Qantas turbulence reveals IR policy vacuum

Mick S says:

05:56am | 04/11/11

You’re right of course TimB.
We should by now all understand that “workplace flexibility” and “increased productivity” mean that you pay the CEO more and the workers less.
After all, we all really want to see the rich get richer don’t we?
Never mind that Workchoices was introduced with, dare one say it, “No Mandate”.
Until the Liberals produce an IR policy, given under whatever circumstances that Abbott can actually be believed (perhaps a “blood oath”) then they will rightly be viewed with deep suspicion.

Nathan says:

06:11am | 04/11/11

Abbott has not released policy or attempted to that is rubbish he won’t mention it because he is scared that it will loose him votes. Abbott doesn’t allow anyone get their point across without scaremongering all he is doing is running a scare campaign. Name one piece of positive policy he has come out with?

People have a right to be concerned about what he was a part of 4yrs ago, by your reckoning no one should be able to discuss Gillard being a labor lawyer….you can’t have it both ways.

So if its not labor its the greens but never anything wrong with the LNP do you know how illogical that really is that they are always right? This unbalanced view is irritating cause you as soon as you hear anything from LNP you agree as soon as you hear anything Labor you disagree, real independent thinker you are

gobsmack says:

06:34am | 04/11/11

@TimB
So basically you’re saying that its Labor’s fault that Tony Abbott is unable to formulate a coherent IR policy.

acotrel says:

06:42am | 04/11/11

I suggest that too many people look at industrial relations as a ‘zero sum game’ -  (what the workers get comes at a cost to the company).  The simple fact is that in this world you get what you pay for - if you want quality employees who are competent, it comes at a cost.  But you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar in business.
One factor which has been poorly addressed in Australia, has been the use of employee share ownership programmes to motivate the workforce. Business owners seem to be in fear of the potential shift in power balance in the workplace.  The union approach is ‘give us the money and we will buy our own shares.
We already have tax breaks for ESOPs, however it seems we don’t know how to use them to advantage. 
I believe that the current emphasis on individual productivity is wrong, and that the workplace tean as a whole shound be rewarded.  A simple assessment of the ratio of compant profits to wages bill is a measure of productivity, if allowance is made for reinvestment in infrastructure.  It wouldn’t be difficult to reward increases in productivity by subsidising the employee share ownership programme.

I believe that in companies we must all have the same goals, and work as a team.  The divisive approach taken towards IR by our politicians is destructive, and we should lose it before we totally lose our industry to foreign parts.

Nothing else motivates as much as ‘a piece of the action’.

Tim says:

06:50am | 04/11/11

TimB,
Agreed.
The exact same way it can’t be discussed without Lib supporters bringing up the evil Union bogeyman.
Neither side can try and claim some sort of moral highground.

John A Neve says:

07:06am | 04/11/11

TimB,
suggests this article goes to “the heat(sic) of my comment yesterday”, while I agreed with much of what he said yesterday and today, he has immediatlely fallen into the trap of making this a party political issue!

It of course isn’t, it is a national issue; do we want a free market economy or do we want a government regulated market place?

Much of our industrial, business and labour problems over the last 30 odd years, are due to our indecision. As a nation we seem to want both, sadly that just won’t work.

Mahhrat says:

07:21am | 04/11/11

Yeah, Gobsmack got you there, Tim.

TimB says:

07:31am | 04/11/11

Not really, he could do it. But then we wouldn’t be able to judge it properly for all the screaming of “WORKCHOICES!!”, so you can see why he wouldn’t want to bother. Who needs that kind of hassle?

What I am saying is, if people want some serious policy discussion in this country it requires all sides to stop, listen, and judge proposals on actual merits. Dragging out boogymen doesn help at all.

acotrel says:

07:34am | 04/11/11

@TimB
‘The sooner Abbott is allowed to actually talk about IR without the ALP digging up a 4-year old boogeyman, the sooner he can actually put up some policy for us all to judge on its own merits. ‘

I think you have made an erroneous assumption. Do you seriously believe that Abbott is capable of original thought,  and can come up with something different to Workchoices ? We haven’t seen anything from him so far,  which would indicate he has that capability !
Again with the delusional wishful thinking ?

acotrel says:

07:36am | 04/11/11

@gobsmack
Or ANYTHING coherent ?

Tiredof albasleaze says:

07:38am | 04/11/11

gobsmack - graduand of the Hawker brittan school of logic?  where’s the value add?

ZSRenn says:

07:47am | 04/11/11

@ Nathan.Pot calling Kettle much! (Sheesh)

TimB says:

08:16am | 04/11/11

“Nathan says:07:11am | 04/11/11

Abbott has not released policy or attempted to that is rubbish he won’t mention it because he is scared that it will loose him votes….”

Kind of like how Gillard refused to admit she was planning to impose a Carbon tax before the election because she knew it would lose her votes?

“People have a right to be concerned about what he was a part of 4yrs ago,”..

Yeah like the bit where he spoke out against Workchoices. It’s amazing how often you forget that part.

” by your reckoning no one should be able to discuss Gillard being a labor lawyer….you can’t have it both ways.”

I’ve never talked about Gillard being a Labor lawyer. I really don’t care. I’m judging her on her shitty performance in the job.

“So if its not labor its the greens but never anything wrong with the LNP do you know how illogical that really is that they are always right? This unbalanced view is irritating cause you as soon as you hear anything from LNP you agree as soon as you hear anything Labor you disagree, real independent thinker you are “

Now you’re just being a hysterical idiot. I judge all policy positions from all sides on their merits. Yes odds are I end up supporting more of the LNP policies than the ALP/Green policies. But it’s not set in stone like you baselessly accuse.

For instance I applaud the Greens stance on the Internet filter. I applaud those few brave Labor MP’s who are actually in favour of nuclear power. And I wish that Tony would drop his silly direct action policy.

@ John A Neve:

“..he has immediatlely fallen into the trap of making this a party political issue!”

To be fair, Kenny’s article was pretty heavy handed against the Liberals. I can hardly be faulted for responding to that angle. Regardless I do agree that it is a national problem (compounded by the fact that the two majors are at loggerheads over the issue)

“do we want a free market economy or do we want a government regulated market place?

Much of our industrial, business and labour problems over the last 30 odd years, are due to our indecision. As a nation we seem to want both, sadly that just won’t work. “

I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Surely there’s a balanced position between the two. We just have to find it.

I honestly think there is a role for the government in ensuring some basic standards (all the usual worker rights- Holidays, sick leave, base pay etc ). And also retaining the government’s role in being able to deal economy critical situations like Qantas. But beyond that they shouldn’t be involved and we should let the free market reign.

Arthur says:

08:18am | 04/11/11

Has it occured to anyone that wages need to be so high to fund;

generations of welfare recipients
excessive number of politicians and their perks
overseas donations
waste, waste, waste, waste
excessive life styles
ridiculously inflated house prices
big business and CEO dollars
miltary
studies on trains that will never eventuate but was promised at the election.

TimB says:

08:21am | 04/11/11

@ Mick S

“We should by now all understand that “workplace flexibility” and “increased productivity” mean that you pay the CEO more and the workers less.”

I don’t think anyone, ever, has said that. But you keep setting up those strawmen, by all means.

“Until the Liberals produce an IR policy, given under whatever circumstances that Abbott can actually be believed (perhaps a “blood oath”) then they will rightly be viewed with deep suspicion.”

...Riiight. You won’t believe them until they bring out an IR policy you can believe. Except you don’t believe them in the first place because you’re naturally suspicious.

How exactly do you intend on breaking that cycle? Because it seems to me that no matter what Abbott says or does on IR you’re going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and yell “WORKCHOICES”.

Arthur says:

08:33am | 04/11/11

TimB. I’ve never criticised Abbott but here goes.

He should never ever be forgiven for WORKCHOICES. It waas an appalling lack of judgement. It was attacking the wrong problems (see my other posts).

We should deem politicians unelectable for lots of BS they do. It’s one of our only tools to keep them honest.

