Society/Culture Qantas cancels all flights indefinitely

[Monniehawk]

Primarily because you read all posts with your prejudices hanging out...

This?? From you?

 

[Max zero]

Whats got me stuffed is that the company can't get rid of workers who stated objective is the damage the company they work for.

People say 'industrial action is the workers only option'. Which is dead wrong, they can always quit.

Qantas' only option was to literally shut down their business. They certainly can't fire openly hostile workers.

 

[Monniehawk]

Whats got me stuffed is that the company can't get rid of workers who stated objective is the damage the company they work for.
People say 'industrial action is the workers only option'. Which is dead wrong, they can always quit.
Qantas' only option was to literally shut down their business. They certainly can't fire openly hostile workers.

Why can't Qantas quit the airline industry and, say, produce kewpie dolls for sideshows...?
Why is the onus on the workers to quit and find a new industry?
Why are the workers hostile? Could it be that Qantas' stated objective is to lower conditions and/or get rid of workforce?
if not,
Why should workers opt for lower conditions, while Qantas must have improved conditions?
Two way street.

 

[Eagle87]

This?? From you?

Mate, I have my views on things but, unlike you and several others I (a) don't claim that I am without leanings one way or another on issues; and (b) consider all sides of a position before arriving at my "prejudice"...

Its the clamor for the high ground as some sorts of paragons of virtue that piss me off regarding clowns like yourself.

Just admit you're a poorly informed soft leftie and move on... It's not like we don't know already ....

... Oh, and you could try answering the question posed 3 times now if you've got the nuts to have a go - one suspects not but rather a bit more self-edifying diversion

 

[Eagle87]

Why can't Qantas quit the airline industry and, say, produce kewpie dolls for sideshows...?
Why is the onus on the workers to quit and find a new industry?
Why are the workers hostile? Could it be that Qantas' stated objective is to lower conditions and/or get rid of workforce?
if not,
Why should workers opt for lower conditions, while Qantas must have improved conditions?
Two way street.

You get that employees are a supplier to the business?

They, like many suppliers, play a critical role in the business that Qantas own, like those suppliers they get to argue the terms of that supply and if they don't like the terms they can refuse supply.

You, like others on the left, seem to think that the business owners, the ones with real equity and risk, should be placed in the hands of the suppliers who will accept no responsibility for performance or failure of the business...

It's Qantas' business to run, not the employees...

Qantas could quit the industry and certainly logic would suggest they might, effectively, as regards the international part. Of course they might prefer to do this via an orderly restructure over time which the employees are currently stopping, as if that somehow helps...

Qantas are the business owners and operators and they should be allowed to run said business. If regulations overly favor one supplier to the detriment of running the business then perhaps the business isn't viable. Can I ask how much of the losses Qantas staff are currently covering or sharing the risk in?

Presumably you've run a business at one stage and you grasp the difference between business and supplier?

 

[Monniehawk]

Mate, I have my views on things but, unlike you and several others I (a) don't claim that I am without leanings one way or another on issues; and (b) consider all sides of a position before arriving at my "prejudice"...

Its the clamor for the high ground as some sorts of paragons of virtue that piss me off regarding clowns like yourself.

Just admit you're a poorly informed soft leftie and move on... It's not like we don't know already ....

... Oh, and you could try answering the question posed 3 times now if you've got the nuts to have a go - one suspects not but rather a bit more self-edifying diversion

1. See above!
2. Now you're sounding like a scorned schoolboy with a self-image problem! Come on!
If you are daunted by posters on BF having an opinion contrary to yours, then seek therapy - or at lest more cogent arguments. It is a forum after all, and populated by those with opinions that beg airing and challenging. It is a vehicle for polemics and polarisation. Standing as far as you do from the centre, you should well understand that.
If you can't stand the heat, go elsewhere. I have no intention of listening to you bleating on about how the big bully lefties have the temerity to disagree with you and don't play fair by raising ethical issues. Really!
If you read my posts, I have stated my position and sympathies. I also listened to counter arguments, and have dismissed many in accordance with my prejudices. You likewise.
As for the paragon of virtue crap, some people just make it so easy feel superior.
I thank you.

 

[Monniehawk]

You get that employees are a supplier to the business?
They, like many suppliers, play a critical role in the business that Qantas own, like those suppliers they get to argue the terms of that supply and if they don't like the terms they can refuse supply.

They did! That is your main bitch. They stopped work in what is called a strike. They withdrew labour. Stopped supply. You have railed against them ever since in a manic attack, and now you say they can do it!??

