Pemberhentian kakitangan MAS: Penjelasan sudah memadai

KUALA LUMPUR: Kementerian Sumber Manusia, hari ini, tampil membuat penjelasan berhubung isu pemberhentian kerja 3,600 kakitangan kesatuan sekerja Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) berikutan pelan penyusunan semula syarikat penerbangan nasional itu.

Menterinya, Datuk Seri Richard Riot, berkata pihaknya menerusi Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan sudah mengemukakan surat penjelasan penuh berhubung isu itu.

"Sebanyak 1,500 daripada 3,600 kakitangan kesatuan sekerja MAS sudah diberikan surat penjelasan berhubung isu pemberhentian kerja.

"Penjelasan itu sudah memadai kerana mengikut Akta Kerja 1955, Menteri tidak perlu mengemukakan sebab atau musabab pemberhentian seseorang pekerja," katanya pada sidang media, di sini, sebentar tadi.

Beliau menjawab dakwaan kesatuan sekerja MAS yang membuat tuntutan penjelasan kementerian yang mengambil masa dua tahun untuk melaksanakan tindakan mengikut undang-undang.

Riot berkata, kementerian tidak boleh mengambil tindakan menyaman syarikat penerbangan nasional atau individu kerana pemberhentian kerja skala besar berikutan syarikat sudah diisytiharkan muflis.

Sementara itu, katanya, penjelasan dibuat selepas dua tahun kerana tempoh moratorium pelan pemulihan MAS berakhir pada 24 Mei lalu.

MAS secara teknikalnya telahpun muflis seperti yang dijelaskan oleh Ketua Pegawai Eksekutifnya, Christoph Mueller dan pemberhentian pekerja adalah opsyen yang muktamad.

Pemberhentian kakitangan MAS:penjelasan sudah memadai

Batal IMAMS: Bukan sebab pegawai bukan Islam - Nazri Aziz

KUALA LUMPUR: Keanggotaan pegawai eksekutif bukan Islam dalam syarikat Integrated Manasik Monitoring System Sdn Bhd bukan punca sistem Pemantauan Manasik Bersepadu (IMAMS) dibatalkan serta-merta.

Memetik laporan Malaysiakini, Menteri Pelancongan dan Kebudayaan, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz berkata pembatalan sistem itu dibuat tidak bersetuju dengan caj dan pelaksanaannya yang wajib. 

"Tidak, tiada kaitan. Saya memutuskan untuk membatalkannya kerana tidak setuju dengan (jumlah caj) RM90 dan ia diumumkan sebagai wajib. Itu sahaja," memetik kenyataan beliau kepada Malaysiakini.

Malah, Mohamed Nazri berkata tindakan pembatalan itu juga dibuat lantaran percanggahan dengan keputusan peringkat Kabinet.

"Apa yang diumumkan kepada orang ramai bukan seperti apa yang kami bincang dalam Kabinet dan jelaskan di perbahasan peringkat jawatankuasa bajet kementerian di Parlimen.

"Caj yang dipersetujui adalah RM40, termasuk insurans, dan hanya pilihan (bukan wajib). Ia bukan program kementerian tetapi inisiatif sektor swasta, maka tak boleh diwajibkan," katanya lagi.

Sebelum ini viral di media sosial kononnya pegawai eksekutif bukan Islam dalam syarikat itu menjadi antara punca pembatalan sistem tersebut.

Di bawah sistem itu, individu yang ingin menunaikan ibadah umrah dikenakan caj berjumlah RM90.10 merangkumi RM45 bagi caj penggunaan IMAMS, RM40 untuk insurans takaful umrah dan RM5.10 untuk GST.

65 agensi pelancongan berstatus muassasah yang mempunyai Lesen Khas Umrah (LKU) diwajibkan menggunakan sistem tersebut yang bertujuan menangani penipuan pakej umrah menerusi proses permohonan visa umrah.

batal IMAMS-bukan sebab pegawai bukan Islam-Nazri Aziz

MONOPOLISTIC MARKET

A monopolistic market is a theoretical construct in which only one company may offer products and services to the public. This is the opposite of a perfectly competitive market, in which an infinite number of firms operate. In a purely monopolistic model, the monopoly firm is able to restrict output, raise prices and enjoy super-normal profits in the long run.

BREAKING DOWN 'Monopolistic Market'

Purely monopolistic markets are extremely rare and perhaps even impossible in the absence of absolute barriers to entry, such as a ban on competition or sole possession of all natural resources.