Dash says:

09:02am | 04/11/11

Mick S is a classic example of the lefty socialist bullshit distorting this discussion. No one has said the Qantas workers should be paid less! No one. They are not taking a pay cut! They are in fact some of the highest paid workers across the international airline industry. Qantas has a cost base significantly higher than it’s competitors largely due to it’s labour costs. To suggest Qantas is paying it’s staff less is a lie. Then again, lefty fools, union hacks and the ALP have turned the lies into an artform! It’s a big reason why the ALP no longer has any credibility left.

The CEO gets paid what the owners of the company are willing to pay him. And it is not up to the unions or the ALP to tell the owners of Qantas, how to run their business.

When the LNP was in power, we had fewer strikes. The country was run for the good of all, not just for the 14% in a union. And the government was not compromised by its benches being full of ex union heavies and backroom head kickers.

Unions represent 14% of the workforce and 60% of the ALP. Talk about unrepresentative and out of touch!

The ALP has a significant conflict of interest. They are run, controlled and aligned to the minority. IR to them means whatever is best for the unions and the 14% of workers they represent. IR to teh ALP does not mean the greater economy or the other 86% of workers who are more productive, better paid and contributing more financially to the running of this country!

The ALP are out of touch and are by the minority for the minority. They deserve the kicking they are going to get.

jf says:

09:11am | 04/11/11

gobsmack says:07:34am | 04/11/11

“So basically you’re saying that its Labor’s fault that Tony Abbott is unable to formulate a coherent IR policy.”

The fact that the ALP used misleading and deceptive languate in relation the Workchoices have lead to an electorate so misinformed that it is almost impossible for the opposition to develop a policy that is going to be acceptable without time and patience and without the massive uncertainty associated with just about every other piece of ALP policy. Thus Abbott’s committment to stick with the existing legislation and respect the electorate’s very clear wishes and to provide commerce with certainty.

On the other hand, the ALP, once again, try to blame the opposition for their policy failings.

jf says:

09:14am | 04/11/11

acotrel says:07:42am | 04/11/11

“The simple fact is that in this world you get what you pay for - if you want quality employees who are competent, it comes at a cost.”

I agree. However, but the same token, if you are a lazy, malingerer that should also come at a cost. And it doesn’t. Lazy, incompetent, malingerers are protected. At the cost of not only the business but also good employees.

“One factor which has been poorly addressed in Australia, has been the use of employee share ownership programmes to motivate the workforce.”

I agree. Sadly this government has removed the few tax advantages that ESOPs had.

John A Neve says:

09:16am | 04/11/11

TimB @ 0916,
Once again I agree with much of your post. Yes, a regulated basic wage, public holidays and basic superanuation. Also regulation regarding working age and sick leave, but let’s stop there.

If we go down the free market path, after the above, it should all be open to negotiation, nothing more. In todays world there is either no such thing as essential services or all services are essential. I would have to ask essential to whom?

On the other hand, if industry, business and the work force want goverment assistance, they should all be prepared to accept government control. As soon as people pick and choose we return to the mess we currently have.

James says:

09:27am | 04/11/11

@Dash

Great rant but we do not have anything construction from LNP either how they would deal with the situation or what their IR changes will be.
The policy vacuum cannot last forever.
Their current policies are over 2 years old.

Dash says:

09:55am | 04/11/11

@James - it’s not a rant, it’s reality. How can you expect good balanced government when the ALP is run, controlled and directed by the significant minority union movement?

It’s not the LNPs job to govern. “You’d be more crap” is hardly an endorsement for the ALP. And to be honest the “it’s all Abbotts fault” argument is wearing very thin with voters who just want the ALP to accept responsibility and to stop the spin, deceit and lies.

Blind Freddy says:

10:15am | 04/11/11

@TimB

Sound like good politics to me. Rational debate? Pffft . . . from the party of slogans . . .?

“Stop the boats!”, “Great big new tax” etc etc. Simple Liberal “solutions” to complex issues.

James says:

10:18am | 04/11/11

@Dash

So you agree then there is an IR policy vacuum at LNP headquarters.

Given he is alternative PM, we should be given insight as to what he would do if he was elected. Not too much to expect.

gobsmack says:

10:25am | 04/11/11

@jf
“The fact that the ALP used misleading and deceptive languate in relation the Workchoices have lead to an electorate so misinformed that it is almost impossible for the opposition to develop a policy that is going to be acceptable without time and patience..”.
Isn’t politics about formulating policies and having the necessary communication skills and credibility to sell those policies?
Personally, I think one of the major failings of the Rudd/Gillard government has been its inability to sell sensible polices (eg NBN, Mining Super-Profit Tax, Carbon Tax) in the face of misleading and deceptive campaigns by the opposition and powerful interest groups.
If Tony Abbott has a similar problem selling his policies (whatever they might be) that points to his failings as a professional politician.

TimB says:

10:44am | 04/11/11

Yes Freddy. We should stick with “Moving Forward” and “Clean Energy Future” instead. Empty Labor rhetoric for intellectually vapid Labor policies.

It’s quite simple really. Why don’t the ALP stop screeching ‘Workchoices’ at every opportunity, and then see what Abbott has to say. If he still says nothing, then he can be criticised. But it’s stupid to ask him to come up with an IR policy whilst people are lining up premptively to shoot it down with Workchoices hysteria.

@ Arthur:

“I’ve never criticised Abbott but here goes.

He should never ever be forgiven for WORKCHOICES. It waas an appalling lack of judgement.”

That’s a bit harsh. He wasn’t the architect of the policy and he’s already admitted the issues with it. I’m not sure why he needs to be ‘forgiven’ (or not forgiven as the case may be) for anything.

It’d be nice if we could put a line under 2007, the Howard-era, and Workchoices and move on from there.

Dash says:

11:28am | 04/11/11

@James - no I didn’t say that at all. The LNP has not proposed to change IR laws and has made it clear that there will be no return to Workchoices.

However, the great thing is the LNP are not compromised with a conflict of interest like the ALP! That’s the point I am trying to make! They are not run and controlled by the unions. In the Qantas case, they would have stepped in and the planes would have stayed in the air. The company would not have been wary of discussions being fed straight back to the TWU and would not have felt the need to ground the fleet to get resolution.

Also, I’d recommend you remember the hollow alternatives the ALP put to us before the 2007 and 2010 elections. They delivered very little! Grocerychoice, fuelwatch, 260 childcare centres, root and branch tax reform, citizens assembly, coast guard, more affordable housing, cheaper better childcare, reduced consultancy costs, fiscal conservatism, the East Timor solution etc. Whilst you may have considered them opposition alternatives and voted for them, they turned out to be nothing more than policy lies!

I put more value in what governments do, not in what they say. The achievements of the LNP in office as government smashes this ALP pack of amateurs. The problem we have is that pople seem to fall for whatever the ALP says time and time again. They are blinded by the promise of revolutions, cheaper groceries and laptops for everyone. And they never seem to learn.

I’d suggest, be more interested in deeds and less in words! The ALP has continually over promised and under delivered. Surely they have little if any credibility left?

Every time the ALP screws up they run this line of “yeah but they’d be more crap” “it’s all their fault we f_cked up”. We need the government to take responsibility for it’s actions. I’m sick of them blaming everyone else. As an example, they dismantled the previous governments border protection laws and yet they are blaming Abbott for the fact that 250 boats have arrived since.

Rather than say, “what’s your policy”, perhaps concentrate on the failings of the mob in charge.

jg says:

11:35am | 04/11/11

Sadly this is a government who has repeatedly shown that, rather than admit and fix a problem, it would rather screech to all and sundry that it was someone else’s fault, usually Abbott.

It is tiresome and disingenious. It is also moral cowardice.

TrueOz says:

11:35am | 04/11/11

@acotrel
“...if you want quality employees who are competent, it comes at a cost.”

Regrettably, that cost is FAR too high in Australia. Some people in the airline industry are simply paid waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much for the skill bases that they have - placing baggage on conveyor belts, working as airborne waitresses and toilet cleaners, etc. Claims by the unions that these are somehow “highly skilled” occupations are pure garbage.