You, like others on the left, seem to think that the business owners, the ones with real equity and risk, should be placed in the hands of the suppliers who will accept no responsibility for performance or failure of the business...
It's Qantas' business to run, not the employees...

Clueless.
The employees have no business running their own business? No business contesting issues that directly affect them carrying out their own business?
Two way street!

Qantas could quit the industry and certainly logic would suggest they might, effectively, as regards the international part. Of course they might prefer to do this via an orderly restructure over time which the employees are currently stopping, as if that somehow helps...

Do we need Qantas?

Qantas are the business owners and operators and they should be allowed to run said business. If regulations overly favor one supplier to the detriment of running the business then perhaps the business isn't viable. Can I ask how much of the losses Qantas staff are currently covering or sharing the risk in?

Ummm. Let's see. They may be risking their careers. Big enough risk for you?
This is two groups locked in mortal combat. One will lose - I suspect the workers. I take no joy in that. Nor will I take any joy in Qantas should the unlikely alternative occur. But, as I stated in earlier posts, my sympathies are with the workers, not necessarily my objective analysis of the outcome.
Now get off your high horse and try to be a little more objective. You may gain some credibility.

Presumably you've run a business at one stage and you grasp the difference between business and supplier?

I have - and am very much aware of how it runs. So?

 

[Max zero]

They did! That is your main bitch. They stopped work in what is called a strike. They withdrew labour. Stopped supply. You have railed against them ever since in a manic attack, and now you say they can do it!??

So if the workers are taking away thier supply of employment you would support Qantas being able to find a new supply of labour?

 

[Max zero]

Why can't Qantas quit the airline industry and, say, produce kewpie dolls for sideshows...?
Why is the onus on the workers to quit and find a new industry?
Why are the workers hostile? Could it be that Qantas' stated objective is to lower conditions and/or get rid of workforce?
if not,
Why should workers opt for lower conditions, while Qantas must have improved conditions?
Two way street.

Who said they have to find a new industry? They can work for Virgin or a regional airline.

Maybe Qantas should switch to kewpie dolls. I'm sure the staff would be happy to adjust to the lower pay (since the market for kewpie dolls is much smaller then for airline travel).

The workers have to put up with it because they can end it whenever they want. The company on the other hand can't.

 

[Monniehawk]

So if the workers are taking away thier supply of employment you would support Qantas being able to find a new supply of labour?

I'm not happy with either outcome. There will be an inevitable loser.
Not a happy position.

 

[Max zero]

I'm not happy with either outcome. There will be an inevitable loser.
Not a happy position.

I didn't ask how you happy you were about it but whether you agree with business being able to find other sources of labour if their current labour chooses to restrict supply.

 

[Eagle87]

1. See above!
2. Now you're sounding like a scorned schoolboy with a self-image problem! Come on!
If you are daunted by posters on BF having an opinion contrary to yours, then seek therapy - or at lest more cogent arguments. It is a forum after all, and populated by those with opinions that beg airing and challenging. It is a vehicle for polemics and polarisation. Standing as far as you do from the centre, you should well understand that.
If you can't stand the heat, go elsewhere. I have no intention of listening to you bleating on about how the big bully lefties have the temerity to disagree with you and don't play fair by raising ethical issues. Really!
If you read my posts, I have stated my position and sympathies. I also listened to counter arguments, and have dismissed many in accordance with my prejudices. You likewise.
As for the paragon of virtue crap, some people just make it so easy feel superior.
I thank you.

So, again, avoidance of answering the question dressed up in copious amounts of aimless crap ....

And then an enormously funny claim to superiority...

I'm happy for folk to have an alternate view. I just prefer it when they realise they are talking out of their arse and are coming from a position of baseless flag waving ...

Its nice to see you finally beginning to acknowledge that.

 

[Eagle87]

They did! That is your main bitch. They stopped work in what is called a strike. They withdrew labour. Stopped supply. You have railed against them ever since in a manic attack, and now you say they can do it!??

Well, not really, they have decided they don't like the terms the product purchaser is offering and have decided to use their monopoly power to try and extort more even though the market suggests the "offer" was better than market.

A shame the purchaser can't simply deal with other suppliers and see if they'd accept the terms...

You'd be ok with that?

Clueless.
The employees have no business running their own business? No business contesting issues that directly affect them carrying out their own business?
Two way street!

