Yeah, I know, and that's what I said,....
..........."Just remember, as a farmer I have an inbred hatred of unions"....
See ya's.
a story you won't read on the left's ABC
- Thread starter WinstonWolfe
- Start date
Yeah, I know, and that's what I said,....
..........."Just remember, as a farmer I have an inbred hatred of unions"....
See ya's.
Some very powerfull ex melbourne painters and dockers seems to have
a different public image these days..
willair..
yup....have a look here
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=295416&postcount=128
Actually, I do have a problem with people such as the one above representing me in parliament.
I don't have a problem if a labour candidate has been a trade union offficial or a right wing liberal candidate has been fundraising for the liberal party since his birth, as long as they are both decent persons.
Cheers
I'm not entirely sure that the Dalai Lama petitions anyone to save his "lifestyle".
The Dalai Lama (a lineage not a person) was, in part, the traditional "ruler" of Tibet up until 1949 when China invaded Tibet.. So petitioning Hu Jintao wouldn't really achieve much...
I'm not entirely sure of your angle here.. the Labor Party has, traditionally, been more accepting of the current Dalai Lama's, Tenzin Gyatso, overtures in his attempts to free Tibet from China's invasion.. I fully support them in this.. Howard has largely been dismissive of the Dalai Lama over the years..
You're living in a fools paradise if you think the US is a strong democracy..
Actually, all he has agreed to is the ONE DEBATE that John Howard wants.. ONE DEBATE because John Howard knows he'll come out looking like something the cat dragged in.. and then he can spend the next 5 weeks of the campaign recovering from it.. Kevin wanted THREE DEBATES over the course of the election..
............
Does that include the Australian Farmers Federation
, i know their not a union they just represent the view of a group of non-protesting individuals..................what did i just say Kevin, and the Labor Party's, "problem" is that they don't need to do anything in particular to win the election.. in fact.. the only thing he doesn't NEED to do is stand out.. He's playing a very canny and smart political strategy.. John Howard can do very little right in this election.. he's tired, worn out, and tarnished. He should have retired on a high 2.5 years ago. He'll be banished to the backwater of Australian Politics and be the butt of Stand-Up-Comedians for years to come.
I just hope that in power Kevin Rudd has the ability to demonstrate a level of compassion, sageness and wisdom that, at times, he's hinted at.. and which normally only becomes Leaders after they've long retired from politics..
John Howard and Peter Costello have no vision for the future.. and, that, at a time when a vision for the future is more important than its ever been..
It pains me to see people like Peter Garret biting their tongue and biding their time, but I know the Team that Labor has assembled has a better chance of governing FOR the people AND setting a positive global role model than the Coalition.. the Coalition has nearly ZIP focus on the Environment.. their ideas seem to extend no further than having us all install Compact Fluorescent Light Globes, commissioning Nuclear Power Plants and dreaming about the promises of "clean coal technology"..
The Coalition is tired, worn out, old, plain, embarrassing, tarnished, and haggard. They are incapable of leading the world by example, focussed on petty political point scoring, ambivalent about the true happiness of Australians, naive about Climate Change, arrogant about Aboriginals, disdainful of refugees and generally disrespectful of civil liberties.
..................
Where did he say, indicate, allude, or even conjecture about this?
Last edited by a moderator:
let's see if the leftie moderators let that quaint piece of personal slight slide into the anals....
been around long enough to know nothing comes for free.....something you learn in small business....
Labor have always promised the universe and wanted to play act Mother Teresa.......funny how Lefties are so aggressive in attacking religion, but then set themselves up as the surrogate replacement........though Jack Mundey is no Jesus.....
at the end of the day the union is full of patronising paternalist idealist twaddle.....any party with free lemonade and biscuits Labor wants to throw will be paid for by a healthy private sector.....something Kev's gang of union dills will never understand........hard pressed to find one of them who has worked in senior management in a medium enterprise for more than 3 years......
