About Nufam’s stupidity – Episode 2


What does NUFAM stand for? Literally; it is an acronym for Nuclear Fire Planning and Assessment Model. However; NUFAM is also known as THE trade fair for commercial vehicles in southern Germany.

In Malaysia; NUFAM is a Flight Attendant Union for rude; disrespectful; frustrated and disgruntled workers and to be exact it is a National Union for Frustrated Attendant Malaysia. It’s website at http://www.nufam.net cannot be found – When a registered trade union’s website has gone kaput – it’s a sign that it has lost its interest in what it really stand in for.

In the last few days; the Malaysian local dailies were busy issuing statements produced by a registered trade union for the disgruntled employees of Malaysia Airlines on threatening to stage a walk-out protest – read here – Nufam threatens to walk out next month.

An employee’s threatening behavior can be no more than a way for an employee to blow off steam or it can lead to violent episodes. MAS management should evaluate an employee who threatens the airline’s CEO and take action based on the seriousness of the situation. Employees who make detailed and specific threats may be closer to violent action than those who make vague threats.

The Union for frustrated flight attendants in that statement against Malaysia Airlines had threatened to stage a massive staff walk out if Malaysia Airlines failed to withdraw the suspension from flying duty on its President – Ismail a.k.a. Mr. Lipas Man and accord immediate recognition to Nufam as the bargaining body for its cabin crew.

AshMaxwell3

This crazy yet stupid Nufam Union also claimed there will be approximately 1000 cabin crew currently working for Malaysia Airlines will stage the walk-out by next month if the suspension of Nufam President – Mr. Lipas Man is not withdrawn.

This public humiliation against MAS management by MAS disgruntled employees leaves a lasting impression on MAS customers and can really kill workplace morale.

Malaysia Airlines has 3,800 strength for cabin crew of which 90% of the strength will always be away for flying duties leaving the remaining 10% will be on the ground for days off as scheduled. Contrary to Nufam’s threat against Malaysia Airlines; there can only be a total of 380 cabin crew on the ground to fully backed Nufam President on the day for walk-out.

Given the fact that Malaysia Airlines employed 95% locals where almost 100% of locals are committed to paying monthly subscription credit card bills; hire-purchase scheme and mortgages; we doubt these cabin crew will take the risk to stage a walk-out for Mr. Lipas Man.

We believe those cabin crew will not stage a walk-out for Nufam President after he humiliated a reputable airline’s CEO. We figure the number as predicted by Nufam could be wrong. Perhaps Nufam meant 1000 cabin crew minus last two digit of zeros which is only 10 cabin crew as in the picture above.

Out of 10 cabin crew; we figure probably only 5 stupid cabin crew would stage the walk-out with Mr. Lipas Man if only Tony Fernandez in AirAsia is willing to take them all. Walking out of a secured employment or opting an instant resignation is truly impulsive for youngsters.

However, if applying with logic we believe no one would ever risk a decent job to strike against the employer for others. Nufam must stop bull-shitting to the public and making threats against your own employer.

Read our first episode – here! Do stay tuned to our next episode 3!

Advertisements

The New World Order on Privatization – Part 2


The term “privatization” describes a shift in the ownership of assets or the provision of services from the government or public sector to the private sector. The scope of privatization, however, varies greatly in different parts of the world. In the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe, privatization means changing the ownership and control of all major industries and utilities from the national government to the private sector.

As the privatization trend gains momentum in the new world; has come to encompass a variety of economic and political changes including the transfer of assets, services, and responsibilities from the state to the private sector; a lessening in the regulatory powers of government; and an increase in the individual’s responsibility in meeting his or her own needs. Regardless of definition, privatization is driven by both specific public policy decisions and general socioeconomic trends.