BS. Complete and utter BS. The employees are charged with doing a job, per their employment agreement. The employees charged with running the business are the ones who are trying to tell the ones who have no such role that they are putting the rest of the business and the rest of the employees at risk by their demands...

The people charged with loading baggage or flying planes do not run the business they are merely suppliers of a service who want to interfere in areas beyond their contractual role.

Scary that anyone can be so misguided and yet so full of opinion...

Do we need Qantas?

International? Doubtful. I don't use them because they aren't great, they are expensive and using a Perth base in Australia, they really don't service us anywhere near as well as several other international carriers ...

But thats beside the point. They will have no say in the matter if the employees somehow successfully gain control of future planning decisions as they are seeking to ...

Ummm. Let's see. They may be risking their careers. Big enough risk for you?

Not even close. They get paid every week, no risk. Their entitlements are fully funded. No risk. They can give 4 weeks notice today and leave. Zero risk. Unless one is overly melodramatic .....

This is two groups locked in mortal combat. One will lose - I suspect the workers. I take no joy in that. Nor will I take any joy in Qantas should the unlikely alternative occur. But, as I stated in earlier posts, my sympathies are with the workers, not necessarily my objective analysis of the outcome.

Melodrama indeed ("mortal combat"). Its hardly that. Its employees, empowered by a patsy government and some labour friendly legislation seeking to impose management control over a company via their employment contracts. Its nuts and a terrible precedent if it were successful.

Your bias doesn't allow you to see and acknowledge the clear issue in dispute ...

Now get off your high horse and try to be a little more objective. You may gain some credibility.

Oh, the ironing .....

I have - and am very much aware of how it runs. So?

One assumes unsuccessfully?

Why did you stop?

I mean ANYONE who has owned a business and sides with the "workers" in this dispute has lost their mind ...

 

[Monniehawk]

Well, not really, they have decided they don't like the terms the product purchaser is offering and have decided to use their monopoly power to try and extort more even though the market suggests the "offer" was better than market.
A shame the purchaser can't simply deal with other suppliers and see if they'd accept the terms..

.
The supplier in this case is the union, not an individual. The union represents the individual as a collective. Reassess your answer in the light of that.

BS. Complete and utter BS. The employees are charged with doing a job, per their employment agreement. The employees charged with running the business are the ones who are trying to tell the ones who have no such role that they are putting the rest of the business and the rest of the employees at risk by their demands...
The people charged with loading baggage or flying planes do not run the business they are merely suppliers of a service who want to interfere in areas beyond their contractual role.

It depends on your perspective. We are at odds on that.
They have not attempted to 'run the business'. That is your confection - and your melodramatic take. They have demanded certain conditions that obviously affect the business. Qantas has rejected those. Qantas has demanded certain conditions that affect the workers. The union has rejected that. Stalemate.

Scary that anyone can be so misguided and yet so full of opinion...

Misguided?

International? Doubtful. I don't use them because they aren't great, they are expensive and using a Perth base in Australia, they really don't service us anywhere near as well as several other international carriers ...
But thats beside the point. They will have no say in the matter if the employees somehow successfully gain control of future planning decisions as they are seeking to ...

Hard to get it through to you. The employees do not 'run the company'. They can seek to influence some aspects that have a direct impact them. Reasonable enough. If it doesn't work, so be it. That's the nature of IR and arbitration.

Not even close. They get paid every week, no risk. Their entitlements are fully funded. No risk. They can give 4 weeks notice today and leave. Zero risk. Unless one is overly melodramatic .....

Get your head out of the clouds...

Melodrama indeed ("mortal combat"). Its hardly that. Its employees, empowered by a patsy government and some labour friendly legislation seeking to impose management control over a company via their employment contracts. Its nuts and a terrible precedent if it were successful.

You just don't get it..

Your bias doesn't allow you to see and acknowledge the clear issue in dispute ...

Please! In the light of the above and other statements you posted, you are lecturing others on bias .....?
Of course I'm biased! I have my opinion as do you. That's what we do on BF. I can still reason, as can you; but the combative nature of your posts militates against a reasonable stance.

I mean ANYONE who has owned a business and sides with the "workers" in this dispute has lost their mind ...

What?
You may have lost yours!

 

[Eagle87]

.
The supplier in this case is the union, not an individual. The union represents the individual as a collective. Reassess your answer in the light of that.

It depends on your perspective. We are at odds on that.
They have not attempted to 'run the business'. That is your confection - and your melodramatic take. They have demanded certain conditions that obviously affect the business. Qantas has rejected those. Qantas has demanded certain conditions that affect the workers. The union has rejected that. Stalemate.

