 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| member34258 wrote: | | Quote: | | My point about how union propaganda works |
You can't say that without acknowledging the propaganda of the Liberal government.
|
Read the rest of my post. I thought I did. 
| Quote: | | Yes, politicians on both sides of parliament do the same thing |
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The thing that always amuses me about Anti Union types is that while they are happy to bash Unions none of them ever want to give up their
* Sick Leave
* Annual Leave
* Superannuation
* 38 Hour week
* Rostered Days Off
* Long Service Leave
* Maternity/Paternity Leave
* Over time payments
Etc etc
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Yes, politicians on both sides of parliament do the same thing, but people seem to expect it from politicians whereas many ill-informed people expect for some reason that the union movement is some pure group with high morals and motivation and believe every crock they publish.
I'm just saying they are at least as self serving as most and often more so. |
Stui, you've got to be kidding if you are claiming that trade unions are viewed in this kind of positive light in this country. At best, the research shows that people have an ambivalent attitude towards trade unions, not the positive perspective you describe.
Putting aside trade union reactions to workchoices, are you also suggesting that the church groups who have actively campaigned against the laws, along with welfare agencies such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACOSS, VCOSS are also self-interested in their opposition? Maybe they've been brain-washed by those big bad hairy-chested unionists you see on TV, or just maybe there's another reason why every group that has to deal with those at the point-end of the workchoices legislation and Howards 'welfare to work' program fundamentally opposes it?
Love how when a business uses it's market power to maximise profits its or when they lay off a 100 workers to cut costs that's just good business, but when a trade union uses it's bargaining power to get the best deal possible for it's workers it's somehow seen as illigitimately self-serving. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Capitalism.
Use the anger to push for something new.
_________________
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: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Putting aside trade union reactions to workchoices, are you also suggesting that the church groups who have actively campaigned against the laws, along with welfare agencies such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACOSS, VCOSS are also self-interested in their opposition? Maybe they've been brain-washed by those big bad hairy-chested unionists you see on TV, or just maybe there's another reason why every group that has to deal with those at the point-end of the workchoices legislation and Howards 'welfare to work' program fundamentally opposes it? |
I don't think Stui's talking about the people who are protesting against the policies, but rather the union groups who are taking advantage of these situations? (Forgive me if I'm wrong)
| nomadjack wrote: | | Love how when a business uses it's market power to maximise profits its or when they lay off a 100 workers to cut costs that's just good business, but when a trade union uses it's bargaining power to get the best deal possible for it's workers it's somehow seen as illigitimately self-serving. |
so unions aren't ever self-serving? I'm confused.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | | Quote: | | My point about how union propaganda works |
You can't say that without acknowledging the propaganda of the Liberal government.
|
Read the rest of my post. I thought I did.
| Quote: | | Yes, politicians on both sides of parliament do the same thing |
|
Nope, you didn't.
You tarred Labor with the Liberal brush.
Very naughty. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
| nomadjack wrote: | | Love how when a business uses it's market power to maximise profits its or when they lay off a 100 workers to cut costs that's just good business, but when a trade union uses it's bargaining power to get the best deal possible for it's workers it's somehow seen as illigitimately self-serving. |
so unions aren't ever self-serving? I'm confused. |
The point is, that when unions have a victory, that victory serves thousands of people. This is in contrast with an employer's victory; that only benefits a handful of people.
Self-serving is fine when the 'self' is the majority.
**EDIT** Oh, this is true unless you are a member of the "come on workers, you can't demand wages that are too high (unless you earn more than $300,000) or too many minimum working conditions, because that would be bad for the economy" club.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="David so unions aren't ever self-serving? I'm confused.[/quote]
Yes David you are confused.  My point was when employers are self-serving that seems to be legitimate in your eyes, yet when employees through their unions act in their own self-interest by using their bargaining power to gain the best outcome for themselves, then that is somehow less legitimate. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | The thing that always amuses me about Anti Union types is that while they are happy to bash Unions none of them ever want to give up their
* Sick Leave
* Annual Leave
* Superannuation
* 38 Hour week
* Rostered Days Off
* Long Service Leave
* Maternity/Paternity Leave
* Over time payments
Etc etc |
Overtime is a protected award condition, RDO's depend on the work place and the rest are all provided for by legislation.
_________________
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: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Frank Stone wrote: | The thing that always amuses me about Anti Union types is that while they are happy to bash Unions none of them ever want to give up their
* Sick Leave
* Annual Leave
* Superannuation
* 38 Hour week
* Rostered Days Off
* Long Service Leave
* Maternity/Paternity Leave
* Over time payments
Etc etc |
Overtime is a protected award condition, RDO's depend on the work place and the rest are all provided for by legislation. |
Yes Stui, protected by legislation after over 100 years of trade union activism. Perhaps you might like to send them a thank you note instead of constantly tipping a bucket of shit on them. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have no problem thanking the trade union movement for the conditions they won in the past. I just don't like what they've turned into the last 20-25 years
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | David wrote: | | so unions aren't ever self-serving? I'm confused. |
Yes David you are confused. My point was when employers are self-serving that seems to be legitimate in your eyes, yet when employees through their unions act in their own self-interest by using their bargaining power to gain the best outcome for themselves, then that is somehow less legitimate. |
Aren't we all kind of self-serving, in the long run?