Qantas can readily employ “quality employees who are competent” at a fraction of the cost of Australian workers - and not have to put up with the grief provided by Australia’s over-regulated IR landscape. Qantas has a simple choice - employ outside of Australia - or perish. Until such time as relatively unskilled Australian workers are paid what they are truly worth to Qantas, this will continue to be true.

Adam Diver says:

11:37am | 04/11/11

Workchoices!!! Workchoices !!! Won’t somebody think of the children *faint*

Firstly Kenny’s article is a fairly cheap shot at an opposition who have just watched an incompetent government let an industrial dispute; destroy our international reputation, hurt tourism and strand thousands of travellers. Although I wouldn’t expect anything else from our punch political reporters.

Secondly the “workchoices” scare capmaign was amazingly successful, with 15% of the working populations income supporting the campaign. The LNP’s position is politically understandable.

Lastly, having said that, Abbott needs to man up and confront this issue. Anyone with a slight economic intelligence knows that the current IR set up is wrong, and hurting us financially. He has enough political capital from the complete uselessness and deception of the current ALP/greens to push through difficult policies, and policy that benefits the country will earn him respect long term.

James says:

01:01pm | 04/11/11

@Dash

I get it, so the LNP will do nothing on IR reform when they win the next election as everyone expects them to?

Ros says:

03:05pm | 04/11/11

Listening to the Senate Committee and Sheldon’s press statements it seems that they are trying to make a crime out of the grounding and proposed lockout. Which seeing they were legal actions and legally available industrial tools is dishonest at best. Senator Cameron would certainly know that. And the attacks on Joyce that I saw appear to be about drawing different interpretations of his evidence to Fair Work. What is the Senate Committee going to do, call Fair Work wrong?

Journos quite happy to be spoon fed and not think about it.

Or would he? Jf says “The simple fact is that in this world you get what you pay for - if you want quality employees who are competent, it comes at a cost.” Well if the workers at Qantas’s unions were not considering all of the industrial actions that were available to Qantas then they are fools, and their members aren’t even getting what they pay for. And Cameron is a very experienced union official, so did it occur to him along the way, or is he a very poor representative of workers in the Parliament.

So either the unions are led by unintelligent or overwhelmingly arrogant officials, or they had considered it and thought their mates in the ALP would give them warning if it was coming. I wonder if they had because of the peculiar nature of their defence and Cameron’s support of them (we can be very sure that he is and was talking to them all the time but it is not a conspiracy when the ALP and unions plan together it seems) Their defence is peculiar in that Sheldon says as often as he can, woke up and had the idea all on his own on the Saturday morning. Quite a nonsensical thing to say. Joyce would certainly not be worth his pay if he did not consider all options at his disposal, and seek information from staff and look at scenarios for all options. Then decide to act. How on earth is that so bad!

But he is paid to make the decisions, with staff to advise him, and as he says, certain decisions are his to make without Board approval. That is what he is paid to do.  It is indeed weird for Sheldon and Cameron to make an immoral and illegal act out of Joyce doing as he is paid to do, and acting in a way that the law prescribes.

They say he isn’t worth the money and at the same time say that he shouldn’t act like a CEO and earn the money he is paid. Well certainly have to question the quality of the decisions they make, and how little responsibility they take for them. They make their members pay well for very poor service. And respond to failure with more and more outlandish conspiracy theories. Poor Qantas workers.

Arthur apparently Abbott was one senior Liberal who wasn’t happy with the Howard government’s extension of workplace change to Work Choices and said so to the party.

Bruce says:

04:36pm | 04/11/11

Ros: Not sure what the unions are complaining about. If you listened to what Tony Sheldon said passionately immediately after last Sunday night meeting you would have thought the unions had a great win. Tony Sheldon said it was the unions who forced Qantas planes back into the air. If you listen to Julia and the ALP they forced the planes back into the air. So what are they complaining about ?  The Alp and the unions tells us that they won the day. I am confused !!

acotrel says:

10:49pm | 04/11/11

@TrueOZ
Perhaps QANTAS could get the cheap baggage handlers to work on the aircraft engines, and also pilot the planes ?

TrueOz says:

11:18am | 05/11/11

@acotrel
No, but they could also get those things done at a significantly lower cost. Australian pilots and aircraft engineers do not hold a monopoly on competence - they just get paid a LOT more for it.

John A Neve says:

08:08am | 04/11/11

AtM,
Surprise us all and one day address the issue at hand. But you can’t can you? To do that you would have to think.

Village Idiot says:

08:44am | 04/11/11

That’s funny, the Brubaker poll shows support for Abbott at 11% and Gillard at 59% for PM.
Polls, they are funny things

James says:

08:49am | 04/11/11

Health care is a quantum leap ahead since your hero the phoney tony ceased to be federal health minister.
Of that there is no doubt.

Or is it a fact that lib run states are paralyzed with inaction?
Both it would seem.

Liberal Lover says:

08:59am | 04/11/11

WORKCHOICES will fix everything when Tony Abbott is PM. Workers will work longer hours for less money. WORKCHOICES is cool becuase it screws Australian workers.

Against the Man says:

09:03am | 04/11/11

Boys and Girls I’m happy to call your bluff. If Gillard survives till the next election I’m happy to go away for ever if Gillard or Rudd wins a majority government. Want to play?

I’ve addressed the issue at hand, if you see why a government who can’t get any policy right is always screwing up that is your problem not mine.

So Roxon spent close to 1 billion dollars and Tasmania’s health system is going to collapse (see my link from yesterday) and health care is far worse. If you spend so much to make things bad, that is a level of incompetence only the ALP can achieve.

Loving it, you guys are spinning away and is Ruddy going to take over? You gonna blame that on Abbott too. Too funny and pathetic. Please respond, I’m having a fun time with you guys.

John A Neve says:

09:37am | 04/11/11

AtM,
I know that you suffer from short term memory loss, but when are you going to post that e-mail you boast about?
Or was the claimed Punch’s e-mail another figment of your imagination?

RyaN says:

09:42am | 04/11/11

@Village Idiot: Excuse my ignorance but what is the “Brubaker poll”, can you please post a URL linking to it since I can’t seem to find it.

Labor Lover says:

09:48am | 04/11/11

@Liberal Lover: Not going to happen, under our glorious leaders vision for the future all workers will be paid in food stamps since in our Gillard communist future will not require anyone to own anything other than to be owned entirely by the state and hence our glorious red leader.

Village Idiot says:

10:04am | 04/11/11

ryan
A better question is what’s a yahoo newspoll and where is the link to it.

Against the Man says:

10:16am | 04/11/11

John I have you documented telling a nice, little lie. Doesn’t get better than that. Now I noticed you didn’t accept my challenge, but I’m not surprised.

If you can read, look at the comments in the link:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/union-bashing-masks-good-government/
Tell me why you are commenting on something that doesn’t exist. Did someone get censored?

You don’t need me to post a private email. You need me to stop reminding people you are a liar, liar pants on fire.

John A Neve says:

10:39am | 04/11/11

AtM,
Your childish rants only betray your inability to back up your claims. Yes,
I’d suggest every one read the link you posted and to think they are some of your better efforts!
Now come on, put up or admit you are pathetic.

RyaN says:

11:32am | 04/11/11

@Village Idiot: that too!

TrueOz says:

12:14pm | 04/11/11

@Village Idiot
Yep - weird. I was reading one of the union rags the other day, and it showed support for Gillard at 97.3%!

Village Idiot says:

06:45pm | 04/11/11

Trueoz
That’s funny,
I was reading one of the conservative rags the other day and it said Abbott had a heart
I   LMFAO
Then It went on to say he had a brain and I was ROFLMAO

PsychoHyena says:

09:39am | 07/11/11

@AtM Actually the issue with the Tas health system is that after Jim Bacon we had absolute shite for Premiers and the current Premier is trying to repair all the damage while getting dragged over hot coals for what needs to be done to fix the issues.

Tas also failed to meet the requirements to receive the bonus funding so that screwed us over…

AdamC says:

08:15am | 04/11/11

I agree with your political assessment, Super D. Sadly, it will be a while before sanity returns to the industrial relations system in Australia. Unfortunately, the casualty in all of this is Australia. That is a great pity.

