Air France!
With a particularly unhappy dose of the flu, I boarded a flight that was to be of 15 hours duration.
My throat felt like razor blades. I looked forward to a drink of water, which would have been a lifesaver!
It was 10 hours into the flight before a cabin crew came near to me, and grudgingly provided a drink of water.
I saw the cabin crew for the second time just before landing, when they distributed a "feedback on our cabin service" card, then whisked it away before I could fill it in.
Thus Air France will forever hold a special place on Mine Host's list of unhappy memories.
The only people to arrive rested were the cabin crew. Their union is retarding that airline, & their national reputation (such as it may be, cough).
Showing posts with label trade unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade unions. Show all posts
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Working for their Members.... 2
Qld trade unions, mostly the public service unions, have of late engaged in much renting of garments.
They have protested outside parliament house, made hot & furious comments into TV cameras, and stated how terrible things are now in Qld... blah blah blah...
This the the squealing of the spoilt child who is told they can't have an extra dessert.
Under the previous government the public service, particuarly the clerical functions, enjoyed the status of "most favoured child".
Where were these unions (supposedly so concerned about their members) when under the erstwhile state government nurses were going weeks (& months) without pay?
That was the time to go on strike, to stand in "solidarity" with their sisters who toiled in hospitals, to really kick up a fuss, etc.
Instead there was nary a peep.
So why the sudden (& hypocritical) whingeing now, over lesser issues?
They have protested outside parliament house, made hot & furious comments into TV cameras, and stated how terrible things are now in Qld... blah blah blah...
This the the squealing of the spoilt child who is told they can't have an extra dessert.
Under the previous government the public service, particuarly the clerical functions, enjoyed the status of "most favoured child".
Where were these unions (supposedly so concerned about their members) when under the erstwhile state government nurses were going weeks (& months) without pay?
That was the time to go on strike, to stand in "solidarity" with their sisters who toiled in hospitals, to really kick up a fuss, etc.
Instead there was nary a peep.
So why the sudden (& hypocritical) whingeing now, over lesser issues?
Monday, July 02, 2012
Working for their Members......
The groovy new government in the mighty state of Queensland, is coming up with lots & lots of much needed changes.
Things which due to the inertia of modern politics, we never dared imagine we'd ever see happen!
A proposed law will be that trade unions will not be able to make donations to political parties without this first being put to a vote of the members of that union.
This concept of members having input into what is done with their money is new for trade union leaders.
They can barely grasp this principle.
A horrifed trade union leader was on TV the very night this proposed law was suggested.....
..... without any sense of irony, he said that having members vote on political donations would be undemocratic.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Pause to Think
There's certainly some second thoughts going on about the advisability of going on strike.
The closure of Norwich Park mine has thrown quite a scare into some of the fellers. They've got it very good, and know it. It hadn't occurred to them until BHP just up & shut the mine, that there could possibly be a downside to biting the hand that feeds them.
The closure of Norwich Park mine has thrown quite a scare into some of the fellers. They've got it very good, and know it. It hadn't occurred to them until BHP just up & shut the mine, that there could possibly be a downside to biting the hand that feeds them.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Shotgun Wedding
The (heavily undersubscribed & outdated) Australian trade union movement has been bleating somewhat of late about how the workforce is "casualised" & how such workers do not "have certainty" etc.
I can relate to some of that. I don't have certainty. Tomorrow I may be out of business, forced onto the wallaby & having to hump bluey.
On boy, would some certainty be handy around here! But nobody is going to legislate to guarantee me a certain number of patrons each week. I am at the mercy of lots of variable factors. Many of them totally beyond my control.
Under unfair dismissal laws, the cost of removing unproductive/disruptive staff is so great that like many small business employers, I am loathe to hire. I hire no more than I need to, & have eliminated all of the peripheral & small jobs in my business.
This is purely because the less staff on the payroll, the less risk I face under the Fair Work Act.
It is that simple.
In the 1990's short term contracts & labour hire were expanding. Purely because employers were not prepared to expose themselves to the risks of hiring permanent staff. The Fair Work Act will see a return to those circumstances (alternatively your job moves overseas.)
