I’m out of the country at the moment, and possibly missing some nuance. On the other hand, I’m old enough to remember the ill-will the unions built up in the 1970s, with snap stoppages designed to inflict maximum disruption on the public and thereby maximise pressure on employers to settle quickly and on the government to broker a solution. The announcement, without warning, of a lockout by Qantas seems to be straight out of the same disastrous playbook. Even if it works, it must surely kill off any political goodwill for Qantas in the future, or at least as long as the current management is in charge. That’s bound to be costly given the importance of political decisions on things like landing rights for airlines, and the favourable treatment Qantas has had in the past (partly a leftover of its days as a national flag carrier).
Can anyone make a case that Joyce’s action makes sense?
John Quiggin 
To all the those who keep saying that the unions have “forced” this grounding, I have one question:
Why was there no advanced warning for the 80,000 passengers in the air? If this was the route that Qantas management has decided to break the unions, surely they could have allowed the public at least a few weeks notice? Even the unions in their apparent 6 hours of industrial action over the last 8 months gave some notice to the travelling public.
No, this stoppage was designed for maximum pain for the travelling public. Completely unethical.
Harry,
It may be true that QANTAS baggage handlers and pilots are over-paid. But the same can be said in spades for QANTAS management.
Bosses are acting like vandals, just moving in, sacking and looting the companies they run.
I don’t agree with communist or fascist ideology. But I am starting to understand why such irrational ideologies emerged in the first place, given the limitless greed of global managerial and financial classes.
What is the source of pay rates for baggage handlers?
‘Another iconic Australian brand bites the dust.’
It’s called creative destruction. Can anyone really swear honestly their lives are poorer for the loss of Arnott’s biscuits or Chesty Bond singlets?
Ken, I’ve been in plenty of union meetings, & “foresight” is not a word I’m inclined to use in the same paragraph as “union leader”.
CEO’s generally understand the outcome of their decisions (they can be sacked, after all)
Union leaders rarely face the consequences of their decisions, well, their decisions to strike anyway.
Qantas certainly is using its corporate power, and the union isn’t happy to discover they’ve been seen & then raised some (quite some actually).
HC: Yes, some pilots are paid over $500,000 and I imagine both of them are very happy with their salary. The average for Qantas pilots is much much lower. 1st officers get less than Captains, & pilots are paid by the type of aircraft they are endorsed for. An A380 Captain draws the big money, but a 1st officer on a bus-run (say between Adelaide & Sydney) while drawing a healthy salary, is flat to draw a 6-figure salary.
Every flight has a captain & 1st officer. Thus half of the pilot pool isn’t in the “top grade” salary bracket to begin with.
Jack, Qantas was losing $2m a day with the union actions. How does paying Joyce an extra $2m hurt compared to the unionist sabotage. I was caught up in the action myself as I flew around the place last week. Travellers were switching to Virgin and to other ways of getting around.
The issue of executive pay here – however objectionable – is second-order to the overall economics of the carrier and to the fact that on international routes it is uncompetitive.
SATP, The salaries are higher than those at Virgin And they are not going on strike. The pilots earn a packet and, let’s face it – they are not much more skilled these days than a bus driver. The technology does it. The hostesses on board and the cabin staff are waitressing. That’s it.
Ken L @ #3 said:
I can see the “destruction”, but the “creative” bit is still below the horizon. Maybe you are referring to creative accounting.
The sacked workers from Bonds might mutter something under their breath. Especially when they saw what management drew in bonuses for issuing all those pink slips.
I dont suggest that all Australian firms should be defended from Asian competition at all costs. Undoubtedly most manafacturing had to go rather than put up a hopeless competition against the awesome might of Chinese manafacturing.
But the example of Joyce shows pretty clear that “Australian” management have essentially “gone global” and no longer consider the national interest when making decisions. (As distinct from the case when Australian firms were essentially grounded to the national jurisdictionand the bosses had to retire in this country.)