Your Dreaming says:

08:57am | 04/11/11

second Abbott term?

That’s putting the cart before the horse isn’t it? He has to stay as opposition leader for two years until the next election and then he has to win to get a first term
You live in a strange world.

Arthur says:

09:09am | 04/11/11

Australia should have gone on strike until credit card guy was sacked.

We’re mugs….............

Mattb says:

09:28am | 04/11/11

I said this yesterday, and I’ll say it again today. Tony Abbott will not bring back workchoices, he doesn’t have the guts to do so. He’s a populist politician who’s policy decisions centre, not around whats good for the nation, but around what’s good for his political career. Simple as that.

This is for both you and TimB, SuperD

And as for the rant about labor dragging ‘the corpse of workchoices’ out at the drop of a hat. Well why wouldn’t they?, the libs every election campaign for the last two decades have dragged out the ol’ 17% interest rate call referring back to the 80’s interest rates under keating. Ignoring the fact they got higher under Howard’s reign as treasurer. It’s all part of the game. If your sick of it, don’t vote for either of them but don’t whine about one party that does it without complaining about the other.

Martin says:

08:54am | 04/11/11

Yes and as soon as he does there will you and thousands of other Labor nongs yelling Worchoices, Workchoices. Until the Labor side of politics get rational on this issue , nothing will happen. Sadly the union movement brainwashed the Labor drongos that badly re “Workchoices” that I would expect it will take at least another 10 years for any sense to be spoken in Labor ranks.

LNPHQ says:

09:33am | 04/11/11

Nathan don’t be silly, the only policy we have is indirect inaction and we will not bother to implement it as our leader has informed us that climate change is crap.

Martin says:

08:56am | 04/11/11

Oh very intelligent stuff. Until Labor drongos like yourself realise what dills you are, there will be no rational discussion re IR.

St. Michael says:

12:39pm | 04/11/11

Martin, I’m assuming you’re new here.  “Liberal Lover”, a.k.a. “Liberal Loafer”, a.k.a. “National Green Liberal Voter”, a.k.a. “Bikinis On Top”, is well-known as the institutional troll under the bridge.  Please do not feed her.

acotrel says:

10:44pm | 04/11/11

@Liberal Lover
But how will we get the money to pay our mortgages ?  How will we be able to afford the prices of our goods and services?  Are the kind business people going to reduce their prices ?  Are the prices of houses going to be reduced ? - Perhaps that will make potential asylum seekers more likely to come here ?  They’ll get more for their money !

acotrel says:

10:52pm | 04/11/11

@martin
Talking of dills and drongos, I saw Josh Fridenberg on Lateline tonight !  He did not impress !

St. Michael says:

03:50pm | 05/11/11

*spanks acotrel*

What’re you doing? You know better than this!

MarkS says:

07:55am | 04/11/11

@Bazza
Well said. The IR law before Workchoices was ok, maybe even good & that includes Howards alterations to Hawkes & Keatings reforms.

FWA was an overreaction to Howards Workchoices. If you kick somebody in the nuts & do not succeed in taking them out you can expect a forceful reaction.

Both the left & the right are to blame here. The left & their commie hate of capital, the right & their facist hate of unions & free labour.

ibast says:

10:36am | 04/11/11

IR worked before Howard was PM because of the accord.  Keating linked increases to the economy.

Howard scrapped that and decided to use the stick rather than the carrot.

What workchoices did give us was a national system, and given the complexity of the state based systems, that was a very good thing.

I disagree that FWA is an overreaction to Workchoices.  It is pretty much exactly the same with the exception of collective bargaining.  It is very balanced.

This Qantas dispute would have resulted in lock-outs and violence well before now under any other system

Martin says:

08:58am | 04/11/11

@Acotrel, geez, you have finally made some sense congratulations!

Kevin says:

09:40am | 04/11/11

acotrel
You are deluded mate
There is nothing transparent about standards Australia.
Standards Australia is a group of vested interests in a back room “creating” standards that decrease competition and increase their market share.

PTom says:

10:13am | 04/11/11

@acotrel,
Individual contracts had been around since Keating it is the other crap like no collective barging (Non-Union),  no legal representative or review before contracts are signed, no minimum condition (yes it changed after cases appeared of weekend being traded off for a small increase in pay) and changing condition (workday length) when then company like without consultation.

Ben C says:

10:31am | 04/11/11

@ acotrel

Seeing as it’s a subject close to your heart, how do we get people to acknowledge the existence and work of Standards Australia?

Garbonzo says:

09:43am | 04/11/11

Why is it that the media can’t help but run Abbott’s negativity about every issue.
The media bring him into everything that happens for his opinion, which is always predictable much like the rabid right on here.

acotrel says:

07:48am | 04/11/11

@Sides/coin
When Australian companies move offshore, they should lose the Australian market under legislation !

Joan says:

07:52am | 04/11/11

Keep on striking and the only guarantee is there that there will be no job.  You bet Joyce doesn’t have life time job guarantee, so what makes you think other jobs in Qantas should come with guarantee for life? Wake up it is the 21st century and plenty of workers on world stage bidding for your job.  Jobs that can will move offshore- doesn’t matter what business. - Gillard labor and Unionists like Sheldon will see to it and the only growing business in Australia will be selling post cards to tourists.

mick says:

08:13am | 04/11/11

Streuth Joan.l I ever see you do is attack posters who are not compliant with your side of politics.  How about some reasoning.
Maybe you are a Liberal Party plant.

The truth is that jobs have been going overseas for 2 decades and when the last Australian loses his job what then?  This game will only end in pain and poverty.  A nation has to have work for its population and export income to offset the cost of imports.  If China slows and we do not export enough minerals you and people like you will understand the harsh realities of sending Australian jobs to the third world.

sides/coin says:

08:39am | 04/11/11

Irreducible logic is still irreducible logic even in the 21st century, oh Joan.

Follow closely… I’ll do it slowly:
1. Management decides to offshore my job.
= I lose my job… do you have an opening for an aircraft maintennance engineer in your postcard shop?

2. Management decides to offshore my job.
I strike.
OPTION - either management can limit the amount of offshore and negotiate with me and my coworkers, or they cram their egos up their backsides and ground their planes and threaten to destroy the entire company because the naughty widdle union wont suck it up and walk away with nothing.
If management refuses to negotiate and allows their egos to let the company fail, I can lose my job.

Same as scenario 1.

So, all knower of all things - why should they not strike? If your choices are no job or strike, which one do you take?

(Hint - the correct answer is ‘strike’)

Joan says:

09:05am | 04/11/11

sides/coin; Keep on striking and you will have no job. Plenty of workers overseas can do the job , willing and able. What workers have to do is give owners of business a better deal than they are offered by overseas workers- if the offer falls short then business goes overseas.  That`s Australia`s manufacturing history and Qantas jobs will be history too, Sheldon on track to make them history.

TimB says:

09:53am | 04/11/11

@Sides/coin:

Why should management care if you strike if your job is going offshore?

Your job is going offshore. They don’t need you. Strike away.

side/coin says:

11:20am | 04/11/11

Cos Tim - they are not offshore yet and dont have the infrastructure nor product.
All their intended offshore development will be subsidised by local operations until it is self-funding. They need locals until they dont need them, in other words. If the locals decide to withdraw their labor while it is still needed, *all* plans, local or otherwise, are threatened.
Which is what they are doing, and as you rightly conclude, they very much should continue to strike away.

Its the same question - if you know the boss plans to close you down, what incentive is there for you not to close him down?
None.

And Joan…. “keep striking and there will be no job” - IS THE ENTIRE POINT! ARE YOU BLIND?
The question, repeated for the third time, is: What incentive is there NOT to strike?
...if you dont strike, the company takes your job away… is the same outcome as striking the company to death.
Ergo - it is the only logical option to take.

TimB says:

12:24pm | 04/11/11

@ Side/coin, what crap.

If the business wants to move offshore, then that’s a business decision. The workers have zero right to dictate to the business what they can do.

Don’t agree? Alright. What if the business isn’t moving offshore? What if the owner is simpy planning to wind it up and retire? Firesale of the assets, etc etc. 6 months. The business is planning to close. By your logic, because the workers are going to lose their jobs, they should then ‘strike’ until they force the business owner to change the decision.

