks folks), but when it all becomes “too hard”, they act like petulant kids?

I’m not defending the unions - far from it - but dovif, I can tell Centrelink I’m struggling too: they won’t lift a finger until I report it on some kind of process or form or whatever.

My good intel is that no such official complaint was ever made until about the same time the flights were grounded.

So now we have a private organisation appealing to a government everyone tells me they should intrinsically hate.  Why not just pull the pin? 

(Yes, I already know the answer to that question; I’m not stupid).

JT says:

09:06am | 31/10/11

@Mahhrat ‘‘So it’s okay for private enterprise to enjoy the fruits of security, infrastructure and quality of life that the Australian Government provides ‘’

The government does not provide those things. Private enterprise and private citizens do so through our taxes. The government merely collects our money and then spends some (not all) our money on providing those things. Governments do not produce anything.

marley says:

09:07am | 31/10/11

@mahrat - according to what I’m reading, Joyce had a session with Albanese a couple of weeks ago to lay out the situation, and then tried to call the PM to talk to her about it hours before the lockout, but she never returned his phone call.  That seems to me like government fumbling of rather a high order, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the business case.

Barney says:

09:30am | 31/10/11

Aside from the people who are employed by Qantas , how many
Australians give a stuff about our so called national airline

James says:

09:37am | 31/10/11

@ d, just shows how little you know about Qantas. The 2 Million dollar bonus that Joyce received was contractual and set years ago. The bonus was for Qantas actually making profit last year (one of only few airlines in the WORLD). His pay is still 3 million which is less then Jetstar’s CEO and/or Virgin’s.  Before that he never received this bonus, because Qantas was loosing money. The bonus is well deserved for running a company with nearly 40,000 people plus 280 planes, plus , plus… You want to get paid this sort of money?! Go an study hard, work hard, set yourself a goal and you will get there. No one gets something for nothing in Capitalist world, but sure get an opportunity to get there.
Joyce sure made friend in me and I respect him for the tough decision he had to make…. unlike Unions who just strike as much as they want and whenever they want.

Expat Ozzie says:

09:41am | 31/10/11

JT: “The government merely collects our money and then spends some (not all) our money on providing those things. Governments do not produce anything.”

Really?? Except of course security, roads, railways, dams, power grids etc etc. Governments produce in areas that private enterprise wont because it’s not profitable.

Dovif: Qantas is a private enterprise. If it’s going down the tubes it needs to sort it’s own s^%t out. I’m really getting tiered of poor little rich boy’s that through a tantrum when things go bad. As far as i’m concerned if Qantas fails because it can’t compete where others can then so be it. It’s a stretch to blame the government for this debacle.

Dash says:

09:55am | 31/10/11

@d - that “pay rise” will not be paid unless Joyce and the company achieves it’s profit targets. You will also note that the CEO had that potential “payrise” approved by the shareholders! And the shareholders own the company, the unions do not!

So the CEO did not get millions. The “payrise” has not been paid and will not be unless the terms set by the owners of the company are met! You, like the ALP and the unions, are being loose with the truth.

It is not up to the government or the unions to tell Qantas how to run their company. That would be a Nanny State. But it is in the national interest for Qantas to be able to provide it’s service without unions trying to bring the company too it’s knees.

This was an excellent decision. Qantas has ensured it’s service will be uninterupted during the Christmas New Year travel period. A very smart move given the millitant unions intentions to cause maximum disruption during that time of the year.

JT says:

10:06am | 31/10/11

@ Expat Ozzie says: Really?? Except of course security, roads, railways, dams, power grids etc etc. Governments produce in areas that private enterprise wont because it’s not profitable.’‘

Yes really. Governments are consumers, not producers. They take our money to make the things you speak off. They do not produce them themselves.

‘’ I’m really getting tiered of poor little rich boy’s that through a tantrum when things go bad. ‘’

Tired little rich boys? He is the CEO of Qantas. His job is to improve profits. That is the only reason a company exists. If he cannot lower costs and improve profits then yes Qantas will go down. It seems that is the ultimate goal of the unions and fools like you.

Mahhrat says:

10:32am | 31/10/11

@JT:  Uhhh….yes it does.

Take me for example.  I’m just a lowly admin, but I work in an area that provides primary health services to clients who would otherwise be so unstable that they’d commit all sorts of crime.

There is no profit to be made here, but the cost of our service is vastly and demonstrably cheaper than having the judiciary.  Not to mention it’s a whole lot more compassionate.

According to those in big business, they should all live on the streets, with all crimes (except the ones the corporations themselves commit) punishable by either imprisonment or death.

Coming back to my service, that is available to everyone, Alan Joyce included.  He rests just that bit easier, even though he probably hates all government interference, knowing that he can call on said interference when he really needs it (like now; I reckon his actions were immature, but I can understand why he did them).

The point is, he enjoys the security that taxes paid provide, while at the same time moving a lot of the jobs that provide those taxes offshore.

When he hurts the workers he employs, he hurts everyone else as well.  We aren’t all millionaire shareholders.

JT says:

10:46am | 31/10/11

@Mahhrat says ‘‘I’m just a lowly admin, but I work in an area that provides primary health services to clients who would otherwise be so unstable that they’d commit all sorts of crime.’‘

Firstly, no surprise you’re a public servant. Explains your distorted view of reality. Secondly, you are paid by the taxpayer, the government cannot exist without the taxpayer, because you do not produce anything. This is a rather basic fact of economics.

‘‘According to those in big business, they should all live on the streets, with all crimes (except the ones the corporations themselves commit) punishable by either imprisonment or death.’‘

Says who? Is this all you have left, making things up and then replying to them? Businesses are forced to pay tax to have the government deal with such issues.

‘‘The point is, he enjoys the security that taxes paid provide, while at the same time moving a lot of the jobs that provide those taxes offshore.’‘

His job is to increase profit for Qantas. It is not to increase the amount of tax he pays.

Contrarian says:

11:23am | 31/10/11

@JT that’s a pretty grubby move to have a go at Mahrat in that way. Is he a public sector or does he work in the non-profit sector?

While it’s QANTAS role to make a profit for shareholders, you need to understand that if they claim to be the national carrier and carry the national symbol, there is the expectation that they’ll employ Australians. That if you want to use your Australianess for market advantage you have a responsibility to Australia. This is what I believe Mahrat was hinting at and something which Virgin Australia does, and who are expanding their overseas operations. The fact is Qantas has lost market share in the international market for a number of reasons of which one yes is the cost, yet it uses Jetstar and it’s domestic market to cross subsidise.

It seems your keen to drive work offshore, or more to the point willing to drive wages down in any sector but your own I bet. how unAustralian. And if your going to behave by throwing around personal insults, I bet your nothing more than a overpaid desk jockey, hiding in middle management and are replaceable at the drop of a hat.

JT says:

12:03pm | 31/10/11

Contrarian says: @JT that’s a pretty grubby move to have a go at Mahrat in that way.’‘

Not grubby, It explains his distorted view of reality.

‘‘While it’s QANTAS role to make a profit for shareholders, you need to understand that if they claim to be the national carrier and carry the national symbol, there is the expectation that they’ll employ Australians.’‘

They do employ Australians, but you cannot expect symbolism to overrule reality and that reality is Qantas cannot survive protacted union attacks or the high costs without changing. Question is, can you and the unions accept that? It seems not.

‘‘That if you want to use your Australianess for market advantage you have a responsibility to Australia. ‘’

Since when? It is in the end all marketing. Vegemite is a national icon but U.S. owned. Do you think they owe something to you?

‘‘The fact is Qantas has lost market share in the international market for a number of reasons of which one yes is the cost, yet it uses Jetstar and it’s domestic market to cross subsidise.’‘

Yes it has and yes it does but it is obviously not enough to save the company hence the push to Asia.

‘‘It seems your keen to drive work offshore, or more to the point willing to drive wages down in any sector but your own I bet. how unAustralian. ‘’

That is a rather pathetic argument. It is neither. I simply view the steps Qantas need to undertake to save themselves as necessary.

‘‘And if your going to behave by throwing around personal insults, I bet your nothing more than a overpaid desk jockey, hiding in middle management and are replaceable at the drop of a hat.’‘

That more likely describes you and Mahhrat. As neither of you seem to understand economic realities. I am neither in middle management or replaceable as I am the owner of a small business.

Expat Ozzie says:

12:54pm | 31/10/11

JT: You seem a little confused about economics. Governments do produce assets, in fact Telstra is a good example of a government produced asset. They do actually produce things the public sector either don’t want to due to profitability or items of which we certainly do not corporations to control like the military and police forces. 

Your attack on Mahhrats working in the public sector speaks of your obvious ignorance in this field. I’ve worked in both areas, public and private sectors and can tell you there are a great many talented hard working people on both sides of the fence. The constant bashing the public sector gets from individuals like yourself just shows your obvious inability to fully understand how a country runs. But I’m betting I’m flogging a dead horse trying to point out the obvious so I’ll just leave it there.

Jet says:

01:41pm | 31/10/11

Expat Ozzie says:01:54pm | 31/10/11

You seem a little confused about economics. You should read up on economics goods that comprise both intangible commodities and economic assets.

Telstra was a government owned corporation that owns assets and provides services - the corporation itself it not an economic asset produced by the government which in itself cannot be consumed, however what it produces can be.

Governments provide intangible services like the military and police, however they are not economic assets but they are economic goods.