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to say I agree spot on with everything Duncan has said. I also want to live in a society, not an economy. We should be treated as human beings, not units of production.
Yes we should exploit our resources - but should we exploit the men and women who put their lives on the line to get them out of the ground? Or are they just "resources" to you too? In case you weren't aware, the highly unionised black coal industry (over 85% union members) is the most productive industry in this country at the moment despite shorter working weeks and higher wages than any other including metaliferrous mining. Research proves that unions do not lower productivity - lazy workers lower productivity and they can be found in both unionised and non-unionised workplaces, and before you ask, yes I can provide plenty of empirical evidence that supports this argument.
While I do not and have never belonged to a union myself, I can appreciate that they have a role to play in every democratic society. There is even evidence that some employers (Spotlight is one) who are currently using AWAs are thinking of moving back to union negotiated agreements because they are unable to negotiate the legal minefield that is Workchoices. With the new Fairness Test, if you as an employer submit an AWA that breaches this test you are slugged with an automatic $33,000 company fine per AWA + a $6600 personal fine per AWA. How many small businesses can afford those sort of fines, or to pay an employer association or lawyer to ensure they do the right thing?
Evidence also shows that unionised workplaces have much better workplace health and safety countries that are largely non-unionised (the US) have appalling rates of workplace deaths and severe injuries. If a union presence in the workplace ensures that you or your family member returns home from work alive and uninjured then that should be a good enough reason to why unions have a place in society.
Yeah, the CFMEU is beyond corruption isn't it Nat.....
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21795976-2702,00.html
Nat, it's a bit biased to claim productivity gains are due primarily to union culture changes over the last 20 years. How about paying due respect to management and technical improvements, things leftists don't have a good grasp of.
Winston wolfe had a good opportunity to reply and reverts to name calling.I disagree with Duncan on several points , but objectively as I can, I think Duncan have made a solid , succinct convincing argument which as far as I can see hasn't been refuted , except by winstonwolfe with ludicrous name calling.
Score Duncan 10 WinWolf zero
WW its not too late to explain clearly your attitude since you stated this thread.
WW can fight his own battles, but I developed a dislike of unions while studying a degree with a significant industrial relations / industrial democracy component.
It became clear to me then - as remains now - that unions are 19th century institutions in a 21st century environment. Case studies such as the BLF, Semco, and learning about Works Councils all crystalised my p.o.v. [nb, some of those case studies I mentioned are examples of good IR, without unions]
As if I wasn't jaded enough at the end of my degree I then proof read several chapters of what went onto become a PhD at the University of Queensland in the field of union representation and industrial democracy. The contents of that thesis, based primarily on empirical research of the Queensland branch of a major union (80,000 members nationally, even now), spoke of coercion, thuggery, and ostracision. It would be fair to say that my feelings on unions now border on hatred.
As I said, WW can fight his own battles, but at least I am clear in my mind why I never want to see a union-dominated government in Australia ever again.
M
ps. And just a comment about industry associations, such as the National Farmers Federation (NFF) and, of course, organisations like the Insurance Council of Australia (where I was formerly employed). Yes, the are unions (for businesses) and like unions, some are more militant than others. Having been on both sides of the table (at Commonwealth Treasury, and then the ICA) I can speak with complete confidence that my former employer always acted professionally.
However I know from my experience here in NZ that it is not always the case. I regularly spar with the local branch of Federated Farmers (NZ equivalent of the NFF) and they have publicly accused me (and other senior staff) of incompetence and misleading my political masters. They have also resorted to political threats against the elected politicians, which I can assure you has won them no sympathy around the table. How they behave niether enhances their credibility nor their cause, and I have told them as much, but that is their problem, not mine.
However, I digress, the main difference between an industry association and a union is that the former tend place greater emphasis on working with people to affect change, not against them.
And if you want an example of how unions work against people, look no further than the 1996 riot on Parliament House during which significant damage was caused and the use of children in the MUA blockades in 1998 to prevent the Police from enforcing the law.