Forms of Privatization

  • Contracting Out or Outsourcing is the first and probably the most prevalent which can be described as public sector choice and public sector financing, with private sector production of the selected service. Under contracting out, the citizenry makes elected officials aware of a collective needs. The government is also responsible for financing these respective services—generally through its taxing powers. Hence, the government finances the service while the private sector provides it. The government determines the service level and pays the amount specified in the contract, but leaves production decisions to the private contractor. However, if this does happens to the National Carrier; Malaysia Airlines – The government workers who previously performed the job may undergo “employee dislocation”—a polite term for layoffs, transfers to less desirable positions, etc.
  • Franchising is another form of privatization similar to a monopoly privilege awarded to a private firm that provides the service but with the price of the service being regulated and determined by the state. Most utilities, such as gas, electricity, and telephone service, are provided under the franchise form of privatization. A relatively recent service, cable TV, is also generally awarded as a monopoly privilege. Another important distinction of monopoly franchising is that the consumer makes direct payments to the provider for the service.
  • User Fees is a variation on franchising and contracting out fees. Under this system of privatization, the consumer pays a set fee to cover all or part of the service costs. A municipality may, for instance, charge a set fee per household for trash collection rather than pay for that service out of a general tax pool.
  • Load-shedding is the last form of privatization whereby the government steps aside entirely. The consumer is responsible for deciding whether or not to make use of the service, the selection of the provider, and all payments for the service.

The effects on Privatization will lead to Employee Layoffs and Retrenchment

Arguments for Privatization – the proponents of privatization argue that government providers have no real incentive to hold down costs or to provide quality service.

Private firms, on the other hand, are motivated by a profit motive that depends on holding costs down. The lower the cost incurred by the firm in satisfying the contract, the greater the realized profit.

Private providers are also motivated by competition from other potential service providers. Competition between potential private suppliers to win a contract generally results in the lowest cost to the government and the taxpayer for the specified level of service.

It was well-argued that the “Competitive markets are rooted in private property, and there is no way to stimulate competitive conditions under conditions of government financing or government production”.

However, politically the most difficult and feared impact of privatization is employee layoffs. The fear is justified because many public enterprises are greatly overstaffed, as they are often used as instruments of job creation.

Privatization typically is associated with reduction and reorganization of the labor force, either in preparation for privatization or soon afterwards. It had been revealed that a universal concern in privatization process is the effect it has on labor.

Many observers fear that privatization will cause major job losses as new owners of privatized firms shed excess labor to improve efficiency and as divesting governments cut the workforce to prepare for privatization.

Fearing unemployment and the loss of benefits, labor unions and state enterprise workers are often among the most vocal and organized opponents of privatization, taking actions to deal or block reform. It was reported that in most Eastern European countries privatization accompanied by redundancies and the introduction of hard budget constraints on enterprises has resulted in large-scale job losses. This has created a pool of unemployed workers, which often cannot be absorbed by other privatized firms or new firms.

The expressed by quoting empirical examples, that depending on the results of the voluntary departure program, redundant staff may still need to be involuntarily laid off. Though, politically the most difficult of all restructuring options, retrenchment of workers who did not accept the voluntary program have been sometimes necessary in the last phase of the restructuring.

In Argentina railways the last 5,000-6,000 workers who did not accept voluntary retirement were declared redundant on the basis of performance and laid off. About 3,000 additional workers were sent home with 50 percent of their salaries.

In Brazil more than 14,500 of the 18,000 redundant railway employees were terminated by December 1996 with a large number opting for early retirement benefits. Private operators of three recently introduced systems have further deepened the staff retrenchment program initiated by the railways company, cutting as much as half the labor force they received with the concession.

In Brazil railways, redundant staff was given the choice of voluntary separation. On average, the scheme, however, are laid off with legal entitlements plus a separation package equivalent to 80 percent of the incentive offered under the voluntary program. The railway also agreed to pay an involuntary separation grant to remaining redundant staff that was not hired by the concessionaire, up to a maximum number of staff specified in the bidding documents.

Compensation packages for layoffs beyond the specified number were the concessionaire’s responsibility. As a result of this approach most of the 16,000 or so redundant workers took up the incentives and left through the voluntary program.

In Bangladesh more than 22,000 workers in the state’s jute corporation were retrenched between 1990 and 1993 as part of the restructuring and privatization program; further reductions are required for the privatization or closure of the remaining mills.

In Mexico a recent study of 218 privatized firms across a range of sectors found that the firms had reduced the number of white- and blue-collar employees by nearly half in the four years before sale. In some companies the reductions were significantly higher.

Many asserted that commonly accepted trade-offs that occur throughout the privatization process typically create an imbalance of accrued benefits to various segments of the workforce and members of the community in general.

There is concern that privatization negatively impacts the most vulnerable segments of the workforce. As illustrated; the privatization of a water system in Bolivia and an energy system in Thailand increased unemployment and decreased consumer welfare in both countries.

Therefore it was asserted that the greatest opposition to privatizing a firm usually comes from the firm’s own employees, who are fearful of wage cuts and job losses.

