Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Loveday
Hi there,
I read some months ago on another forum that industrial action was likely soon because over the years the number of handlers in a team loading an aircraft had gradually been reduced by the airline in question
|
If manpower is the main concern, the union official on ACA should have expressed that point or emphasised it more (I might have missed that bit, but the bulk of that ACA segment was focused on the 'weight' issue). I would tend to think the issue of manpower in itself is a more probable / susceptible cause of injury on baggage handlers, rather than the weight of bags because more bags = more repetition and lifting bags - more movement of limps / twisiting etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Rowe
Why is it the younger generation is trying to strip all working conditions that have been hard fought for.People have to live and if anyone should be worried about the future working conditions it should be all you younger ones.
|
Baggage handlers 20 or 30 years ago managed to do the same job / task, but probably with almost no OH&S awareness. Nowadays there are significantly greater OH&S awareness amongst workers and management, e.g. lifting techniques, stretching before work to warm up, how to prevent injuries ..... etc. Companies are aware of the hidden costs of Lost-time injury / workers compensation / workers not being able to work etc. - So in a sense working conditions should have improved (because of the greater understanding / awareness in OH&S). OH&S theories and practices probably work because according to ACA, Qantas's LTI figures did drop.
Would also like to mention that the US / Canada etc. follow the 'piece' system, while the rest of the world abides by the 'weight' system for checked-in bags.