Introduction of (say) a 6-month threshold after which casual/temporary staff will be entitled to a permenant position will lead to 5-month non-renewable contracts for the more marginal workers (NB: just about every job title lower than "executive").
Result: Less permanent jobs than before, and less certainty for most workers.
.... or just change the law so that firing staff is easier than divorcing a spouse.
It is that simple.
I can relate to some of that. I don't have certainty. Tomorrow I may be out of business, forced onto the wallaby & having to hump bluey.
On boy, would some certainty be handy around here! But nobody is going to legislate to guarantee me a certain number of patrons each week. I am at the mercy of lots of variable factors. Many of them totally beyond my control.
Under unfair dismissal laws, the cost of removing unproductive/disruptive staff is so great that like many small business employers, I am loathe to hire. I hire no more than I need to, & have eliminated all of the peripheral & small jobs in my business.
This is purely because the less staff on the payroll, the less risk I face under the Fair Work Act.
It is that simple.
In the 1990's short term contracts & labour hire were expanding. Purely because employers were not prepared to expose themselves to the risks of hiring permanent staff. The Fair Work Act will see a return to those circumstances (alternatively your job moves overseas.)
Introduction of (say) a 6-month threshold after which casual/temporary staff will be entitled to a permenant position will lead to 5-month non-renewable contracts for the more marginal workers (NB: just about every job title lower than "executive").
Result: Less permanent jobs than before, and less certainty for most workers.
.... or just change the law so that firing staff is easier than divorcing a spouse.
It is that simple.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Culturally Insensitive Teacher
A teacher is in front of her class of teenagers. Mid-lesson a teenage boy (from another class) strides purposefully into the room, without so much as a bye-your-leave, marches to the desk of a girl pupil (his younger sister) and sets about bashing her.
The beating is fast, savage & expert. By the time teachers have intervened, blood is drawn, lips are smashed, her dress is torn, bruising and black eyes follow.
How was this handled by the teachers?
The Police are not called. Instead the Teacher whose class was interrupted gives the boy detention, or lines to write out (or something equally mild) as punishment for interrupting class & failing to "show respect" for his sister.
A day or two later the teacher is again in front of her class. Mid-lesson a woman (mother of the abovementioned brother & sister) strides purposefully up to the Teacher, without so much as a bye-your-leave, and with brutal swiftness sets about bashing the Teacher.
The first blow knocks the Teacher back over the teacher's table. The table is tipped over, the Teacher lands with a thud on the floor. Class props & student projects are sent flying as the woman's intensely physical attack on the Teacher continues.
This time the Police are summoned. The woman is taken away by the Police, all the while loudly proclaiming that nobody "interferes" by telling her son how to handle his sister AND gets away with it.
The Education Department tut-tutted aplenty and pressured the Teacher into not pressing charges against the woman. The police "investigated" & found no charge to stick the woman with.
The Teachers Union didn't wait for the Teacher to contact them. Instead the union's senior official in the nearest city immediately made a public statement that they would be helping the Teacher with counselling on the matter of cultural insensitivity, and that Teachers in general should be more culturally aware of the norms of the towns in which they teach.
During a newspaper interview (on another matter) the reporter seeks Mine Host's opinion on, amongst other events, the recent high school "incident". Mine Host, having just read in the press the comment by the Union, gives a quick opinion on the topics of:
Protection of Members (union abrogation of),
Common Assault,
Public Disorder Offences,
Safety in the Workplace (as viewed by the Trade Unions)
Classroom Discipline,
Liability of Employers who fail to take measures to prevent staff being assaulted at work.
And a quick character opinion & suggested alternative career of the union official who made the reprehensible statement implying that the Teacher brought it upon herself.
The reporter blurted: "That union officer is my daughter!"
Then calmed down Three seconds later & said "By golly, you're dead right though, I've never thought about it like that before!"
This, in a Queensland state high school, in a Queensland town, in 2010.
The beating is fast, savage & expert. By the time teachers have intervened, blood is drawn, lips are smashed, her dress is torn, bruising and black eyes follow.
