Qantas Sacks 300

There are not many things that make me really angry. But I am still seething about the Qantas announcement today to sack 300 IT workers in Australia. The boss said this was necessary - we have to do this to save and protect jobs in the future - FAir Dinkum! Heard it on ABC news. Now, how the hell can sacking 300 aussies be even remotely seen as saving jobs!

I don't mind any company making a few bob for the shareholders - but this is pure obscenity in my opinion. If I was wealthy enough to own shares in anything apart from my own home, and IF I owned shares in Qantas, NAB, and any one of a few hundred other companies, I would sell them! At the end of the day it is the greedy shareholders who must answer for such revolting behaviour by big business.

Seems to me that Qantas, NAB and the others DO NOT need to make squillions of dollars of profit each year, surely a few million would be sufficient? They make their profits in many ways, but the most heartless way is in sacking decent people and reducing services. And again, at the end of the day it is the pure greed of the shareholders that allows this obscene behaviour.

Geez I feel sick! Sacking decent folk so they can make a few more dollars - and having the nerve to say they are doing it to protect jobs! Dratsab's!

One might hazard a guess that it's more jobs going off shore to a cheaper job market and probably contracted,who knows for sure!!:mad:

Cheers:)

So do you guys currently pay more to fly Qantas?

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

---

Nope to the above, have always flown Qantas with the exception of the access to areas from WA that they don't cater readily to.

Cheers:)

The whole moving to India thing is getting out of hand. It sucks.

Well said Scott.

Al :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

So do you guys currently pay more to fly Qantas?

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

---

Have to agree
70% of domestic air travel involves discound tickets.

Are those who don't like companies going off-shore for some services prepared to pay full-price when they travel?


ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Saxton

Nope to the above, have always flown Qantas with the exception of the access to areas from WA that they don't cater readily to.

---

Hmm me too, and I have half a million FF points to prove it..:eek: Like many who fly a lot, flying somewhere for a holiday isn't high on my priorities!

HOWEVER

With regard to offshore labour: if you don't want it, STOP buying stuff based on price. I don't want to sound like Dick Smith here, but you've got two choices, pay more, or let business lower overheads.

P (Currently paying floor tilers $60 per hour, and they think that's ok...not a first home buyer among them)
:rolleyes:

Anybody here bank Westpac?

Well, most of what you do banking wise with WP run's on a mainframe (yes, they really do still exist :rolleyes: )

Did you know that all of the tech support of those (pretty complex) systems is being off shored to China?

Probably you don't know because it hasn't been in the papers but it's happening just the same.

The next time your ATM goes down, I suggest you place your call to the Shenzen Autonomous Region. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodsprite

If I was wealthy enough to own shares in anything apart from my own home, and IF I owned shares in Qantas, NAB, and any one of a few hundred other companies, I would sell them! At the end of the day it is the greedy shareholders who must answer for such revolting behaviour by big business.

---

If you have any superannuation at all, you probably do own shares in those companies albeit indirectly.

I would be interested in seeing what you think a reasonable return on investment is for a "greedy shareholder" and why you think Qantas' dividend of around 6% is so outrageous?

Why isn't taking a capital gain on your house just as morally reprehensable as business making a profit?

Do you know many Australians Qantas employ currently?

The figure I have found was 38,000 for 2005, representing an increase of 12.5% of the number employed in 2004. That's right, if the report I read is correct, Qantas increased its workforce by 4000 people last year. Where were you guys when that happened??

I didn't see anyone saying thanks! I didn't hear the cheer squad. Jolly good, one for king and country what???

So, with these cuts, Qantas have a net increase of 3600 staff in two years.

Where's the problem?

No, I don't have shares in Qantas, and am terribly concerned that in the history of Aviation, more money has been lost in bankruptcies, than the total profit of all airlines in history.

Not exactly the sort of business you can take your eye off for a second I'd say!

P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well yes, but what is the breakdown of these jobs?

Are they skilled (highly or otherwise) or are they schytekicker jobs that pay minimum wage?

I don't know the answer but I'd sure like to see the un-biased figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigb

or are they schytekicker jobs that pay minimum wage?

---

Or are they schytekicker jobs that over the years have been drummed up far in excess of their real value, like the IT ones? :D :D :D

Given the argument, what does it matter?

I'm even more curious, 0.75% of the workforce moving elsewhere won't save 0.75% of the labour bill. If the labour bill was 10% of the operating cost (and I haven't bothered to research it) 1% of 10% means a miniscule saving.

You don't suppose it's a bit of a wake-up call to try to get rid of some of the well entrenched, expensive work practices that the airline with the red bodies and the ones with the orange tails don't have to pay for do you?

Relax boys and girls, we have a skills shortage in this country, a surplus of jobs. That means that everyone is buying stuff and flying places.

When every last job is in India and China, no one here will be able to afford to shop, or go away, and the pendulum will turn. Or do you suppose the businesses concerned might figure that out before we all run out of spending money?