Nationalism costs time and money but it pays off in the long run. Do you think that our new global over-lords will throw us a straw if we are drowning? We are on our own, boyo.
QANTAS is finished as an Australian owned and run airline. We have blown yet another part of our patrimony.
Jack I haven’t flown Qantas for years – it’s overpriced, with crappy service and moth-eaten old planes, at least on the routes I fly. It can either reinvent itself as an airline that makes sustainable profits (creation) or go out of business because customers prefer airlines that offer better value for money (destruction).
I really don’t see any ‘national interest’ considerations. Haven’t we grown out of this idea that any self-respecting ex-colony has to have a ‘national airline’? Lots of other countries seem to get by without one. I simply cannot see what all the fuss is about.
@JoeG
I have to agree with you Joe. A great rationalisation world-wide is about to take place in the airline industry and the remaining players will be better able to exercise market power. Won’t be good for employees; won’t be good for travellers; probably won’t even be all that great for share-owners. Will be good for overpriced CEOs and other spongers who populate Boards of Directors.
Won’t be good either for the baggage handlers who earn “$80,000” a year (for the same hours worked by school teachers) and who are driven to work each day in chauffeured limousines complete with solid gold tires. They and unicorns will need to retire to the pages of comic books. Lets simply bring out our knee-jerk bigotries and bash a few unionists.
With most companies there is little national interest to consider except general considerations concerning which foreign country is owning it (due to the leverage ownership can give a country to meddle in internal affairs including the making of Australian laws, example, tobacco). When it comes to essential infrastructure that would cause great disruption were it to be suddenly to shut down (incidentally the type of disruption we have at the moment with Qantas) there is a national interest. A company owned by foreigners or by some foreign entity will shut down in an instant for commercial or other reasons regardless of the impact on Australia. That need not be a problem if there are plenty of alternatives. Where there are not it can be a huge problem as we are seeing at the moment. That is what national interest is all about.
@hc
There is no evidence, except the dubious assertions of Joyce, that Qantas was losing a cent due to union actions. If you want to believe Joyce’s assertions I do have some swamp land for sale that might interest you?
Great to know that airline pilots are ‘not much more skilled’ than bus drivers. Of course, driving a bus requires considerable skill even if it doesn’t pay well. That said, flying a jet airline requires considerable skill and training. On the other hand, teaching at a school or university might seem to require a piece of paper, or several pieces of paper but from the state of education both at many schools and numerous universities teaching at either doesn’t require much skill or education. At least the lack of both is not so quickly fatal as it can be for passengers of a bus or plane.
“It’s called creative destruction. Can anyone really swear honestly their lives are poorer for the loss of Arnott’s biscuits or Chesty Bond singlets’
After working in both when young, I am glad that my children do not have similar experiences. Especially working for Arnotts.
We still seem to have plenty of work and cheaper food.
Freelander Qantas is already 40% foreign-owned. The statement that ‘a company owned by foreigners or by some foreign entity will shut down in an instant for commercial or other reasons regardless of the impact on Australia’ is just xenophobic nonsense bereft of any empirical support whatsoever. Labour and capital will make use of whatever tactics are available to them to help achieve their objectives. The notion that either party is motivated by some devotion to ‘the national interest’ (whatever that means) is romantic nonsense. There are arguments for prohibiting industrial action (i.e. both strikes and lockouts) in essential services but I’m buggered if I can see what the level of foreign ownership has to do with them.