How was this handled by the teachers?
The Police are not called. Instead the Teacher whose class was interrupted gives the boy detention, or lines to write out (or something equally mild) as punishment for interrupting class & failing to "show respect" for his sister.
A day or two later the teacher is again in front of her class. Mid-lesson a woman (mother of the abovementioned brother & sister) strides purposefully up to the Teacher, without so much as a bye-your-leave, and with brutal swiftness sets about bashing the Teacher.
The first blow knocks the Teacher back over the teacher's table. The table is tipped over, the Teacher lands with a thud on the floor. Class props & student projects are sent flying as the woman's intensely physical attack on the Teacher continues.
This time the Police are summoned. The woman is taken away by the Police, all the while loudly proclaiming that nobody "interferes" by telling her son how to handle his sister AND gets away with it.
The Education Department tut-tutted aplenty and pressured the Teacher into not pressing charges against the woman. The police "investigated" & found no charge to stick the woman with.
The Teachers Union didn't wait for the Teacher to contact them. Instead the union's senior official in the nearest city immediately made a public statement that they would be helping the Teacher with counselling on the matter of cultural insensitivity, and that Teachers in general should be more culturally aware of the norms of the towns in which they teach.
During a newspaper interview (on another matter) the reporter seeks Mine Host's opinion on, amongst other events, the recent high school "incident". Mine Host, having just read in the press the comment by the Union, gives a quick opinion on the topics of:
Protection of Members (union abrogation of),
Common Assault,
Public Disorder Offences,
Safety in the Workplace (as viewed by the Trade Unions)
Classroom Discipline,
Liability of Employers who fail to take measures to prevent staff being assaulted at work.
And a quick character opinion & suggested alternative career of the union official who made the reprehensible statement implying that the Teacher brought it upon herself.
The reporter blurted: "That union officer is my daughter!"
Then calmed down Three seconds later & said "By golly, you're dead right though, I've never thought about it like that before!"
This, in a Queensland state high school, in a Queensland town, in 2010.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Wolf in Wolf's clothing
Membership or otherwise (by the staff) of a Trade Union has never been an issue at the Wayside Tavern. Mine Host knows some staff have been union members, and some due to bitter experience are violently opposed to trade unions.
Disclosure: Mine Host is a sponsor of a Trade Union, his biggest customer, after collective federal & state government departments, has been the Trade Union Movement. His father held a Union Ticket most of his working life. Mine Host, courtesy of from whom he is descended, is Labor Royalty.
An employer in the town is the subject of a complex industrial proceeding, in which union involvement is quite heavy.
The union officer involved in the matter is an in-house guest booked for a long stay. He has become a familiar figure around the place, eating most meals in house & having constant dealings with most of the staff.
Currently most, if not all, staff are not in a union. Thus the extended stay of a union Industrial Officer is a golden opportunity for the union movement.
The union official is an abrasive, demanding, sour tempered swine. He is rude to the staff, possibly the worst behaved customer we have ever had. No matter the effort put in by the staff he is never anything but displeased & scathing. He is constantly scathing of the staff on a personal level, seeking to demean them at almost every opportunity.
Were Mine Host or his staff to treat their customers the way this man treats the ordinary worker, we wouldn't have any customers by the end of the week.
Easy to see why these swine seek to have union membership mandated by law. Were membership numbers reliant upon service & courtesy toward members the union movement would deservedly be finished.
Disclosure: Mine Host is a sponsor of a Trade Union, his biggest customer, after collective federal & state government departments, has been the Trade Union Movement. His father held a Union Ticket most of his working life. Mine Host, courtesy of from whom he is descended, is Labor Royalty.
An employer in the town is the subject of a complex industrial proceeding, in which union involvement is quite heavy.
The union officer involved in the matter is an in-house guest booked for a long stay. He has become a familiar figure around the place, eating most meals in house & having constant dealings with most of the staff.
Currently most, if not all, staff are not in a union. Thus the extended stay of a union Industrial Officer is a golden opportunity for the union movement.
