They may have a conscience but the Company Act requires them to maximise the Shareholders benefits. If they have sought JobKeeper and met the rules even if they made a profit they have then been lawful and are being conscientious in meeting Company Law. Perhaps we should be looking at those who framed the Law who allowed this to happen than those who legally benefited from it. I also agree it doesn’t look good but they have done as required by law to benefit their shareholders.
6 Likes
But a number of listed companies have chosen to repay the money.
They are subject to the same laws as those who refused.
3 Likes
This is a matter then for the Shareholders to agree or not with a Business decision. They have the right to call a Special GM or at the AGM to voice their disapproval, ASIC can also get involved (they are a bit weak though in some ways). I note that not every large Business has chosen to act in the same way as those returning the money, this may be because of already voiced Shareholder backlash. The returns may have been made because of a perceived public or shareholder backlash if they didn’t which may have been a worse outcome in the long run for Shareholders. and or the Boards and Management.
3 Likes
Do you mean most ways?
2 Likes
I am being kind.
2 Likes
Does the South Australian Government using official Covid information to harvest data for the Liberal Party’s use count as poor business behaviour?
1 Like
The South Australian government has admitted it has been redirecting web users looking at official government links through a data-harvesting platform.
IE, the Liberal Party ‘Nation Builder’.
A new twist on -
Supposedly the redirection was unintentional.
It was not specific to Covid-19 content on the SA Govt website.
It may be as unintentional as the parties using candidate/office holder mailers who ‘help’ voters register by sending self addressed forms that get returned to the local party for ‘processing’ prior to being sent on to the electoral commission, not to the electoral commission. Seems a bi-partisan activity.
Nothing like predictable ‘integrity’ by our many, many, many politicians.
1 Like
Another article regarding Mosaic Brands unethical business practices.
You have to love this bit of hypocrisy.
The company also said: “In responding to a once in a generation global pandemic the outcome 12 months later is every pre-Covid manufacturer in Bangladesh continues to choose to work with Mosaic Brands.”
What choice do they have other than starving?
Mercedes and Ford refuse to repay JobKeeper payments.
Perhaps Mercedes needs the money to fund their plethora of recalls?
Apparently these emloyees working from home are preventing CBD rents from rising and depriving Triguboff of his entitled riches.
I think I know who the real parasite is, especially based on past form.
3 Likes
Flight Centre - unprecedented ban on a customer seeking a refund?
Choice’s Erin Turner is quoted by The Guardian, pointing out again the lack of an industry Ombudsman or similar to address consumer concerns with the travel industry.
Are Flight Centre’s actions ‘Lower than the proverbial snakes belly’?
A business taking the action it has without first attempting to resolve any concerns through mediation, or a Govt led consumer organisation is hopefully not a precedent others follow.
1 Like
How would we know? This is a he-said, she-said, they-said story. The players cannot all be truthful but how do you determine who is making it up?
1 Like
It’s up to The Guardian to set the standard. They did seek support from Flight Centre for their side. Flight Centre’s response is covered in the article.
Assuming it is an open to consider ‘he said she said’, it was Flight Centre that took action. Flight Centre has the upper hand, and corporate ability to resolve similar situations in a fair and transparent way. Given the opportunity to explain their actions they have produced very little in support. Perhaps they are keeping their ‘powder dry’?
Included in the article is commentary from Choice’s Erin Turner including,
“they’d have to have fairly sustained evidence of aggressive behaviour from a customer to make a prohibition notice like this legitimate. Given that Flight Centre is struggling to keep records of what they owe customers, I question whether the evidence is there. Flight Centre should be transparent about what is a very extreme action.”
1 Like
Clearly Flight Centre are a service company that doesn’t seem to understand that they need to help customers when problems with travel occur. A competent support organization should be capable of handling problems before it got to the point of utter customer frustration. And now threats of police action if the customer doesn’t go away.
FC have already been the subject of ACCC action and agreed to stop their outrageous cancellation fee scam.
2 Likes
One only has to look at Flight Centre’s past form to know who I would believe.
So Flight Centre is prepared to ban a customer who has been ripped off on a pretext that she abused their staff whilst allegedly cheating their own staff and plying them with cocaine.
One would think that they would have CCTV footage of any incidents in their stores to support their claims unless they avoid doing so due to the alleged cocaine use.
There is no way known that i would ever consider using Flight Centre.
"In a report soon to be released from Choice, Turner said “Flight Centre stand out as a particularly poor player when it comes to customer service and actioning refunds”.
I await reading the report.
2 Likes
No…
After initially inquiring about a refund at the time of the cancellation in March 2020, she “let it go” before trying again at the beginning of this year.
Letting it go once to a employee is once to much. Such behaviour is unacceptable and can affect those who take the brunt of the abuse. Employees aren’t paid to take such from customers or anyone else.
The retail worker’s union has been running campaigns highlighting isn’t acceptable to abuse retail employees, which is 100% correct. Hopefully Fightcentre action is a warning to others that letting it go, even once, is unacceptable and may have repercussions.
I read “let it go” to mean she did not pursue getting the refund not that she attacked an employee.
4 Likes
I read that as she did not follow up on the matter, not that she abused anyone.
2 Likes
I bit ambiguous. Even if this was the case, it appears from the article that she may not have dealt appropriately with Flightcentre employees as:
Flight Centre said that complaints about the customer’s behaviour were raised directly with her at various times.
“On 24 April last year, one of our people wrote to the customer [via email] to request that she ‘display courtesy with myself and other staff and deal with us in a respectful manner’.
The information indicates that the contacts with Flighcentre were of such nature to provoke multiple complaints from Flightcentre employees. If this is correct, there seems a pattern of behaviour which has been the focus of the retail workers union. As I indicated, unacceptable behaviour towards a employee is unacceptable, even if it occurs once.