There has ALREADY been ‘a great rationalisation world-wide … in the airline industry’ and a bloody good thing too. It didn’t lead to oligopoly but the reverse. What do you want, a return to the days when Ansett and TAA ran identical timetables with identical planes courtesy of a government licensing system that allowed them to charge ruinous prices? People have never had it so good when it comes to cheap, readily-available air travel. I don’t mean the situation is marginally better than 20 years ago; it is orders of magnitude better. Predictions that we are about to see everything go pear-shaped might be correct, but some rational argument in favour of that proposition would be more persuasive than bald assertions based apparently on nothing more than deductive speculation.
the thing that i find interesting is to study the shareholding of qantas
the majority of shares are owned by banks
and they are the same banks that gave us the GFC
and that have been guilty of rather slimy activities in the past – Asian crisis for one
and i recall who were the mercenaries that signed up to fight the Maori wars – Irish
whatever anyone might have to say about Qantas employees – and i know a few of them and yes they are way overpaid for their effort compared to those who are not so lucky
but
if anyone thinks that the shareholders of qantas are in any way whatsoever ethical, caring, considerate or fair
you are on the wrong planet
these are the banks remember?
banks – they control most of the world – they do not care about anyone except themselves and their shareholding is a map of incestuousness that was most aptly described by Taibbi as a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money
anyone who defends the qantas management over the employees on any basis whatsoever – no matter how bad the employees might be – is either a shill or a fool or ideological maniac
pop
@Ken_L
It is not xenophobic nonsense because it has happened before. And, I thought obviously, but maybe not, I am talking about the company being ‘foreign owned’ as for example, Beyond Petroleum is identified as being British, while Exxon is identified as being American. When the headquarters are in another country and that is where the company came from the decisions are typically made from that country’s perspective and with the help of that government’s resources, including their secret services, like for example, the CIA in the case of the US. If you think ownership doesn’t give leverage I think you are being a little naive. BP was treated the way no American company would have been treated, indeed the way Haliburton, which was the company to blame anyway, when there was a trifling oil leak in the gulf of Mexico. Likewise, Union Carbide because it was American owned didn’t have to many problems in India after Bhopal, at least not the problems an Indian company would have had or a Pakistani company would have had. Of course, I could be wrong, and these example could simply be nonsense. Or maybe not.
There seems to be little doubt that in the long term Joyce has used up any capital he had with the government. Anthony Albanese was most unimpressed that he wasn’t briefed about this action by Qantas prior to it occurring and other Ministers have been cited as comparing it to industrial terrorism. The lawyers behind it have prior form with Rio Tinto and the Waterfront dispute. The Board has individuals including the chair who have similar experience. There seems little doubt that they are happy to have the Government as collateral damage in their union busting. Whether they are found to be in breach of any aspect of the law will no doubt play out in the days to come.
However in the short term they will have achieved their goals of ensuring that a decision is made in the next three weeks.
What is less certain is the claims that Qantas are making about their financial position and whether Qantas is paying for other pet ventures of the board with Qantas money.
However for those who have thought about the “Occupy” movement there is plenty in this action which fits the 1% versus 99% scenario. The pay rise for the CEO, the failure to let shareholders know about the well advanced plans the day before they were announced and the absolute disregard for the lives and plans of the passengers and the misrepresentation of the staff of the airline.
@Jill Rush
I wouldn’t be surprised if some in the opposition had been briefed before, or at least a former Liberal minister. The whole thing is as smelly as some of the activities in relation to the wharves under the previous government, like, for example, companies getting out of paying their workers entitlements by creating a labour hire company which had no assets which then on-sold the services to the stevedore companies. I am always amused by people who are well paid who whine about a baggage handler allegedly getting the grand sum of $80,000, presumably after overtime, doing an unpleasant manual labour job, which I certainly wouldn’t want to do, but are unconcerned by some rat giving himself a 71 per cent pay increase when he is already obscenely overpaid. Lets face it, $80K is not a lot for a family to live on nowadays. Driving a bus wouldn’t be a lot of fun either. No wonder there is no respect for the status quo. Little wonder the British rioted or that there is the Occupy Wall Street movement.