JT says:

01:49pm | 31/10/11

Expat Ozzie says: JT: You seem a little confused about economics. ‘’

There really is little point in continue to debate this point as it is clear you, Mahhrat and Contrarian have not the slightest understanding of economics. The government is a consumer, not a producer. This will always be so.

‘‘Your attack on Mahhrats working in the public sector speaks of your obvious ignorance in this field. I’ve worked in both areas, public and private sectors and can tell you there are a great many talented hard working people on both sides of the fence. ‘’

Irrelevant. The Public service does not exist as a profit/loss type business, therefore it will never achieve the performance or efficiency of the private sector. Whether or not good people work there is irrelevant to that.

‘‘The constant bashing the public sector gets from individuals like yourself just shows your obvious inability to fully understand how a country runs.’‘

They get bashed because they are an inefficient, often incompetent group that has no incentive to perform better.

PsychoHyena says:

03:39pm | 31/10/11

@marley, oh yes the PM should definitely drop the CHOGM meeting specifically to return a phone call to Alan Joyce. Alan Joyce could have told any of the Ministers, except he knew that Gillard was performing her governmental duties and that this would provide a nice blow for the near-sighted liberalites (who I must say aren’t very liberally minded).

Contrarian says:

03:50pm | 31/10/11

@JT, not much point in commenting given that it’s unlikely to be read, but your idea of economics is limited. If wht you mean is that government doesn’t value add, agreed, this only one component to the study of economics which encompasses the role of government.

Um the private sector can be just as inefficent, do you want examples?

I’d like to seriously give you kudos for running a small business and support less regulation including getting rid of payroll tax and making unfair dismissal a little fairer for employers in small business.

But I am curious as to what sought of employer you are i.e. whether you think employing people is welfareand you have total disdain for them or whether you recognise that good employees add to the value of the company

Fiona says:

04:41pm | 31/10/11

JT, bit techy today are we?? I’m also like Mahrat, working in the health sector, as a clinician though, As such I’m ok with being a public sector employee. I’ve also worked in the private sector where you see the same faces as in the public, just in nicer rooms. There’s no need to attack all public servants. You do realise that some of your customers are….public servants!

JT says:

05:54pm | 31/10/11

@Fiona ‘‘You do realise that some of your customers are….public servants! ‘’

You might as well call them my employees, since I do pay your wages.

JT says:

06:46pm | 31/10/11

Contrarian says: not much point in commenting given’‘

Wow finally you grundingly admit my point as fact. Kudos for that at least.

‘‘Um the private sector can be just as inefficent, do you want examples? ‘’

Yes it can, unlike the government however when a business in the private sector remains inefficient they tend to go broke and disappear.

‘‘I’d like to seriously give you kudos for running a small business and support less regulation including getting rid of payroll tax and making unfair dismissal a little fairer for employers in small business.’‘

Thank you. As do I.

‘‘But I am curious as to what sought of employer you are i.e. whether you think employing people is welfareand you have total disdain for them or whether you recognise that good employees add to the value of the company’‘

Every good employee adds to the value of a company. However good employees are probably outnumbered by bad employees. Second employees are paid to do work, This does not mean they are owed a job for life or that their whims and demands take precendence over the survival of the business. If they wish to call the shots, they can risk their own money and start a business. In fact the more who do, the better. It for most would lead to a much better understanding of how things work in the real world.

Steve Putnam says:

07:29pm | 31/10/11

@ dovif so given all that the CEO goes ahead a votes himself a $2,000,000 payrise (?) Joyce doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Jane says:

01:26pm | 31/10/11

Bagage handlers earn a base of $38,000 and the pay rise was not the claim Qantas had an issue accepting. Qantas are very profitable but they are bound by Qantas Sale Act which they are trying to get around by employing people using shell companies set up overseas. They fly using all the Qantas Logo, qantas tickets but are not in fact Qantas at all. Pilots that need 1000 flying time hours and $80,000 in training expensies are replaced by pilots that cannot shave with few hours experience. This also means tax revenue is going offshore so we all lose. Moving tax base offshore as avoidance is why the US is in deep doo doo. You cannot invest in creating a world class business environment and in the education and trianing of staff only for the business to bleed your nation dry and pay no tax. Not good for Australia and worse still are people like you blaming fellow Australians who just want a fair go. This country has been posioned.

Labor is Toxic says:

02:03pm | 31/10/11

@ Jane

Please tell me what a fair go is??? QANTAS Employees get paid more than Virgin and Jet Star

Jane says:

02:28pm | 31/10/11

@Labor is toxic, Not much more and perhaps they would not mind being paid the same if thAT meant they kept their job rather than see India or China get their work. Pay was not the dispute.

Labor is Toxic says:

02:53pm | 31/10/11

Hi Jane

This was posted on another ‘Punch’ story.

The pilots are only asking for 2.5% pay increase each year over 3 years, not unreasonable. However the other demands by the Pilots association,
•Two free of charge international economy tickets each year (upgradeable to Business and First), in addition to already heavily-discounted airfares for them and their families.
•That Qantas funds two full time union officials at a cost of up to $1 million per year.
•Discounted membership to the Qantas Club for all pilots and their families.
-AIPA wants to force all Qantas affiliate airlines, including Jetstar and Jetconnect, to pay their pilots the same premium rates and conditions as Qantas pilots.
-The pilots association insist Qantas stop flying codeshare flights with other airlines within the Qantas Group. This would mean Qantas could codeshare with any other airline in the world, all of which employ foreign pilots, but not with other Qantas Group airlines which employ Australian pilots

The Qantas engineers are being nothing more than greedy. Currently the average Qantas engineer enjoys a package of approximately $150,000 per year includes superannuation and allowance (highest paid engineers in the world), work an average of 38 hours a week and the majority generally work four days on and four days off. They enjoy heavily discounted staff travel including upgrades to Business.
What do the Engineers want:
•5.33 per cent increase in wages and allowances every year for the next three years.
•Introduction of a time serving classification structure where workers receive additional pay increases based on years of service rather than merit or qualifications.
-The union requires a guarantee that no change will be made to current work practices.

The Transport Workers Union demands, despite being their Qantas staff being the highest paid in Australia
•5 per cent increases in wages and an additional 1 per cent compulsory employer superannuation contribution over the next three years.
•A requirement that all labour hire staff be paid the same high rates as Qantas permanent staff.
•Restrictions on labour flexibility that would prevent Qantas from creating efficiencies and that would make Qantas less competitive (the TWU refers to this as their “job security” demand).
Last year the TWU negotiated a deal with Virgin, our biggest competitor in the domestic market, which is 12 per cent lower than Qantas rates and included a wage-freeze and a lower pay scale for new starters. Virgin also uses a non-union labour hire provider on lower rates of pay.

I work for an Australian Manufacturing company that is really struggling with competition from imports ..... my ‘fair go’ is “Please keep the gates open.”

Jane says:

04:08pm | 31/10/11

Labor is toxic, That is right the pay is not the critical issue but keeping jobs here is., The difference with your situation is that Qantas was a publicly owned asset that was sold with conditions attached and that was that it was to remain an Australian airline. So we should have more power to prevent the jobs going offshore. If we cannot even keep those jobs onshore then we have no hope of ever keeping any manufacturing at all and the country may as well just open the borders as it is free movement of jobs, may as well have free movement of people. It may mean we get lower pay but at the same time house prices will plummet so we could be better off. Everything skewed for the benefit of a few atm. Laws preventing people movement but not jobs.

Fiona says:

04:51pm | 31/10/11

Gary, the 9 day fortnight just means that workers work longer days; 9 hours instead of 8 per day. It amazes me that people get their knickers in such a knot about this. Do you also object to the fifo mine workers 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off? My hubbie works 5 days on, 5 off (12 hours at a time). Is that ok, or do we all have to work 9-5, 5 days a week?

iansand says:

07:11am | 31/10/11

Try to read the article before you comment, TimmyB:

“In fact it was Tony Abbott who was calling for intervention and arbitration, two procedures which until now he has opposed.

“Mr Abbott is saying what the public wants to hear, and putting aside his lack of past policy purity, he is hitting the mark with his line that the Government was sitting on its hands.”

This is pretty devastating.  Abbott demonstrating his usual lack of policy and principle, and saying whatever it takes.

marley says:

07:22am | 31/10/11

@Iansand - and the ALP has demonstrated policy and principle on this one?  I don’t think so.

Tim says:

07:33am | 31/10/11

Surely the Liberals should be saying the government should refrain from intervention?
Or is it only OK to intervene when it’s politically palatable?

Dash says:

07:35am | 31/10/11

iansand - you are kidding! Who are the government? Why did Gillard and the ALP sit on their hands despite requests from the NSW and Victorian governments last week to do something? Why did they sit by after phone calls from Qantas executives urging them to act?

The ALP are compromised by their association with the unions. They run the country for the 14% of union members and damn everyone else! They have no spine. They are gutless cowards.

Tony Abbott is not the PM. He has no power to do anything! Gillard is and she does, and even after the announcement to ground the aircraft, she still refused to contact Joyce and deferred everything to Fairwork. We had over 24hours for a hearing which in 30minutes the PM could have solved herself. The ALP are bloody hopeless! It took submissions from the Vis, NSW and Queensland governments to get the right outcome.

TimB says:

07:35am | 31/10/11

Tony Abbott hitting the mark, whilst the government looks foolish. Again. That’s all you’ve got?

Oooh ouch.

Some context regarding Abbott’s prior opposition to such measures would be nice so we could properly contrast and compare, but oh well. Tony still ends up looking better than the useless do-nothing government so, I figured I could safely ignore a pretty piss weak throwaway effort such as that.