The other argument – Private firms may also be more innovative, using different approaches to providing a service. Government, by contrast, tends to stick with known approaches since changes often create problems, especially with an entrenched bureaucracy or a strident municipal bond.

Private firms may also use earnings to finance research or to purchase capital equipment relating directly to the service, while governments may not be able or willing to allocate revenue in the same manner given the many competing demands for tax dollars.

Another contributing factor to this cost disparity is the general overall efficiency of the private sector. The private sector has a strong incentive to operate efficiently.

Private firms that spending more money and employing more people to do the same amount of work will have lower profit margins and decreased profits. In the long run they will no longer be able to compete in a market economy.

The disciplining effect of competition, however, does not affect the public sector. Government agencies generally operate in a non-competitive environment and therefore can charge more for their services and be less concerned with consumer satisfaction.

Government services that are provided in a non-competitive market also deny the consumer comparability. The consumer or taxpayer has no real way of evaluating the price of a government service. This tends to make government less responsive to consumer needs.

The private sector generally offers the consumer a higher quality of service while keeping costs under control.

Malaysiaairlinesfamilies commented the above privatization argument does not prove the trend of privatization will guarantee an increase in efficiency and productivity as the case proven by AirAsia – the first private-owned airlines in Malaysia by Tony Fernandez.

In fact, Tony Fernandez proves that privatization on airlines business is provided with more rooms for exploiting the labor force. It is well-known that AirAsia; a private-owned airlines is forever struggling to uphold its safety performance and barely surviving from the market competition.

Malaysia Airlines; however is state-government owned airlines has established a proven record of its safety performance as compared to a private-owned airlines – AirAsia.

Simply put; privatization is politically a game-changer  and it has been advancing by the political party to restructure a monopoly system for a new regime to rule over. Ultimately, privatization is a political process.

Because the burden of privatization will fall most heavily on the public workforce and their jobs and income are at risk. Public employees and their unions are strongly opposing privatization.

It is because the government almost always operates as a monopoly provider, the decision to privatize usually means de-monopolization, even if not always robust, free-market competition.

Regardless of the mode of privatization, the government could have improvised the common motivation for engaging in all four types of privatization to substitute more efficient business operations for what are seen as less efficient, bureaucratic and often politicized operations in the public sector. Such way, the fear of massive job losses could be lessening and monitored.

The key difference of Privatization is the substitution of COMPETITION for MONOPOLY.

The Effect on Privatization – The New World Order on Privatization Part 1

To be continued – next episode 3 will cover “The Effect on Employment”.

About Nufam’s stupidity – Episode 1


A blogger wrote about NUFAM’s stupidity;

The national carrier – MAS (Malaysia Airlines) is progressively being challenged by the emergence of a few airlines such as AirAsia; Berjaya Air and the latest Malindo Air. The concern now is that MAS continuously facing the difficulty turning around and bullish from its losses. At the same time MAS is also being challenged by a newly registered union that retorting at the level of an extreme stupidity.

People wonder why MAS is incurring losses on yearly basis? Comparing to AirAsia in Malaysia’s aviation industry; MAS appears far behind in terms of their annual profit and expansion whilst AirAsia keeps posting profit although AirAsia is making huge losses. In fact; the newly established airlines the latest is Malindo Air indicating a transformed determination to record good profit figures for its airlines operation.

In this case; we are confused by the call from The National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (Nufam) that urged the Prime Minister to sack the Chief Executive Officer – Ahmad Jauhari Yahya of which we viewed as the strangest out of sudden and a very stupid act by the Nufam’s leaders who do not know how embarrassing it is to publicly showing off their loss of consciousness as workers and even behaving aggressively and rudely in their manner towards their employer of Malaysia Airlines.

The individual we’re hinting is Mr. President of NUFAM a.k.a. the Lipas Man. So the Lipas Man is backed on reclaiming his lost treasures!

LipasMan

Extreme stupidity as indicated by NUFAM

A blogger asked why is this union so stupid? This union should look at themselves and ask what have they done and helped to bring profit to MAS before demanding for more? As a business entity to the government; the Union should proofread themselves and have self-reality check to see what way in moving forwards of future plans can they be offering MAS to bullish from this competitive market. Only with huge profits that MAS have accomplished; can the Union then logically demand an appropriate allowances whatsoever improvement for its members.

