 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Church and community groups are running exactly the same lines as the CFMEU on this issue Stui. If you are slagging off the union movement for running a scare campaign, you are criticising those groups for the same thing as well - and I'd suggest their credibility stacks up pretty well against both the Howard government and the employer groups that have embraced the legislation.
BTW, as for the ACTU 'deliberately cultivating' a more non-threatening image. Give me a break! The white collar face of the ACTU reflects the structural changes in the economy towards white collar and away from blue collar industries. It's more moderate or conservative because its more reflective of the trade union membership than the groups you keep putting up. I mean, really...You keep throwing up groups like the BLF and the CFMEU as though they are representative of the broader union movement, yet you complain about the union movement's scare campaign. I don't know the membership figures for the CFMEU, but on 2003 figures, 6% of the labour force worked in construction, and just 26.5% of employees in the industry were unionised. On these figures, given a workforce of 8.1 million, I'd estimate no more than 100,000 members Australia wide. In comparison, there are over 1.8 million union members in Australia.
As for your last point, how many people fully understand global warming? Does that mean they shouldn't be concerned about it, or that it's not a danger to them? |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | 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 |
Mind if I but into this one as well?
I personally see a difference between the role of pursuing benefits for employees and what i consider the self serving nature of the union movement at the moment. The old ethos of a fair days pay for a fair days work which was IMO at the heart of the inception of the union movement has been discarded. Now it's about power, both for individual union officials and at a strategic level for the ACTU in trying to influence the direction of Australian society in a way they see fit.
It's not self serving for unions to try to win benefits for employees. That's what they were created for. It's self serving when the reason you were created becomes the means rather than the ends.
And yes, they are elected, by a minority of the people who work since union membership has been steadily declining for years.
And as far as James Hardy goes, I actually think cigarette companies are just as bad. Maybe worse.
_________________
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: | |
|
More the merrier (woops didn't think you could butt in on a bulletin board. Apologies to all those I have butted in on in the past  )
Sorry Stui, but that's not historically true or accurate. Trade unions have always been strategic political actors. At a deeper level though, what you are effectively saying is tantamount to arguing that peak business/industry associations or employer groups have no place trying to lobby governments for policies favourable to them. Of course it is about power if those in power have the capacity to effectively nobble you by legislating you out of the game.
Also think it's a bit rich complaining about the withering away of the old ethos of fair days work for a fair days pay. For christ sake we've seen the removal of foundation stones like comparative wage justice and the living wage (ie the notion that its better for a business to close than to survive by paying its workers less than that required to live a dignified existence), yet you want unions to play by the old rules? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's the AFL's fault. If there was something interesting to talk about footballwise we wouldn't need these distractions.
I take your points about the church groups and also about the business lobbyists. People's opinions are shaped by what they experience. I suppose I've experienced so much blatant hipocrisy from unions it winds me up when I perceive them being painted as some noble defender of the battler when they are IMO just as bad if not worse than either political party and business groups put together. 
_________________
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: | | 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 |
Firstly, you're kind of lumping me in a category I don't necessarily belong to. A) I'm not a conservative, B) I'm not anti-unionist (as I mentioned in the last post) and C) I don't actually recall ever having criticised any particular union leaders.
I don't support exploitation of workers at all, and any company that does so deserves to have the whistle blown on them. I've never said that unions are more morally decadent than those running businesses, indeed as I said everyone's really only in it for themselves in the end.
While I'm interested in many political subjects, I will freely admit that there are many, many subjects where I simply don't know enough to form a valid opinion. Unions and worker's rights are definitely in that category. What I do know, is that the world of unions, business and politics is a dirty one.... and when you get up to the higher echelons of any of those areas, you're not going to find much altruism or saintly behaviour. Does that mean that they don't often achieve good things? Of course they do.
| sherrife wrote: | | 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. |
Lol, I'm not naive enough to actually believe that business owners are concerned about their workers' welfare, beyond a basic level. All I was suggesting was that if a business is run successfully, some benefits should run down to the workers: e.g. increased pay rates, increased technological progress within the workplace, etc. Of course, this doesn't always happen, and I don't even know if it happens in the majority of cases.... all I know is, it should work in theory.
| sherrfe wrote: | | 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 |
I was thinking more, good for entire population, on a utilitarian level. So yeah, those in the lowest socioeconomic areas might not be much better off through economic growth (although hopefully they are still looked after by our welfare system), but pretty much everyone else should benefit. I remember seeing a graph in year 12 economics where they showed the growing gap between rich and poor over the past 10 years. While this was evident, it was also clear that those in our lower socioeconomic categories weren't actually getting worse, they just weren't getting a hell of a lot better, and everyone else's income was rising.
| sherrife wrote: | | 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. |
No worries, undoubtedly I'll come across it in the next semester of Political Science and/or Philosophy, and if not, it sounds like it would be well worth checking out. I've got to find out why this guy is still so popular hehe.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:32 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Try to determine if this is a person or a computer responding. How do you know? Do not ask me any more questions please. |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sorry dude but there's a limit to how long you can keep playing the "i dont know, but it should work in theory" card.
