“I’m doing this for my kids. If we don’t do something, what jobs and conditions will the next generation have?” said a Transport Workers Union (TWU) delegate to FSU officials after a meeting in which Qantas workers expressed support for Suncorp workers faced with their jobs going overseas.

Qantas workers are fighting for job security in the face of plans to outsource jobs locally and overseas. The international pilots want Qantas pilots, trained by Qantas, on Qantas flights. The engineers want maintenance work on new aircraft to be performed in Australia by Qantas engineers. The TWU members want 80% of baggage handling and catering work to be done by Qantas employees, not contracted out to third parties which will undermine wages and conditions.

In Suncorp, insurance jobs are also being sent overseas. Just a week after receiving approval for a 16.5% pay increase, Suncorp CEO, Patrick Snowball, announced that 50 Claims Centre Payment Team jobs would be sent to India. A week later, Suncorp announced another 17 Transactional Accounting jobs would follow. Further announcements will be made between now and early 2012, but you can bet it won’t finish there.

FSU does not know how many insurance jobs will ultimately go offshore, but a report in the Australian Financial Review in September said it could be as many as 2,000.

Offshoring jobs is not the only similarity between Qantas and Suncorp. Both companies are very profitable, despite the impact of natural disasters, with Qantas making $552 million and Suncorp making $453 million in 2011; both rely on their workforce to build their brand, with staff in Qantas building a reputation second to none for safety and reliability, while Suncorp staff received well-deserved praise for going above and beyond to help the victims of the 2010 and 2011 natural disasters; both CEO’s have received approval for remuneration increases far exceeding that of their workforce; and both are now embarking on a program of sending jobs offshore, attacking the job security of the very people who have helped build their reputations. 

Meanwhile, employer groups such as the Business Council of Australia (BCA) have weighed into the Qantas dispute. The BCA’s new chief, Mr Tony Shepherd, has criticised the Fair Work Act (FWA) for allowing employees to bargain about job security issues like outsourcing and offshoring of jobs. Mr Shepherd says businesses need “... to be able to manage their operations without interference from their workforce and it was their prerogative to contract out services or retain local labour in overseas operations." He complains that the FWA   “... enables a union to bring into the discussion issues unrelated to pay and conditions which I would say are irrelevant.” ¹

It is hard to fathom how sending your job offshore, putting you out of employment and destroying job opportunities for future generations, is unrelated to pay and conditions or is irrelevant to a worker. It’s an argument which condescendingly suggests that workers can squabble over how much tea money we get paid, but should have no say in issues that determine whether you a have a job in the first place.

Of course, no-one questions that management and shareholders should have a direct say in the future of a company. No-one questions the right of customers to voice their opinions in a direct way (including putting a ban on a company by taking their business elsewhere).

Workers appear to be the only voice in the debate that, employers argue, should be silenced. And yet, workers often have the most to lose. Unlike a CEO or senior management, they are not on million dollar salaries and are less likely to be financially secure. Unlike a CEO or executive manager, a decision to ‘just get another job’ will not be accompanied by a handsome pay out, and is significantly more complicated than it is for a customer to just fly another airline or get another insurance policy, or for a shareholder to invest elsewhere.  And unlike most CEO’s, workers have often dedicated decades or their whole working life to the company. For many, it is all they know. To argue that they have no right to bargain and take action in relation to their own livelihood and about the direction of a company they’ve helped build is nonsense.

The Qantas dispute, and the actions of finance employers like Suncorp also raises questions about what sort of Australia we want.  While we accept that companies operate in the interest of shareholders, isn’t loyalty to your staff who have helped you build your brand just as important? And if you promote yourself as quintessentially Australian or Queensland to attract your customers, shouldn’t you back the image you portray by committing to Australian jobs, and shouldn’t you keep faith with your customers by investing in their community.

And finally, where do we draw a line on the drive to reduce costs by slashing jobs or sending them offshore? Remember, there are not many jobs in the insurance industry that cannot be performed offshore. While Suncorp says they are only offshoring back office jobs (like these are somehow less important than other jobs), once that is done, and the analysts demand further cost reductions, the call centre jobs are the next in the firing line. And job loss, whether front office or back office, ultimately affects the quality of service that customers receive.

95% of FSU Members² expect Australian companies to invest in Australian jobs and skills. It’s a reasonable expectation, and workers, as well as management, investors, and customers, have a right to have their voice heard on the issue.

1 The Australian - 25 November 2011
2 FSU Survey of over 3,000 members - 2011