Nufam is displaying its Trade Union leaderships as an extremely imprudence and impertinence that easily be spotted when its leader’s attitude shows no priority over the claims to enter negotiation with MAS who is the employer. It looks like Nufam thought they are the employer and MAS is their employee.

The overall perception is that Nufam is extremely thoughtless and have proven to the public that it does not form out of good leadership and their egotistical opinion towards the company and the workers is an absolute idiocy.

Union leaders must know what is the priority for its members. Leaders who know their priority will be able to negotiate skillfully for its members.

What is MAS priority now? Is it the priority to upgrade the workers’ pay whilst making losses or focusing on sustaining the company?

Of course, the priority shall be given to the company to stay sustainable and supported fully by the workers. This thrust of priority must be given to the employer to return its profits and only then the union can claims for better benefits for its members.

This is a usual business law. This Nufam union not only is extremely unintelligent but also do not have the brain to perceive a long-term business partnership.

Union should understand any organization would not succeed if the union does not work together with the employer bringing the solution to the negotiation table.  Such union leadership should be eliminated since the emotion has irrationally dominated his action and demand.

We are no longer living in the colonial period! For example the latest trend if you asked 10 people who live in both urban and rural areas of how do they travel to Kuala Lumpur and which airlines do they prefer to fly with? 9 out of 10 people have turned out to confirm they only travel with AirAsia because of its cheapest low caste fares.

The question is; what is MAS management/workers doing? What is Nufam the stupid union doing? Neither have they displayed any newest product nor desire to help MAS to return to profitability!

The workers should not be busy in demanding things that seem silly or extreme. Malaysia Airlines as the national carrier is needed to stay resilient and committed to the country.

We are experiencing a very competitive airline business in this new world and if the workers wanted to claim an extra allowances; they must prove that they are indeed worth the claims.

Another second example is that an ordinary clerk in the bank at a branch level in had enjoyed a 6 months of salary bonuses for two consecutive years simply because the workers went to the villages and islands to promote their services and products.

The third example is the Pilgrims Fund Manager at the branch level went down to the school to educate school children just to save just RM5.00!

For once have we ever heard that Nufam Union or MAS workers and the management ever moving around to promote and marketing MAS products and services or speak good about MAS to the public users?

The mark is simple!  Nufam is blatantly lazy and stupid because that is what they love being lazy and imprudent in their work unbecomingly very demanding; and most of Nufam’s members are of delinquent type.

So to Nufam Union who do not only showing an extreme folly to claim various increment and allowances without proving that they really deserve it but instead they have demanded the CEO to resign.  Isn’t that an extreme stupidity of leadership that detected from the Nufam leaders?

In business; we need to realize profit is not easily generated overnight without hard work. So the first advice to Nufam Union is to mirror your own character; integrity and your responsibility.

Will be continued in our next episode! 🙂

AirAsia the Scams Airlines causing many stranded without refunds – Part II


Previously exposed here have been receiving very serious feedback from flyers of AirAsia.

Natasha wrote;

We have had nothing but endless complaints about the budget air line air asia even complaining to the CEO Mr Tony Fernandez himself gets you nowhere now that should tell you what type of air line this is. We are not letting this slip by and we will be seeking and taking all avenues to make this airline reimburse us what we are due. Advise to future travelers think twice about this carrier as it may be cheap but the problems you have after are what cost you thousands.

Chong wrote;

The previous article is a little outdated but still good for others to know. Scoot Airlines have already started but fly very few routes. In fact, the scam-like practices of AirAsia is even more now. I have these to share…..

(1) In the beginning, AirAsia do correspond via phone calls or e-mails. They cancelled one of my flight booking and all 4 of us lost a total of over RM2,000 due to no fault of ours. During the correspondence process, they change people and e-mail address several times and after one year, they told me they don’t have records of my booking anymore and that any seek for refund cannot be later than 6 months.

(2) Beware of their flight time change trick. Once they changed their flight time to more than 45 mins(I think now they change to 60 minutes) delay so we decided to cancel our flights and opt for full refunds. Their staffs in Malaysia will not give you any acknowledgement in black and white. They will tell you it’s standard procedure and not to worry. So we canceled the trip plan. Few days later, they rescheduled their time again to be earlier and denied that I have ever seek for refund as there wasn’t any records on their side.

(3) Now they don’t even entertain you in person for any refunds. All refund-seeking process in Malaysia must be done via their e-form, of which you will have no prove that you have submitted it.