But iansand, if you *really*  want to make the case that Mal is still pointlessly slagging off Tony, I’m happy to agree with you. That is what you want right?

So here we go. Mal, I’m sorry that I gave you some credit. iansand has shown me the error of my ways. I promise I won’t let it happen again.  You’re just as hopeless as ever. iansand says so.

Adam Diver says:

07:37am | 31/10/11

I have to agree with iansand, you were a little optimistic this morning TimB, probably read Ant’s great article first .

On the strike action I can’t support the unions, after hearing that they “fear jobs going overseas” then embark on an 8 month industrial action campaign. If you fear your job going overseas, you are doing a damn good job at making that a reality.

Gillard = imcompetant says:

07:44am | 31/10/11

iansand

Actually, Abbott warned Gillard that she had to do something last Monday, to stop Unions costing Qantas millions, and risking the life of Australians, and hurting Australian Tourism Business

Gillard just did not listen

Jacob says:

09:02am | 31/10/11

Iansend,

Like him or loath him, Mr Abbot is the Leader of The Opposition and his job is to oppose and criticise the government, not to cheerlead it.

The Fair Work Law is now the Law of the land and the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled, like we all do, to demand that the government use it, irrespective of his view whether the law should have been changed or otherwise.

On the other hand I find it extraordinary the Prime Minister’s excuse for not intervening in the dispute earlier, citing the Fair Work Law as “a world of legal uncertainty”.

Ms. Gillard was personally heavily involved in enacting and promoting the law.  As another poster asked here, doesn’t she know what is in it?

iansand says:

09:12am | 31/10/11

Jacob - Opposing by demonstrating unprincipled populism?  Would you seriously vote for such a man?  You would have government by the prevailing wind direction.

I heard something on the radio this morning that the arbitration thingy would not have intervened until the lockout.  If that is the case what could (or should) Ms Gillard donre to intervene?  Send in the troops?

Blind Freddy says:

10:56am | 31/10/11

Good thing that Abbott has pledged to not alter the IR laws though - he must support them too.

Jane says:

01:52pm | 31/10/11

Rememebr all the right wing bohgans who just parrot whatever their God Bolt dictates to them and they wonder why people shake their head?

Against the Man says:

03:33pm | 31/10/11

I’m part of the majority and that is why I’m happy. I know minority ALPers hate being reminded of the reality of the Gillard government but they can’t change reality, they just have to deal with it as they watch their opposition increase its majority base

John A Neve says:

07:04pm | 31/10/11

AtM,
I am so pleased you are “part of the majority and happy” bovins have always been heard animals. Part of the rump I suppose?

Al says:

07:56am | 31/10/11

Perhaps if that was slightly modified to “no further industrial action can take place at the company by any union for 3 months on that particular issue.”
That way, should another issue arise that would justify strike action (such as a reduction or non compliance with OH&S laws/requirements) then the workers are still protected to atake action on the new issue.

C1 says:

08:39am | 31/10/11

Super D,

I completely agree with your line of thought however, I would say that it would be just as damaging for a mine and/or production line. You cannot switch these things on and off like a light switch (I work in the resources industry) and they also have customers who rely on the product getting to them on time, in quantity, all the time.

Old Australian says:

06:37am | 31/10/11

I agree with you , she has comprimised herself beyond repair. We need an election as soon as possible to get this country back on an even keel. Labor has to make a choice, the Australian Public or the unions and the independents, which are they supposed to serve.

Tim says:

07:35am | 31/10/11

Yeah,
I can’t believe the PM didn’t leave high level CHOGM meetings to take a phone call from the CEO of Qantas on a Saturday afternoon.
Who does she think she is.

Angry God of Townsville says:

07:43am | 31/10/11

Funny how HB Farr failed to mention this key information Dash. The holes in Gillard and Alwayssleazy’s stories are significant lies to the public and yet we are not informed by this eminent journalist.

I support the action of Joyce in taking this matter to a head. He has ensured 90 days without industrial action which will take the airline through the Christmas period without the spectre of strike action. If he had done this earlier, the unions could have used this important period to hold the travelling public to ransom. Well played, no industrial action until after Australia day and the end of school holidays. Very smart and this should sink through the thickest skulls.

iansand says:

09:16am | 31/10/11

What should she have done?  Send in the troops?

marley says:

10:14am | 31/10/11

@iansand - ever heard of moral suasion?

John A Neve says:

10:57am | 31/10/11

Old Australian,
Surely the “unions and the Independents” are the Australian public?
Just what are you on about?

Dash says:

03:09pm | 31/10/11

John A - I think the point that is being made here is that the unions represent less than 14% of Australian workers. And yet the ALPs benches are full of ex-union bosses. One of the union heavies in this whole mess is likely to end up ALP president! The problem is, the ALP are compromised by the unions which means they often ignore the 86% of us who dont need unions.

John A Neve says:

03:40pm | 31/10/11

Dash,
The “Independents” were elected, which suggest a fair few people.
“The Unions” rep[resent a fair few people, I doubt very much that all those not in a union are opposed to unions.
As to ex unionists now being in parliament, I’d suggest that there are far more ex lawyers, there are even a few ex doctors. So I ask, just what is your point?

marley says:

07:08am | 31/10/11

Umm, I don’t think anyone had on the table reducing wages or making workers work longer hours.  As for job security, if the airline goes under because it can’t cover its operating costs, exactly what kind of security will the employees have then?  There’s room for compromise here - and it’s as much up to the unions as to management to find that common ground.

Fair is fair says:

07:41am | 31/10/11

Cry in my Gin

Qantas used to have 70% of the internation market, it is now down to less then 30%, because the cost of running an airline in Australia is so much more expensive then elsewhere in the world.

So if your market had fallen 40%, should you need to reduce your workforce. If Qantas does not act now, there will likely be no Qantas in 10 years, and everyone is out of work

Australians had choosed to fly cheaper overseas airline, when they go on holiday. Qantas have too high a cost structure and must do something to reduce it

sandra says:

10:07am | 31/10/11

I am so tired of hearing about Joyces salary being so high!!! Does Gillard earn much more than her secretary-??? should she????  of course she should—should the CEO of my company earn more than me?? of course he should—he takes all the flak, does all the qualifications to get to be CEO, has no family life and his job security is at the whim of shareholders, market changes and dramas, competative pressures every year. My job is a walk in the park compared to his—and I would rather be a baggage handler than the CEO of Qantas right now!!

Jane says:

01:42pm | 31/10/11

No job secuirty for anyone. Those already suffering seem to want everyone else to punished and join them in the insecure zone or guuter. If they in fact supported those that have a chance on ensuring better conditions then we all have a chance of sharing the success of this nation rather than live in insecurity and witnessing the poor geting poorer and the rich gettign richer. No many will win from Qantas action as it moves both work tax payments offshore,  very few will benefit. As a nation we will lose a lot..

Dash says:

07:11am | 31/10/11

Yep, the ALP are compromised by their association with the unions. Despite a request from both the Victorian and NSW governments and phone calls from Qantas executives, the Labor party and Gillard refused to act.

If Bob Hawke was prime minister or John Howard, this dispute would have been over last week. One of the union bosses is to become ALP president. When you look at Combet, Shorten, Furgeson and the fact that Howes was instrumental in putting Gillard into the top job, it’s clear that the ALP are running the place for less than 14% of the population.

Gillard and her Union hack front bench are a joke! They’ll be running around today trying to turn this into a win but reality is they sat on their hands untill it got to crisis!

Bruce Dobbie says:

07:13am | 31/10/11

Gillartd drafted the Fair Work act when she was Minister for Industrial Relations in the short Rudd Government. Enough said.

Joan says:

07:29am | 31/10/11

I heard Gillard on ABC-RN this morning saying just that . What a totally ineffectual leader. She blustered around made also sorts of Fair Act excuses for sitting on her hands doing nothing - not even daring to phone Alan Joyce.  What a pathetic. Hawke would have blasted both parties and all of Australia would have heard and sat up. Front page Australian shows Gillards man Parliamentary Secretary for Disablities abd Childrens Services muscling in on the act. What a joke- industrial relations included in this portfolio now ?

Adam Diver says:

07:39am | 31/10/11

Probably a safe bet actually . It feels like I am living in a political sit-com some times.

dovif says:

07:48am | 31/10/11

Gillard wrote the Fair Work Act and did not know what she wrote and how it work.

Of course no one knows the ramifications, that is because Gillard herself changed the law

Gillard also did not know of the ramifications when she change the Asylum Seekers laws too, and it led to 10s of thousands of refugees.

This government just stink of incompetance

Alf says:

08:07am | 31/10/11

It is probably better that Gillard doesn’t get involved. She will only stuff it up.

Vince says:

09:45am | 31/10/11

Wow, a bunch of Legal Eagles you lot are.  Gillard, formerly a partner at one of the top employment law firms in Australia, obviously has no clue what she is talking about.  But you guys apparently do.

Joan says:

11:53am | 31/10/11

Vince: Legal Eagle Gillard stitched up Fair Work to give all power to unions and none to PM on behalf of all Australians

Ben says:

07:37am | 31/10/11

What does patriotism have to do with anything? This is about long-term survival.

Angry God of Townsville says:

07:52am | 31/10/11

Gee ex-QANTAS employee, making death threats is probably what got you fired in the first place. Go back to anger management dude, the advocation of people being shot for treason is a knife edge within which the person who gets to decide may find your own comments carrying the same verdict as you have bestowed yourself. You see the problem with advocating that people get shot for disagreeing with you is that unless you are in charge, one day the decision maker may be upset with your actions.

