 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | At this point I expect so, but the above comments would have little if anything to do with my decision.
Although a lot could happen between now and election day, I am fairly committed to voting for the Liberals, basically because I think they are more capable of running the country than Labor.
Of course, in the next six months, Howard could do something incredibly stupid that would make me change my mind, or Labor could produce a policy platform which was a really good idea, or something. You never know. |
Lets be honest dave, almost nothing he could reasonably do would convince you to vote against him. He has:
1. Lied to the public TOO many times (tampa, refugees)
2. Sent us to two wars, one of which is illegal and the other is a shambles
3. Enacted draconian rules that decrease wages/working conditions
4. Openly attempted to undermine collectivity and people power thereby supporting the minority of people who own companies at the expense of everyone else
5. Managed to absorb the hanson-loving right of australia into the liberal party by encourages racism with almost every word he says about indigenous and ethnic groups,
6. Ignored the ageing population crisis and instead given us bloody tax cuts that for the first time in history NO ONE WANTS!
7. Ignored the growing environmental crisis facing out planet in general, and the water crisis facing australia specifically
8. Locked up a number of australians without access to habeas corpus or any sort of rights indefinitely
9. Has not supported an australian in an illegal overseas institution
10. Has demanded that this australian remains silent till AFTER THE ELECTION, which is illegal in the US and any country with a decent set of rights. nothing suspect going on there...
11. Has actively campaigned against enacting a bill of rights (his reasons seem clear in retrospect)
.... Clearly he would have to do something REALLY bad to lose your vote.
You vote Liberal because you have been conditioned to by your parents or by your inner-social networks, just as people are conditioned to believe in god, enjoy the taste of vegemite, prefer one sport over another, or anything else.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, well I think Workchoices is good legislation and I actually know something about it, not just the propaganda peddled by the union movement.
Rudd and Gilliard are just union puppets. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Yeah, well I think Workchoices is good legislation and I actually know something about it, not just the propaganda peddled by the union movement. |
Are you an economics student? Because i've done some macroeconomics and i know the principles of international liberalism guiding the reforms. 'Labour flexibility' (ie. casualised labour force, no job security), 'competitive labour prices' (low minimum wage), 'reduction of non-tariff trade barriers' (in this case decent working conditions), etc etc.
It's all bullshit designed to help those in control of the system extract profit from the rest of us.
| Quote: | | Rudd and Gilliard are just union puppets. |
Actually Rudd is a member of the Unity faction, which is much closer to the Liberal point of view than that of Labour left let alone the greens. He is a millionaire and doesn't give two shits about the unions or workers as long as he gets votes.
Gillard i don't know much about, except that she's in labour so she's not going to be too interested in any real systemic restructuring.
**Edit** one last thing. Even if you accept neoliberalism, what about refuting the other 10 points?
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Yeah, well I think Workchoices is good legislation and I actually know something about it, not just the propaganda peddled by the union movement.
|
So, your obviously not at the lower end of the workchoices laws. You know, the end that has people signing away their holidays, sick days, meal allowances for a pitiful 2cents an hour.
This country is becoming more and more haves vs have-nots. Unless we do something about it in the near future, our whole society will become everything that we have stood against for the past 200 years. That being a fair go for all.
***end of rant*** |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| uey wrote: | | Your parents vote liberal dont they David - its ok to have your own free mind. |
You're right uey. They're also fundamentalist Christians who are completely against gay rights and believe sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Unfortunately though, I'm very closed-minded, and so I just accept everything that they say and never question it. I've sometimes wished I could be like some of my non-conformist peers who vote green and think 9/11 was an inside job. At least they're thinking for themselves.
Good thing there's people like you who have got me figured out, anyway.
| sherrife wrote: | | David wrote: | At this point I expect so, but the above comments would have little if anything to do with my decision.
Although a lot could happen between now and election day, I am fairly committed to voting for the Liberals, basically because I think they are more capable of running the country than Labor.
Of course, in the next six months, Howard could do something incredibly stupid that would make me change my mind, or Labor could produce a policy platform which was a really good idea, or something. You never know. |
Lets be honest dave, almost nothing he could reasonably do would convince you to vote against him. He has:
1. Lied to the public TOO many times (tampa, refugees)
2. Sent us to two wars, one of which is illegal and the other is a shambles
3. Enacted draconian rules that decrease wages/working conditions
4. Openly attempted to undermine collectivity and people power thereby supporting the minority of people who own companies at the expense of everyone else
5. Managed to absorb the hanson-loving right of australia into the liberal party by encourages racism with almost every word he says about indigenous and ethnic groups,
6. Ignored the ageing population crisis and instead given us bloody tax cuts that for the first time in history NO ONE WANTS!