P;)

"Relax boys and girls, we have a skills shortage in this country, a surplus of jobs. That means that everyone is buying stuff and flying places."



Bet the 300 sacked folk and their families are delighted to know that! Nothing better than being a martyr for the cause. Still don't see the benefits of sacking people here so that somebody on the other side of the world can have one (except if you are the person on the other side of the world).

6% profit? no not much on $100.00 - 6% on several million though?

Interesting argument though and good to see differing viewpoints. I am saying that as each month goes by I seem to see yet another company sacking people here and employing people in other countries to do pretty much the same work. I don;t like it.

Hi all,

I was thinking about this stuff this morning.
I'm going to say the same as most other people, but in my own inimitable style.
Share holders in any company are in it for the money. Theonly way to get money traditionally was to work smart or to gain market share at the expense of oppostion, through better service and product.
Shareholders expect around 10% growth PA and the managerial staff of companies often fudge forecasts to appease those demands. Something has to give. You can forget board members or CEO's to accept remuneration linked to productivity or ROI, so something has to give. Thus operating costs must decrease and its cheaper for many reasons to outsource overseas. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Add to thisthe constant barrage of advertising saying CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP, and the real devaluation of the value of a persons worth and you end up with a population preaped to accept the Lowest Common Denominator, whether it be furniture, food, cars, or whatever.
Since we are by and large the shareholders in these corporations, demanding maximum income, yet refuse to pay for a quality product built in Australia, or by a company that is Australian owned, we are ourown wosrt enemy. As I have said before, the new Austalian Ethic is
"Pay me more, charge me less and bugger everyone else."
It's time to realise that, "as you sow so shall you reap" and that by screwing your neighbor, you're really screwing youself and your country.

Regards

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodsprite

sacking people here and employing people in other countries to do pretty much the same work

---

They reckon in economic terms, the difference between a recession and a depression is as follows:-

When the bloke next door loses his job, that's a recession.

When you lose yours, that's a depression.

Cheers,

P
:cool:

Why is it always the little bloke's job that gets done?

Want to save some $$$$ - get rid of the higher ups who produce nothing other than descision making and the smartness of that is certainly open to conjecture.

I know we are only a small market but surely firing workers is similar to shooting yourself in the foot - If you aren't working and getting paid - then how can any company expect you to purchase their goods or services.

I pay extra in the supermarket [you can stuff your Californian grapes Mr "Fresh food people"]and hardware stores to buy Australian [if I can] and only buy others if there is no Aussie product available - call me dumb etc - I call it buying my kid [and yours] a job.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob38S

Why is it always the little bloke's job that gets done?


Bob

---

It's not, middle management is always the first on the list. They don't win much sympathy tho (nor deserve it) and aren't unionised.

It's not a moral issue, the Quantas directors owe a duty to the shareholders. A saving of a bit of a percent turns to many millions on the bottom line.

We live in a global economy, Quantas has to compete with Emirates, BA, United etc. Does anyone seriously think that 'protectionism' actually could work anymore?

As others have pointed out, in Oz we currently have a net lack of bodies.

Who ever said you had to be a Quantas call centre operator all your life? Why should anyone expect a guarantee of stable employment?

Beats me.

Nothing lasts forever. There might have been a time when QANTAS was a job for life, just like it was in the Commonwealth Bank. Not any more. What seems like a status quo to we mere mortals is really just a blip on the timeline.

Last night I had the displeasure of hearing John Howard on the 7:30 report referring to the US as "the greatest nation the world has ever seen" not once, but twice, in those exact words.

He's obviously not heard of the Roman Empire, which ran for something like 1500 years and held dominion over nearly 6 million square kilometres. Now that is a status quo. In fact, the US is paltry by comparison. They've barely even made 200 years from start to finish.

Companies will always act selfishly, that's what they do. They're not there for any other reason than to make money for their investors. Why else would you set up business?

You mightn't like the US or even our current prime minister, but the wealth or Rome, or even the population of Rome were nothing compared to the current US.
They Romans may have controlled a greater territory, but the Yanks have control over your kids throgh the entertainment industry, your world including this forum through their introduction of the internet and Mr Gates and have a controlling interest far beyond their borders, forget Iraq, they have 100000 troops in Korea and 30K in Japan, so many in Europe and elsewhere I wouldn't know.
They represent 25% of the global GDP and God know how much wealth.
Sure Ghengis Khan, Alexander and Augustus were powerful, but I'm afraid Mr Bush has a few more bangs in his pocket.
Regards
Greg

OK, the 'internet' was created in the US, but the world wide web, which is what you are surfing now, was created in Switzerland.

As for the rest, well, you may be right but tell me about it when the US has been around for 1000+ years. It's all relative. The British Empire was pretty vast in it's day. Give us the figures based on the population then and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

He's obviously not heard of the Roman Empire, which ran for something like 1500 years and held dominion over nearly 6 million square kilometres. Now that is a status quo. In fact, the US is paltry by comparison. They've barely even made 200 years from start to finish.