Ex-Qantas employee says:

08:42am | 31/10/11

To Angry God(?)

For your information, I retired from the Company after 20 years of service.  If you can’t recognise a figure of speech, that’s your problem.

Kate says:

01:30pm | 31/10/11

I’m actually quite impressed that we got through this many comments before seeing death threats and anti-Irish racism. Better than the crap coming up in yesterday’s article.

AdamC says:

01:46pm | 31/10/11

Yeah, ex-Qantas employee, but this wondrous ‘culture’ of yours, which seems to include unsustainably high pay rates and outmoded work practices, is slowly killing the airline. This seems a little like Ansett redux, where staff effectively ‘entitlemented’ themselves out of a job. The difference here is that Qantas management seems to be actively trying to change current practices to make the business more sustainable.

I don’t know if I agree with Qantas’ decision to ground its fleet, but there is no doubt that the underlying issue is the refusal of some staff and unions to be competitive and flexible in their approach.

Jane says:

02:34pm | 31/10/11

They are avoiding Qantas Sale Act by using shell companies overseas and spreading totally iditotic rumours that is about pay when it is not, Plenty of stooges to repeat the nosnense as well., Pathtetic, knife fellow Aussie in the back so Indians can take their jobs and our tax revenue. It was supposed ot remain an Australian airline but nobody said they could not transfer all the business into sham companies to avoid that obligation. Senator Xenophon is pushing for an inquiry, google it. We must support him

Dr. Jackshit says:

08:44am | 31/10/11

The spelling you are looking for is pole, not poll. Thanks for linking to it.
Off-shore Qantas engineers disabling planes?
The tragedy has already happened and the engineer who orchestrated it is Joyce.

ProfGold says:

08:59am | 31/10/11

“One large poll [un-named] reported that only 1/3 of voters blamed Qantas.”

The Age OnLine today:
Did Qantas go too far by grounding its entire fleet and locking out workers?
Yes
58%
No
42%
Total votes: 106,702.
This is probably the largest number of votes of any Age Poll ever.

TimB says:

07:18am | 31/10/11

“The QF employees, who are responsible for 99.999% of that $550 million profit, get nothing”

Crap.

First of all get paid a salary (not to mention other benefits). Second of all, if you add up all those salaries & benefits, I’m sure you’ll find that they *far* outstrip the money paid to Joyce.

Finally if you really think that the CEO does nothing and the employees do *all* the work, you clearly don’t have an anywhere near realistic view of how companies work.

Erick says:

07:30am | 31/10/11

@TimB - To add to your good points:

The CEO of QANTAS is an employee.

Employees who are also shareholders benefit directly from profits.

Employees who are members of super funds (ie, all of them) benefit indirectly from profits.

Alf says:

07:36am | 31/10/11

@Robert. So you are suggesting that the QF staff are in some sort of profit sharing arrangement? To suggest that the CEO does not contribute to QANTAS profit is just a plain dumb coment.

Dash says:

07:44am | 31/10/11

What a complete load of nonsense!

Firstly, Joyce is employed by the owners of the company. His remuneration is set , reviewed and changed by the Board and the shareholders, not himself. He did not give himself a pay rise and btw it’s not payable anyway unless he achieves the goals set out by the shareholders.

QF employees are not responsible for the companies profit. The shareholders who put up the capital and the management who make the strategic decisions are responsible for the profit. The “workers” (or should I say strikers) make the business viable, however, if those workers are too expensive and uncompetitve, then an alternative is required. If management doesn’t deliver, they lose their jobs.

You need to stop swallowing Union socialist crap and learn some business sense.

The unions are interested in their power base and nothing else.

Ex-Qantas employee says:

08:15am | 31/10/11

For TimB:

“Finally if you really think that the CEO does nothing and the employees do *all* the work, you clearly don’t have an anywhere near realistic view of how companies work.”

I worked for Qantas when the airline practically had to run itself (without a CEO) for eight months during privatisation.  The “workers” just did their jobs, no planes fell out of the sky and the airline still made a good profit ... how do you explain that???

TimB says:

08:38am | 31/10/11

Clearly the duties of the CEO role were being performed by someone else (probably multiple someones).

If the CEO role is so superfluous to corporate life, explain why it exists at all. Why are shareholders happy to pay millions to someone who apparently does nothing?

More importantly in your example, if the CEO was apparently so unnecessary during those eight months, why did they bother appointing one at the end?

Ben C says:

09:05am | 31/10/11

@ Ex-Qantas employee

Who was responsible for putting systems in place for the workers to follow? Definitely not the workers, I tell you.

T. Woods says:

09:07am | 31/10/11

PR genius. 2 million pay rise for the CEO one day. Airline grounded the next. Slow clap.

Ex-Qantas employee says:

06:53am | 01/11/11

@TimB and @Ben C

“More importantly in your example, if the CEO was apparently so unnecessary during those eight months, why did they bother appointing one at the end?”

When Qantas was a Government enterprise, the CEO was paid $350k pa.  When the airline was privatised, they waited 8 months for James Strong to finish his contract in NZ and he was paid $1.4m pa.  When he finally arrived, all he managed to achieve was to sack 1100 workers (thereby affecting 1100 Australian families).  His justification: THE BOTTOM LINE.  History is repeating itself.

If you haven’t worked for Qantas, you have no knowledge of what Qantas employees’ work entails and have no right to judge them.  I am no longer an employee but have personal knowledge of what their work involves, especially at top management level.  I am now a Qantas shareholder and do not appreciate my shares being devalued and not being paid a dividend when the CEO is granted such a massive wage increase, regardless of such poor performance.  His handling of the current crisis has been appalling.  He simply has NOT done his job.

In the 8 months that Qantas was without a CEO, there were no industrial problems ... I wonder why, don’t you?

Dash says:

07:26am | 31/10/11

@joy you miss the point. Your son and many like him only have a job because there is a viable company for him to work for. Qantas has lost market share over the last 10 years due largely because it is unable to compete on cost with the other international airlines. They need to adapt or there will be no company for union members to work for!

It’s not greed but good business practice to ensure the company remains financially viable. The management and the Board of Qantas run the company, not the unions! They run the company on behalf of the shareholders not the future president of the ALP. And the federal government has no right to tell a privately owned company how to run it’s business.

The unions have been a significant reason behind why Australia is uncompetitve in terms of labour. I’ve travelled around the world for work and I can tell you, Qantas has slowly slipped further and further behind the other carriers. They need to change or they go backwards. the board and the shareholders understand that. Seems the unions do not.

If the unions continued to cripple Qantas to the tune of $15m a day, there will be no jobs once the company shuts down for good. The unions killed Ansett and they are the ones now destroying Qantas.

It was smart play for Joyce to force the government to act because they were sitting on their hands too scared to confront their union bosses. And in the end they diverted to the Fairwork tribunal rather than have the guts to make a decision themselves. Pathetic!

Phil says:

07:43am | 31/10/11

Dont forget those greedy shareholders who insist they must get ever increasing returns on their money.
This is hardly something unique people wanting a pay rise to cope with cost of living increases in Australia, the interesting thing is that doesnt get coverage.
Australia is becoming crazy expensive to live in and if you arent earning huge amounts to start with makes it even harder, but people want to pay less and less for things forcing many jobs overseas to try and compete.

dovif says:

07:55am | 31/10/11

Joy

Qantas has been losing the Australian International market for a while now, this is because it cost more to travel Qantas then other airlines. A large part of that has to do with how much higher Qantas’ costs are.

Facts are Australians do not want to pay for to travel Qantas, and they are happy to pay less to fly Virgin/Singapore/Ethiad etc. That is why Qantas’ share of markets had decreased significantly

When you are too expensive and had lost 40% of the market, you have to downside (less planes) and reduces cost, or if you continue to lose money every year. everyone will be out of a job.

The Union is part of the problem, if the union wins, there might not be a Qantas in 10 years, and everyone will lose their jobs

Joan says:

08:48am | 31/10/11

Any business exists for profit - nothing else- business gives workers a job - no business equals no jobs. International Qantas losing money. Joyce gets pay rise based on performance - increased profitability- no profit no pay rise- yet Qantas workers want pay increase without conditions. Australians buy goods to get cheap price on Internet yet whinge when companies want to save money and move offshore for best price labour to compete on world stage. Gillard on track to aggravate this situation with her Carbon Tax on everything - just watch all manufacturing jobs go offshore. TaTa jobs. - watch Gillard wave jobs goodbye as she sends them offshore.

Steve says:

08:19am | 31/10/11

Except that whole “Gillard refused to accept a call from Joyce” meme is a lie, as stated by Joyce himself in a press conference.

Seems like some newspapers/media outlets are trying to influence people by making crap up.

I hate pies says:

12:19pm | 31/10/11

I listened to the PM on the radio this morning say that Mr Joyce hadn’t rung her office, and then approximately one minute later say that Mr Joyce had rung her chief of staff - is her chief of staff not employed by her office? Liar, she’s nothing but a sneaky liar.

Pete says:

07:14am | 31/10/11

no right to strike?...so management can do as it pleases?  Good idea that

dovif says:

08:09am | 31/10/11

Wilma you do know that Joyce’s payrise is 100% based on share value, so Joyce won’t be getting a payrise by 10am this morning

the irony

Nilbog says:

08:29am | 31/10/11

Why would any sane investor have Qantas shares… ever? Shares that have dropped about 25% in value in the last quarter… and 50% in the last year?