Misguided?
Hard to get it through to you. The employees do not 'run the company'. They can seek to influence some aspects that have a direct impact them. Reasonable enough. If it doesn't work, so be it. That's the nature of IR and arbitration.

Get your head out of the clouds...

You just don't get it..
Please! In the light of the above and other statements you posted, you are lecturing others on bias .....?
Of course I'm biased! I have my opinion as do you. That's what we do on BF. I can still reason, as can you; but the combative nature of your posts militates against a reasonable stance.
What?
You may have lost yours!

Mate, I'm not sure there is much point arguing with a bloke who fails to acknowledge the central issue in the dispute and that issue is the employees seeking to insert clauses in an employment agreement that go way beyond the normal terms of an agreement - these terms have been widely referred to as seeking to effectively manage the business.

Job security clauses that seek guarantees as to all current jobs, to the terms on which contractors can be employed - including overseas! - and which seek to require Qantas to register any subs in Australia are a direct reach into seeking to "manage" the business - read any bloody article by almost anyone re this dispute. That's Qantas' sole unresolvable issue and one the unions won't budge on.

Tellingly almost all commentators believe that FWA will not wander into this area as part of their binding decision because it would amount to managing the Qantas business via an agreement...

It's a disgraceful step taking by employees via thir unions caused in no smll part by the Act and by a union beholden government.

It's the crux of the issue...

I mean what business would accept "In addition to us being the highest paid, least flexible workforce in the industry, we require that all current positions are guaranteed and any future contractors must be on at lest the same pay & conditions (including lack of flexibility) and that includes any outsourced (overseas) contractors + any new entities Qantas sets up must be Australian incorporated and bound by the same conditions"

If it wasn't so serious we'd all laugh and assume it was a pisstake...

It's the new laws and a newly empowered union movement that are pushing these various "job security" clauses alongside their attack on all independent contractors that is the insidious issue here and a step backwards in IR, at a time where increased productivity and flexibility are required ... according to almost everyone bar the union movement ...

Your assertions that this is all just posturing and business as usual are way off beam IMO and that's my point. Your failure to acknowledge THE issue in the dispute I.e. "management" via employment agreement is unhelpful in having a worthwhile discussion...

 

[MacMum]

Ok, I'll put this question out there..

If YOU owned a business and employed people to work for YOU, how would you like them just downing tools (so to speak) and demanding, yes demanding, that you stop running YOUR business the way YOU want to run it..

..and would YOU want to be paying workers who don't do their job properly and are dissident along the way, calling stop work meetings, threatening to walk off the job?....

..No I doubt it very much...YOU can't run a successful business with your workers carrying on like that!!....

...my guess is you would want to sack the bloody lot of them and get people who WANT to work for YOU and are happy to do the job YOU will be paying them to do..

..think about it..

 

[Monniehawk]

Mate, I'm not sure there is much point arguing with a bloke who fails to acknowledge the central issue in the dispute and that issue is the employees seeking to insert clauses in an employment agreement that go way beyond the normal terms of an agreement - these terms have been widely referred to as seeking to effectively manage the business.

Come on. It is YOUR central issue, not THE central issue. The unions are being pushed to the edge and they can't realise it is a lost cause. When they do, it will be all over for them. Realistically, they have nowhere to go because times have bypassed them. The central issue is far bigger than this Qantas dispute.

Job security clauses that seek guarantees as to all current jobs, to the terms on which contractors can be employed - including overseas! - and which seek to require Qantas to register any subs in Australia are a direct reach into seeking to "manage" the business - read any bloody article by almost anyone re this dispute. That's Qantas' sole unresolvable issue and one the unions won't budge on.

Unions are in the business of delivering job security. You have issue with that. I don't. I just don't think it is going to work in this, or many future, dealings. Qantas is in the business of profit. That will always be and they will deliver it after they dispose of the unions. That is the way it is; two sides with ideals that are now incompatible.

Tellingly almost all commentators believe that FWA will not wander into this area as part of their binding decision because it would amount to managing the Qantas business via an agreement...

Good. 'Almost all' leaves some room for conjecture (and consequentially) argument.

It's a disgraceful step taking by employees via thir unions caused in no smll part by the Act and by a union beholden government.

Careful. You're showing a lack of objectivity here. It's the crux of the issue...

