*Perhaps it is because 'workers' are not the owners of the business and any attempt at that would be regarded by the employer and the state as 'theft'?*

TBC, perhaps the workers should buy the business with all their
superannuation money, for looking at the shareprice, its cheap
as chips right now. Qantas largely exists for the benefit of
passengers and workers, certainly not the people who invested in
it.

What the present industrial strife really comes down to, is finally
facing reality. Quantas can't make money on international flights,
their costs are too high and their competitors have too many
advantages. But they can make money from Jetstar and other subsidiaries, which don't have to operate under Australian cushy
laws. Joyce is paid alot, because he had to make the hard decisions
and focus on shareholders for a change, who have lost their shirts
it seems. Workers will have to face it, strikes or no strikes,
IMHO Qantas will wind down Quantas, employ far less people and
crank up their overseas businesses which actually make money.

Militant actions by the unions will only speed up their own demise
and they can go and find work elsewhere. So be it, Ansett workers
used to tell me that their airline was safe. Oh yeah. Next they
will be screaming for jobs, when times get rough. Some learn the
hard way it seems.

TBC,
I found that managers don't give a hoot about workers' feelings in the majority of cases but, kick the ball back into their court & they'll freak out. If Qantas can afford the insane benefits for their hierarchy than they should be able to accommodate their workers as well. It's called competent managing. If they can't they could always try to drop their pays by 50 % & they'll still be millionaires.

*If Qantas can afford the insane benefits for their hierarchy than they should be able to accommodate their workers as well*

It ain't that simple, Individual. It took me a while to get my
mind around this one, for I used to think like you. But if you
crunch the numbers, it all changes.

Qantas employ something like 33'000 people. Pay them each just
20$ a week more, it costs the company something like 33 million $.

The CEO involves a single person, who is basically acting as
"intrapreneur" on behalf of the shareholders. As billions of $
are dependant on his decisions, the board needs the flexiblity to
hire whoever they want for the job, because people with the knowledge
and talent, showing great judgement, are very hard to find.

Wether they pay that person 1 or 5 million, hardly affects the
bottom line, besides, they will pay half of it in tax anyhow.

But that person's skills are critical for shareholders and the billions involved. Really smart people always have the option of
going out on their own in business, they don't need the job.
Paying them well gives them an incentive to stay and make the
required changes, no matter how difficult.

There are great examples for this. When Wesfarmers bought Coles,
they overpaid for it, but at least it stayed in Australian hands,
the Americans were after it, but IMHO they would have trashed it.

Wesfarmers searched the planet for the best possible talent and
put together a whole new team, to turn around what had been a disaster
for years. The Coles turnaround is clearly reflected in the figures.
Not only that, but consumers have been the winners, as finally
Woolies has some real competition.

You are not going to draw that kind of talent to Australia, by
paying people peanuts.

You are not going to draw that kind of talent to Australia, by
paying people peanuts.
Yabby,
so by paying them we get what we have now eh ? I think peanut munching monkeys might have more sense.
If what we have is the cream then only God can help us.
I really don't believe that we have value for money.

*I really don't believe that we have value for money.*

Individual, that is really up to the board. If the board is
no good, then their heads should role. Good boards do in
fact get it right. The shareholders are free to vote on that
and throw them out, if they are not satisfied.

It is the big boys playing with monopoly money pure and simple and rules being manipulated to serve the interests of a small elite who are in charge of pulling the strings at the top of the pyramid.

rehctub it is not about 'anyone' stepping up for these CEO jobs, there are only a few to go around afterall. It is about valuing jobs for their worth, neither over-valuing or under-valuing a role. It is pure mathematics. The most successful economies are those where the pay disparities are not so great.

This is happening even in government. Senior public servants continue to receive bonues and their pay rates have increased disproportionately to lower level roles. Many of these bonuses are paid regardless of meeting KPIs. "Efficiency" in both the private and public sector is a farce. It often means cuts to services and front of house staff to the detriment of consumers/citizens all in the name of efficiency dividends so some corporates can validate their excessive bonuses.

Efficiency no longer means providing a good service/product for the least cost. The concept has morphed into a scenario of corporate 'fixing' so that there is little from which to choose and a reduction in quality in favour of quantity and an it will do culture.

Soon all the Humphrey Applebys will be pushing for no patients in public hospitals beacause it impedes the work of all the administrators as portrayed in Yes Minister. YM is more and more turning out to be a documentary than satire. Who would have thought.

At least there is the growings of a backlash:

http://www.cheatingculture.com/

A friend recommended the book 'The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead'

http://www.amazon.com/Cheating-Culture-Americans-Doing-Wrong/dp/0156030055

I have not read it yet but the reviews and commentary on the book are quite revealing and there is much to be said for the conclusions, not only relevant to the US but to other countries as well.