Anyone dumb enough to hold a lot of them is just throwing money against the wall.

Odds are Qantas will be bought out by a foreign company within 5 years.

A Spade's a Spade says:

09:16am | 31/10/11

@ Wilma…My GOODNESS…you were right - the share price dropped $0.005 per share. What a bloodbath. Oh wait now it is up $0.035.  Perhaps savvy investors realise that bringing this situation to a head may indeed lead to the share price more closely aligning to the actual value of the company - rather than pricing in the ongoing internecine strike action of the unions. I must remind myself not to build my share portfolio based the sage like advice of punchers!

Kika says:

09:27am | 31/10/11

My bet = Singapore Airlines

Adam Diver says:

07:42am | 31/10/11

You sent perishable goods via Qantas during an industrial dispute?

Dash says:

07:53am | 31/10/11

Tom, wtf has this got to do with the LNP? This dispute is between a privately owned company and three unions. If anyone is to blame for your missed shipments, it’s Gillard and the ALP. If she had acted under the law as requested by the Vic and NSW state governments and after receiving phone calles from Joyce, you would have got your shipment. She sat on her hands because she was too scared and too compromised to stand up to the unions.

Your post smacks of ALP, union spin!

Tom says:

08:08am | 31/10/11

Yes Mr Diver,

Primary producers rely on airlines to get perishables to interstate markets every day of the week.

I bet you live in a city and think all that produce is grown in the supermarket! Gawd help us!

Against the Man says:

08:26am | 31/10/11

It is the Gillard/ALP’s fault if you think otherwise than you are stating Gillard is not the PM and the ALP are not linked with unions. Maybe your family’s company wouldn’t be in this situation if you hadn’t voted for Labor.

Ben C says:

09:12am | 31/10/11

@ Tom

I think Adam Diver was saying that there were other airlines that you could have used to send stock other than Qantas. If you failed to understand that, then there’s nothing further to be said.

Liar Liar says:

09:16am | 31/10/11

The freight arm of Qantas wasn’t affected by the strike.
From the Qantas Website
“QantasLink, Jetstar, Jetconnect services, and our freight services (Express Freighters Australia and Atlas) will continue to operate as normal.”

The truth will set you free.
Feel free to be “Liberal” with the “truth”

Contrarian says:

09:17am | 31/10/11

@Dash. It’s between Managment and unions but Gillards fault? WTF. Read the FWA understand that it’s designed for the government to only intervene when in the national interest and asked to do so. State governments don’t count. The delays are actually due to the parts of FWA that are a hangover from WorkChoices.

dovif says:

09:31am | 31/10/11

Tom

Quite simply, Gillard on Saturday had the power to stop the strike and force the parties to negotiate and she chosed to have the airline grounded, instead of making the hard decision, which would upset her union mates.

Your lost shipments was directly caused by that decision by Gillard, so blame Gillard if you want to blame someone

dovif says:

09:39am | 31/10/11

Contrarian

Which part of national interest did you not get?
-80,000 passengers was affected by Union actions, millions lost to Australian tourism
-80,000 passengers was affected by the lock out, millions lost to Australian tourism
-$60 millions of profit lost by Qantas, and superannuation funds around the country
-Australian air safety watchdog warned Union strike was putting Australian life at risk

Albanese was informed of the loses monthly, the ALP was informed of the safety issues, Gillard was warned in advance of the lock out, they even meet by telephone and decided to do nothing. This was completely Gillard’s fault

Yes Joyce did ask 4 members of the government to do something, but Gillard refuse. So every point you raised was satisfied

Dash says:

09:40am | 31/10/11

@Contrarian - Gillard and the ALP could have sorted the mess out. the LNP could not! That was the point I was making.

This is certainly within the national interest. The Government could have and should have intervened. I said exactly that last week prior to all of this happening and my position remains consistent. If Hawke was PM this would have been all over last week.

The ALP sat on it’s hands. The company and the state governments asked for action. the state governments may not count but they knew the federal government did and they knew the unions were damaging their and the nations economy!

It’s hilarious when the government has the option to intervene, that you blame Workchoices. Unbelievable. The ALP changed the IR laws of this country. They gave themselves the power to intervene in the national interest and they did nothing!

What I do know, is that now the ALP are in charge we have had more disputes and strikes than we had under the term of the Howard government.

The ALP run the place for the minority including the 14% of people who still think they need a union. The ALP are out of touch with the other 86% of the workforce who are driving the country forward and paying over 90% of the personal income tax revenue. The ALP are compromised fools, incompetent and unrepresentative.

Ben C says:

09:40am | 31/10/11

@ Contrarian

And it was in the national interests for the unions to be calling strikes then cancelling them at the last minute? It was in the national interests to have both Qantas and Customs staff striking at the same time, regardless of the fact that it was coincidental? The States have no say in what is in the national interest?

Aitch B says:

09:55am | 31/10/11

@Contrarian

“.... parts of the FWA that are a hangover from WorkChoices”.

If that is indeed correct then Gillard and Co. did an absolute bang up job demolishing WorkChoices then, didn’t they?

Imagine the reaction if she came out and said that. Now that WOULD be hysterical!!

chris o says:

08:01am | 31/10/11

... and i wish there were more educated people like you that know the facts.

The International Arm for QF has been loosing money to the tune of $200m alone last year.

They were one of the first to operate a fleet of A380’s yet the Engineers over here were still going about the repairs as if the plane was a B707.

I have not seen an accident by SIA in a while so i guess they are doing something right, and if qf can not move operations offshore they will be gone before you know it.

Just look at American Airlines, United, Air Canada and Delta all struggling with unions again and to a point where AA is going to file for Ch11 to get out of it.

OverTheHill says:

07:29am | 31/10/11

me either

chris says:

07:30am | 31/10/11

Funny that, you may never have flown Qantas if they did not do what they did this week.

If the unions continued strike action and the demands of old work practice then your planes may not get off the ground. Why fix something the old way when the new way is better.

Does your mechanic still try to find the carby in your car.?

lets face the facts, if the union could have called a strike for 48 hours how would you have felt, this is what forced qantas’ hand. the threat of action from the unions.

No one should have a right to strike as it affects all, but we do, and it is because this country is run by a labor leader that the unions can get away with so much action.

Just wait till the CFMEU is ready to strike..

Angry God of Townsville says:

08:20am | 31/10/11

So you will not use their services that pay for the people on both sides of this industrial dispute. If you were against the management, your decision still will impact on those who are employed as pilots, cabin staff and baggage handlers.

That the impacts of the actions of the Unions have caused as much damage to the brand as the management decision has on the weekend, I take it you will be stopping flying any airline that is unionised, or is your outrage to selective.

dovif says:

09:46am | 31/10/11

Stiffy

Send your money overseas to the Middle East owners of Ethiad/Emirates, or British for Virgin

It ensure jobs are lost in Australia, and money go overseas. That was why the company was in trouble in the first place, Qantas is too expensive and Australians do not fly them. That is the real clause of why the Unionists will lose their job and their pay will be lower

Dash says:

12:04pm | 31/10/11

One less stiffy on a Qantas flight can’t be a bad thing!

Stiffy says:

05:37am | 01/11/11

There are two major reasons why most people fly on an airline. Price and Reliability. The standard of comfort/entertainment is also a considering factor for long haul flights.
Since the demise of Ansett and the rise of Virgin, Qantas has moved to cater for the business end of the market. Often the Qantas seat price will be dearer than Virgin.
Tiger has opened up a market for many who could not afford to fly but reliability and even safety had become a concern. Qantas and Virgin were reliable. After the actions by Joyce to shut down the airline I will not buy a ticket in the foreseeable future with Qantas. I do not believe that they continue to pass the reliability test.
Unions have a legal right to Industrial action. We have an independent arbitrator who the Government called in to adjudicate. This has forced the temporary halt to the dispute and quickly got the planes back in the air.  The actions by all three Management, Unions and the Government could have been better but that is in hindsight. This dispute is not over yet.
Internationally the share of the market that Qantas holds continues to diminish. It may now be well time for our Government to step in and become a shareholder in Qantas to ensure that we continue to have a national carrier.

marley says:

07:47am | 31/10/11

Well, actually, I’d have said the unions, with their rolling strikes, didn’t give a rat’s ass for the travellling public either.  Should we sack them too?  Or should we do what the government should have done weeks ago, but didn’t, and knock all their heads together?

Steve says:

09:24am | 31/10/11

This whole “government should’ve stepped in” business underlies the whole fact that Qantas is a private company. If it’s so important, nationalise it or the international business. The company may make a loss but if it benefits the wider community (i.e. the rest of the toursim industry) then that’s good!

I bet you would reject the re-nationalisation of Qantas though.

I get it, whinge when governments steps in when you don’t want it to and also whinge when governments don’t step in when you want it to?

Hmmm that makes sense.

john says:

08:48am | 31/10/11

But it’s just so much fun poking them Lezza.

Dash says:

09:08am | 31/10/11

@Lezza - any argument to back up your accusations or is this just a loony lefty view of the world?

I think there is significant intellectual decency and commonsense in these arguments? Where is the decency and common sense in the ALP sitting on it’s hands over the last three weeks. Even when Joyce made the announcement they did nothing! Compromised by their Socialist Union mates.

Joyce has secured a stable workforce and airline for everyone over the next three months. And he’s removed the ability for the unions to disrupt the Christmas new year period. Very decent and intelligent if you ask me!