I mean what business would accept "In addition to us being the highest paid, least flexible workforce in the industry, we require that all current positions are guaranteed and any future contractors must be on at lest the same pay & conditions (including lack of flexibility) and that includes any outsourced (overseas) contractors + any new entities Qantas sets up must be Australian incorporated and bound by the same conditions"

Is this the actual text of the proposal... or your interpretation on it; dramatised and biased to inflate a point?
Now, be serious!
You have displayed a poorly disguised gung-ho approach in your anti union, anti leftist emotive rants like that above and below, and that cheapens much of your objective analysis or cogent argument. I can understand you taking one side, but keep it real, eh?

It's the new laws and a newly empowered union movement that are pushing these various "job security" clauses alongside their attack on all independent contractors that is the insidious issue here and a step backwards in IR, at a time where increased productivity and flexibility are required ... according to almost everyone bar the union movement ...

Newly empowered? I think you will find that the unions are virtually castrated by the new laws - certainly compared with a decade or so ago.
That is part of the evolutionary global economics and IR practice. It is an inevitable consequence and will only increase. I am realistic enough to recognise that, but I am still hoping the workers come out with something. As I have stated time and again, that is where my sympathies lie.

Your assertions that this is all just posturing and business as usual are way off beam IMO and that's my point. Your failure to acknowledge THE issue in the dispute I.e. "management" via employment agreement is unhelpful in having a worthwhile discussion...

Their is a lot of posturing gong on, no doubt. But you underestimate the concern the unions have for this deal. They can't win. I don't see how they will even get an honourable draw, but they are being outflanked and the very viability of the union is at risk. Qantas has the counter claim that it is also in danger of disappearing into the ether. Each has a lot at stake. Qantas will win a skirmish in a global IR battle. That is the sad fact. One will win and the other will become virtually redundant as an organisation.I don't blame either of them for fighting to stay alive. I just barrack more for one side.

Ok, I'll put this question out there..
If YOU owned a business and employed people to work for YOU, how would you like them just downing tools (so to speak) and demanding, yes demanding, that you stop running YOUR business the way YOU want to run it..
..and would YOU want to be paying workers who don't do their job properly and are dissident along the way, calling stop work meetings, threatening to walk off the job?....
..No I doubt it very much...YOU can't run a successful business with your workers carrying on like that!!....
...my guess is you would want to sack the bloody lot of them and get people who WANT to work for YOU and are happy to do the job YOU will be paying them to do..
..think about it..

Then, if you had a profession and someone tried to make your conditions lower, decrease your pay, and as a result, put your future at risk, what would you do? Roll over? Qantas doesn't want to compromise on those key points that will delay its long-term goal and the unions can't afford to either.
That is the other side of the coin and the reason for the dispute. Each side has too much to lose.
Secondly, I no longer own a business. I'm retired. My business relied on local labour. I didn't have the luxury of an off-shore discount labour force. I had to contend with the local labour market.
This is another important issue. The international companies can play regional labour markets against each other, but other industries and government services can't do that because of practicalities. It will necessitate a change (is already) as the workforce adjusts to this and it has other important social, economic and IR ramifications. I accept the inevitability of it all, just don't like the trend. Old-fashioned me.

Qantas is not the simple issue you think it is.

 

[Max zero]

Come on. It is YOUR central issue, not THE central issue. The unions are being pushed to the edge and they can't realise it is a lost cause. When they do, it will be all over for them. Realistically, they have nowhere to go because times have bypassed them. The central issue is far bigger than this Qantas dispute.
Unions are in the business of delivering job security. You have issue with that. I don't. I just don't think it is going to work in this, or many future, dealings. Qantas is in the business of profit. That will always be and they will deliver it after they dispose of the unions. That is the way it is; two sides with ideals that are now incompatible.
Good. 'Almost all' leaves some room for conjecture (and consequentially) argument.
Careful. You're showing a lack of objectivity here. It's the crux of the issue...
Is this the actual text of the proposal... or your interpretation on it; dramatised and biased to inflate a point?
Now, be serious!
You have displayed a poorly disguised gung-ho approach in your anti union, anti leftist emotive rants like that above and below, and that cheapens much of your objective analysis or cogent argument. I can understand you taking one side, but keep it real, eh?
Newly empowered? I think you will find that the unions are virtually castrated by the new laws - certainly compared with a decade or so ago.
That is part of the evolutionary global economics and IR practice. It is an inevitable consequence and will only increase. I am realistic enough to recognise that, but I am still hoping the workers come out with something. As I have stated time and again, that is where my sympathies lie.
Their is a lot of posturing gong on, no doubt. But you underestimate the concern the unions have for this deal. They can't win. I don't see how they will even get an honourable draw, but they are being outflanked and the very viability of the union is at risk. Qantas has the counter claim that it is also in danger of disappearing into the ether. Each has a lot at stake. Qantas will win a skirmish in a global IR battle. That is the sad fact. One will win and the other will become virtually redundant as an organisation.I don't blame either of them for fighting to stay alive. I just barrack more for one side.