(4) In Malaysia, they have reduced the airport tax amount and increased the “admin or other fees” amount several times so that you will not get any airport tax refund for missed flights(after lessing out their processing fee).

(5) My worst experience was when a friend of mine whom I booked the tickets for him cannot make it for the trip when he was hospitalized due to old age sickness.

AirAsia told me I can get refunds for cancellations due to medical reasons but after going through all the problems of getting the medical documents, they keep changing their requests hoping that I will give up seeking the refund. When I finally met all their demand, they told me I shall not get a full refund but have to minus some “processing fee” charges. I have no choice but to accept since a dollar is still a dollar. Guess what ? They told me the money cannot be returned to my credit card which pay the tickets but can only be returned in a form of a credit shell that must belongs to the passenger concerned and he must have an AirAsia account and e-mail address to process it.

Huh !! The passenger is already dying in the hospital and if he had an e-mail address or AirAsia account, he probably don’t need me to buy the tickets for him earlier.

(6) In another instance, which is quite similar to no. 5 above, a friend of mine purchased some tickets with his own AirAsia account but paid by my credit card. When he seek for refund due to flight cancellation, they told him the refund cannot go to him but to my credit card. See the irony?

I am sure they are other “tricks” they used that I am unaware.

My advice to anyone is “be prepared to lose your money if you fly with AirAsia and only if you can really get cheap tickets and worth your risk”.

Recently(2013) I have seen their fares on offer are the same price for the same period, offered 3 times; and some of their AirAsiaX fare is in fact even cheaper during their 2nd and 3rd time offer.

Lawrence wrote;

I recently booked 4 tickets (including 2 kids – Air Asia do not provide special fare for kids unlike MH) from KL to Langkawi at RM608. I reached airport late by 5 minutes and asked to go by baggage security (have only laptop bag without laptop) even before I went near the Airlines boarding counters and asked to go around unnecessarily instead of going through a straight path.

This took another 5 minutes and when reached counter they just go through my online ticket and kept on trying from their mobile phone and told boarding closed and pls check at another counter who can help. At the next counter he told I am 15 minutes past before boarding closed and told I should take another flight. I was astonished at their lethargic reply when I pleaded that I entered around 40mins before boarding time close so can you consider it. He informed me very cool the next flight is one hour behind and pay 1230RM.

I understood it is complete cheating with all the latest methods if you think it is legal (it may be). I am not interested to travel by another flight when my earlier booked seats sold to another 4 people who might bought it with high price and they are trying to squeeze more from me. I asked them to refund and he informed only airport tax be refunded per person RM8. My family is waiting with all hopes flying to the island and imagine my situation. So beware!

Micheal wrote;

Agreed with the details of the scam about refunds, I booked and paid in December 2011 for 3 people flying Phuket – Christchurch return, and have had nothing but lies and broken promises regarding refund… I am seeking other people to explore a class action against these scammers, cheats and liars.

Larisa Smirnova wrote;

I booked my trip online and paid for it, however after the payment my webpage went blank so I did not obtain the reservation number for the trip. My Bank confirms that the transaction went through, however I received no confirmation from Air Asia, and Air Asia reps could not find my reservation in your system (using neither my name, nor my email address, phone number). They could confirm that they charged me, and promised that they would refund me within 30-60 days. I am really scared to see this page on Fb… Will I be able to get my refund?

Yewch Lam wrote;

I’m still waitng waiting for the refund for my tax since feb,and you know what, apparently they are not going to do that.

Rain Gambo wrote;

Bought 3 flight tickets from them on April 19, 2013. May 24, they cancelled ALL their June 15 flights leaving Clark – my flights affected. They sent a generic email with no new schedules. We had to beg beg beg for them to send us updates or the next steps. Had to beg, plead and bugged them for 2 weeks before they sent us our booking status. Filed for refund as the new schedule didn’t fit well in our schedule (and who else would trust them given the quality of customer service they provide). if getting updates and schedule were a real bother and pain in the (&(*00. Wait til you file for refund! They told me refund process must take a process of 30 Banking days. BUT, the 30 Banking days would start once their team acknowledge my refund case. Unfortunately, they are not acknowledging my refund request. They won’t put it in their system. I feel robbed in broad daylight. Much like modern day theft. They got my money as early as April 19. Cancelled my flights and gave me unfavorable flights. It’s now June 7 and I still don’t have my money back. They won’t even acknowledge my refund claim!