Fact is, it doesn't. Bosses look at labour as a resource not as a responsibility, so analyse the situation as it is, not as it should be.
Capitalism doesn't lead itself to friendly bosses, as the way to maximise profit is by minimising wages etc... Workers and bosses have fundamentally opposed and competing objectives.
_________________
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: | | Sorry dude but there's a limit to how long you can keep playing the "i dont know, but it should work in theory" card. |
So, it doesn't happen? This is a really simplistic example, but at the moment, at my McDonald's store, the owners are pretty much broke. Therefore, we are unable to fix several of the broken machines, the renovations have been put off, and my campaigning for penalty rates on Sundays will have to wait
However, if they get the franchise back on its feet, I would presume they will actually be able to make the store more efficient, safer, and more pleasant to work in. Therefore, as a worker, I will have benefitted.
It's not theory so much as logic.
Can this be applied to a large corporation? I don't know, but can you prove it doesn't work like this?
| Quote: | | Workers and bosses have fundamentally opposed and competing objectives. |
Disagree. If the business crashes, the workers lose their jobs and the bosses are screwed. I'm not arguing that bosses' objectives are the same as workers', yes, in many ways they are opposed. But I would argue that this is not the same in all cases and I am not convinced that a prospering business will not have some positive effect on its workers.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| 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. |
No, you totally missed the point ALL those things were won by Unions
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | 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 |
Well just give back your Super, RDO and 38 hour week, they were all won by Unions over the past 25 years
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | Workers and bosses have fundamentally opposed and competing objectives. |
Not necessarily. Certainly the two have different perspectives. Sometimes these perspectives are alligned and sometimes not.
People don't start a business for the objective of screwing workers, nor do workers start work for the objective of screwing the employer.
People start a business to make money. When a businmess reaches a large enough size that they can't do it themsleves, they employ other people to work for them. The Boss expects people to do a quality job, the worker goes to work to do a quality job and expects to get paid according to role.
Where the interests diverge is where either party expects more for less. Either more money for less work or more work for less money. The other point of divergence is that the employees first priority will always be themselves where the employers is the business. Basic self interest.
It doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of ground where their interests and aims don't converge tho.
_________________
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: | |
|
Sorry if I've mislabelled you as a conservative David. That's just the impression I get from your opinions on most of the issues we've discussed since I've been on Nick's. Mind you, it's not a criticism, just an observation. I may be mistaken, but I thought you were critical of Dean Mighell in one of the other threads, and again, my impression from your posts is that you side firmly on the side of employers in this debate.
Glad to hear you're studying politics - Aristotle's key science. ANU is an excellent place to do it. I did an ANIP internship there from March to June in 1995 and froze my arse off with nothing but a motorbike for transport. What units you doing? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | 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. |
No, you totally missed the point ALL those things were won by Unions |
I didn't miss the point, you did. They may have been won by unions in various guises (although a lot were simply lifted from the public service) but they are now what I said.
The unions did achieve some good things in the past. So did Ted Whitten. Is he still playing???
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | 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 |
Well just give back your Super, RDO and 38 hour week, they were all won by Unions over the past 25 years |
I've never worked an RDO system,(How did you win that, it's a condition in a minority of awards?), haven't worked a 38 hour week for 15 years, haven't had overtime for 10 and the last time I looked, Super was bought in by the government.
_________________
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: | | Sorry if I've mislabelled you as a conservative David. That's just the impression I get from your opinions on most of the issues we've discussed since I've been on Nick's. Mind you, it's not a criticism, just an observation. I may be mistaken, but I thought you were critical of Dean Mighell in one of the other threads, and again, my impression from your posts is that you side firmly on the side of employers in this debate. |
That's OK... I probably would have labelled myself a conservative 12 months ago. But, world views change and thankfully I've matured a lot in that time (probably still got a fair way to go, too). I am now, according to some silly internet test, a centrist
As for Dean Mighell, I think I was responding to one particular article, but I've forgotten what it was about. Seem to recall him coming across as a bit of a tosser, but I can't even remember what happened last week let alone three months ago 
| nomadjack wrote: | | Glad to hear you're studying politics - Aristotle's key science. ANU is an excellent place to do it. I did an ANIP internship there from March to June in 1995 and froze my arse off with nothing but a motorbike for transport. What units you doing? |
Just finished the first semester (Intro to Political Science), which looked at politics from a purely Australian perspective - the next unit (International Relations) should be a little more globally oriented. The other units I'm studying are philosophy, linguistics and film.
You wouldn't believe how cold Canberra is at the moment (although it could be the same all over Australia, lol)... I reckon we're going to get a little bit of snow again this year, which only happens every couple of decades
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
