Anti Union homies
- Thread starter Mr. Fabulous
- Start date
Leighton management are the ones you should be pointing your finger at. They along with the management of other companies are the ones who offered high wages in a previous environment of booming construction leading to skilled labour shortages.
They had so much money they splashed it around but now it's drying up they are looking for efficiencies.
Swings and roundabouts.
Unions served a purpose in the past. All of the working conditions people take for granted today, even in the cushy office environments, are because of unions. Employers have not traditionally been the ones to offer to improve the pay and working conditions of employees just because they are kindhearted generous people. It's only when they have been forced to by unions or through competition to get the workers they need.
Today, in our cushy first world country, unions seem irrelevant and perhaps they are.
The wheel turns and in a few more generations when all those cushy conditions are lost and workers are in the joyous position of having to accept any job at any pay under any conditions, just to put food on the table, unions will suddenly become relevant again.
Employees will again see unions as the only card they have to play when it comes to improving their conditions and those that derive most of their wealth from investments such as IP's or businesses will continue to see unions as the thorns in their side.
It's the way of the world.
Unions served a purpose in the past. All of the working conditions people take for granted today, even in the cushy office environments, are because of unions. Employers have not traditionally been the ones to offer to improve the pay and working conditions of employees just because they are kindhearted generous people. It's only when they have been forced to by unions or through competition to get the workers they need.
Today, in our cushy first world country, unions seem irrelevant and perhaps they are.
The wheel turns and in a few more generations when all those cushy conditions are lost and workers are in the joyous position of having to accept any job at any pay under any conditions, just to put food on the table, unions will suddenly become relevant again.
Employees will again see unions as the only card they have to play when it comes to improving their conditions and those that derive most of their wealth from investments such as IP's or businesses will continue to see unions as the thorns in their side.
It's the way of the world.
And if they hadn't given out higher wages, people would have complained they were greedy (or more so).
The companies I worked for pre-gfc (while I was still at Uni), had waiters, constantly took us out for expensive lunches, provided flexible hours, great wages, and a vehicle.
When the GFC hit a lot of that dissapeared. When times are good, the rewards come, when times are bad, I don't have a cry I didn't get a bonus or a free bbq. You get what you are worth, or so goes the efficiency market.
I don't have an issue with the idea of a union. My issue is when they are irrelevant, some feel it is their right to ignore what the workers want and become millitant for the sake of making themselves mean something.
unions.
mmm...
i do not have a problem with unions and their basic premise.
i have a problem with militant style unions who dont understand
1) basic economics - if you are more expensive to employ, odds are you're on the chopping block.
2) the right to work - if someone wants to work and are being prevented from doing so, this is not in the interest of the worker or the employer, in which case a union is not acting on their basic premise.
3) the contradictory nature of charging for services - it almost sounds like a mob "protection" racket - pay us money or bad things will happen.
4) taking action for the sake of taking action does not equal a result - just because you organised a failed strike does not mean you are entitled to more revenue because you're acting in the interests of the workers - you are clearly acting in your own interests to acquire more revenue.
5) that just because you are not a union member does not mean you are suddenly "anti union", "anti-rights", "a liberal voter" or "anti safety".
mmm...
i do not have a problem with unions and their basic premise.
i have a problem with militant style unions who dont understand
1) basic economics - if you are more expensive to employ, odds are you're on the chopping block.
2) the right to work - if someone wants to work and are being prevented from doing so, this is not in the interest of the worker or the employer, in which case a union is not acting on their basic premise.
3) the contradictory nature of charging for services - it almost sounds like a mob "protection" racket - pay us money or bad things will happen.
4) taking action for the sake of taking action does not equal a result - just because you organised a failed strike does not mean you are entitled to more revenue because you're acting in the interests of the workers - you are clearly acting in your own interests to acquire more revenue.
5) that just because you are not a union member does not mean you are suddenly "anti union", "anti-rights", "a liberal voter" or "anti safety".
So could it be an observation that Unions are anti-capitalism?
Is it not the same victim mentality that Unions play on to get their way?
Play the workers as victims against employers....? Uh...?
Hang on.....you say your accountant provides you these benefits...?
Are you sure it's just your accountant who has provided these benefits?
Damn right !
High risk should equal higher reward ...yep!
Part of the risk is employing labour and dealing with unions and at times its such a risk that it does in fact impede business to the point where business cant be done anymore.
*snip*
I do believe we have discussed this bit earlier.
So not one eeny weeny tiny bit of credit for the wealth, that workers have mentioned above, goes to the companies and businesses that provide those jobs under riskier conditions placed upon them by Unions?
.
My feelings towards unionism are similar to my feelings towards feminism – I’m more or less glad for the earlier trail blazers but the movement seems somewhat superfluous and in some cases even counterproductive now.
The biggest threat facing workers now is offshoring and unions are of little help there.