Or how about simple forced redundancies, taking effect in a few months time? Should those people then strike to get that decision reversed?

Shifting jobs offshore is no different. It’s a business decision that the workers have no say in. It might suck. It might be a ruthless move by the company. But it is NOT a right of workers to have their jobs ‘guaranteed’ to them. Any resulting strike action is not a fight for workers rights. It is merely an act of petulant industrial blackmail.

I would like to also point out, that at no time has Qantas actually announced plans to offshore the jobs in question. It could very well be in the works. but no timeframe has been set nor any other details (which jobs, to where, etc). This strike action is against some nebulous possible future, and is ironically enough counter-productive.

Because if Qantas wasn’t already thinking about outsourcing jobs, they sure as hell are now. Why would they want to deal with the childish entitlement mentalities of their spoilt employees any longer than necessary? Any plans that were in the works have just been brought forward by the strike action.

Congratulations unions. Instead of just sucking it up, getting on with the job (and getting paid quite well to do so), and then dealing with any outsourcing issues if and when it they happen, simply throw a hissy fit and make things far worse for yourselves in the long run instead. Genius.

glenm says:

12:32pm | 04/11/11

The other option is work with management to increase the productivity of the company and you become a valuble asset to the employer.  Why should we have unions demanding   wages should increase with inflation and your job should be protected no matter how useless you are at it.  No you should strike and slow bake your employers business till your job doesnt exist. Now thats some clever thinking.

Tiredof albasleaze says:

07:46am | 04/11/11

oh jane! out of the trees please. try looking at the timing of virgin’s existence compared to the old ways of Qantas closed shoppery.  Apples with apples and then you might see that Qantas is saying let us be virgin-style and we will keep the faith.
Are you one of the greek hairdressers fighting to keep a state pension at 50?  Qantas is in the same place as the greek government.

dovif says:

08:00am | 04/11/11

Jane

You do realise that Virgin uses a lot of non union labour, and its head office is not in Australia? Don’t you?

Jane says:

08:03am | 04/11/11

What ? Have no idea what you are trying to say in between immature attempts at belittling. The old ways were ok, productivity dropped off a cliff since employers got their way and industrial action at all time low. I look at evidence not parrot what right wing zealots dictate. I live in tourist area and have seen how business blame everyone until noone else to blame then beg for government handouts. Good staff are an asset, happy motivated staff are productive. . Also if you actually read up on issues Greece debt is primarily due to tax evasion, not workers pensions plans. Just like Greece , yes , where workers have to pay for the incompetence and greed of management and capitalism.

marley says:

08:19am | 04/11/11

@Jane - productivity has dropped off a cliff?  Kindly provide evidence of that. 

As for Greece, yeah, Greeks evade taxes.  Also, Greek civil servants make three times the salary that someone doing the same job in the private sector makes.  And they get pensions at the age of 55, but of course since no one has paid their taxes, there’s actually no money to pay for the pensions, now is there?

Jane says:

08:48am | 04/11/11

If people do not know Australian productivity is in decline and that it has occured at the same time union activity and industrial action days off are at all time lows, then they need to become better informed. The way forward is through better management, tax reform and infrastructure investment. All policies the supposed friend of business LIberals are opposed to. Unions and workers are not the problem in Australia nor the USA or Greece ...or anywhere. Tome for those resposnibily to take responsibility. A responsible manager would not have even been faced with the decision Joyce faced last week. Alos mining is causing some Dutch Disease and we HAVE to address that and intervention in the currency in the most logical. An offshore soveriegn wealth fund may be the best way. Offset currency gains caused by inflation fuelled interest rates attracting to much trading of the Aussie. Notthing to do with IR, stop blaming the workers.

AdamC says:

08:51am | 04/11/11

Jane, in other words, we should do everything except require businesses to compete in the market.

We tried all of that before. We had a tariff fortress, fixed exchange rates and industries that were run as anti-competitive clubs. We got rid of that economically irrationalist model because it didn’t work. Consumers are not there to provide companies and their unions with monopolistic rents to share around. Rather, companies and their employees are there to provide goods and services to consumers on competitive terms.

It seems many unions simply have not accepted that the public does not owe them, or their members, a living. Protected and featherbedded by their proteges in government, they seems to be doing their level best to ensure the death throes of Australian unionism do as much damage as possible.  But to what end, and for what purpose? The TWU, in particular, seem happy to kill the flying kangaroo just to make a point.

Jane says:

09:16am | 04/11/11

AdmaC, Norway does just fine with an offshore wealth fund and highest income the world. So I suggest it does work,especially if a nations resources deliver wealth to the nation rather than to foreign investors.. Seems the mroe free amrket a country is the more poverty stricken it is.

dovif says:

09:26am | 04/11/11

Jane said

“If people do not know Australian productivity is in decline and that it has occured at the same time union activity and industrial action days off are at all time lows, then they need to become better informed.”

The reason that productivity gain was at an all time low had been previously explained by many evonomists, and people do need to be better informed, including Jane

The fact is we were/are closed to “Full employment” That is the employment level, where the benefit of having an additional person employed equals to the cost of employing that person

If we accepts the idea that the best employees are the first to find employment, the closer we get to “Full employment”, the less skilled are the people being employed, and therefore the less efficient they will be and the more time are required to train them. That is why productivity improvement slows.

This is in direct contrast with Unions forceablly reducing Australian productivity, damaging Australian business reputation to foreigners and costing Australia millions in export

Jane says:

09:59am | 04/11/11

Dovif, So the least employeable workers such as those replacing Qantas baggage handlers as casuals with horrific and unsafe working conditions,  are the least productive of society so Qantas is making an error ? Cannot have it both ways. The reality is there is not enough work and we hide high unemployment with massive rates of underemployment and casual work which does contribute to lower productivity. Why have a fully trained adult working for a few hours a day?  Very poor for the nations’productivity. You refer to full employment, we do not have it… To the shallow thinker it looks like full employment but in reality far from it. There is a large pool of workers to choose from.

AdamC says:

10:06am | 04/11/11

Jane, I’m not sure Norway is the doctrinaire socialist paradise you imagine it to be. You are correct that they have practically prehistoric labour laws there, but the country’s massive oil revenues would seem to make up for that, at least while they last. And Norway is quite open to trade and competition, so I don’t think they would be too keen on the ‘Jane’ solution to Qantas’s problems.

I find union apologists like you quite funny. You seem to suggest we change any rule that gets in the way of union dominance of a particular sector and, when even that doesn’t work and the industry slowly dies, we should nationalise it to save the unions.  Why? Why not just let the union dinosuars die out like they are doing anyway? You are only prolonging the inevitable by protecting them.

And you might want to tell Hong Kong and Sinagpore how stupid they are for adopting free market policies. They don’t seem to have noticed, given their rapid development and massive poverty reductions.

Jane says:

10:37am | 04/11/11

Adamc, What you are saying is way off topic to what I am saying. It is default position that unions are causing all the ills in society and is a lie. There is no proof, plus no proof that the horrid working conditions we see these days have in fact improved the productivity of the nation. Truth is opposite. Some casual workers, like those displacing permanent baggage handlers, are hired in such prolific numbers superannuation contibutions can be avoided..a cost society will have to bear one day. So aside from the fact that money becomes devalued when it becomes more important to some than human dignity, it makes no logical sense. If Norway does not suit your argument then try Germany, another that value it’s workforce and the backbone of the European economy, Workers are the most valuable asset of a workplace. So basic a principle. There is no proof that trashing the value people leads to economic prosperity, only the opposite. Name one nation that leads standard of living lists that has no unions. Never will happen.

dovif says:

10:46am | 04/11/11

Jane

If Qantas replaced baggage handlers with casual at a much lower rate, it can definitely increase efficiency gain for the economy, because if Qantas’ cost is lowered, and they can win more market share from foreign airlines, it increase Australian productivity and Australian income and can increase jobs in Australia

Qantas is trying to reduce cost, so they can grow their airline, any company with a cost base 25% higher then a competitor are going to lose market and eventually losses job. The union action is likely to end up making everyone at Qantas unemployed. Which would be the most inefficient outcome

Ben C says:

11:15am | 04/11/11

@ Jane

Either you have no idea about the superannuation legislation, or you are leaving way too many details out. Employers are required to pay superannuation on behalf of their employees, no matter what their employment classification, except in certain circumstances.