Come to think of it, they get people’s money, they hold on to it for months. They don’t give the flights you paid for. They hold on to your money some more. You (might) settle for a schedule you hate rather than not get your money back. And, if by chance, you get lucky and you get your money back after 10,000 years, they give it back without paying interest. They don’t need to borrow from banks. The naive people give them their money — free and without interest.

Plods wrote;

Safety Concern & Excess Baggage RIP OFF- Air Asia
My first and LAST booking with Air Asia

SAFETY Concern:
Air Asia are placing monetary gain for “Hot Seats” ahead of safety!

RE: 31st July flight AK1948 departing Kuala Lumpur at 6.45pm
My seat on this flight was directly behind the 2 Emergency Exits rows, seat 15E.

Of the 12 seats within the Emergency Exit rows only 2 seats were taken, 13C and 13F.

I was one of the first to board and at NO time were these two passengers approached by Air Asia staff.

They were NOT asked whether they were happy to assist in case of an emergency…

AND

At NO time were they instructed by staff how or when to activate the emergency exits.This is something I have NEVER seen on a flight before and I have flown with many carriers Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin, Thai, British and Tiger airlines.

These seats are charged an additional fee for the “Hot Seats”. The person in 13F was a very small lady who may not have been capable to assist in case of an emergency.

Why were these people not instructed by Air Asia staff?
What is Air Asia’s policy if no emergency exit seats are booked?

Excess Baggage – What a “RIP OFF” by Air Asia:

On my return trip from Hobart to Bangkok I booked to bring my bicycle back.

I have never transported a bike before so I was unsure of the weight. I initially booked 15kg Sports Equipment with Air Asia at a cost of $45 AUS.

I was surprised when I booked the bike in at Hobart with Virgin Airlines that it weighed 20kg. This did not impact the cost from Virgin as I had booked for 1 piece of baggage which provided for weight up to 23kg. I flew from Hobart to Melbourne on 30th July and was flying with Air Asia the next day.

I logged onto the Air Asia internet site that night with the intention of increasing the weight for my bike from 15 to 20kg. The site would not allow me to access my booking. This was a surprise as Australian airlines do not allow you to finalize your booking until the last 48 hours prior to flying.

Air Asia promote pre-booked baggage saves you 66%, so when I was unable to increase the weight I expected to pay an additional $20 – $30.

I was HORRIFIED when I was asked to pay an ADDITIONAL $200 AUS!!!!

AN ADDITIONAL 400%!!!

I was extremely frustrated and spoke with a manager who advised there was absolutely nothing that she could do. All Natasha could say was “I understand your frustration, I would be extremely frustrated too”. As I was in transit I had no option but to pay the whopping $200 fee, or leave the bike at the airport.

Upon my return I emailed Air Asia requesting a refund of the excess baggage charge. Their response was the charge was in line with their excess baggage fees.

I then phoned Air Asia who responded with:

1. Why did you pay the fee in the first place?
As I said earlier I was in transit, I had two options pay the fee or surrender the bike.

2. I was told if I was an Air Asia member I could have accessed the booking.

Once I booked the flight with Air Asia they invited me to become a member and I did join. But because the booking was prior to the membership the booking was not referenced.

3. Why didn’t you phone Air Asia?
Did not cross my mind, all airlines promote do it yourself via the internet.

I wish to share my HORRIFYING experience of Air Asia with as many people as I can. DO NOT fly Air Asia, I certainly will never fly with them again.

This is how they closed their emailed response to my inquiry:

“We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We truly appreciate your valued patronage and we look forward to serve you better in the future.”

WHAT A JOKE!!

For more of AirAsia’s scams; please visit facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AirAsiaCheats the community service to protect the Malaysian flyers too and everyone who have been cheated by AirAsia because AirAsia consistently misinforming and misleading people about refunds on its cancelled flights. The page is for people who are suffering from this cheating behavior to group together and expose AirAsia’s scams and lies.

Whilst updating information on our site; we’ve heard Tony Fernandez is losing more of his hairs and growing fatter each day due to the stress he has imposed upon himself by cheating many flyers and seeking to collaborate with Malindo Air as we speak. Cheers!

Do stay tuned on Malaysiaairlinesfamilies JV with AirAsiafamilies for more stories of AirAsia’s scamming strategy

The New World Order on Privatization – Part I


Today we’re gonna expose against the New World Order by the opposition party to promote the sensitivity of politically linked to Privatization on Malaysia Airlines and many other GLC sectors. In this Part I episode; we’re educating our readers of the negative impact of Privatization that may lead to a National Bankruptcy even before year 2020.