7. Ignored the growing environmental crisis facing out planet in general, and the water crisis facing australia specifically
8. Locked up a number of australians without access to habeas corpus or any sort of rights indefinitely
9. Has not supported an australian in an illegal overseas institution
10. Has demanded that this australian remains silent till AFTER THE ELECTION, which is illegal in the US and any country with a decent set of rights. nothing suspect going on there...
11. Has actively campaigned against enacting a bill of rights (his reasons seem clear in retrospect)
.... Clearly he would have to do something REALLY bad to lose your vote.
You vote Liberal because you have been conditioned to by your parents or by your inner-social networks, just as people are conditioned to believe in god, enjoy the taste of vegemite, prefer one sport over another, or anything else. |
1. I'm not condoning his lies, but hey, give me a politician who doesn't.
2. What is an 'illegal' war? Oh right, you're talking about the fact that the UN didn't agree with it. Well, of course, we should have taken the advice of that fine, upstanding, corruption-free organisation.
The merits of the two wars are to be debated elsewhere, but you can hardly blame Australia for the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.
3. You call them draconian... others have seen it as a good move. It's all relative.
I could go through all of them, but there's really no point. In your view, all of these are terrible mistakes. I could argue whether they are or not, but what's the point? Rather than coming up with a list of clear and obvious mistakes, you've listed several contentious issues which you were always going to have a set view on anyway.
What's the point in judging politicians by their 'morality'? You'll only be disappointed if you take that line. It is better to judge a politician by the intelligence, skill, efficiency, success and fairness with which he runs the country. Howard, despite all you claim, has been quite successful in this regard. Of course, Rudd's Labor could be just as good, or better, but at the moment, this does not appear to be the case. That is why, at the moment, it looks like I will be voting Liberal, and I still disagree that that is a foregone conclusion.
| Sherrife wrote: | | You vote Liberal because you have been conditioned to by your parents or by your inner-social networks, just as people are conditioned to believe in god, enjoy the taste of vegemite, prefer one sport over another, or anything else. |
I could easily say the same about you. You vote Labor because you have been conditioned to by your peers, and possibly your parents (or is it a rebellion against your parents? Of course, I don't know your situation any more than you know mine). Then again, isn't this the case with any belief or opinion? It is essentially moulded by external forces, in one way or another. True intelligent opinion comes when one can rise above the external factors and think with an open mind, something I believe I do to my best extent.
But, essentially, you and Uey are making the rather presumptuous claim that the reason I am voting Liberal is because I'm simply unable to think outside the sphere in which I have been raised. Would you say this about all Liberal voters? Or is it just me?
When it comes to amateur psychology, I'd recommend collecting a little more data about the subject when it comes to analysis. Otherwise you'll come across as simply seeming arrogant.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, I'm not an economics student, I work in the field of Human resources for large coporates and have had quite a bit of experience in industrial relations. I've seen first hand the bullshit unions try on in the name of protecting members.
Do you actually understand the legislation or just the impacts fed to you by socialist uni professors and the popaganda about people signing away rights for bugger all?
At the moment, labour is the most valuable commodity for most business's. Recruitment and retention of the right people is paramount and with the Gen y being more transient, if people aren't looked after by their employer, there's plenty of other employers ready to embrace them.
As far as refuting the other 10 points, I think David has already done an excellent job. I particularly get riled by all the reference to "illegal". And you have a dig at David for not being able to think for himself.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Have you also seen some of the bullshit pulled by small business Stui which is why unfair dismissal laws were enacted in the first place? Business and big unions can both potentially wield power unfairly which is why they both need to be regulated.
I love the socialist uni professor argument. I've worked in academia at La Trobe, Melbourne, Monash, VU and ACU over the last decade and have yet to see a socialist professor. There are plenty that believe in the public sector or that oppose the free market, but so did that great 'socialist' Menzies. I suppose Hawke and Keating were socialist too were they? In my experience most peanuts with a Bachelor of Business or an MA think that anything left of Gengis Khan is hard left.
