Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “A dead end for Qantas unions”, 28/10/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Joyce-Qantas-unions-IR-competition-airline-pd20111028-N34EM?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
If the analysis is the case with Qantas, then surely Joyce and his management team should be able to convince the unions with a win-win outcome that will be the best outcome for both the airline and its employees.
I think Qantas and its CEO Joyce may be prudent to be a little more tactical in its dealing with its employees and the unions.
While many people probably don't the exact details of the disputes and the negotiations between the two sides, but on TV at least the unions have shown some flexibility in deferring their industrial actions, but each time it seemed that Qantas spokeswoman showed a very hardline attitude that hardly has been tactical, or win the sympathy of the public.
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unions. Show all posts
2011-04-29
Protect union jobs and enhance national wealth too
Comments on Tony Maher “Where are jobs in carbon plan?” 29/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/where-are-jobs-in-carbon-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226046535916
It is understandable that a union leader is and will be aimed at protecting jobs of its members.
It should be better done in the context that also enhances the nation's wealth.
If those two are combined, then few will object what Tony Maher argued, such as: "Unions should campaign long and hard to ensure any restructuring of the energy sector maximises the jobs dividend."
The key is productivity and international competitiveness.
We should use all internationally acceptable policy means and technologies and management practices to achieve the duel objectives.
It is understandable that a union leader is and will be aimed at protecting jobs of its members.
It should be better done in the context that also enhances the nation's wealth.
If those two are combined, then few will object what Tony Maher argued, such as: "Unions should campaign long and hard to ensure any restructuring of the energy sector maximises the jobs dividend."
The key is productivity and international competitiveness.
We should use all internationally acceptable policy means and technologies and management practices to achieve the duel objectives.
2011-02-17
Howes is likely damage the interests of Australian consumers and achieve nothing to protect his union
Comments on Paul Howes “China's free trade cheating threatens our jobs”, 17/02/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/chinas-free-trade-cheating-threatens-our-jobs/story-e6frg6zo-1226007170647
Howes is the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union.
He claims "The AWU represents workers in numerous sectors harmed by China's policies, including steel, aluminium extrusion, glass and timber products."
He said "That's why the union's national conference voted yesterday to back a campaign to promote Australian companies, capabilities and jobs. We worry about the future of work opportunities for our 135,000 members."
He claims that "Unfortunately, China continues to adopt many dumping and subsidy practices that are in direct violation of the obligations it signed up to when it joined the WTO."
If that is the case, then it should have been very easy to use anti-dumping provision to deal with them.
But then he also alleges that "Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that our anti-dumping system is simply weak - and other nations take advantage of our weakness."
He appears to find problems with all others including out customs services and anti-dumping agencies. But could it be he is the source of those problems?
It raises a question whether any of those is true or not, or whether he is creating new 'WTO rules' in terms of anti-dumping.
Howes is the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union.
He claims "The AWU represents workers in numerous sectors harmed by China's policies, including steel, aluminium extrusion, glass and timber products."
He said "That's why the union's national conference voted yesterday to back a campaign to promote Australian companies, capabilities and jobs. We worry about the future of work opportunities for our 135,000 members."
He claims that "Unfortunately, China continues to adopt many dumping and subsidy practices that are in direct violation of the obligations it signed up to when it joined the WTO."
If that is the case, then it should have been very easy to use anti-dumping provision to deal with them.
But then he also alleges that "Unfortunately, the evidence is clear that our anti-dumping system is simply weak - and other nations take advantage of our weakness."
He appears to find problems with all others including out customs services and anti-dumping agencies. But could it be he is the source of those problems?
It raises a question whether any of those is true or not, or whether he is creating new 'WTO rules' in terms of anti-dumping.
2011-01-26
Albrechtsen diabolic to the education union
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Class warriors prepare to ambush private schools”, 26/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/class-warriors-prepare-to-ambush-private-schools/story-e6frg6zo-1225994520017
Let me declare that I am not a union member let alone the education union, at outset.
Having declared my non-conflict of interest, now let me begin my comments.
It seems that Janet Albrechtsen is diabolic to the education union and to what the union's view about public funding of education.