This urge to publish The Effects of Privatization on Human Capital was a called from our anonymous reader. So follow us to catch this most interesting story of the hidden agenda by the New World Order instructed upon the opposition party.

The effects on Privatization

Privatization will be the biggest dogfight of the next ten years. In mid-1980s, the governments and citizens recognized the drawbacks of government control of enterprises. Rather than focusing on the business aspects; many governments-controlled corporations had become grazing ground; for political appointees or vote winners through job allocations. As a result; many government-owned enterprises excelled in losing money and governments are increasingly recognizing that it is possible to reduce the cost of governing by changing their role and involvement in the economy.

Therefore; countries the world over; have launched a massive and ambitious privatization programs or process of productive and other activities previously considered state enterprises or public services to improve their efficiency; free up resources for social services and mobilize capital for expansion and modernization.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been pushing client countries toward privatization. Therefore in developing countries privatization has been spurred since the IMF and the World Bank started to make their assistance conditional on it (Kikeri, 1997; Perotti, 2004; Borner 2004).

Privatization is critical and politically sensitive government activity that has led to fundamental shifts in the relationship between the private and public sectors of the jurisdictions of many countries (Prizzia, 2005). A change in ownership changes the structure of information; incentives and control; affecting operating decisions and thus economic performance.

Privatization; by limiting the state’s ability to redirect the enterprises’ activities in ways that promote short-term political objectives; enhances economic efficiency. Within the basic welfare services; privatization has been used to refer to an increase in the individual’s responsibility for his or her own welfare. This arises from the state’s attempt to delineate more explicitly its commitment to citizens’ welfare and may also reflect citizens’ own demands for alternative services.

Privatization and transition are most likely to maximize social and employment benefits and minimize social and employment costs if those are explicit goals narrated that in terms of returns on assets; the main topic of analysis has been the effect of privatization on employment levels and returns to labor.

In this regard researchers have conducted several studies to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of privatization. Following are few researches wherein different aspects of privatization causing benefits and harms have been studied. This study is dedicated to find out the negative and positive aspects of privatization on employees.

Privatization encompasses the many ways in which the private sector assumes functions that were previously carried out by the government. According to Pamacheche et al. (2007), privatization is supposed to be undertaken to re-deploy assets from the public to the private sector, where the assets are expected to be used more efficiently. Pamacheche et al. expressed that depending on the form it takes privatization can be defined in several ways. They quoted a definition of privatization by the World Bank as;

“A transaction or transactions utilizing one or more of the methods resulting in either the sale to private parties of a controlling interest in the share capital of a public enterprise or of a substantial part of its assets” or “the transfer to private parties of operational control of a public enterprise or a substantial part of its assets”

According to ILO (2001); privatization is the transfer from the public to the private sector of assets in terms of ownership; management; finance or control. In its narrowest sense it is the sale of public assets to the private sector; but it has also been linked to a reduced regulatory role of government; linked to policies of liberalization and deregulation.

Materials and Methods research article has been developed on descriptive secondary information obtained from research literature about effects of privatization on employees.

By analyzing many research reports; it gave an opinion that privatization’s economy-wide effects on the government budget growth; employment and investment are less established. However, privatization caste negative impacts on public as revealed by some research studies.

Nancy and Nellis (2003) reported negative impacts of privatization by stating that at the heart of popular criticism is a perception that privatization is fundamentally unfair in both concept and implementation: it is seen as harming the poor; the disenfranchised; the workers and even the middle class; throwing people out of good jobs into unemployment; raising prices for essential services; giving away national treasures and all this to the benefit of the local elite, agile or corrupt politicians and foreign corporations and investors.

Prizzia, (2005), in a paper titled “An International Perspective of Privatization and Women Workers”; asserted negative impacts. According to his example, privatization of a water system in Bolivia and an energy system in Thailand increased unemployment and decreased consumer welfare in both countries; resulting in the sudden rise of prices that culminated in a series of mass protests.

About Japan Cato (2008) expressed that the studies on mixed oligopolies revealed that in an industry that is sufficiently competitive privatization improves welfare.

Effects on employees are insecurity or loss of jobs; changes in working environment, stress due to insecurity of job; wage cuts etc.