A few have noted already, that the argument of “competing with Asia” is incorrect. Qantas has special treatment in the Australian market. I think Joyce doesn’t care if the Qantas brand is trashed in Australia. Aussies usually just fly the cheapest anyway. The real aim is to steal one of the most recognizable brands in the world and flaunt it in the asian market. Anyone who has observed how the new middle classes of China, India and Russia consume has seen that it is all about the brand. If you don’t know what quality is, because you have never had the opportunity to compare, then you will buy the recognized brand. Qantas will cease to operate in Australia (or provide a token service) to use the iconic red tail in Asia, with asian pilots, asian crew and asian engineers.
TWENTY LARGEST SHAREHOLDERS as at 20 August 2010
Shareholders % of Issued Shares
1. J P Morgan Nominees Australia 23.61
2. HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 19.97
3. National Nominees Limited 16.63
4. Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 9.95
5. ANZ Nominees Limited 2.90
6. Cogent Nominees Pty 2.85
7. AMP Life Limited 1.47
8. Australian Reward Investment Alliance 0.95
9. Bond Street Custodians Limited 0.67
10. Queensland Investment Corporation 0.57
11. Pacii c Custodians Pty Limited 0.56
12. RBC Dexia Investor Services Australia Nominees Pty Limited 0.30
13. The Senior Master of the Supreme Court 0.23
14. UBS Wealth Management Australia Nominees Pty Limited 0.22
15. Argo Investments Limited 0.15
16. Suncorp Custodian Services Pty Ltd 0.12
17. Ming Hao Trading Pty Limited 0.11
18. UBS Nominees Pty Limited 0.10
19. Neweconomy Com Au Nominees Pty Ltd 0.10
20. ANZ Executors & Trustee 0.08
total: 81.54
now go look at this
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
look at that first and largest shareholders and tell me that they are not pulling (at least some of) the strings
whatever this is all about it is important not to leap to support “the shareholders” or think in anyway that the poor shareholders have been impacted badly by this
the most likely response to it today will be a share price jump of 4%
these are banks remember – recall the archetype from childhood imagery – the evil banker stroking his mustaches as he watches the train approach the innocent damsel tied to the tracks
remember “the grapes of wrath”
banks
evil
if governments truly represented the people they would all as one start publishing sets of playing cards like those used in Iraq
with the executive officers of all those listed 147 companies on the cards – with the CEO of Goldman Sachs as the Ace of Spades
they would need sets – the Gold set – top scumbags, silver set – next lot of scumbags and so on
then we could all seek rewards from the state for bringing in these leeches dead or alive
ah well, it’s a colourful dream
pop
ps, oh and yes i haven’t forgotten that the other scumbags at the top of control are the executives of the military-industrial complex
as all should know from how happily Australia rushed to support them in their nasty wars – good places to sell their wares to us tax payers to keep us safe from the evil terrorists
p
@Sam
It’s consistent with the view that communism isn’t something that can be built in the face of material scarcity. It’s not something that is on the short or even medium term agenda.
In politics, one plays the cards one has as best one can, rather than try doing things that would require cards we don’t have and haven’t yet designed, still less produced.
As things stand, states are not inclusive, and it follows that their control of production is not an expression of popular control either. Some tension and pluralism in the system is thus desirable.
@The Peak Oil Poet I think you will find the same style of investment in Qantas competitors, it’s all swings and roundabouts. Plus they will be in on the service industries including snack foods, car parks.
@rog
no doubt of that
my point being that there has to be something in it for them – the question is what?
what is the game plan here? i’ve seen various suggestions
is this a power play?
a “set an example” strategy?
or a “let’s show you Australians what we can do to your biggest brand so you don’t get out of line”
a betting game between top tier players just for fun?
“follow the money” so who profits from what outcome and how?
as John posted where’s the sense?
pop
I must say I’m a bit surprised by the anti Irish tone in some of the comments here. It’s one thing to disagree with the decisions of the Qantas CEO but surely his ethnic heritage is irrelevant to how Qantas is managed. And calls for him to be sent back to Ireland when he is legally resident in Australia are rather totalitarian in outlook. Whilst not everybody here is speaking in such terms there does seem to be a high degree of tolerance or indifference towards this overt racism. Surely an intelligent debate shouldn’t entail such base forms of hatred. Irish should not be used as a pejorative term.