While she is accusing the education union many things, she is also committing some of the tactics she accuses the union does, such as the union wants to penalising parents who send their children to private or non-public schools.
To me that itself appears to be highly misleading.
While even at the very improbable scenario that the union asked the government to completely stop all funding to non-government schools and the government did that, that would still be far from being penalising parents of non-government school students.
It is correct to say the more choice is good.
But there is nothing wrong for government to fund government schools and government schools alone, and to provide every child with the same opportunities to enrol and to being educated. By doing that is not penalising anyone including parents both schools' children, because the parents who choose to have their children to non-government schools are completely their own choice and no one is forcing them to do that or to forgo the opportunity to have their children in government schools.
Of course, what Albrechtsen implies is probably compared to the current situation where government already fund partially non-government schools. Although that is not a bad starting point of comparison, it stretches the imagination too much to imply that is the only point to compare, or even the only and right point to do so.
Albrechtsen's tactics is neither wise nor commendable at all.
Albrechtsen appears to be union bashing and oppose whatever unions are saying irrespective what they are or it is about, right or wrong, correct or incorrect.
Let me declare that I am not a union member let alone the education union, at outset.
Having declared my non-conflict of interest, now let me begin my comments.
It seems that Janet Albrechtsen is diabolic to the education union and to what the union's view about public funding of education.
While she is accusing the education union many things, she is also committing some of the tactics she accuses the union does, such as the union wants to penalising parents who send their children to private or non-public schools.
To me that itself appears to be highly misleading.
While even at the very improbable scenario that the union asked the government to completely stop all funding to non-government schools and the government did that, that would still be far from being penalising parents of non-government school students.
It is correct to say the more choice is good.
But there is nothing wrong for government to fund government schools and government schools alone, and to provide every child with the same opportunities to enrol and to being educated. By doing that is not penalising anyone including parents both schools' children, because the parents who choose to have their children to non-government schools are completely their own choice and no one is forcing them to do that or to forgo the opportunity to have their children in government schools.
Of course, what Albrechtsen implies is probably compared to the current situation where government already fund partially non-government schools. Although that is not a bad starting point of comparison, it stretches the imagination too much to imply that is the only point to compare, or even the only and right point to do so.
Albrechtsen's tactics is neither wise nor commendable at all.
Albrechtsen appears to be union bashing and oppose whatever unions are saying irrespective what they are or it is about, right or wrong, correct or incorrect.
2010-12-31
Unions have a useful role to play
Comments on Christopher Bantick “School autonomy plan will be union's last stand”, 31/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/school-autonomy-plan-will-be-unions-last-stand/story-e6frg6zo-1225978938975
I must confess that I have little to do with unions at the outset before I begin my commenting.
There are two sides of the story and Christopher Bantick appears to be on the extreme part of one side.
If the public or taxpayers have difficulties to hold the one state government and parliament to account, how could they hold so many taxpayers funded individual schools and hospitals accountable for their performances?
It is easy to say that let poor performed schools die, but what about the students in them? That is especially important and pressing, given the fact that school performance are affected by many factors and the socio economic background of students included.
There should and must be an appropriate administration of taxpayers' money.
Christopher Bantick seems a fun of Gillard's approach, how he feels about her BEN wastes? Don't just simply say that was others responsibility and problems.
So please be realistic and not too idealogical on either side, mate. The reality is much more complex than you presented.
Further, while not all actions by unions are good, but there should be a role for unions to protect the most vulnerable ones in any professions.
Of course, that does not mean that unions should be above everyone else or other organisations.
I must confess that I have little to do with unions at the outset before I begin my commenting.
There are two sides of the story and Christopher Bantick appears to be on the extreme part of one side.
If the public or taxpayers have difficulties to hold the one state government and parliament to account, how could they hold so many taxpayers funded individual schools and hospitals accountable for their performances?
It is easy to say that let poor performed schools die, but what about the students in them? That is especially important and pressing, given the fact that school performance are affected by many factors and the socio economic background of students included.
There should and must be an appropriate administration of taxpayers' money.
Christopher Bantick seems a fun of Gillard's approach, how he feels about her BEN wastes? Don't just simply say that was others responsibility and problems.