As someone involved in hr you should know better than most that you can't generalise about the labour market given how bifurcated it has become. Those at the bottom of the food chain (those without skills or education stuck in jobs with low training costs) have absolutely no bargaining power even with low unemployment, not to mention those living in rural and regional areas where the employment market is still incredibly flat. How do you think they're going to go bargaining when we hit the downside of the economic cycle? |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
At the moment, labour is the most valuable commodity for most business's. Recruitment and retention of the right people is paramount and with the Gen y being more transient, if people aren't looked after by their employer, there's plenty of other employers ready to embrace them.
|
Boom, neo-liberalism. Labour is not a commodity, labourers are the overwhelming majority of people, and thus they are a definite end in themselves, not some figure on an accounting sheet. And your analysis falls flat on its face anyway, because 'the right people' ie. the really high skilled professionals are always going to have jobs, its the lower end of the spectrum we're talking about here.
What are the odds of a level 1 (or is it 6?) administrator not signing a shitty contract because the company NEEDS to retain her/him? What are the odds of a call-centre worker saying no to reduced breaks and penalty rates because the company NEEDS to retain him/her? ZERO, and if they do, they'll be fired or ignored. Get some perspective, we're not all so lucky as you to be working in major companies (ooo goody, i hope they pick me next)
| Quote: | | Do you actually understand the legislation or just the impacts fed to you by socialist uni professors |
There is not a single socialist professor at Monash or ANU, where i have spent my time at uni. But i will defend this point further. A theoretical understanding of the ideologies driving busines and politicians is fundamental and necessary, you cannot act without having some framework to understand the world around you. It's like saying you could be a good scientist without knowing any of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.
Excuse me for looking beyond my immediate environment of relatively well off middle-class uni students, and seeing the bigger picture for the majority.
| Quote: | | 1. I'm not condoning his lies, but hey, give me a politician who doesn't. |
I'll let you have this one 
| Quote: | | What is an 'illegal' war? |
Look mate, this is a very dangerous path your heading down. You can claim the UN is irrelevant and counter-productive if you want, but i would want to be pretty certain if you're going to use that sort of argument. Do you really support the implications of a world without a multilateral forum for global standards of ethical, environmental, political, etc behaviour? It's far from perfect, and i'm against it in the long term, but that regime of international law is all we have. If you really want to return to international anarchy... well thats another discussion
| Quote: | | You call them draconian... others have seen it as a good move |
This one is harder to argue, because it depends on your view of economics, something on which I know we differ! I just feel that you really need to think about the realities of the legislation, which DOES mean lower pay, DOES mean drastically scaled down workers benefits, DOES mean women are more likely to be fired when pregnant, etc etc.
Look personally i'm willing and eager to go through each of these issues with you, because i feel that you're not really engaging with them, instead giving broad-brush responses. Cmon, some people disagree with workplaces? Give me ur own opinion, why you think they disagree? where do they come from, what perspective? I'm genuinely curious to how you come to these conclusions
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | Quote: | | What is an 'illegal' war? |
Look mate, this is a very dangerous path your heading down. You can claim the UN is irrelevant and counter-productive if you want, but i would want to be pretty certain if you're going to use that sort of argument. Do you really support the implications of a world without a multilateral forum for global standards of ethical, environmental, political, etc behaviour? It's far from perfect, and i'm against it in the long term, but that regime of international law is all we have. If you really want to return to international anarchy... well thats another discussion |
I'm all for international organizations, in theory, but the trouble is they often don't really seem to work. And, the best example of that is the United Nations.
When you have a whole lot of countries trying to put forward their own interests, it seems to be defeating the purpose of the organization.
I read an excellent article on the UN in the Time Magazine on this last year, and managed to dig it up from the internet: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546346,00.html
You're right, it is something of a big call, so to say, but what choices do we have? Do we accept a very poor excuse for an international organization, do we replace it, or do we ditch the idea altogether? I don't know if any of those sound like particularly good ideas.
I could question, though, do we have a state of almost anarchy now? Does the UN actually have any power these days? It seems the only countries that actually listen to anything it says are the western democracies, while the many dictatorships around the world (and I guess, the USA) simply couldn't give a damn.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You call them draconian... others have seen it as a good move |
This one is harder to argue, because it depends on your view of economics, something on which I know we differ! I just feel that you really need to think about the realities of the legislation, which DOES mean lower pay, DOES mean drastically scaled down workers benefits, DOES mean women are more likely to be fired when pregnant, etc etc.