AdamC says:

12:27pm | 04/11/11

Jane, I don’t claim unions are responsible for every social ill, of course not. I just can’t help but notice that their involvement in industries seems to have an inverse relationship to their productivity and prosperity. You mention Germany, but their union culture is vastly different to ours. The sorts of union antics we have seen at Qantas are almost unheard of there. The same is the case in Japan.

Jane, you don’t really seem to be engaging with real life. Rather, you are trapped in an uncritical, ‘union is good’ mindset and then accusing people who aren’t of being unfairly anti-union.

Jane says:

04:19pm | 04/11/11

@Ben C, no they do not have to pay superannuation on casuals if they do not earn the limit or work the hours required.  So they hire many part timers. Some like cleaners they force the worker to have ther own abn to avoid all employer responsibility totally.

S Adend says:

07:52am | 04/11/11

Pedigree will out.
Shorten grew up with Gillard
Combet came from ACTU
neutral Adam Bandt worked with Slater & Gordon (Gillard’s ama mater) & got 300k union backing for his green campaign.
Swan?
scratch a little and its the union boys what rule the labor (even deny they are from the labour side in their name!!)
that’s why we are in a mess - no thought of country (or union rank and file) only maintaining the status quo

acotrel says:

07:55am | 04/11/11

@Joan
‘How many jobs in Australia have to be lost to overseas before Unionists realise that labour costs in Australia have to compete with labour cost overseas for business?’

The Australian labour costs would be justified if our products were the best in the world.  German industry is highly unionised.  So Australian business owners are obviously second rate, and cannot succeed without union bashing. Their mindset is wrong ! !

Arthur says:

08:04am | 04/11/11

I think your view is too simplistic Joan. Yes theLabor government is thye problem but so was the LNP.

If we reduce wages, who will pay the taxes to fund the countless that have never worked? Who’s kids grow up and never work. Housing them, feeding them, medicating them, paying for their cigarettes, alcohol and gambling habbits.

There are countless problems in the way Aust has been managed, prob the least of which is wages.

If wages were reduced how would we pay inflated house prices, how would we keep CEO’s and business rolling in cash, how could we donate countless dollars to other countries, how could we participate in wars we don’t belong in, how could our politicians live in such life long luxury, how could we fund studies on fast trains that will never eventuate, BER, batts?

We should be so fricken rich from having sold all our farms and mines to over seas, none of us would need to work for 20 generations. Unfortunately successive governments have ensured we’re all going to be broke before long, worker or not. If you’re not saving your dollars you’re earning and investing in something not horrendously overpriced, you’ve got rocks in your head.

What voters should have done 20 years ago was revolted and told gov there would be no further mine and farm sales. Instead we have a brand new way to dither every year from republic, to poker machines. Unfortunately, “She’ll be right mate” will be coming to a screeching halt real soon.

I hate pies says:

08:27am | 04/11/11

The unionists will never realise, because they can’t look past their own wallets. The unions whole being is to drive a wedge between employee and employer. Their sole focus is to convince the employees that their employer is their enemy, and they should take as much off them as possible. Until this attitude changes we will forever see the same old issues. Until the unions realise that for every payrise above CPI there must be a prouctivity increase or the company is losing dollars (in real terms) the unions and business will always but heads. They can’t see that there could possibly be a win-win; the aim of their game is win-lose, at any cost.

Liberal Lover says:

09:03am | 04/11/11

All will be good when Tony Abbott brings back WORKCHOICES and totally screws the Australian workforce.

Joan says:

09:26am | 04/11/11

Yep to all- How is Australia gonna survive 21st century and maintain current standards of living?  the world job market is shrinking and employers, big business will go where there is best value for money. We all have to come to grips with that and start figuring out new ways.  The `she`ll by right mate` attitude not good enough and is definitely not a German style attitude to industry by workers or management.

Labor Lover says:

09:44am | 04/11/11

@Liberal Lover: How dare you even consider that minority party will ever return under our glorious leader Gillard. These Liberal enemies of the state will be rounded up and sent to internment camps for re-education and a one party state will be declared to benefit the people.

PTom says:

09:58am | 04/11/11

Typical Liberal rant it all union fault yet they only make up 8% of the work force what about the laws Businesses use for protection instead of competition.

You want cheaper DVD, Books and CD change the copy right laws that business has being using to keep prices up which also goes even further.
You want cheap everything else ask business like
Sanyo, Panasonic … why they sell the same model electronics overseas is cheaper then here?
Apple, EA games … why download programs cost more here then the USA?
Bonds … why clothes now made in China are not cheaper then when they where made here?
It is because the distributor faces no competition.
We don’t have a free market while companies with companies above or others like Telstra, Qantas, Coles and Woollies controlled infrastructure stopping others from getting the same access.

Only last month Pharmacy could not operate next to each other if the local population was not big enough.

You don’t need changes to IR laws to fix pricing problems.

AdamC says:

10:35am | 04/11/11

This is actually a very simple issue. On the one hand, you can have a system where workers, unions and employers are expected to operate in a globally competitive environment where the market sets prices and consumers enjoy choice. Or, you can have a system where tariffs, fixed exchange rates and anti-competitive policies create ‘closed-shop’ industries where unions and management share out economic rents.

The problem with the latter situation (which largely prevailed in Australia until the 1980s) is that it is effectively a conspiracy against consumers, who pay the cost of all the featherbedding and sweet-heart arrangements. Furthermore, as happened in Australia, national income and economic development are compromised. Australia went from among the richest nations on earth to ‘the poor white trash of Asia’ during its economic irrationalist phase. Now some people are trying to turn back the clock? It’s madness.

AdamC says:

09:00am | 04/11/11

Anna C, I have asked this question before, but nobody seems to answer it. Where is the magic in nationalising the airline? Does that just mean we, the taxpayers, will underwrite ongoing losses? Why shouldn’t the public expect a commercial return from its investment, just as private shareholders do?

Anna C says:

10:48am | 04/11/11

AdamC, I personally don’t support renationalising Qantas because like you I have concerns about taxpayers being expected to fund any future losses. I also don’t trust the unions who would see this as an opportunity to agitate for better pay and conditions for their workers.

Anna C says:

11:07am | 04/11/11

AdamC, I personally don’t support renationalising Qantas because like you I have concerns about taxpayers being expected to fund any future losses. I also don’t trust the unions who would see this as a perfect opportunity to agitate for even better pay and conditions for their workers.

Shooter says:

11:40am | 04/11/11

Anna C. The CEO’s of those airlines are also on a lot less the Joyce. He does not care about Australian jobs all he cares about is his bonus. How come since he has been boss the share price has droped and there have been more problem with plane?

marley says:

12:04pm | 04/11/11

@shooter - just checked out Air Canada, which is similar in size to Qantas.  The CEO’s pay package last year was $4.4 million.  Pretty comparable, I would have said.

AdamC says:

12:09pm | 04/11/11

Exactly, Anna C. I suspect the TWU’s ultimate agenda is to force the government to re-nationalise Qantas and have a closed-shop union party at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

St. Michael says:

12:52pm | 04/11/11

@ AdamC: That might be the TWU’s agenda, but I’d be amazed if the government does it.  Renationalising Qantas would effectively amount to an admission that the open skies policy has failed, it’s completely against Gillard’s supposed belief in free markets, and it’s putting another massive hole in the budget to do it since the renationalisation would only happen with Qantas at death’s door and making no money at all.

That’s a shitload of downside for the ALP to suck up just for the sake of appeasing a few trolley pushers in one union—even taking into account the ALP’s chaining to the unions.  If it was a big part of the Right or Left demanding it I think it’d be a different story.  I think the ALP still has enough gumption/disingenuousness in it to ignore one or two isolated unions with small memberships.