Of course - Gillard and the ALP would have just let this nonsense continue.

Martin says:

09:54am | 31/10/11

Here we have tweedle dum and tweedle dee. Two Labor nongs fiddling with each other. “Intellectual decency and commonsense” hahahahahhahahah and this from a pair of Labor whackers hahahahahah

john says:

01:40pm | 31/10/11

see what I was talking about?
poking them is great sport.

These 2 or some of the more rabid.

optagon says:

08:35am | 31/10/11

Sensational what he;s done since he’s taken over isn’t it?
Share price in freefall.
Posting losses
More safety related incidents
Pay him another 5 million and see if he can totally sink the Qantas ship and scamper off back to Ireland with a multimillion dollar bonus.
This guy is the fourth amigo.

Que says:

01:33pm | 31/10/11

@optagaon “Share price in freefall. “

Actually the shareprice for Qantas has soared today. But knock yourself out believing anything you want to believe.

Ben says:

01:43pm | 31/10/11

I think you’ll find that the company is making pretty good profits and is the only investment grade airline in the world optagon. The international division is a big drag, but hey, that’s the whole reason Joyce is doing this isn’t it? Share price might have taken a hit, but that’s not out of line with, say, the entire All Ordinaries Index for the last 3 years. As Que points out, the market has overwhelmingly endorsed Alan Joyce today because Qantas is outperforming the broader market by a big big margin.

optagon says:

01:49pm | 31/10/11

Que
Challenged much?
Price when Joyce took over - $2.40
Price now - $ 1.61

Almost as good as Telstra isn’t it Que.
Knock yourself out with you denseness.

Against the Man says:

08:23am | 31/10/11

I guess you haven’t heard the latest news…........oh well a Gillard supporter clutching at straws and trying to spin their way out of a corner….........nothing new there but always sadly pathetic.

Peter says:

09:24am | 31/10/11

ATM - what news is that?

Eric The Red says:

09:24am | 31/10/11

@ ibast , you are spot on my friend.

Against the Man says:

09:43am | 31/10/11

Nothing is getting back on track for days, even if Qantas starts back this arvo many flights international/domestic will still be cancelled.  NT flight 11 am today cancelled just an hour ago. Nothing is really fixed as only some of the planes will be back in the air not all. The way I see it is that isn’t a complete resolution. Gillard didn’t do her job, busy sucking up to a Queen she doesn’t believe in to deal with domestic issues. Maybe Thursday everything will be back to normal (channel 7 &9 news).

ibast says:

10:16am | 31/10/11

ATM,

The fact you label me a Gillard supporter and pathetic, for criticising Abbott says more about you than me.

The fact is, the Government and its legislation took this from a stalemate to a point where it could recover in about 36 hours and that was over a weekend.

Abbott took something that could have gone either way in the eyes of the public and told us what a good job she did.

In fact it’s worse than that.  Those that understand the importance of the term “Status Quo”, with regards workplace contracts, will understand that Abbott proposed course of action would have seen us descend back into situation it was a couple of weeks ago.

Abbott’s blundering approach only highlights his own lack of ability.

dovif says:

11:03am | 31/10/11

ibast

The government could have done something over the last 2 months, but they sat on their hands.

They put Australian travellers’ life at risk
They cost Australian tourism millions
160,000 traveller end up having their booking change or cancelled

All of this could have been prevented, if Gillard had acted earlier

Qantas end up having to force the government to do something, and yet Gillard dither in what to do.

After the AGM on Friday Surely someone in the government had to have through this would escalate and lock out was an option. Yet the government was completely caught off guard. All of them said, oh they surprise us, we did not know what was happening (dispite being brief weekly for 2 months and being told that Qantas was losing over 60 million)

To praise this government as slow, disorganised would be an insult to stupid people

Ben says:

01:48pm | 31/10/11

I don’t think this really has much to do with Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard at all. They’re both just trying to make some political mileage out of it. As far as the Fair Work Act goes, Workchoices would have worked just as well in the same situation because the provisions in Fair Work were essentially a carbon copy of what existed in the previous legislation. I bet you wouldn’t have given Workchoices a rap though would you?

ibast says:

02:18pm | 31/10/11

Dovif and Ben,

My comment is not so much about my beliefs in the situation, but about Abbott’s ineptitude.

Ben’s right in that the mechanisms in this part of Fair work are similar to Workchoices, and so I would have acknowledged it’s appropriateness.

With regards this situation, I do believe the Unions are asking to much in dictating the way Qantas does business.  But that’s not what my post is about.

I do believe the Government should intervene, but not to directly force a resolution, they should intervene to stop Qantas being dodgy with regards taking safety Engineers and Pilots positions overseas.

If they do that the Unions claims become a wage claim only and it would be resolved very quickly.

But that’s not what my post was about.

Selma says:

08:31am | 31/10/11

Liberal trolls just enjoy wetting themselves.

Dash says:

08:56am | 31/10/11

Hayek, you are right, the ALP failed to Act. They were too scared to face up to the union masters responsible for putting Socialist Queen Gillard into power! This ALP incompetence has now led to ALP trolls wetting themselves on this site over the truth!

Richard says:

09:45am | 31/10/11

The fact is that the government DID act though, Dash. What do I mean? I mean that the government IS the unions. All of the MP’s and ministers in the current government were/are the bosses of those unions and the people in them. The unions ARE the government. Expecting the government to intervene in this situation effectively is like someone’s right arm to stop their left arm from slugging a poor defenceless pensioner in the nose~ its not going to happen!

Martin says:

09:57am | 31/10/11

All I have to say is that Joyce made utter fools out of the unions and the government.

Dash says:

10:10am | 31/10/11

Richard, I take your point. But it’s sad that 14% of the working population that contribute about 2% of the PAYG tax revenue has that power over the rest of us.

It just goes to show how out of touch the ALP are! Silly me for expecting this useless government to do the right thing by the majority.

Anna C says:

09:19am | 31/10/11

Excerpt from the new Kwantas jingle:  “I still call China, I still call China .... home.” (queue the music).

against the Man says:

09:47am | 31/10/11

No, I think Singapore will buy it out. Singapore already owns Optus (profits flying away from Australia) and 35% of our farms. And the amount of property owned by them is seriously scary. Funny how an island so tiny with less than 5 million people already own us and we don’t know it.

Sony B Goode says:

09:36am | 31/10/11

an umpire stacked full of Kommunist Klowns that are former unionists.

Komrade Gillard is a traitor to Australia, send her to Cuba where she wil can bask in material equality!!!

Al says:

10:37am | 31/10/11

POA - Considering that FWA has not had the powers to investigate (This was provided in the Fair Work Act 2009) for 4 years I fail to see the relevance (or any truth) to your claim “Pity the FWA have taken over 4 years with their investigation into the Craig Thomson affair.”
Perhaps you mean the IRC, the previous body responsible for this.

poa says:

11:59am | 31/10/11

Seems the paid ALP/Green/Union/Getup! trolls are out in force today.
re the FWA claim..check your facts guys!
As for the commie bit…I’m not saying they are commies..just incompetent.
I notice nobody argues that!

Al says:

01:57pm | 31/10/11

POA:
From the Fair Work Australia website:
“Fair Work Australia—commenced 1 July 2009”
“The AIRC and the Registry ceased operations on 31 December 2009.
Fair Work Australia assumed most of the functions of the AIRC and the Registry on 1 July 2009 and the remaining functions on 1 January 2010.”
As such FWA CAN’T have been working for 4 years on an investigation as they DID NOT EXIST 4 years ago.
So which ‘facts’ dis I get wrong?

Al says:

03:24pm | 31/10/11

Seems like my response is not being posted.
POA - re: Check your facts.
From FWA website Fair Work Australia—commenced 1 July 2009.
As such FWA can’t have ‘taken over 4 years with their investigation ’ as they have only been around for 2 years and 4 months.
What ‘fact’ have I gotten wrong?

AdamC says:

09:46am | 31/10/11

Kipling, it is true that I can’t find a list of union demands. I assume this could be because the negoatiations are confidential. However, Qantas has been pretty consistent in its characterisation of what the union is seeking. Qantas has repeatedly said that: 

- They want to be paid to do work that no longer exists due to the advent of new aircraft.
- They want to retain outdated work practices.
- They want to tell [Qantas] what we can and can’t change.

That is taken from a Qantas media release, so is obviously Qantas’ line, but the unions don’t seem to be contradicting it. Their refrain seems to be that Qantas want to ‘Asianise’ the airline.

While I agree management’s move to ground the whole fleet showed the same contempt for passengers that the unions have been showing (that is, losing Joyce the moral high ground) it has also been the circuit breaker the dispute needed. Therefore, it is difficult to criticise the man. What needs to change is the current IR system that does not limit union demands to pay and conditions. Unions should not be able to dictate how company’s are run through the threat of industrial action.

Loxy says:

10:13am | 31/10/11

Kipling, the unions could have made the claims public (the law does not restrict this) but they didn’t. Not once have the tried to prove their claims are not unreasonable (as Qantas says) by putting out there what they are asking – looks to me like they have something to hide!

marley says:

10:18am | 31/10/11

I heard an aviation expert on Radio National this morning.  His basic premise was that really, this has nothing to do with Asianising the airline, but everything to do with the fact that Qantas is going to have to cut some of its international routes because it can’t compete, and that means job losses.