It became clear to me then - as remains now - that unions are 19th century institutions in a 21st century environment. Case studies such as the BLF, Semco, and learning about Works Councils all crystalised my p.o.v. [nb, some of those case studies I mentioned are examples of good IR, without unions]
As if I wasn't jaded enough at the end of my degree I then proof read several chapters of what went onto become a PhD at the University of Queensland in the field of union representation and industrial democracy. The contents of that thesis, based primarily on empirical research of the Queensland branch of a major union (80,000 members nationally, even now), spoke of coercion, thuggery, and ostracision. It would be fair to say that my feelings on unions now border on hatred.
As I said, WW can fight his own battles, but at least I am clear in my mind why I never want to see a union-dominated government in Australia ever again.
M
ps. And just a comment about industry associations, such as the National Farmers Federation (NFF) and, of course, organisations like the Insurance Council of Australia (where I was formerly employed). Yes, the are unions (for businesses) and like unions, some are more militant than others. Having been on both sides of the table (at Commonwealth Treasury, and then the ICA) I can speak with complete confidence that my former employer always acted professionally.
However I know from my experience here in NZ that it is not always the case. I regularly spar with the local branch of Federated Farmers (NZ equivalent of the NFF) and they have publicly accused me (and other senior staff) of incompetence and misleading my political masters. They have also resorted to political threats against the elected politicians, which I can assure you has won them no sympathy around the table. How they behave niether enhances their credibility nor their cause, and I have told them as much, but that is their problem, not mine.
However, I digress, the main difference between an industry association and a union is that the former tend place greater emphasis on working with people to affect change, not against them.
And if you want an example of how unions work against people, look no further than the 1996 riot on Parliament House during which significant damage was caused and the use of children in the MUA blockades in 1998 to prevent the Police from enforcing the law.
Last edited:
Gump, there's enough clear explanation above of why I don't think unions have the vision, emotional maturity, management skill, acumen to direct or attract capital into productiive commercial endeavours, enough to sustain the vision Dunc aspires to, not only for himself, but for others.
It is not the business of unions to understand the productive use of capital. It is not their business to understand competing in global markets.
Have a look at the ABS site and look at union membership trends. Ask yourself why they decline in times of economic strength.
Then ask what unions know about sustaining a strong economy.
I can save you the trouble as I have already posted the graph on SS.
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Trade Union Membership
Why you would let such a narrow interest group control the country is beyond me.
M
I'm certainly not claiming unions are beyond corruption. I would be hesitant to take what I read in the media on face value however without independently researching the subject myself. My point was that unions have a place in a democratic society and that workers should be able to choose to join a union if they feel they need to.
If you want to talk about corruption I can certainly scour the online news for reports of corruption by business owners eg Adler, Bond, Pratt etc etc. No organisation is immune from corruption which makes it all the more necessary to maintain a democratic government so that neither unions or business owners have too much power.
Last edited:
WW
I believe that Unions have a role to play in a market place.
However, is the problem about unions or about the 1 or 2 union officials who
should have never been included as Labour party candidates?
Cheers
Of course it is and I don't believe that is what I am claiming. I am merely quoting ABS statistics which show that productivity gains are not hindered by unionisation. I have a perfectly good grasp on management and technical improvements thank you very much, but I am also able to see that while employers are able to lower wages and conditions via AWAs in order to "improve productivity" they are not motivated to invest in new technology or managment techniques. By maintaining and improving wage rates and conditions, unions play a part in ensuring that productivity gains are not achieved solely through reductions in wages and conditions but are instead achieved through investment in new technologies. Companies are not interested in achieving productivity increases, they want profitability increases and they seek to do this by cutting labour costs which is simply not sustainable in the long run.
Neither unions or business interests should ever be given too much power, and I don't believe that Rudd will allow unions to regain the amount of power they have had in the past. He is not stupid and knows that to do so would be political suicide.