Shooter says:

12:57pm | 04/11/11

marley we are in the Asia region not noth america. Joyce wants to compete in Asia. Also I dont see Air Canada shipping jobs off shore

AdamC says:

02:42pm | 04/11/11

St Michael, your analysis of the politics of the issue is probably right, but your assessment of the success of Australia’s (partially) open skies policy is not. As a traveller, I regard it as a great success. Quite frankly, it is not my role as a consumer to bankroll uncompetitive wages and antiquated work practices. If Qantas is not able to provide its services competitively, then it should be allowed to fail.

St. Michael says:

03:03pm | 04/11/11

@ AdamC: I don’t have an opinion about whether open skies is a success or not as such; I only think the government would look at renationalising Qantas as a failure of the open skies policy (which is how you’d expect the Opposition to frame it.)  Anyway…

John A Neve says:

09:28am | 04/11/11

Dash,
I have trouble believing what you post. If the problem was as simple as you try to make out. You and your “86% of the work force”, could stop all this with one action. Refuse to accept any union won award improvements. This would reduce labour costs, increase profits and in turn reduce the cost of houses etc.
Sadly you won’t will you?

Dash says:

10:09am | 04/11/11

John A Neve - fine by me! I don’t need a union and it seems 86% of people working don’t. I am very happy with my working conditions in the financial services sector. Where we have no union representation, don’t need it and never will.

What exactly were the award conditions the Qantas strike was about?? It wasn’t about awards. It was about the unions trying to tell a private company how it should run it’s business.

The point I make is that the ALP are too aligned to the union movement to be impartial. It compromises their ability to do what is right for the majority. Unions represent just 14% of the workforce (that is a fact you can check for yourself). The ALP is by the minority for the minority. They are becoming as irrelevant as the union movement.

To try to align the current union movement to the 1930s coal mine and sheep shearing unions is so ridiculous it’s hilarious! Unions these days are about political power, not about the workers. The unions sent GetUp $1.3million to wage a propaganda campaign for the Carbon tax. How is that a good use of members subs?

Unions and the ALP pay legal fees to cover up fraud! That’s the reality of unions in Australia at the moment.

This is not an argument about maintaining minimum standards. Workchoices protected existing award conditions and the minimum wage. The workchoices campaign was all about protecting Union power and union relevance. Workchoices was a threat to unions not to workers! Workchoices put power into the hands of the worker and away from the union. That’s why the unions waged their propaganda campaign. It was to save themselves not their members and you know it!

John A Neve says:

10:51am | 04/11/11

Dash,
Sadly your premiss is all wrong, “14% of the workforce” represents membership. Unions and I include the AMA, Bar Council and the like represent the bulk of the workforce.
The claimed “$1.3million” to GetUp is no different to the minning companies useing shareholder monies to fight the proposed tax.
I won’t even comment on the finacial services sector, I’ll let readers form their own views in light of the GFC.

Ben C says:

11:34am | 04/11/11

@ John A Neve

Big mistake you make there: AMA and Bar Council are professional bodies - they have standards that you must meet, which may include passing education courses that they provide before admission to full membership, continuous professional development requirements (certain number of hours of developing professional knowledge/skills) etc. They operate the same as what I have and continue to go through as an accountant and member of CPA Australia. If you don’t meet their education requirements, or pass their professional programs and professional experience requirements, you won’t become a member. If you become a member, you must meet certain requirements, the most common being continuous professional development.

You have none of those in unions. Professional bodies also do not represent workers, they represent entire professional industries. They won’t get involved in industrial disputes, because that’s not their function.

Expat Ozzie says:

11:36am | 04/11/11

“finacial services sector” The most unproductive sector in the world. Provides no real world benefits except the shuffling of numbers and the invention of tax avoidance schemes and new betting instruments. If there is ever a waste of human resources the financial sector is it.

Ben C says:

12:03pm | 04/11/11

@ Expat Ozzie

Keep your money under your mattress then.

Dash says:

12:37pm | 04/11/11

@Ben C - absolutely correct. I’m a member of the ICA. None of our members would ever consider that professional body a union. Still if you’re of the left you never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

John, the minimg companies use their own money, not the money given to them by members for a completely different purpose!

@Expat Ozzie - I pay more than twice the average wage in tax every year so you can have roads, trains, busses, and welfare to rely on. How much do you contribute to the financial running of this place? Call me a waste of resource if you must, but that’s better than being a waste of space!

btw, the industry I work in provides cover for people to protect themselves against risk and indemnify themselves for loss. Our society wouldn’t function without the product we sell. Only an idiot would call that a waste of resource. Go hug some more trees!

GregE says:

12:49pm | 04/11/11

@Expat Ozzie - Unproductive? WTF? How much tax do the big four banks pay? How much tax from superannuation or the insurance industry? What’s that used for? Stop smoking and occupy a job mate!

Against the Man says:

12:50pm | 04/11/11

Wow, others can also make John A/Seano look like a fool

John A Neve says:

12:50pm | 04/11/11

Ben C,
It matters not if they have “standards” or not, they are unions in every sense of the word.
“Professional bodies do not represent workers”!  Tell us Ben C who do they represent in that case?
Are you suggesting that the AMA has never been involved in an industrial dispute?

John A Neve says:

12:58pm | 04/11/11

Dash,
You claim “the mining companies use their own money”! Seeing as most mining companies are public companies, please explain that to us all Dash?

Ben C says:

01:02pm | 04/11/11

@ John

Further to Dash’s rebuttal of your GetUp!/mining companies comparison, what does GetUp! provide to society? Not very much, yet they are one of the loudest groups around. What is the point of their existence?

Compare that to mining companies, who are out to make a profit, which results in taxes being paid, employment being generated, wealth being generated for owners.

Expat Ozzie says:

01:06pm | 04/11/11

Ben C: That would make the mattress a little lumpy, Not for me I’m afraid.

Dash: Well I didn’t make twice the average wage in tax but 1 3/4 is close I guess. I don’t hug trees and I’m not a union member nor have I ever been a union member. I’ve never ever been out of work nor do I or my wife receive any child support for our daughter. So i’m no tree huger commie lefty as I’m guessing your thinking. I’m a capitalist who also believes in fairness. My wife also works.

I do think a very large part of the financial services are is a waist of space. Particularly the areas that just invent new methods for wealthy individuals to divest them selves of responsibility. Some of it is necessary accounting for instance but the derivative market as an example is a complete wast of money and time and really is just a form of gambling. The same goes for those areas of the financial sector that come up with hair brained schemes like default credit swaps and Ninja loans, no interest Harvey Norman Loans etc etc.

Insurance is a necessary evil, you should thank lawyers for your job really i’d expect. The biggest problem with lawyers though is when they get bored with suing people they become politicians.

Ben C says:

01:40pm | 04/11/11

@ John A Neve

Professional bodies represent the profession as a whole - does not matter if you are a worker or a business owner, that’s not their concern. I can tell you at least from my experience, that a significant proportion of CPA Australia’s member base are public practice accountants running their own firm. Yes, that’s right, they’re not working for anybody other than themselves. If I had a dispute with my boss, I wouldn’t call CPA Australia to assist me. I’d be calling the FInancial Services Union if I was a member. Bloody big distinction between these two bodies, I tell you.

CPA Australia and the ICAA (and other accounting bodies such as the NTAA and NIA) focus on developing the profession. They do this by promoting our services to society. They also provide education that improves our knowledge of issues that we deal with. For example, changes to superannuation - they run seminars to educate us about the changes that have occurred, so that we can go back to our clients and advsie them. They also represent us in matters that may affect our profession - recent example is the removal of the carve-out for accountants to establish self-managed superannuation funds (actually, they did bugger all in that respect).

To put it simply, professional bodies are to professions what organisations such as Clubs Australia are to clubs. They represent the industry, not the industry’s workers.

I can also guarantee you that the Bar Council, ICAA and CPA Australia have never been involved in industrial disputes, because like I said before, IT’S NOT THEIR FUNCTION.