Then, if you had a profession and someone tried to make your conditions lower, decrease your pay, and as a result, put your future at risk, what would you do? Roll over? Qantas doesn't want to compromise on those key points that will delay its long-term goal and the unions can't afford to either.
That is the other side of the coin and the reason for the dispute. Each side has too much to lose.
Secondly, I no longer own a business. I'm retired. My business relied on local labour. I didn't have the luxury of an off-shore discount labour force. I had to contend with the local labour market.
This is another important issue. The international companies can play regional labour markets against each other, but other industries and government services can't do that because of practicalities. It will necessitate a change (is already) as the workforce adjusts to this and it has other important social, economic and IR ramifications. I accept the inevitability of it all, just don't like the trend. Old-fashioned me.

Qantas is not the simple issue you think it is.

If was unhappy with my job
conditions I would quit. I wouldn't try to damage the company in order to force it to do what I want.

You are right multinational companies can play labour markets against each other: an ability every consumer (and worker) has had since the beginning of the free market.

You can grizzle all you want but if consumers (or workers) want to be bargin with multiple sources for the best deal then so should business.

 

[Scotland]

Come on. It is YOUR central issue, not THE central issue. The unions are being pushed to the edge and they can't realise it is a lost cause. When they do, it will be all over for them. Realistically, they have nowhere to go because times have bypassed them. The central issue is far bigger than this Qantas dispute.

Nope, it's pretty much *the* issue. That's not to say the other issues in play are not important, but the issue above is the sticking point because it's not standard practice.

If the two parties were simply negotiating hourly rates, length of a collective agreement etc. then this would be just another industrial dispute.

 

[Docker Clint]

Telling your staff that if they dont like it, they can sod off and work elsewhere is a double edged sword. The people you lose when you create that kind of environment are usually the best people, they are the ones who are more likely to find other employment.

 

[Max zero]

Telling your staff that if they dont like it, they can sod off and work elsewhere is a double edged sword. The people you lose when you create that kind of environment are usually the best people, they are the ones who are more likely to find other employment.

Isn't that choice for the company to make?

Its kinda moot for the Qantas debate since Qantas can't fire unhappy people anyway.

 

[Docker Clint]

Isn't that choice for the company to make?

Its kinda moot for the Qantas debate since Qantas can't fire unhappy people anyway.

I'm not sure being unhappy is valid grounds for dismissal.

Although you're right, it's their choice. If Qantas management want to run the company into the ground, that's their choice.

 

[Eagle87]

I'm not sure being unhappy is valid grounds for dismissal.

Although you're right, it's their choice. If Qantas management want to run the company into the ground, that's their choice.

Careful, your bias and lack of grasp of the issues are showing ...

It was the employees who announced they would "do Qantas slowly". It was the employees who actively encouraged potential passengers to fly with another airline and it was the employees who sought to insert groundbreaking clauses in an employment contract that set out to restrict Qantas' managements ability to run the business in key areas ...

Qantas' owners are happy with management. They continue to support them. Why the owners would do that if it was management that is running the airline into the ground is something I'm sure you'll happily explain?

 

[Hill2Pav]

Careful, your bias and lack of grasp of the issues are showing ...

It was the employees who announced they would "do Qantas slowly". It was the employees who actively encouraged potential passengers to fly with another airline and it was the employees who sought to insert groundbreaking clauses in an employment contract that set out to restrict Qantas' managements ability to run the business in key areas ...

Qantas' owners are happy with management. They continue to support them. Why the owners would do that if it was management that is running the airline into the ground is something I'm sure you'll happily explain?

Maybe they should have told the owners they intended to shut down the airline the day after the AGM.

 

[King Elvis]

Telling your staff that if they dont like it, they can sod off and work elsewhere is a double edged sword. The people you lose when you create that kind of environment are usually the best people, they are the ones who are more likely to find other employment.

To be fair, when your staff are already the best renumerated in the industry, what else are you meant to do; give them even more?