Twenty largest owners are institutional shareholders or owners using other people’s money. The ordinary punters whose money they are using don’t get any votes when the ‘shareholders’ vote. Those voting using other people’s money simply vote for what is best for them rather than the real owners of the shares. In the AGM, the real shareholders who voted with the shares they actually owned were against the board and the pay rise for Joyce, and the institutional shareholder vote, with the shares being held on behalf of others who had no say in how those shares voted, voted for the managerial class getting more gravy through increased CEO pay and increased Director pay. No wonder they manage to rape and pillage shareholder value and send the executive managerial class pay through the stratosphere.
Why does Joyce need a pay rise? What is his opportunity cost? He was promoted to the position from within Qantas. Is there really a queue of others trying to hire him to work for them for $5million a year? I think not. His pay is hardly ‘market’ determined. His pay is the type of pay rate you get when you get a bunch of pals setting their own pay rates. They are all using other people’s money so no wonder they think its fine to pay themselves so handsomely.
Qantas’ strategy was clearly targeted at the travelling public and the economy timed to cause maximum disruption both because of CHOGM and the Melbourne Cup, and because it was done without warning. A strategy to blackmail the government and the ‘independent’ umpire to take away the union’s right to industrial action, and to ultimately further its goal of taking the airline out of Australia and off-shore. The action wasn’t directed at putting pressure on the union because they knew the government and ‘independent umpire would have to step in immediately. And, in that Joyce has won. The union’s right to industrial action has been taken away permanently. Qantas management can continue to not negotiate, to not negotiate in good faith and the union has nothing to bring them to the table for good faith negotiation. Victory for blackmail.
It is clear that Qantas management has been pursuing a long drawn out provocative strategy of bad faith negotiation to try to provoke an over reaction by the union. Having not succeeded in that it has engineered the government and ‘Fair Work’ Australia to step in and de-fang the union so it can continue its union busting tactics. The 1 per cent aims to once more crush the 99 per cent, helped on its way by a piece of successful blackmail.
Dick Smith was interviewed by Alan Jones this morning and he was extremely critical of the PM for not being up front with the Australian people. Much of what he said is summarised in the following article:-
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/smith-is-amazed-airline-has-survived-without-paying-lower-wages/2340521.aspx
His main point seems to be that you can run airline policy for the workers or you can run airline policy for consumers but you can’t have your cake and eat it. It is government policy that leads Qantas to need to compete with cheaper alternatives and consumers are voting with their feet for those cheaper alternatives. I don’t agree with Dick Smith in his sentiment for protectionism but at least be is logical about the policy choice available and honest about the fact that Australians would be hostile towards the higher airfares such a policy would entail.
@TerjeP
My hero, stepping in to protect poor old $5million dollar man from people who have nothing against the Irish but have plenty against a rat regardless of nationality. You, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, my trinity of heroes. Always there to protect multicultural Australia and our rich diversity. And, no doubt a protector of the likes of Sol Trujillo, another blow-in, another carpet bagger, another CEO who destroyed shareholder value and did very well for himself in the process. Someone of Mexican heritage who has a much in common with the average Hispanic as poor old Irish Joyce has with the average Irishman. Two victims who really need the likes of the trinity to rush to their defence.
Well, my heroes will always be there to right any wrong, but leave any injustice left untouched, unless, of course, it happens to some rich right-wing icon, that is, someone they aspire to be like.
Dick Smith with his regularly tropo views is hardly worth taking seriously. But, oh. He is rich too. Better show him some unearned deference.
