Jump to content

   

Qantas Grounding


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
106 replies to this topic

OFFLINE   PZ. #101

  • Senior Forum Moderator

  • 7,714 posts since
  • August 2007

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:16 PM

You don't have compulsory unionism in Australia either - haven't done since 1996.

OFFLINE   bambbbam #102

  • 4,092 posts since
  • March 2007

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:27 PM


What sort of job security assurances are the unions EXACTLY wanting?


This is the TWU claim

http://www.twu.com.a...-TWU-v5-3-8-11/

The pay isn't really in dispute, just conditions like these

"The Agreement will provide that the total number of casual, labour hire, or outside hire employees engaged by the company performing work under the scope of this agreement shall be no more than one fifth (20%) of the total number of directly hired full time or part-time employees (per relevant work group) performing the same work at any given time."

"Superannuation will be payable on all earnings rather than ordinary time earnings."

"shall include provisions ensuring that all long term casual employees shall be
entitled to LSL"

Some of the demands are almost comical.

OFFLINE   bacco007 #103

  • Deputy Chief Administrator

  • 9,176 posts since
  • February 2005

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:32 PM

"The agreement shall also include a commitment to the job security of permanent Qantas employees and a preference to the future employment of direct hire Qantas employees over the life if the agreement along with provisions clarifying that casuals, labour hire and outside hire shall at no time be used to undermine or erode these commitments by the company to the security for permanent Qantas employees."

A lot of the Log of claims appears to be fairly innocous.

OFFLINE   icat #104

  • 7,156 posts since
  • February 2005

Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:54 PM

You don't have compulsory unionism in Australia either - haven't done since 1996.

Tell that to the Building Industry were you don't sign on without getting your ticket.
Nine reasons to watch Titus Pollo on Rome.
Prison Break on 7

OFFLINE   PZ. #105

  • Senior Forum Moderator

  • 7,714 posts since
  • August 2007

Posted 01 November 2011 - 08:08 PM

Tell that to the Building Industry were you don't sign on without getting your ticket.

Whether that's true or not, it isn't government policy and I doubt it exists in the airline industry.

OFFLINE   Commander Slicer #106

  • 5,527 posts since
  • March 2003

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:49 PM

So you want to keep the poor people in Africa and Asia improvished so you can afford to have a second car and bigger TV and yet at the same time be outraged at Western companies for exploiting "slave labour." One of the inventiable consquence of such protectionist polices is that depresses growth in developing countries while what you describe as being "slave labour" is in high demand by potenial employees because a general rule, the pay and conditions in so called sweatshops are vastly superior to any alternatives avalible to them. Farm subsidy in the EU keep European farmers in a job but who it really hurt are African farmers because they can't compete with European farmers who are selling their produce at below cost. You cannot be simultaneously outraged at Western companies exploiting the poor and vunerable while at the same time advocating policy that only further entrench that inequality.

While their remains a substainal difference in the living standard between the developed and developing nations outsourcing is eventiable and pointless trying to fight it. It will contiue until the gap is closed by a substainal increase in the living standards in developing and either a stagnation or decline in living standards in developed nations.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's the funniest response I've read for a while and the first time I've read someone's tried to say corporate and shareholder greed is based on egalitarianism ideals.

The poor people in Africa and Asia will ALWAYS remain poor - the very thing that keeps them that way is the fact there are no unions, little to no Government protection, and corporations rule. But if you like to think that they outsource to the poorer parts of the world to be nice and give people a chance, gosh more power to you.

As for being outraged, yes totally, because those companies aren't doing a thing to address it. Sweatshops are better than alternatives, hmmm, perhaps - earning a penny a day, being treated like shit and having no rights is better than starving, yeah I guess so.

But if it was really about fairness, those workers in poor countries would be paid the same equivalent wages (not dollar for dollar but based on buying power) - and that sure isn't happening.

The workers in the west are worried about their jobs and livelihoods, but we shouldn't be because there's poor people in Africa and Asia doing it worse?

Now a far better thing to consider is wage and wealth distribution....

Edited by Commander Slicer, 04 November 2011 - 01:54 PM.


OFFLINE   Jonny #107

  • 1 posts since
  • November 2011

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:48 AM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's the funniest post in a while and the first time I've read someone's reply to a post which fails to comprehend the argument of the poster before entirely (see what I did there?).


The poor people in Africa and Asia will ALWAYS remain poor - the very thing that keeps them that way is the fact there are no unions, little to no Government protection, and corporations rule. But if you like to think that they outsource to the poorer parts of the world to be nice and give people a chance, gosh more power to you.


This is nonsense, that is the most polite way I can say it. If you say they will always be poor, then you must think they are incredibly stupid. Look at all the nations which have seen a rise in their wealth, because they embraced the market. Furthermore, if you look at the concentration of firms per capita in those poorer nations, they always have far less in per capita income than we do in the West. This is just a thought, maybe just maybe, it is the lack of corporations which are holding these poor nations back! I suggest you read Jagdish Bhagwati or Paul Krugman to see the benefits of trade.

Another contributing factor is the overburdening nature of government in those third world countries. Too much red tape as well as a slow and inefficient bureaucracy are putting a serious dampener on the ability of their people to start and conduct business. Just look at India, China or any communist country for that matter. It was only after they changed their ways to become more flexible and competitive did they begin to see a decline in poverty. The complete opposite of these countries is Hong Kong and Singapore. In Hong Kong it is incredibly easy to conduct business. We can also look at what has happened in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez. This country has far more government intervention than almost any other in South America, yet they are the ones with double digit inflation, empty food shelves in stores and negative growth.

Furthermore, Hornberger is absolutely right about the farm subsidies of the EU and US. They are depressing food prices so the poor in Africa, Asia and South America cannot earn a sustainable wage from their crops. Ever heard of butter mountains? They pay some wine farmers to produce wine of such poor quality that it is just turned into industrial vinegar. Almost half the EU's budget is used up on farm subsidies.

The worry in this country about losing jobs is also an overreaction. I know it is horrible to lose your job if you are an employee (I know several people who have lost their jobs to technology). But if we look at how many people are employed now compared to 20 or 30 years ago it is simply not true that things are getting worse.

Finally, wage and wealth redistribution are something that makes some of us feel good at night. At the end of the day, once you redistribute everything, then what? Here's a question, people's absolute incomes are better than they were in the past, yet income inequality is slightly worse (in Australia). Which era would you rather live in?

Edited by Jonny, 07 November 2011 - 11:06 AM.