Andrew Bolt

Nov 2, 2011

One of these things is not like the other.

One more for the "Do you read what you link to

Pure Poison IconOne more for the “Do you read what you link to?” file at Andrew Bolt’s blog. This time Andrew’s highlighting an article from Canada’s Globe and Mail

Lisa shows Julia how to handle an airline crisis

Julia Gillard meet Lisa Raitt.

Actually the Australian Prime Minister should have met Canada’s Labour Minister a few weeks ago – and potentially avoided all sorts of airline strife Down Under.

The contrasts in the way the two women handled potential major work stoppages in their airline industries are striking….

So let’s see what brilliant action Ms Raitt took to keep planes in the air.

But Ms. Raitt, arguing a work stoppage would be detrimental to the fragile economy recovery, referred the matter to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board. A few days later the two sides agreed to binding arbitration.

She referred the dispute to a 3rd party with the power to force arbitration, which is exactly what Julia Gillard did. The difference? Ms Raitt didn’t have to deal with Alan Joyce shutting down the airline involved in the dispute. Of course little details like this are hardly relevant to Andrew, anything that takes a shot at the ALP seems to be met with delight at his blog.


7 thoughts on “One of these things is not like the other.

  1. Matthew of Canberra

    The narrative has shifted again. Today, joyce is a brave leader who took a brave decision.

    Which is a change from the weekend, when he was a browbeaten leader who’d been forced into a corner by the nasty unions and who only did what he did because he had no choice, and who should have been rescued from this unavoidable, nation-damaging cource of action by a weak, clueless government who couldn’t see it coming like everyone else did. Everyone except, it should be said, those in the press – who neglected to mention it at all on friday. (Now THAT would have been a scoop – unlike muttering after the fact that they could have point it out it if they’d wanted to. Can’t wait for the “coulda-been walkley awards”).

    So which is it? If this was a brave, premeditated, surprise negotiation tactic (and I personally think it was), then yes he DOES deserve credit for any benefits that flow to the company as a result. But he also has to wear the criticism from all the people who bought tickets on planes when (at least some of) qantas management knew those planes would not be flying. If this was hatched as a political manoevre (and I believe it was), then the people caught in the crossfire ARE justified in being grouchy about becoming collatoral – because their inconvenience and discomfort was surely considered, and then ranked down in favor of an opportunity to strike on CHOGM and the melbourne cup. If so, then the government DOES deserve to be ticked off about being used. The insurance industry IS justified in being angry about being played for patsies. The general public IS allowed to ask why they still see that red tail as some sort of national icon, rather than just one more investment option.

    On the other hand, if qantas really had no choice. If all those newly-reinterpreted “warnings” about the threat of union actions to the operations of qantas were what the usual suspects want us to believe they were. If so, then this wasn’t a brilliant, brave Cortes strategy, it was the desperate act of a man who couldn’t keep his company running in the face of the slightest industrial negotiation. If that’s the case then, sure, the angry passengers should be pointing their anger at the unions … but the telegraph should be mourning his likely demotion at the next AGM, not lauding him up as a modern industrial alexander the great.

    They can’t have it both ways. Hero or victim – which is it?

  2. Eponymous

    Consistency has never been a stated aim of the Bolta.

  3. FatCat

    I can’t stand the hypocrisy of the business leaders who constantly demand Governments to stay out of their affairs, complain about the cost of regulation, etc but then suddenly want the government to intervene when it gets a bit scary. Won’t the wonders of the free market sort this stuff out.

    The dispute at Qantas being of ‘national significance’ is awfully similar to the banks being ‘too big to fail’. Any business in that state needs to expect higher than average amounts of government intervention in its affairs.

  4. SHV

    Speaking of ‘clicking through links’, this stuff is absolutely explosive.

    Check out News Corp’s legal advice (embarassingly full of typos) where they were told that they were doomed to lose the case.

    These people are very, very not nice considering their subsequent behaviour.

    Anyway, this has nothing to do with Australia because nobody can show me just one or ten cases of similar misbehaviour by Rupert’s News Ltd here. Although there was that funny incident about trading off Australian lives against News Ltd’s interests in totally owning the AFP/ASIO story.

    And they also have form with destroying Commissioners of Police they don’t like. And there is also the weirdly odd relationship they obviously had with Scotland Yard. Then there is…. never mind, lets just say ‘Queensalnd’.

    It really is sad that these News Corp attrocities only came out after submissions to the media inquiry closed.

    Anyway, we can all agree that there must never ever be any restraint on the most powerful media monopoly in this country – because that would erode our democracy. LOL

  5. Matthew of Canberra

    It doesn matter! It’s just details! Bob brown is a greenshirt! Stop making excuses! Sell the ABC!

  6. heavylambs

    All mouth,no trousers.

  7. Brizben

    At least Ms Raitt got 72 hours to put arbitration in place.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details