CAUSES OF MONOPOLISTIC MARKETS

Historically, monopolistic markets arose when single producers received exclusive legal privilege from the government, such as the arrangement between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and AT&T between 1913 and 1984. During this period, no other telecommunications company was allowed to compete with AT&T because the government erroneously believed the market could only support one producer.

In fact, the term “monopoly” originated in English law to describe a royal grant. Such a grant authorized one merchant or company to trade in a particular good, while no other merchant or company could do so.

Short-run private companies may engage in monopoly-like behavior when production has relatively high fixed costs, which causes long-run average total costs to decrease as output increases. This could temporarily allow a single producer to operate on a lower cost curve than any other producers.

EFFECTS OF MONOPOLISTIC MARKETS

The common political and cultural objection to monopolistic markets is that a monopoly could charge a premium to their customers who, having no useful substitutes, are forced to give up even more money to the monopolist. In many respects, this is an objection against high prices, not necessarily monopolistic behavior.

The standard economic argument against monopolies is different. According to neoclassical analysis, a monopolistic market is undesirable because it restricts output, not because the monopolist benefits by raising prices. Restricted output equates to less production, which reduces total real social income.

Even if monopolistic powers exist, such as the U.S. Postal Service’s legal monopoly on delivering first-class letters, consumers often have many alternatives, such as using standard mail through FedEx or UPS, or using email instead of a letter. For this reason, it is extremely uncommon for monopolistic markets to successfully restrict output or enjoy super-normal profits in the long run.

REGULATION OF MONOPOLISTIC MARKETS

As with the model of perfect competition, the model for monopolistic competition is difficult or impossible to replicate in the real economy. True monopolies are generally the product of regulations against competition. It is common, for instance, for cities or towns to grant local monopolies to utility and telecommunications companies. Nevertheless, governments often regulate private business behavior that appears monopolistic, such as one firm owning a large share of a market. The FCC, WTO and EU each have rules for dealing with monopolistic markets. These are often called antitrust laws.

OLIGOPOLY

What is an 'Oligopoly?'

Oligopoly is a market structure in which a small number of firms has the large majority of market share. An oligopoly is similar to a monopoly, except that rather than one firm, two or more firms dominate the market. There is no precise upper limit to the number of firms in an oligopoly, but the number must be low enough that the actions of one firm significantly impact and influence the others.

BREAKING DOWN 'Oligopoly'

An example of an oligopoly is the wireless service industry in Canada, in which three companies – Rogers Communications Inc (RCI), BCE Inc (BCE) subsidiary Bell and Telus Corp (TU) – control approximately 90% of the market. Canadians are conscious of this oligopolistic market structure and often lump the three together as "Robelus," as though they were indistinguishable. In fact, they are often indistinguishable in price: in early 2014 all three companies raised the price for smartphone plans to $80 in most markets, more or less in tandem.

This example shows that participants in oligopolies are often able to set prices, rather than take them. For this reason oligopolies are considered to be able increase profit margins above what a truly free market would allow.

Most jurisdictions have laws against price fixing and collusion. An oligopoly in which participants explicitly engage in price fixing is a cartel: OPEC is one example. Tacit collusion, on the other hand, is perhaps more common though more difficult to detect. A stable oligopoly will often have a price leader; when the leader raises prices, the others will follow.

The alternative is for one or more firms to take advantage of the price rise by cutting prices and siphoning business away from the company with the highest price. If that happens, firms may align in a number of different ways: the majority may keep prices low in an attempt to squeeze the firm with the highest price out of the market; the majority may raise prices, isolating the "cheating" firm and putting it under financial strain; or they may each attempt to undercut the rest, setting off a price war that could damage them all. The late 19th-century railroad cartel in the U.S. was characterized by blatant collusion and price fixing, interspersed with vicious price wars.

Game theorists have developed models for these scenarios, which form a sort of prisoner's dilemma. In general, a situation of (tacit) collusion on prices is considered to be the Nash equilibrium state for oligopolies. Rather than using price, firms in oligopolies tend to prefer to use product differentiation, branding and marketing to compete, with the goal being to increase market share.

The reason new entrants seldom come in to disrupt the market is that oligopolistic industries tend to have high barriers to entry. Wireless carriers, for example, must either build and maintain towers, requiring massive capital expenditures, or lease the incumbents' infrastructure at vampiric rates. Carriers also tend to have strong, instantly recognizable brands. Even if these brands carry certain negative associations (ie, "cartel"), they provide a distinct advantage over unknown new entrants. Other industries that have commonly seen oligopolies also have high barriers to entry: oil and gas drillers, airlines, grocers and movie studios are a few examples.

A duopoly ​is an oligopoly composed of two participants. 

byeeeee