The union official is an abrasive, demanding, sour tempered swine. He is rude to the staff, possibly the worst behaved customer we have ever had. No matter the effort put in by the staff he is never anything but displeased & scathing. He is constantly scathing of the staff on a personal level, seeking to demean them at almost every opportunity.
Were Mine Host or his staff to treat their customers the way this man treats the ordinary worker, we wouldn't have any customers by the end of the week.
Easy to see why these swine seek to have union membership mandated by law. Were membership numbers reliant upon service & courtesy toward members the union movement would deservedly be finished.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Unfair Dismissal Scrapped? Blame the Union
Finally the unfair dismissal laws are to be scrapped. Mine Host knows of several cases, all settled or judged in favour of the employee. Each of the cases were falsified, a successful attempt to "get" an employer.
When the unfair dismissal laws are scrapped, their passing will result in a celebration by Mine Host, & no doubt by each of the other thousands of small business operators who have been victimised by these unfair laws
For those who regret the demise of such laws, I say this: Blame your Union.
The unions have used the unfair dismissal laws as a method of extorting money from small business.
There is no penalty, financial or otherwise, to an employee whose unfair dismissal case is taken on by a union.
For the employer, there is a minimum cost of fighting the case, which could be as "low" as $7,000 to $25,000. On the upper end of costs, the sky is the limit
Remember, these costs to the employer are for winning.
Remember, the average employer is not BP, Toyota Motor or Microsoft, but Mum & Dad, struggling to make the average adult wage.
Even cases which have absolutely no merit have been used by unions to extort cash from employers, who pay a small amount rather than face the financial & emotional cost of neglecting their business to fight a case.
Bring on the end of the unfair dismissal laws, the sooner the better.
Mine Host has has two unfair dismissal cases brought against him, each is the subject of an individual post below:
When the unfair dismissal laws are scrapped, their passing will result in a celebration by Mine Host, & no doubt by each of the other thousands of small business operators who have been victimised by these unfair laws
For those who regret the demise of such laws, I say this: Blame your Union.
The unions have used the unfair dismissal laws as a method of extorting money from small business.
There is no penalty, financial or otherwise, to an employee whose unfair dismissal case is taken on by a union.
For the employer, there is a minimum cost of fighting the case, which could be as "low" as $7,000 to $25,000. On the upper end of costs, the sky is the limit
Remember, these costs to the employer are for winning.
Remember, the average employer is not BP, Toyota Motor or Microsoft, but Mum & Dad, struggling to make the average adult wage.
Even cases which have absolutely no merit have been used by unions to extort cash from employers, who pay a small amount rather than face the financial & emotional cost of neglecting their business to fight a case.
Bring on the end of the unfair dismissal laws, the sooner the better.
Mine Host has has two unfair dismissal cases brought against him, each is the subject of an individual post below:
IR case #1. Legalised Shakedown
Secretary didn't come to work. Didn't appear all day.
No message, no warning, no nothing.
Phone calls to her house dialled out.
Casual conversation in the staff room revealed that the secretary was on holidays. Long planned holidays, booked & paid months in advance.
Several weeks later the secretary reappeared in the office, at her old desk, & was busy with paperwork.
She had been interstate "on holiday".
In the abscence of a valid reason for several weeks abscence from work, she was advised there was no longer a job for her.
Subsequently Mine Host was hauled before the Industrial Relations Commission. The secretary had made a 14 page complaint (apparently this is quite a long one) alleging "unfair dismissal".
The claim was for in excess of $30,000. Advice from the QHA was that just to fight this particular claim would cost $20,000.
Mine Host was contacted by an officer of the Clerks Union, (representing the former secretary).
The conversation ended with Mine Host & he agreeing to disagree. Mine Host called it "Workplace Abandonment", the Union Officer called it "Unfair Dismissal".
(The Union Official also had a poorly worded go at entrapping Mine Host into a comment that would compromise his position)
A "Mediation Hearing" was ordered by the IRC.
Mine Host was present, along with an Industrial Officer to represent him, likewise the former secretary was there with her Union Officer.