---

SilentC,

Although Rome was supposed to have been founded in 753 BC, and the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, Rome did not enter its imperial phase until the time of Julius Caesar, who became dictator in 44 BC. So the Roman empire as such lasted only about 500 years.

It is arguable that the British Empire, at its peak in the early 20th Century, had a much wider spread of real power than does the US nowadays. Although the Americans can certainly inflict some painful 'shock and awe' when they feel like it, they have been pretty unsuccesful in their military efforts in modern times in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I believe their one and only military success in the last half century has been in Grenada:) When it comes to cultural and technological influence, they have virtually dominated the entire globe, but their ability to impose their will on foreign nations has been pretty limited.

Rocker

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally placed on 4 September 476, as the Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic invaders. However, this view does not recognize the Eastern Roman Empire, known to modern-day historians as the Byzantine Empire, which maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions. Developing a distinct Greek Christian character, it managed to survive and even thrive for a millennium after the fall of the West, eventually being conquered on 29 May 1453 by the Ottoman Empire.

---

America's status in the world is relatively recent, isn't it? They weren't really much of a force until after World War II. So in reality, 'the greatest nation the world has ever seen' has only been 'great' for 50 odd years.

I suppose more than anything else I object to our so called leader fawning the way he does. Also, I suppose it depends on what you term 'great'.

The Poms were far more able to enforce their will, militarily than are the Seppo's, both Empires had global economic domination.

Poms had over 200 years, and far more Gun Boats went up far more rivers than the Seppo's could ever dream of.

In terms of pro rata population and geographic domination, Gengis Khan would be up there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Mr Bush has a few more bangs in his pocket.
Regards
Greg

---

you are so wrong Greg.

Rome was the epitome of science, militarism, culture and politics IN ITS DAY. what your comparing is akin to comparing Ivan Milat to Attila the hun, or better yet modern day Lichenstien to USSR in its heyday.

Hyperbole is one thing Zed:

But You have forgotten China, that Celestial kingdom that in exchange for silk and trinkets, sucked all the gold and silver from Rome and bought about its downfall. Forget about Lichenstein, the Chinese knew what was what.
And there was a lot of gold in S and central America that wasn't Roman as well.... well that went to Europe which helped them up but that's another story.

I suppose now, you'll draw conclusions about current China sucking all the gold and silver from the US. which will mean that US senators may wear silk and we'll have another Boxer rebellion

Regards
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

you are so wrong Greg.

Rome was the epitome of science, militarism, culture and politics IN ITS DAY. what your comparing is akin to comparing Ivan Milat to Attila the hun, or better yet modern day Lichenstien to USSR in its heyday.

---

Are you inferring that Gengis wasn't a SNAG?

PS Its pizzing down in the city - just in time for cricket. Zed will miss his chance to road test a box.

Quote:

---

I suppose now, you'll draw conclusions about current China sucking all the gold and silver from the US. which will mean that US senators may wear silk and we'll have another Boxer rebellion

---

So when little Johnnie says that the US is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, he's talking about material wealth? Does that make James Packer the greatest Australian we've ever seen? I hope not ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

So when little Johnnie says that the US is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, he's talking about material wealth? Does that make James Packer the greatest Australian we've ever seen? I hope not ;)

---

I think you're mistaken silent, phonetically (by the way, why is phonetic spelt with a "ph"?) you have heard correctly, but what Mr John the magnificent actually said was that "the US is the gratest nation the world has ever seen"

I think I agree with that.

P
;)

Wealth always confuses me.
After my first billion, I think I'd take it easy.

Greatest Australian?
No, not Packer, and although the US is the wealthist nation. I think they have a few more attributes, but let's leave that for now.

Phillip? no, he was a Pom.
Macquarie? Nope Scottish I think
Parkes? Don't know enough history. Perhaps it's like this.......
If you're left wing, It'd be Whitlam or Hawke or Curtin or perhaps a cricketer or two
If You're right wing, perhaps Oppenheimer or Menzies or maybe a rugby winger

You know what... I can't really think of a great Australian.

Now that's a real worry.

Greg

Or maybe he meant "grey test" (actually that would probably be "gray test"). Are they going to start testing pensioners for their driver's license there now?

Quote:

---

I can't really think of a great Australian

---

How un-Australian of you ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Wealth always confuses me.

If you're left wing, It'd be Whitlam or Hawke or Curtin or perhaps a cricketer or two

Greg

---

Mate............

I'm somewhat to the right of Maggie T, yet I'm a cricket tragic.

Maybe soccer would be a better analogy.

(here we go, here we go, here we go.....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

You know what... I can't really think of a great Australian.

---

How about Howard Florey? :rolleyes:

OK accept cricket can be left handed or right winged, or is that soccer again.

Left wing sports: soccer, badminton and letter writing and whingeing

Right Wing sports: Huntin shootin fishin drinkin beer, squash and rugby

Gratest Australian; B Hawke. Always was embarrased when he opened his mouth

For real:
Perhaps Mary McK or another sainted lady?

Greg