Freelander – if people want to hate Joyce or Trujillo because of their actions then fine. However articulating that hatred via reference to ethnicity or national origin isn’t endearing. It’s crass. Ethnicity isn’t relevant to the actions of either Joyce or Trujillo. It shouldn’t enter the debate. Although it is perhaps predictable that some people can’t resist resorting to prejudice and seeking to exploit it.
@TerjeP
Yes. I soo agree with you Terje. You, and Andrew and Alan. Always there to put the ‘latte’ sipping liberal tolerant view on behalf of rich and powerful victims. They really need you, Alf Garnett and Archie Bunker leaping to their defence. Unless they happen to lose all their money, in which case they won’t need your defence at all. And maybe they won’t hold their breath, in that case, waiting for it.
‘When the headquarters are in another country and that is where the company came from the decisions are typically made from that country’s perspective and with the help of that government’s resources, including their secret services …’
Nice laugh to begin the week. I thought that bloke sitting next to me on BOAC that time I flew to London looked like M … and at least now we know now why ASIO needs so many people. What do they do I wonder … bug the boardroom at Virgin and report the goss to Qantas with invisible ink? It explains why all those yank airlines went bust years ago; we all know the CIA is a hopeless joke.
If this is the level of discussion on JQ’s blog I can’t begin to imagine what’s happening at places like the ‘Daily Telegraph’. I hope somebody somewhere is documenting the decline and fall of the blogosphere as a place for rational discourse. It will provide valuable insights into the human condition for future generations.
Meanwhile I will continue to fly Singapore Airlines, despite the fact the excellent service is apparently due to Lee Kuan Yew’s spies and not, as I foolishly used to think, to competent management.
Bosses who asked for market liberalism (a.k.a. free trade) thinking that the market is efficient are now asking for protectionism policies or trying to force China to implement market liberalism because they can’t compete with an economy with regulation.
It’s purely fine to give a pay rise of 71% to a CEO of a company which it’s profits did not rise by 71% because it’s freedom. It’s purely wrong to take industrial actions against the company when the employees are asking for a pay rise much less of what the CEO receives because it’s freedom. It’s purely fine to close down company operations to force the unions to lose and cause more damage the government, economy and it’s customers than union actions because it’s freedom.
Any get the irony here?
@The Peak Oil Poet
i note the QAN price is now up almost 5%
am i surprised, gee, let me guess
and i wonder just who are buying these shares to push up the price?
and who was it that said the price would crash?
Tourism and Transport Forum boss John Lee
http://www.news.com.au/business/investors-brace-for-qantas-shares-to-crash/story-e6frfm1i-1226181100699
pop
@TerjeP
re: the “anti-Irish tone”
I certainly reject such parochialism. This has nothing to do with Joyce’s ostensible ethnicity and I agree that it is regrettable that some have raised it in order to be able to use it to swipe at him. The reference to transportation is especially regrettable. I hadn’t seen either until I looked.
Joyce’s malfeasance starts and ends with his role as head of a major capitalist corporation. I wouldn’t care if the CEO were John Singleton or John Elliott or Graham Richardson or Paul Keating or Dick Smith. If they were acting as Joyce was, I’d be against it.
Tom – well, that’s a consequence of the structural fissure in capitalism that Marx refers to. To the capitalist, deregulation is both necessary and deleterious.
Terje – re. national origins and people of Joyce’s mould: I am reminded of the Irish band Primordial’s vocalist Alan Averill describing the people who led Ireland to its current woes as (paraphrasing) ‘people I couldn’t even recognise as Irish’. I think my Irish housemate would concur.
A graduate of a French military school told me Napoleon not only introduced military ranks, which have been copied more or less in other European countries, but he also introduced the strategy of transferring French solders from their native region to other regions in France.
The question is whether corporatist management is better understood in terms of military concepts, including an application of game theory, or in terms of the theory of ‘competitive private ownership economies’? In the latter, the behaviour of ‘the producer’ is subservient to all individuals (ie ‘consumers’, ‘workers’, ‘shareholders’, ‘borrowers’, ‘lenders’ with one person possibly occupying several empirical categories).