The biggest threat facing workers now is offshoring and unions are of little help there.
I also agree that Unions have had a place in the past and possibly for the future in protecting workers against tyrannical overlording bosses and shisters, however, modern employment conditions are far far removed from the bad ole days and much of the improvements have stemmed from the employers themselves, not exclusively from Union movements.
It's blaze to claim that our lucky lucky lives are the total result of Unions that we simply cannot do without.
It's blaze to claim that our lucky lucky lives are the total result of Unions that we simply cannot do without.
These sort of statements need to be taken in context. I would wager that in those Countries where wages are very low, and possibly employment is not too plentiful, the choices are more limited for work.
It is a shame that some are exploited/taken advantage of, but life isn't fair.
It's up to their own Countries/Governments etc to go into bat for them - no-one went into bat for our folk here in Aus other than our own to win better conditions.
I mean; no-one forces any of those folk to work in the factories - unless the Gov forces them to, but then you are talking about a different situation...not private employment.
Also, their cost of living is probably very very low, so the wage - very low by our standards - may be enough to live on.
No-one is denying the Unions have achieved great things for Australian workers, but the world has changed dramatically in the last 20 or so years..
We cannot continue to remember the bad old days before the Unions and pat ourselves on the back over what they have done and keep them at all costs. Yes, we are appreciative, but...
We now have a world where folk can click on their mouse and buy a product/service overseas, delivered to their door, for less than they can buy it for down at the local Aussie supplier in many instances, and the trend is growing.
Jobs are being lost. Simple.
I am all in favor of employees earning good money and being looked after, and a Union is good for protecting employees from being exploited, or mistreated and ripped off across the board.
It's not the Unions that are hurting business as such; it is the Global Economy. Unions need to realise this when they jump up and down about wages and issues related to income, that our wages are what hurt many businesses now.
Most Employers are not victim mentality people; they are doers, who get off their arze and try to make their own path - unlike so many others around the joint.
All Employers whinge about various issues, but they are definitely not victims.
The reality is that most folk only want to work as a wage earner and have a secure job that they like. They don't want to take the risk, the responsibility or do the hard yards that the top end of the employment food chain have to (employees and/or employers). This is why the minority earn the big dollars in most cases.
That is not Union based - it is Govt tax incentives to promote investment in business. Unions don't really care about what perks an Employer gets - only the employees' perks.
No argument here.
No argument here
It's a double-edged sword, and you will not make everyone happy.
As an employer and having been an employee, and having a wife who is an employee of the public healthcare sector, I have seen both sides of the fence.
From my perspective, the Unions have all but had their day for this Country. The Global Market has overtaken us.
"Thanks boys for all you've done, but it's time to move on".
Unions using 3 and 4 year olds in a push for a payrise...
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/kids...childcare-centre/story-e6freuy9-1226625092698
"Many of the children's signatures appeared as drawings or scribbles.
The text of the letters was produced on the stationary of the national union, United Voice..."
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/kids...childcare-centre/story-e6freuy9-1226625092698
"Many of the children's signatures appeared as drawings or scribbles.
The text of the letters was produced on the stationary of the national union, United Voice..."
I just find the whole thing appalling. Lucky its a private centre where parents have a choice whether their kids are subjected to this. It's blatant brainwashing rubbish.
If it was a government school I would be protesting out the front (with my children)
The irony of brainwashing people to become critical thinkers is amusing.
I just find the whole thing appalling. Lucky its a private centre where parents have a choice whether their kids are subjected to this. It's blatant brainwashing rubbish.
If it was a government school I would be protesting out the front (with my children
Did you actually read the article or just swallow the bait? Down the bottom it said this was done with parental permission so you could say the signatures were a proxy for their parents.
Absolutely I read the article - and find it appalling that parents condone this type of brainwashing.
If parents want to support such a petition, let them sign it.
Yeah I can identify with that. Like my parents trying to raise me as a Christian to believe in God. They didn't succeed in brainwashing me into falling for their fairy stories although I did believe in Santa Claus for a while until I wised up ;-)
Schools as you know are very open about what it is they're going to teach children before enrolment.
The teachings of a CCC directors personal opinions/political views/union petitioning/business protest marches as they arise is a bit like having teachers or a principal of a school decide what they teach as they go along and outside of a curriculum, as they see fit, just send home a permission slip.
Inapproprate and kooky not just for that reason but because well... they're 3 to 5 years of age, and it's common sense to stick to a standard learning program and leave that stuff to the parents.
The teachings of a CCC directors personal opinions/political views/union petitioning/business protest marches as they arise is a bit like having teachers or a principal of a school decide what they teach as they go along and outside of a curriculum, as they see fit, just send home a permission slip
.Inapproprate and kooky not just for that reason but because well... they're 3 to 5 years of age, and it's common sense to stick to a standard learning program and leave that stuff to the parents.
Last edited:
are you referring to me?