Mine Host's representative whispered to him that the Commissioner presiding over the mediation was a former magistrate, & thus likely to be impartial. (For those who never had to endure the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, impartiality by the Commissioners was most uncommon)
The hearing commenced with the Union Officer presenting the Commissioner with 20 pages of new documentation.
The Commissioner refused to allow Mine Host or his representative to see these new documents.
The union official opened by stating the secretary had been summarily dismissed for taking holidays, "which is a bit rough".
Mine Host's Industrial Representative opened by stating the secretary had walked off the job and gone on holidays without so much as a by-your-leave or any concern about how her job would be performed.
The Commssioner announced he would now speak with each party in "private conference". He then moved into a side room with the secretary & union officer.
Returning 20 minutes later, the Commissioner informed Mine Host: "Things don't look very good for you, I recommend that you settle immediately".
Mine Host refused to agree to an immediate settlement, confident that his 20 minute session with the Commissioner would throw a different complexion on things.
Instead, the Commissar spoke:
"Okay, I'll give you two weeks to come to your senses, all parties will reconvene at date X time X. I recommend you think about settlement"
Stunned, Mine Host put it to his representative that if this was an "impartial" commissioner, what could be expected of one who was anti-employer?
Over the next 2 weeks the representative earned his fee. Several telephone discussions were held with the union officer.
The secretary had not been full & frank with the union about the exact circumstances:
She had told them that she had applied for leave in writing & that leave had been granted.
This representation collapsed very quickly, after which the Union Officer quickly reduced the claim by 90%.
By the time of the reconvened Mediation Hearing, the claim had been reduced to 3 weeks pay + 1 week pay in lieu of "notice not given".
When asked how he felt about this by the Commissar, Mine Host weighed his options, a $20,000 cost to win, or pay a few weeks wages now to get it out of the way?
Mine Host poined out to the Commissar that the only thing he had been asked in this whole kangaroo court was will he pay? NEVER had he been allowed to state his response to the claim.
The Commissar expressed disgruntled surprise at this, & explained that Mine Host had been given "ample opportunity" to say his piece on the matter.
To this Mine Host retorted that "his piece" had been limited to a simple Yes or No to the Commissar's endless demands that cash payment be made to the secretary, whilst the opposing party had been given a 20 minute private audience.
The Commissar was unmoved.
The "week's pay in lieu" was dropped, and Reluctantly Mine Host agreed to a payment of 3 weeks wages. Laregely because the Wayside Tavern did not have $20,000 to spare.
Feeling ashamed at having put money before principle Mine Host was in a tense emotional state, very close to an outburst.
Then something happened that triggered Mine Host to dig his heels in.
As part of the settlement statement, the Union Officer asked for, and the Commissar granted, that Mine Host would also write a statement that the secretary had been a highly competent employee, & had left on very good terms.
Mine Host let go an emphatic "NO!"
In disbelief the Commissar asked for clarification, unsure of what he had heard, unable to believe he was being defied.
"I will not sign any such thing, such a document would be untrue, and I will go to gaol before I will ever put my signature to something which is not true."
Mine Host then gave a quick summation of the lack of due process so far, ending with an expression of shock & surprise that the Commissioner would expect someone to put their signature to something that wasn't true.
Sensing that the settlement offer was about to be withdrawn by a wronged employer who had been pushed too far, & knowing the secretary's case had limited prospects in a substantive hearing, the Union Officer hurriedly withdrew any requirement for a signed statement of "competence & goodwill" from the employer.
The settlement was signed, & the legalised shakedown was complete.
No message, no warning, no nothing.
Phone calls to her house dialled out.
Casual conversation in the staff room revealed that the secretary was on holidays. Long planned holidays, booked & paid months in advance.
Several weeks later the secretary reappeared in the office, at her old desk, & was busy with paperwork.
She had been interstate "on holiday".
In the abscence of a valid reason for several weeks abscence from work, she was advised there was no longer a job for her.
Subsequently Mine Host was hauled before the Industrial Relations Commission. The secretary had made a 14 page complaint (apparently this is quite a long one) alleging "unfair dismissal".
The claim was for in excess of $30,000. Advice from the QHA was that just to fight this particular claim would cost $20,000.