@TerjeP
Bahh. There’s no racial stereotype about Irish people being greedy, incompetent CEOs. This one just happens to be, and I want him to leave. I’d also like our home-grown moronic plutocrats to go. The joke was about how the airline could fly him away, not that Joyce exemplified some racially typical trait.
The Peak Oil Poet, the New Scientist article you refer to is an interesting one. (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich)
“Abstract
The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers……”
Global Guerillas links to paper itself
Click to access 1107.5728v1.pdf
and you can also progress to discussion of the paper initiated by one of the authors (Glattfelder) following criticism from Naked Capitalism amongst others. Forbes headlines it as “The 147 Companies that Control Everything”. Global Guerillas is a blog worth visiting regularly, has some interesting thoughts on Occupy, Tea Party and the US economy being broken amongst others.
http://j-node.blogspot.com/2011/08/network-of-global-corporate-control.html
http://j-node.blogspot.com/2011/10/network-of-global-corporate-control.html
Amongst Glattfelder’s comments
6.) What the paper isn’t
a.) Pushing an economics or socio-political agenda.
b.) Promoting conspiracy theories.
c.) An exact, unambiguous measurement of real-world control.
“Because interpreting and analyzing these kinds of data is difficult, [Davis] says, the analysis serves more as ‘an impression of the moon’s surface you get with a telescope. It’s not a street map.'” Gerald Davis, economist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, quoted from here.
d.) Alleging that the top agents are colluding.
Just for fun include this comment from John Robb Global Guerillas. Robb is an engineer.
“NOTE: it’s pretty telling that a paper of this importance to modern economics/finance wasn’t written by academics in economics/finance. It had to come out of the technical field of complex systems. “
Glattfelder has a shot back at his critics “I also like the appeal to authority. Physicists, by default, cannot understand anything about economics. It’s a law of nature;-)”
According to Fran Kelly Joyce has claimed that Qantas did in fact advise several Ministers that they might have to go for grounding and lock out. The PM side stepped Fran’s question as to whether or not those Ministers had kept her in the loop.
Freelander while one anecdote doesn’t prove Joyce’s case for damaging cost of union actions it most certainly figured in our flight choices. And while I have sympathy for those who might find their travel insurance may not cover them for delayed Qantas flight since Oct 13th, we made the booking choice in August to waste our Qantas Club membership and spend our hours sitting in crowded airports rather than the Clubs, though were moments when felt quite wistful watching the brave trot themselves in. Our choice was not ideological or price determined; it was because we had a wedding and a tour to connect with.
QAN now up 7.1% and climbing
seems like everyone loves Joyce
he must be rubbing his hands together in anticipation of his next CEO role
pop
Lots of issues covered here http://davidhavyatt.blogspot.com/2011/10/queensland-and-northern-territory-air.html
1. No good Govt relations strategy – only needed the credible threat of shutdown to get action, not actual shutdown.
2. No good strategy – Qantas is still bumbling in the dark for a genuine workable strategy.
3. Interesting question about “competition policy” in general.
senator nick xenophon gave a speech last august, accusing qantas of incorrectly absorbing many of the costs of its offshoot, jetstar. could it be that qantas will be hoping to sell off a profitable jetstar, making big profits (for a few)?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/xenophon-attacks-qantas-management/story-fn3dxity-1226120794255
and
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/10/29/361611_major-breaking-news.html
@Sam
That’s a sound defence against suggestions of being anti-Irish or linking them with stereotypes, but your allusion to the convict period (in which prejudice against the Irish from the English was ubiquitous), creeps back in that direction, and your rather populistic “send him back to Ireland” jibe is quintessentially parochial. That kind of stuff really is playing to the cheap seats. Your comment that it would apply also to home grown elites does balance it out, though it’s not clear where they would “go”. If one is to go to Ireland and the other merely from their job, the problem persists.