But Kikeri, (1997) is of the view that in contrary to popular belief; workers often have gained from privatization as new investments and dynamic expansion have resulted in new job creation at both the enterprise and sector levels and as productivity improvements have led to better terms and conditions of service. Martin (n.d.) concluded that countries with no recent experience of unemployment were suddenly exposed to the shock of redundancy and job insecurity.

The study on labor effects of privatization of public services in New York State found that local government privatization have some harmful effects on workers. Few local employers had adjustment policies to protect affected employees and disproportionate negative impacts were found on women and minorities.

It was stated that often protected from competition and subsidized by their public owners; public economic enterprises (state enterprises) in many developing countries employ too many people, so that cost of hidden unemployment is one of their most important problems; often they pay them wages and benefits that are higher than their private sector counterparts and are governed by rigid labor contracts and by privatization;  their cost can be eliminated. It was further narrated that in steel; railways; and energy enterprises; over-staffing often have led to employment reductions before privatization as governments prepare the companies for sale and after as privatized companies continue to shed labor.

Rozana (2000) studied Worker Redundancy (theoretically; a worker is redundant if his marginal productivity is below the received wage) and discussed handling the problem of surplus labor its extent; issues and preparation. Rozana expressed that worker redundancy has been common in Sri Lankan SOEs; which were largely overstaffed because employment had been given under political patronage to fulfilling the state’s objective of reducing unemployment. Recruitment was easiest in the semi-skilled and unskilled tiers and thus; not surprisingly; surplus labor was most common in the grades of laborers; minor staff; clerical and other allied grades rather than at the management and executive grades and grades requiring skilled labor.

Birdsall and Nellis (2002) asserted that public enterprises were overstaffed often severely so; that in preparing (or as a substitute) for privatization; public enterprise employment numbers have declined; sometimes greatly; and that these declines generally continued post-privatization though in a minority of the studied cases employment numbers improved post-sale. Situation was and still is same in other countries where state or public sector owns the organization and governance is not good.

This over-staffing is one of the reasons of failure of organizations in state ownership other reasons are lack of interest and selfishness as expressed by Rozana (2000) that profit motive was not the main drive in the public enterprise; implementing efficient corporate management and productivity enhancement techniques were not high on the SOE agenda.

On privatization extra workers are to be laid off so the greatest organized source of opposition to privatization comes from employee unions but that unions may not always oppose privatization; particularly in cases where public units are allowed to compete with private firms to provide services.

An Anonymous researcher asserted that politically the most difficult and feared impact of privatization is employee layoffs. The fear is justified because many public enterprises are greatly overstaffed; as they are often used as instruments of job creation.

On privatization; employees feel job insecurity and have fear losing their jobs. Fear can pass to other employees and trigger a chain reaction that ultimately leads to the widespread fear in employees; of losing their jobs which causes increased job stress.

Genuine researchers are of the view that at the heart of popular criticism is a perception that privatization is fundamentally unfair in both concept and implementation: it is seen as harming the poor; the disenfranchised; the workers and even the middle class; throwing people out of good jobs into poor ones or unemployment. It is clear that public enterprises were overstaffed often severely so; that in preparing for privatization; public enterprise employment numbers declined, sometimes greatly and that these declines generally continued post-privatization. Overall; the evidence indicates that more people have lost jobs than gained them through privatization.

Reading of the evidence spread on Privatization; it expressed that more people have lost jobs than gained them through privatization. Birdsall and Nellis commented complementing that now the important question of what kind of jobs people find after dismissal from public enterprises is just beginning to receive attention. The fear of job losses is the stumbling block to privatization. Where the government‘s power base is in urban centers, trade unions make employment the number one issue in the privatization deal.

The fear of job losses is also the stumbling block in the negotiation with workers’ union where the employer usually would re-strategies towards Union as Union Busters via a formation of another union to busting the workers’ union thus creating a hindrance in the process of negotiation as the case for “The International Brotherhood of Teamsters” that “refused” to negotiate in 2011 with a group of its own union organizers who voted to form a union called the Federation of Agents and International Representatives (FAIR); to negotiate with their employer – the Teamsters.

On 29 August 2012, after being found guilty of unlawfully union busting their own employees’ union, the Teamsters (IBT) posted a notice “pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by a regional director of the Obama Administration’s National Labor Relations Board NLRB,” that they will stop union busting. The notice assures Teamster employees that they will no longer be prevented from exercising their rights. The furtherance deal of negotiation were successfully struck without further disruption.

Will be continued and please stayed tune to our next post. 🙂