Loxy says:

10:00am | 31/10/11

There is just no way all the blame can be put on Joyce; the unions must take responsibility for their bullying tactics over the last year and holding the company to ransom. Labour must take responsibility for creating a law (Fair Work Australia Act) that gives all the power to the unions and no recourse for companies except the drastic action that Qantas had to take.

Kika says:

09:34am | 31/10/11

Yeah - go back to RyanAir Alan Joyce

RyaN says:

09:03pm | 31/10/11

@Qantus Club: Just like Sol, is this a recurring pattern from blow in overseas seagull CEO types?
If you were wondering what a seagull CEO is, it fly in, squawks and makes a hell of a racket, shits all over everything then takes what it can and leaves.

I hate pies says:

12:33pm | 31/10/11

Yep, their current business model is terminal, no matter which way you look at it….the workers aren’t trying to prevent the erosion of their conditions; they’re trying to enhance their conditions in the face of the current conundrum. Then they wonder why QANTAS won’t just give in.

Richard says:

10:42am | 31/10/11

You are on the far-left, Contrarian. The other regulars and I of whom you speak are merely moderate, slightly conservative centrists.

The far-right in fact actually shares a lot in common with the far-left, like anti-semitism, hatred of free speech, and totalitarian tendencies.

Face it, you don’t hate the far-right, you had the moderate-minded majority and their insufferable reason and common-sense, don’t you?

Contrarian says:

11:35am | 31/10/11

Oh Richard, I’ve occasionally read your contributions, and the free market ideology you espouse is so unrealistic its laughable. Go on put your views to the Australian public and they’ll be soundly rebuffed, sorry mate your far right. Have I edited you, have I told you to shut it or censored you, No. Let free speech reign.

What I’ve pointed out is a link to an article which puts to bed some of the ridiculous claims of yourself and those like you. That being that Qantas pay their staff so much more that they are uncompetitive. What the article highlights is a balanced approach of criticising the Fair Work Act and also having a go at Qantas management, that’s why is more realistic then this nonsense that it’s totally the unions fault or governments fault. You can’t avoid the fact Qantas took extreme steps, over CHOGM as well, to put pressure on the government. So far Joyce has used weasel words that he warned the government, but has avoided the question as to whether he asked them for assistance prior to his actions.  Government intervention is a balancing act, if they were seen as too heavy handed they’d have copped in in the neck form the likes of you and everyone else on the ‘ditch the witch’ brigade.

Richard says:

01:32pm | 31/10/11

Rubbish Contrarian, utter nonsense. The Australian public overwhelmingly endorses my dry economic rationalism~ look how kindly history now judges Paul Keating’s free market reforms of the ‘80s and ‘90s. Look how poorly Gillard’s government polls now that it has abandoned the free market ideology in favour of re-regulation and central planning. Neo-liberal style economics is coming back in vogue my friend, jump on the bandwagon or become irrelevant.

As for the specific situation at Qantas, I don’t think the government should have intervened. But I also think they should never have changed the industrial relations laws to allow companies to be terrorised by unions in the way Qantas has been terrorised.

Two points here which you haven’t addressed are 1) Why are the Unions free to conduct whatever Industrial action they want, but as soon as Qantas takes the only Industrial action available to them, endorsed in the current legislation, all of a sudden its an “extreme step” and a dirty manoeuvre to “put pressure on the government”. I mean, so you think they ought to just cop it without doing anything and allow their company to go bankrupt?

2) Qantas is not competitive enough. You know its true, you know that everytime you go online to book an airflight, you simply choose the cheapest flight, which will invariably be run by a foreign airline. I bet you do, and if you don’t, you’re in the extreme minority, because everyone else does it, as they should. Now Contrarian, if you don’t want to see Qantas go bankrupt, costing every single one of these employees their job, and if you also want all of these employees to be given pay-rises in exchange for no increases in productivity, then pray tell please Contrarian how you suggest that Qantas survive?

Contrarian says:

04:02pm | 31/10/11

Richard we could be here all day arguing the merits of free market, which aren’t free at all. Neoliberal policies have never been out of vogue for the last 30 years, just what’s acceptable and what’s not varies.

Again you haven’t read the article, but that’s fine.

Regarding your two questions, While I agree that the employer can go on strike, you can’t claim the high moral ground saying you hinted to the government that you may take the step. So far there’s a tit for tat exchange between Qantas and the government about what warnings were given has made the issue quite muddy.

Regarding your second point. No I always go straight to Virgin these days. Jetstars shit, Qantas is shit, Tiger was and is shit. Virgn are the best regardless of price.  As for productivity, if 1000 workers were sacked, who’s picking up the extra work? totally agree that pay should be linked to performance, but CEOs seem exempt from this in vast majority of cases. Isn’t that what many of the 99% are protesting about?

Also didn’t Qantas achieve a profit? Sure it was of off the domestic market and hasn’t Mr Lemon highlighted that the dispute isn’t all about pay?

Michael says:

09:59am | 31/10/11

Better still, why aren’t the unions major share holders in their workers companies? then they could vote down the pay of the board and earn great dividends on being the safest, most productive workforce in the entire air travel industry.

Fuck it, why stop there? why don’t unions invest all their members’ money into the industries they work in, show the world that union initiatives are the ones we need.

Dash says:

12:16pm | 31/10/11

@Michael, unfortunately the unions are too busy giving their members subs to GetUP to organise propaganda campaigns on the Carbon Tax.

Or using it to rent hookers on the union credit card!

Dash says:

10:32am | 31/10/11

@Loxy - he didn’t give himself a pay rise AHHHHHHHH. Will people please stop saying this! The shareholders who own the company vote on his remuneration. The owners of the company gave it to him and my understanding is it’s conditional anyway. Certainly he would not have got it if the union dispute kept costing the company $15m a day!

Joyce’s actions were in fact very good (in fact it was board decision, not purely his). If you look at what it’s achieved, it has removed the union threat of disruptions over the entire Christmas New Year period. A big win for the airline, it’s shareholders and the general public.

What is sad, is that under the ALPs IR laws, the only action left available to the company was to ground the aircraft before the ALP would act. And even then, they deferred it to Fairwork! IDIOTS.

Loxy says:

11:39am | 31/10/11

Actually Dash, Joyce is a massive shareholder in the company given shares are a big part of his packages so he played a bit part in voting for his payrise. However, if you read my post you will see I actually agree with you, I think it was a good thing that Joyce did (although notice to customers would have been better) and I agree that the IR laws are pathetic.

I hate pies says:

04:19pm | 31/10/11

Loxy; a “massive” shareholder? Really? Let’s assume his $2m worth of shares amounts to a 50% holding in the company (hardly a “massive” proportion), then the total market capitalisation of QANTAS is a mere $4m…does that seem a bit low to you?
By the way, a little law called the Corporations Act prevents company directors from doing what you suggest - if he did indeed do that he would go to jail.

Ben C says:

10:01am | 31/10/11

For starters, call on the unions to stop playing games - calling strike action only to cancel the action hours before it was due to begin.

Secondly, if Albanese had been contacted by Alan Joyce on 21 October, what the bloody hell was he doing sitting on his hands?

Thirdly, does Fair Work Australia have the power to step into any industrial dispute if it looks like getting out of hand? If not, why not? If so, why didn’t it exercise these powers?

A rewrite of Fair Work Act is required - unions have so many avenues of action in industrial disputes, yet employers only have one. The Act is only fair to the unions.

Richard says:

10:04am | 31/10/11

Not implemented the Fair Work Act, which gives unions too much power to terrorise companies.

iansand says:

10:18am | 31/10/11

Oh.  Call on the unions to do something.  Or ask what powers Fair Work Australia might have.

There may be a lot wrong with the Act, but so far claims that the gummint orta do something are a little thin.

Any other theories?

AdamC says:

10:26am | 31/10/11

Ian Sand, as I understand it, the Minister could, at any time in this process, have made a similar order to that issued by Fair Work Australia this morning. I suspect most of Gillard’s critics feel that should have happened.

Anna C says:

10:26am | 31/10/11

Iansand, Gillard should have intervened earlier. Under the new Fair Work Australia laws she is has the power to intervene when essential services are at risk. The public has endured weeks of disruption to essential services because of union strike action and threats of further strikes.

splash the cash says:

10:40am | 31/10/11

Well,
When the National interest is at risk theGovt. must step in and Terminate the unions industrial action.
          Australias national interest is above all
It was a ballsie, gutsy, move by Joyce, which forced the govts. hand to terminate the action.

Blind Freddy says:

10:52am | 31/10/11

The conservatives want their nanny.

Its all the government’s fault. . .  The government should have done something. . . The PM should have intervened.

Joyce is an ideologically driven corporate terrorist who went the nuclear option ten minutes into a street scuffle and injured the innocent bystanders without concern. Whatever it takes.

P.S. Doesn’t Abbott support the same IR laws?

iansand says:

11:04am | 31/10/11

The government cannot order people to do something.  The government can make an application to Fair Work Australia for an order - something they did.  It is my understanding that Fair Work Australia, in the course of their decision, said that they did not consider matters serious enough to make an order until the action by Qantas grounding their planes.  I heard tthis on the radio from Prof Ron McCallum, an industrial relations specialist, and cannot find the decision online.

Any other theories?  I am not particularly for or against the unions or management, tending to believe that they are all recalcitrant dickheads.  It is just that I think that the more hysterical entrants into the debate (that would include you, Mr Abbott) should do so on the basis of reality, not fantasy.  If you are going to claim that the gummint orta of done something it is only reasonable that there is something that they could have done.