I don’t believe you bear the Irish any differential animus but the clear othering here invites that kind of ambiguity. If the fellow is acting badly — as I think he is — then let’s just focus on that.
@Ros
But it was Qantas management that had been cancelling flights unnecessarily not unions. When the unions didn’t shut the airline down Joyce shut it down because he wanted the unions blamed. And many have blamed the unions. There had been no reason for him to cancel domestic flights either. Joyce could have paid overtime to have the maintenance done or he could have done what Virgin did. Virgin expanded its domestic flights by withdrawing planes from some of its international services and getting its international partners to take over those missing international flights. So Qantas could easily have done the same and would not have needed to cancel a single domestic flight. But Joyce didn’t want to do that because Joyce wanted to cancel domestic flights to inconvenience the public and so that the public would blame the unions. Joyce claimed he was ‘forced to’ but he wasn’t. The whole thing has simply been a ruse, and it worked! Maybe they should give him another 71 per cent pay increase.
If someone comes here from elsewhere and turns out to be a scumbag, the general rule is send him back. We have enough home grown scumbags already.
@Ernestine Gross
The mention of Napoleon is intriguing. Joyce is somewhat of a “Little General”. Now, TerjeP can take me to task for being “shortist”.
Napoleon is regarded by some thinkers (for example, John Ralston Saul) as being the first example of a truly modern dictator. The rational, corporatist organisation of the Army, and later the Grande Armée, perhaps provided the model for modern corporatism.
To my mind, the most salient features of Napoleon’s use of the Army and men are summed up by his boast to Count Metternich;
“You cannot defeat me, I spend 30,000 men a month.”
This disregard for the loss of human lives and all the other “collateral damage” was the defining element of Napoleon’s leadership. Whilst the raising of the Grande Armée was an efficient and ruthless bureaucratic exercise conducted by his functionaries, Napoleon’s carelessness, disorganisation and waste in the field was stupendous.
Perhaps Ernestine is making a point about the dictatorial nature of Joyce’s decision making. If so, I agree. The disregard for human livelihoods and collateral damage is indeed “Napoleonic” in a petty way.
@Tom
I see no irony. It’s entirely consistent, providing one keeps in mind that the slogan “freedom” when used in maintream discourse about class society is always an expression of the interest of the dominant class. Those allied with an insurgent class use it to express their own social claims.
When used by allies of working people, the emancipatory content of the slogan is bound up with the right of working people to deprive the exploiters of their right to exploit and to ultimately transcend scarcity and therewith the wage labour system, class society and class rule. Only at this point can the freedom slogan be about emancipation in a general sense.
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine, I don’t understand this sentence;
“the behaviour of ‘the producer’ is subservient to all individuals (ie ‘consumers’, ‘workers’, ‘shareholders’, ‘borrowers’, ‘lenders’ with one person possibly occupying several empirical categories).”
I don’t understand because I do not see the term “producer” as having any different meaning from “worker”. Are not the workers the producers? Alterantively, who is a producer and how does a producer differ from a worker?
Currently in our system it seems that the needs of workers come last. It is the workers who are forced to be subservient to shareholders, customers and managers. Under capitalism, it is the worker and worker role that is the “bondslave” of every other person and role.
@Ikonoclast
The Russian campaign was a great example of his profligate expenditure of his men.
As for Joyce, it is clear he is simply the frontman. He has been raised up to the position given a pile of gold and is doing the job. Those behind him conveniently avoid the flak, and job done Joyce will be discarding this country of convenience faster than he can get rid of his Australian staff, even in his dreams. Joyce is a well paid lackey, and is a successful distraction removing the focus from those behind the whole thing.
@Ikonoclast
I don’t believe it does, although “producer” does cover semantic ground that many would not include in ‘worker’. Is a contracted systems analyst, or self-employed dentist with a small staff a worker? Arguably so, but ‘producer’ is neater.