But, I don't see that the self-serving of employers is necessarily illegitimate. Most of the time, I assume, they are doing whatever they do for the good of the business... and it's their job to try to do so.
Once again, I don't have any issue with the employees, it's those controlling the unions I thought we were talking about. Employees are only looking out for themselves (same as all of us), and there's nothing wrong with that. If that is achieved by becoming a member of a union, then they should do so.
| Sherrife wrote: | | The point is, that when unions have a victory, that victory serves thousands of people. This is in contrast with an employer's victory; that only benefits a handful of people. |
Is this really so, though? If what the employer does IS good for the company, is it not benefitting everyone working for that company? (well apart from those that get sacked, I suppose...)
Also, if what they do is 'good for the economy', doesn't that benefit everyone living in this country, at least to some degree? I certainly hope so, anyway 
I don't know if I really subscribe to utilitarianism, by the way, although I'm not aware if there are any better alternatives.
_________________
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: | |
|
| David wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: | | Putting aside trade union reactions to workchoices, are you also suggesting that the church groups who have actively campaigned against the laws, along with welfare agencies such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACOSS, VCOSS are also self-interested in their opposition? Maybe they've been brain-washed by those big bad hairy-chested unionists you see on TV, or just maybe there's another reason why every group that has to deal with those at the point-end of the workchoices legislation and Howards 'welfare to work' program fundamentally opposes it? |
I don't think Stui's talking about the people who are protesting against the policies, but rather the union groups who are taking advantage of these situations? (Forgive me if I'm wrong)
. |
That's exactly what i mean David.
And Nomad Jack, as far as public preception of the unions go, I think the building and construction unions have little credibility. People old enough to remember Normie and the BLF know leopards find it hard to change their spots.
The ACTU however which is the mouthpiece doing all the work in generating the propaganda, has a much more white collar conservative image which they've deliberately cultivated so as not to scare people off. The fact that so many people who admit they don't understand the legislation at all, still believe it is bad, shows their tactic works (to a degree).
_________________
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: | |
|
I know you don't see the self-serving of employers as illegitimate David. Neither do I necessarily, as long as it's mitigated or regulated by laws and institutions to ensure things like employee safety and due process. What amuses me though is that you refuse to apply the same logic to the conduct of trade unions in pursuing the maximum legally achievable benefits for their members.
BTW, nice semantics in splitting employees from union leadership, but who do you think controls the unions David? Union leaders are elected by their membership with the elections conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. If a majority of union members are unhappy with their union leadership they can quite easily remove them through the electoral process. The accountability requirements surrounding elections in the union movement are at least as stringent and probably more so than those that apply to board elections in large corporations.
I know i'm dreaming, but I'd like to see the media and conservatives like yourself spending just a little bit more time condemning the unethical, immoral and possibly illegal behaviour of business leaders such as the board of directors of companies like James Hardy. I know it's a strain, so I'm not asking for too much more. Maybe just enough to balance your criticism of union leaders like Dean Mighell whose 'great crime' is doing his job and getting the best conditions possible for his members |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
| Sherrife wrote: | | The point is, that when unions have a victory, that victory serves thousands of people. This is in contrast with an employer's victory; that only benefits a handful of people. |
Is this really so, though? If what the employer does IS good for the company, is it not benefitting everyone working for that company? (well apart from those that get sacked, I suppose...)
|
There's your first problem. This is clearly not true. What you're thinking of is a Ghandi'ist utopia where business owners are thinking about the benefit of the workers. In reality, labor is a negative on the accounting sheet, a negative that businesses try to minimise as much as possible.
It would be good for many businesses to slash wages and work staff 20 hour days, hiring new staff as the old ones burnt out (ie. India). This is self-evidently not good for workers.
good for business /= good for workers
| Quote: | | Also, if what they do is 'good for the economy', doesn't that benefit everyone living in this country, at least to some degree? I certainly hope so, anyway |
Point 2. Australia right now is going through an absolute BOOM period, yet debts are higher than ever, and wages are only holding steady.
This is a classic real-life counterpoint to the 'trickle down effect' theories, even though they were refuted decades ago in academic circles. For another one, look at the US of A. How much do you think those New Orlean'ians benefit from Bill Gates' wealth? Jack all.
good for the economy =/ good for workers, necessarily
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave i think you need to check out some of Marx's work. Try his communist manifesto as an introduction... it's really short and simple (linguistically) reading.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