TimB says:

11:17am | 31/10/11

“Anna C says:11:26am | 31/10/11

Iansand, Gillard should have intervened earlier.”

this. Suggest you check out Section 431 of the act iansand. Apparently Gillard did, buuuut….

” JULIA GILLARD: There is a section in the Fair Work Act, Section 431 that enables a minister to make a declaration. That section has never been used in Australian industrial history, not once, not ever and if we had used that section we would have ended up in a circumstance of legal uncertainty where the minister’s declaration could have been taken to the courts with all of the time delays and uncertainties that would have meant for Qantas, its employees and the travelling public.”

What is the point of having legislation if you’re not going to use it? There has to be a first time eventually.  Not using it on the basis of it not being used before? That’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard.

Of course if we give credence to the argument that such action would be legally shaky we should start to question who wrote the damn thing in the first place….Oh. How awkward.

An incompetent government led by an incompetent PM.

AdamC says:

12:03pm | 31/10/11

Ian Sand says:

“The government can make an application to Fair Work Australia for an order - something they did.”

Or, under s431(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009:

“(1)  The Minister may make a declaration, in writing, terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement if the Minister is satisfied that:

              (a)  the industrial action is being engaged in, or is threatened, impending or probable; and

              (b)  the industrial action is threatening, or would threaten:

                    (i)  to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or a part of it; or

                    (ii)  to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.”

The government chose not to do this. They also chose not to make an application to Fair Work Australia for a similar order, until Joyce had grounded the entire Qantas fleet. A move which, it would appear, was intended to force the government to act.

iansand says:

12:25pm | 31/10/11

TimB - What was the industrial action that was sufficiently serious to invoke that section?  Up to 2 pm on Saturday we had a few bits of industrial action causing a bit of disruption.  The circumstances warranting the intervention occurred at 2 pm on Saturday.  The Fair Work people made an order at 2 am this morning.

What should she have done?

AdamC says:

01:23pm | 31/10/11

TimB:

“What is the point of having legislation if you’re not going to use it?”

Actually, Waleed Ali put the same question to Anthony Albanese this morning on radio. My view is, perhaps a ministerial termination would have been subject to challenge, but it also would have got the parties to the table.

TimB says:

01:34pm | 31/10/11

“Up to 2 pm on Saturday we had a few bits of industrial action causing a bit of disruption.  “

‘A bit of disruption’. Says who? You? There’s plenty who would disagree with your assessment.

The unions have been playing games for a while now. The damage being done was ongoing. How long is the situation allowed to drag on for until it it’s considered serious enough (in your eyes) for government intervention? Is there a time limit? A monetary threshold to be reached?

Imagine the fallout if this crap was still going on over Christmas.

Now clearly from the legislation, the minister has the discretion to act when they feel that it is necessary (not when iansand thinks it is necessary). You’ll note that the excuse given by Gillard for not using this legislation to intervene wasn’t that they didn’t think it was necessary, but rather that they were scared of the legal repurcussions of doing so.

So either the government is to blame for not invoking the legislation when they could have, or they’re to blame for writing such pissweak legislation that it could be challenged & potentially ignored.

Either way it comes back to them.

iansand says:

02:47pm | 31/10/11

I found the decision http://www.fwa.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb7444.htm

If you go to paragraph 10 you will see this:

“[10] It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services. The Qantas evidence was that the cost to it alone is $20 million per day.”

This means that until 2 pm on Saturday there was no action on which Fair Work Australia would have been prepared to act.  It is arguable that the event that underpinned the orders made was the threat of a lockout, which was to occur this evening.  Which means that there was no sitiuation justifying the mmore extreme remedy of the Minister acting using executive powers.

So I ask again.  What should the government have done?

TimB says:

04:51pm | 31/10/11

iansand, you’re quoting section 421. This is where FWA makes the determination.

We are referring to section 431. Where the minister makes the determination.

The government could have used its powers under section 431. It did not because it has no guts, no wish to take any sort of responsibility, and (this is key) according to Gillard, no faith in the legislation that she herself helped write.

Incompetence by the barrellful.

iansand says:

05:42pm | 31/10/11

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.  The grounds are the same.  I find this mad desire to have the executive use rather draconian powers quite amusing.  Are you guys SURE you support the Liberal Party and not some mob hell bent on central control?  It couldn’t be politically motivated because you guys are creatures of principle.

TimB says:

06:25pm | 31/10/11

iansand, you’re the one asking what they could have done. We’re telling you. There was nothing to stop them from using those powers.

If the minister determined that the trigger was there (a subjective call, but one made fairly easy considering the warnings the government were recieving long before Joyce had to force the government’s hand), then it could have been dealt with much more simply under section 431.

The crisis was obvious to anyone with eyes for quite some time- And especially the government:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-made-phone-call-to-pm-julia-gillard-but-was-ignored/story-e6freuy9-1226180960683

“It has also been revealed that Mr Joyce went to the Marrickville electorate office of Transport Minister Anthony Albanese on Friday, October 21, to warn of the crisis looming. He opened the books to Mr Albanese to demonstrate the urgency of the company’s financial position if the unions continued their industrial campaign.

Mr Joyce’s office was then in almost twice-daily contact with senior ministers’ offices providing updates until the annual general meeting last Friday.

With the engineers’ union warning of extending their industrial action into next year, Mr Joyce called an meeting of executives to consider options for negotiating with the unions.”

Your amusing defence of the government relies on this assumption that they *couldn’t* act until Joyce officially grounded the aircraft. This is false. There was more than enough grounds to act before that point came. And even then, the second the government got wind of the lockout plans, they should have invoked section 431 right then and there, and headed off the crisis before it started. You’re making the argument that the government should wait until it all goes pear-shaped then act.

I’m sorry but I expect the governmentto be a little more proactive than that.

From the Age: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/shutdown-exposes-failure-of-leadership-on-all-sides-20111030-1mqhz.html#ixzz1cIUBDLVI

“The unions were being unreasonable and the Qantas response was extreme, but the moment Qantas notified the government of its sneak shutdown this ceased to be an industrial dispute. It became a national emergency.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was wrong to refer the matter to what she calls the “industrial umpire”, Fair Work Australia, and sit back to wait for the industrial judges to hear all parties and weigh all arguments before deciding what to do.”

The governments actions represent a failure of leadership and exposure of their own incompetence. I guess I shouldn’t be suprised to see you leaping to the defence.

Maree says:

10:45am | 31/10/11

The opposite can also apply. The only way Qantas can rebuild its branding is to stop unions trying to dictate unrealistic demands, when its quite clear to anyone who knows how a business is run, that Qantas is slowly bleeding as a result of international competition. Qantas now has to live in the present and the future with a new business model, NOT the past. What worked in the past does not work now. Also, how many commuters did the unions upset with their ongoing actions ?

Andrew says:

12:23am | 01/11/11

Fired he should be given another million. The unions were costing them a fortune, they were telling people not to fly qantas over christmas, they said on Friday that the dispute could easily last another 12 months. How the hell could qantas afford that, now qantas and there customers have certainty, the union cant strike, qantas cant ground the fleet and in 42 days or less the dispute will be over one way or another.

Kika says:

12:46pm | 31/10/11

“Maybe QANTAS should adjust their fleet and concentrate on the up market business. Perhaps play the snob game”

Isn’t that what they’ve already been doing for the past 15 years or so? And because they kept themselves in the upmarket game they lost out on the exploding budget airline traveller phenomenon. By trying to keep up their 1980’s business model well into the 2000’s they’ve lost big time.

Matt says:

11:44am | 31/10/11

Its not just you.

Freeman says:

12:28pm | 31/10/11

yep,

Mal will take the topic of the day and somehow shoehorn abbott into the story, usually as an attempted distraction from Gillards abismal failings.

Kika says:

12:35pm | 31/10/11

Quite like your spelling Freeman - ABYSMAL

Freeman says:

01:17pm | 31/10/11

Thanks Kika, How would you like to be my proof reader?

Freeman says:

01:23pm | 31/10/11

if you think no-one reads your posts, try making a typo. there’s always someone ready to avoid your point but jump on a spelling mistake!

Warren says:

05:43pm | 31/10/11

Not being able to spell doesn’t mean you argument is not valid or well constructed. But at the end of the day, if you cannot spell, or punctuate, or don’t know when to use upper case correctly, people think you are an uneducated retard. Frankly, in this day of spelling/grammar checker software I don’t really blame them.

Dash says:

12:08pm | 31/10/11

Ha, that’s hillarious! Had to try to find a way to implicate the LNP! Even if it’s just make shit up. Unbelievable.

Which board member will be running for party president?

No union has been busted but we do have certainty over flights over the Christmas New Year period and that’s a good thing.

RyaN says:

01:38pm | 31/10/11

@Blind Freddy: Aside from the fact that people have repeatedly called you out for making stuff up, in this case do you care to name who has connections to the Liberal Party.
I would happily name all the connections the unions have to the Labor party.

Kika says:

12:39pm | 31/10/11

Totally agree. I fail to see how or why the federal government should have intervened until now. They are a private company and they should sort their own issues out using the right legal means. Like I said before, by grounding the fleet all Joyce looked like was an angry spoiled toddler who didn’t get their way so went and knocked his friend’s sandcastle over forcing his Mummy to come over and intervene in his mess.

marley says:

06:50pm | 31/10/11

Well, you know, I’ve flown Singapore Air and Cathay, and I’ve flown Qantas, and there’s no doubt in my mind which are the better airlines. And neither had a kangaroo on its tail.