Look personally i'm willing and eager to go through each of these issues with you, because i feel that you're not really engaging with them, instead giving broad-brush responses. Cmon, some people disagree with workplaces? Give me ur own opinion, why you think they disagree? where do they come from, what perspective? I'm genuinely curious to how you come to these conclusions |
Well, this is my perspective. Even though Australian government is supposed to benefit the entire population, the different parties still favour different 'classes'. Very simplistically, the Liberal Party's policies are designed to make life easier for businesses, and the Labor Party's policies are designed to make life easier for workers. I guess this work choices legislation is an obvious example of this: it's great news for companies, and perhaps not so great for workers. You could even draw a long bow and say it comes back to the old battle between capitalism and socialism. Some benefit, some don't. I assume as soon as Labor comes back into power, if they remove this legislation, things will then become better for workers and worse for those in business.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had a party which was simply interested in the rights of everybody, rather than just a group? I don't think either party at the moment can claim they are doing this.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | Have you also seen some of the bullshit pulled by small business Stui which is why unfair dismissal laws were enacted in the first place? Business and big unions can both potentially wield power unfairly which is why they both need to be regulated.
I love the socialist uni professor argument. I've worked in academia at La Trobe, Melbourne, Monash, VU and ACU over the last decade and have yet to see a socialist professor. There are plenty that believe in the public sector or that oppose the free market, but so did that great 'socialist' Menzies. I suppose Hawke and Keating were socialist too were they? In my experience most peanuts with a Bachelor of Business or an MA think that anything left of Gengis Khan is hard left.
As someone involved in hr you should know better than most that you can't generalise about the labour market given how bifurcated it has become. Those at the bottom of the food chain (those without skills or education stuck in jobs with low training costs) have absolutely no bargaining power even with low unemployment, not to mention those living in rural and regional areas where the employment market is still incredibly flat. How do you think they're going to go bargaining when we hit the downside of the economic cycle? |
I appreciate that not all employers are good at looking after their people, just as not all employees are willing to actually put in a proper days work for their money. Removing the unfair dismissal for employers with less than 100 employees makes it easier to move on the malcontents. If an employer terminates someone because of their race, sex, union affiliation or a myiad of other illegal reasons, the employee still has access to unlawful termination proceedings.
As far as those at the bottom end of the food chain, I worked a lot with call centres and the "right people" are at a premium not because of any qualifications but because of personal attributes. Corporations invest a lot of time in training these people up and pay a good wage. Good employees are rewarded both financially and otherwise because it's a competitive industry and Gen y will happily walk out to another employer if they're not happy. Why pay the same rate to a top performer as you pay to plodders or duds. Where I've worked, the good performers at the bottom of the food chain routinely get better pay rises than their peers on collective arrangements.
In short, their bargaining power comes from being good at their job and it's cheaper to pay a good performer more than let them go and have to hire and train a replacement who will take 6 months to be 100% and even then may not be as good.
I travelled to New Zealand for work in 2000 when they had employment legislation in place that made the current workchoices look positively mild, and the employees I spoke to there (not high level professionals but working people) thought Australians were a bunch of over unionised sooks. Then Labour got elected and did a job on the unions there that Lazarus would have been proud of.
Thank christ that, unlike them, we have a senate.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Is the holding of hands a symbolic gesture for humans? You believe that? Tell me a story. I don't know what to think. If you could have any kind of robot what would it be? What's your sign? What colour are your eyes? |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't understand the union-hating going on. Unions are just collectives of people who lack power individually, coming together to negotiate better conditions.
What is the problem here?  
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | I don't understand the union-hating going on. Unions are just collectives of people who lack power individually, coming together to negotiate better conditions.
What is the problem here? |
In theory, yes and there's nothing wrong with the principle.
In practise, after the union mergers of the late 80's early 90's, the individuals in the collective have little real power, it's vested in quasi politicians who's real interest lies in keeping power and duping the rank and file.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
The Prince of Fullbacks 
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
FFS, Unions promote medicrtiy. I have lived (to a certian extent) on the"Factory floor". I have had my personal & proffesional life torn apart by Union wankers.
Glad to say I have never been in a UNION.
_________________
John Greening deserves a bronze statue |
|
|
|
|
Brewer's Droop 
HIC
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Location: Greater Albania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No one likes the promotion of medicrtiy
_________________
The wheels on the bus go round and round, but still they are not as round as Perry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
