Qantas

I remember in the 1980s, the USA Air Traffic Controllers went on strike to force their employer’s hands into giving them more money. The then President Reagan immediately sacked the whole lot, knowing there were many others, equally well qualified, ready to accept the pay and conditions which were the subject of the strike. Most of the workers tried to get back to work, and the rest were replaced, almost overnight. The strike was over, air traffic control was reinstated, and US national security was not compromised. President Reagan was hailed as a national hero by all, except the militant few.

Now another major strike has threatened Qantas, with the strikers thinking they had the upper hand of force. Not so. Qantas immediately grounded their entire fleet of aircraft until further notice, and the politicians are brought in to encourage negotiation between the unions and the airline company. Passengers are affected, the Australian economy is affected, and the very people bringing the action to this point, the union members, are affected. No winners and all losers. Or maybe not?

The balance of the dispute has shifted now, from the well paid strikers, to the company which pays their wages and provides their conditions. As happened before, I reckon there are many others who would be happy to work under these same terms and conditions. I say, give them a chance. Employ those who will not bite the hand that feeds them (literally). As a result, I think the strike may become much shorter than the unions thought, and show that the company has rights too. As in the UK, is it possible that the unions have too much power, and just need or want to flex their muscles now and again? Having said that, I fully understand the beginnings and need for workers’ unions, to stand against rampant poverty and abuse of the ordinary workforce, most of whom lived in squalor, and could not speak for themselves. You cannot say that about the present use of the strike tool by the present union hierarchy, can you?