John A Neve says:

01:42pm | 04/11/11

Ben C,
Firstly it was Dash who raised the “GetUp/Mining companies” analogy, not me. Secondly, at this time Dash has made no rebuttal of my comment!
As to what either contribute to our society, does it matter, surely this is about the use of other people’s money?
Feel free to try again, I enjoy this.

Ben C says:

01:45pm | 04/11/11

@ John A Neve

Forgot to add:

I’ll admit the AMA have been involved in industrial disputes, but that is generally not their function.

Dash says:

01:52pm | 04/11/11

Expat Ozzie - I take back the rude comments. You fired me up a bit. I’m sorry. I have three kids and a working wife so I relate.

But I still think you are off the mark. I take your point about derivatives but they are not all speculative. Hedging risk is sensible. And financial services companies cop a huge capital penalty from APRA if they hold or deal in them.

The financial services sector is one of the largest sectors in the country contributing significant tax revenue and employing thousands of people. Those people are not wasted resource which was your initial accusation.

Insurance is not evil! You only have to look at what the industry has done for people in Japan, Christchurch, Brisbane and North Queensland to realise that it is fundamental to Western society. It protects people’s assets and livelihood. It puts people back on their feet and spreads local risk across the globe. Giving people protection and piece of mind is not evil at all. And I suspect your work is adequately insured so that they remain a going concern and you have job security.

And I have no idea why you think Lawyers are to thank for my job? I don’t get that at all. Unless you’re thinking about PI or D&O?? Bit of a narrow view of the industry.

Ben C says:

02:23pm | 04/11/11

@ John A Neve

Very happy to try again.

My GetUp!/mining companies comparison is in direct response to your statement:

“The claimed “$1.3million” to GetUp is no different to the minning companies useing shareholder monies to fight the proposed tax.”

Dash’s rebuttal:

“John, the minimg companies use their own money, not the money given to them by members for a completely different purpose!” is in direct response also to the above comment you made.

We’re merely pointing out the fact that mining companies have the interests of their owners (shareholders) to look after, which is why they’re spending money to fight against the mining and carbon taxes (they also have the blessing of their shareholders to do so). What interests does GetUp! have to look after? That’s the main question we’re raising.

I’ll be happy if you can answer that one question.

Dash says:

03:06pm | 04/11/11

@John Neve - I did actually respond to you but it wasn’t posted??

Mining companies are private companies, not public as you suggest. They spend money in order to generate profits to distribute back to their owners.

Unions receive subs from members in order for them to look after their members. Not for supporting a socialist left wing organisation’s propaganda campaign on the carbon tax. Nor for wasting on union credit cards!

Btw, it was you who tried to create the nexus between GetUp and mining companies not me! I merely said the unions funded GetUp. No mention from me at all about the miners. Your mistake. See your post from 11.51.

Your reference to the GFC is laughable too btw. There was no GFC here in Australia! The issue in Greece is actually created from years of socialist government and socialism. The issue in Europe is because joining the EU has taken the monetary policy levers away from countries like Spain and Ireland.

In the US there was definite issues related to the banking sector. But there was also significant levels of government debt and private debt to blame. The ALP hasn’t balanced a budget yet and the LNP paid off all of the previous ALP government’s debt. Not to mention restoring the AAA credit rating that the ALP and Keating lost. Happy to discuss that with you too John.

Jane says:

04:14pm | 04/11/11

Dash, Insurance is evil. They back out soon as you make a claim and then even if you do not. Cairns Council could only find one insurer this year and then at 50% increase in premioums despite Cairns always dodging major cyclones due to geography. Next year maybe no insurer will cover us. I think with climate change we should have government insurance funds. Private fair weather funds not viable anymore.

Dash says:

04:35pm | 04/11/11

Jane, if you saw the losses for the industry this year, you might not say that. I hope you insure your house and your car.

Expat Ozzie says:

05:28pm | 04/11/11

Dash: Don’t worry about the rude comments. I like this forum for it’s passion not it’s moderation. This is one of the few places I even bother with these days because it will publish just about anything you wish to write no matter what. I in a small way it’s democracy in action. I have pretty thick skin having managed relatively large work forces over the years.

I’m probably being a little general, I’m in the middle of uni exams at the moment so attention is divided a little, i’m forty and study never seems to finish dam having to constantly up-skill!!

Anyway my biggest beef with the financial sector isn’t really with insurance or accounting or banking for that matter,well certain areas of it. The problem I tend to have with it is the incredible waste of human effort directed in areas that provide little real world benefits, the derivative markets are one of them areas. Maybe it’s my practical engineering background but all I see is a crap load of money going into high risk investments that are little more then gambling.

Point taken on insurance but my reference was more aimed at the suing culture we are gaining from the US and it’s effect on insurance premiums for doctors and for public liability for that matter. Once again I was a bit general and I appologise. I’ve been a landlord for many years and fully agree with the need for insurance. For that matter I’m always into those that I manage that by investments and don’t get landlords insurance etc.

Anyway hope you have a good weekend, mine will be studying Operating Systems and Networks. Manuals are endless fun.

ATM: Thank you for complement. You provide and endless source of amusement for me keep up the good work.

GregE: Have had job all my life and payed more tax then I care to think about. I don’t tend judge the usefulness of things based on the amount taxation payed but each to there own I guess.

John A Neve says:

05:36pm | 04/11/11

Dash,
Unless I’m mistaken most mining companies have shareholders so how can they be private companies? I suppose one person could hold all ther shares, but what would be the point?

It was also you who raised the $1.3million on union funds to GetUp, not me. I don’t know, but would suggest that the unions saw most of the profits going offshore as being detrimental to Australians as a whole.

As to “unions” both you and Ben C obviously have no idea as to the meaning of union or association! As a result I can do nothing other than to say you are both wrong.

Dash says:

10:55am | 04/11/11

As I say above, the issue we have in Australia is that the ALP are too aligned with the union movement and it gets in the way of them being impartial. The head of the TWU, tony Sheldon, was a member of the ALP since he was 15! And he is likely to be ALP president. Paul Howes was instrumental in removing Rudd and putting Gillard into power. Then you have Combet, Furgeson, Shorten etc on the ALP benches.

Workchoices was a threat to unions because it put power into the hands of workers and away from the unions. Their campaign was all about maintaining union political power and not about the worker at all. Now it can be argued that the ALP has put more power back into the hands of the unions.

In the Qantas case, the ALP sat by and let the unions perform their “slow burn” on the company. They were too scared to stand up to their union bosses.

There is no way, with the ALP in power and with such a significant conflict of interest, that this is the “best system”!

There is no way the ALP are able to be impartial towards employers and unions in government!

ibast says:

11:29am | 04/11/11

“In the Qantas case, the ALP sat by and let the unions perform their “slow burn” on the company. They were too scared to stand up to their union bosses. “

This happened because of the use of the term “Status Quo” in the agreement.  It is one area that does need clarifying.  It basically allows unions to be disruptive, so long as that is all they do.  It is a tweak to FWA rather than a complete rework.

Still I believe under any other previous system it would have escalated to stoppage and violence a long time ago.

Joan says:

12:20pm | 04/11/11

At a time when there is plenty of world cheap quality labour ready and willing to service Qantas and any Australian business- its not a good time to bite the hand that feeds you.  Looks like 47% of Australians living in 20th century labour dreamtime. Chinese woke up late last century, Australians still in last century labour market dreamtime coma.  Chinese not scared of using world top brains, search world for best top deals, getting top results in every area. Meanwhile the best Tony Sheldon and likes can dream up for job opportunties is a strike. How totally pathetic. A strike the solution for 21st century problems.  Yesteryears solutions from a yesteryear thinking man. Australia digging holes, sits on masses of energy coal, uranium, gas too scared to use,  twiddling thumbs while China on track to conquer the world and space.

Jane says:

12:49pm | 04/11/11

Joan, 100 years ago China was going to be the next big economy.  No guarantee it will happen this time either. If we all become lile US then who will pay China for their goods?

Expat Ozzie says:

10:24am | 05/11/11

You obviously have little understanding of the aircraft industry and the training standards required of the so called lowly mechanics you refer to. Ignorance such a what you display should be treated with the contempt it deserves. You should change your handle observer is a little pretentious considering your ignorance.