So please be realistic and not too idealogical on either side, mate. The reality is much more complex than you presented.
Further, while not all actions by unions are good, but there should be a role for unions to protect the most vulnerable ones in any professions.
Of course, that does not mean that unions should be above everyone else or other organisations.
2009-07-26
Wake up to reality, union leaders
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Buy Australia sells us short”, 26/07/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/buy_australia_sells_us_short/
The intelligence of union leaders have not advanced much from the old days in the long past. Their less interest in keeping up with the changed reality means increasing irrelevance to modern Australians. Less relevance means falling memberships.
They need to wake up to the reality of the 21st century to be relevant and to best represent the interests of their members. The world is increasingly integrated and trade plays a very important role in improving the well beings of all nations including Australia.
Some recent studies have shown that trade with China increased Australians’ real income by thousands dollars. Australia is the only advanced countries that has avoided technical recession so far, largely due to China’s imports of minerals like iron ore from Australia.
What the unions want to do is to undermine those benefits. If they continue to push their silly ideas, they will be left completely behind by Australians.
Grow up, union leaders.
The intelligence of union leaders have not advanced much from the old days in the long past. Their less interest in keeping up with the changed reality means increasing irrelevance to modern Australians. Less relevance means falling memberships.
They need to wake up to the reality of the 21st century to be relevant and to best represent the interests of their members. The world is increasingly integrated and trade plays a very important role in improving the well beings of all nations including Australia.
Some recent studies have shown that trade with China increased Australians’ real income by thousands dollars. Australia is the only advanced countries that has avoided technical recession so far, largely due to China’s imports of minerals like iron ore from Australia.
What the unions want to do is to undermine those benefits. If they continue to push their silly ideas, they will be left completely behind by Australians.
Grow up, union leaders.
2009-07-24
The unions should be smarter to survive
Comments on ABC report “Unions bury hatchet for 'Buy Australian' push” by Alexandra Kirk, 24/07/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/24/2634983.htm?section=justin
It is reported that “The nation's two biggest blue collar unions have not always got along, but they are burying the hatchet in a bid to save jobs in Australia's manufacturing industry, which has lost more than 70,000 positions in the past year.”
“The unions - one from the right, the other from the left - have bridged their ideological divide and will appear as a united front at next week's ALP national conference to maximise pressure on the Government to back their manufacturing strategy and to give priority to locally produced goods.”
The unions have done good and bad things over its history to date. But they should learn or evolve fast in the 21st century. They should embrace globalisation and improve and maximise the well beings of Australians through specialisation and trade according to Australian's comparative advantages. They should not live in the past and ignore the modern reality.
They say 76,000 jobs have lost out of industry over the past 12 months. But why don't they say how many have been saved due to higher than expected demand from China? Why Australia is having a much lower unemployment rate than most other OECD countries?
If Australian governments do what the unions ask, then other countries will retaliate. What will be the consequences of those actions and interactions? Did they say anything count that?
They should reasonable and rational.
If they want to last, they'd better be strategic and truly smarter than they are.
It is reported that “The nation's two biggest blue collar unions have not always got along, but they are burying the hatchet in a bid to save jobs in Australia's manufacturing industry, which has lost more than 70,000 positions in the past year.”
“The unions - one from the right, the other from the left - have bridged their ideological divide and will appear as a united front at next week's ALP national conference to maximise pressure on the Government to back their manufacturing strategy and to give priority to locally produced goods.”
The unions have done good and bad things over its history to date. But they should learn or evolve fast in the 21st century. They should embrace globalisation and improve and maximise the well beings of Australians through specialisation and trade according to Australian's comparative advantages. They should not live in the past and ignore the modern reality.
They say 76,000 jobs have lost out of industry over the past 12 months. But why don't they say how many have been saved due to higher than expected demand from China? Why Australia is having a much lower unemployment rate than most other OECD countries?
If Australian governments do what the unions ask, then other countries will retaliate. What will be the consequences of those actions and interactions? Did they say anything count that?
They should reasonable and rational.
If they want to last, they'd better be strategic and truly smarter than they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