Mine Host was contacted by an officer of the Clerks Union, (representing the former secretary).
The conversation ended with Mine Host & he agreeing to disagree. Mine Host called it "Workplace Abandonment", the Union Officer called it "Unfair Dismissal".
(The Union Official also had a poorly worded go at entrapping Mine Host into a comment that would compromise his position)
A "Mediation Hearing" was ordered by the IRC.
Mine Host was present, along with an Industrial Officer to represent him, likewise the former secretary was there with her Union Officer.
Mine Host's representative whispered to him that the Commissioner presiding over the mediation was a former magistrate, & thus likely to be impartial. (For those who never had to endure the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, impartiality by the Commissioners was most uncommon)
The hearing commenced with the Union Officer presenting the Commissioner with 20 pages of new documentation.
The Commissioner refused to allow Mine Host or his representative to see these new documents.
The union official opened by stating the secretary had been summarily dismissed for taking holidays, "which is a bit rough".
Mine Host's Industrial Representative opened by stating the secretary had walked off the job and gone on holidays without so much as a by-your-leave or any concern about how her job would be performed.
The Commssioner announced he would now speak with each party in "private conference". He then moved into a side room with the secretary & union officer.
Returning 20 minutes later, the Commissioner informed Mine Host: "Things don't look very good for you, I recommend that you settle immediately".
Mine Host refused to agree to an immediate settlement, confident that his 20 minute session with the Commissioner would throw a different complexion on things.
Instead, the Commissar spoke:
"Okay, I'll give you two weeks to come to your senses, all parties will reconvene at date X time X. I recommend you think about settlement"
Stunned, Mine Host put it to his representative that if this was an "impartial" commissioner, what could be expected of one who was anti-employer?
Over the next 2 weeks the representative earned his fee. Several telephone discussions were held with the union officer.
The secretary had not been full & frank with the union about the exact circumstances:
She had told them that she had applied for leave in writing & that leave had been granted.
This representation collapsed very quickly, after which the Union Officer quickly reduced the claim by 90%.
By the time of the reconvened Mediation Hearing, the claim had been reduced to 3 weeks pay + 1 week pay in lieu of "notice not given".
When asked how he felt about this by the Commissar, Mine Host weighed his options, a $20,000 cost to win, or pay a few weeks wages now to get it out of the way?
Mine Host poined out to the Commissar that the only thing he had been asked in this whole kangaroo court was will he pay? NEVER had he been allowed to state his response to the claim.
The Commissar expressed disgruntled surprise at this, & explained that Mine Host had been given "ample opportunity" to say his piece on the matter.
To this Mine Host retorted that "his piece" had been limited to a simple Yes or No to the Commissar's endless demands that cash payment be made to the secretary, whilst the opposing party had been given a 20 minute private audience.
The Commissar was unmoved.
The "week's pay in lieu" was dropped, and Reluctantly Mine Host agreed to a payment of 3 weeks wages. Laregely because the Wayside Tavern did not have $20,000 to spare.
Feeling ashamed at having put money before principle Mine Host was in a tense emotional state, very close to an outburst.
Then something happened that triggered Mine Host to dig his heels in.
As part of the settlement statement, the Union Officer asked for, and the Commissar granted, that Mine Host would also write a statement that the secretary had been a highly competent employee, & had left on very good terms.
Mine Host let go an emphatic "NO!"
In disbelief the Commissar asked for clarification, unsure of what he had heard, unable to believe he was being defied.
"I will not sign any such thing, such a document would be untrue, and I will go to gaol before I will ever put my signature to something which is not true."
Mine Host then gave a quick summation of the lack of due process so far, ending with an expression of shock & surprise that the Commissioner would expect someone to put their signature to something that wasn't true.
Sensing that the settlement offer was about to be withdrawn by a wronged employer who had been pushed too far, & knowing the secretary's case had limited prospects in a substantive hearing, the Union Officer hurriedly withdrew any requirement for a signed statement of "competence & goodwill" from the employer.
The settlement was signed, & the legalised shakedown was complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)