 |
|
|
| 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: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Actually, this might surprise you, but I hate the bastards. I work for myself in the wilds of the global market, and hate any constraints on what I do, most of all constraints handed down by some overgeneralising bureaucratic organisation.
But you have to balance your personal aversion with empirical reality. Real wages track both the rise and fall of union participation, hence I place them in the necessary evil column.
As ever, I reckon Keating had it right when he said something like the problem isn't unions, it's that the bastards don't do their jobs very well.
In a non-free market where capital, power and plain old dumb national borders cause distortions, you have no choice but to counter power. It's the old necessary force argument; you have to stop the teenager stealing your car, but you don't have to pull a shotgun out and blow his head off (unless you're in Texas). In this instance, you have to stop the bastards amassing power at the top, imaging they're indispensible society creators who deserve more than the immoral peasants, and driving wages below that necessary to sustain a decent society and healthy, meaningful life. But you don't have to become a Stalinist in order to maintain that balance.
Opposing unions per se is ultimately either a case of outright support for unfettered elite authority and power, or a blind fundamentalism based on an imaginary free market that doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is accept the necessity of the bastards and try to reform them for the better without neutering the critical counter force to elite power they provide. |
Who are you and what did you do with Ptiddy? 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Opposing unions per se is ultimately either a case of outright support for unfettered elite authority and power, or a blind fundamentalism based on an imaginary free market that doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is accept the necessity of the bastards and try to reform them for the better without neutering the critical counter force to elite power they provide. |
I'm hoping the kimchi hasn't fermented too much.  
Who decides what is better?
It aslo assumes the prevailing status quo is inherently good. That we all accept power relations not only as thet are but move futher in the direction of unfetered employer power.
Your statement is PTID far too general that it constites a motherhood statement I would expect to find on FM radio or 3AW with more sophhisticated language.
Now we get the good unions & the bad unions - that ought to chip in the for national good.
Of course reform is needed as it is needed in all sorts of areas including looking at the powers of employers that I remind you have far too much power over workers rights as it is.
What we have is a goverment in Australia having its IR policy determined through the IPA.
So an argument about unions needs to be seen in this light.
Anyone who does not consider that the current campaigns against unions are not part of an agenda to destabilize the oppostion (Shorten) & to have pay back against Rudd - via pink bats & so called slush funds (Gillard) is being naive. It's part of a wider strategy for the next election.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I don't really understand the union "slush fund" thing against Gillard, would someone be able to give the tl;dr (too long; didn't read) version of events? Now I'd be the first in line to crucify Gillard but to me this looks like a junior lawyer doing some shady business... not exactly a hanging offence, in fact it's probably promotion worthy in the scumbag law industry. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Opposing unions per se is ultimately either a case of outright support for unfettered elite authority and power, or a blind fundamentalism based on an imaginary free market that doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is accept the necessity of the bastards and try to reform them for the better without neutering the critical counter force to elite power they provide. |
I'm hoping the kimchi hasn't fermented too much.
Who decides what is better?
It aslo assumes the prevailing status quo is inherently good. That we all accept power relations not only as thet are but move futher in the direction of unfetered employer power.
Your statement is PTID far too general that it constites a motherhood statement I would expect to find on FM radio or 3AW with more sophhisticated language.
Now we get the good unions & the bad unions - that ought to chip in the for national good.
Of course reform is needed as it is needed in all sorts of areas including looking at the powers of employers that I remind you have far too much power over workers rights as it is.
What we have is a goverment in Australia having its IR policy determined through the IPA.
So an argument about unions needs to be seen in this light.
Anyone who does not consider that the current campaigns against unions are not part of an agenda to destabilize the oppostion (Shorten) & to have pay back against Rudd - via pink bats & so called slush funds (Gillard) is being naive. It's part of a wider strategy for the next election. |
I don't disagree with you - that's just a general background statement in the context of a to and fro with Stui and Wokko, not a comment on Abbott's current efforts. Abbott is certainly not the right person to give the country better unions - he simply wants to weaken them.
But the key point is, if you start with the assumption that unions are necessary, then the serious debate can never be about eliminating them or neutering them; it can only ever be about making them more effective, i.e., about holding up real wages through more coordinated policy.
In other words, almost everything Abbott has said on the matter is meaningless.
But there's nothing to *love* about any bloody power system, left or right, in your favor or not. Power is simply a tool to counteract power (a necessary force), and to be dismantled once the job is done.
There is no power centre which is good in and of itself, including unions. But since the elite aren't going anywhere in a hurry, that counts unions in as almost permanent fixtures regardless.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You sound distinctly libertarian PTID. The libertarian pledge for the Libertarian Party in the USA: "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." Being against he use of and monopolization of force by government is probably the core of Libertarian ideals. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Quite right, Wokko. There was never anything in that one. I'm actually surprised that Abbott is chasing it, as even he must know that it has been investigated to death and there is nothing of substance to find there. The only possible reason for wasting all this time and public money is that Abbott thinks he can get magic words like "slush fund" into the headlines of the Murdoch press one more time.
The TLDR is as follows: Gillard, a junior lawyer at the time, performed some routine legal work for some people who later on turned out to be doing dodgy things. One of them was her boyfriend. None of the dodgy stuff was known to her at the time, nor was there any reason why it should have been known to her. She filled out some forms to set up a fund; later on the trustees of that fund used it to line their own pockets. That's all there is to it, and despite all the endless chest-beating by Abbott and his sleazy cronies, nothing else has ever come tro light other than the fact that a junior lawyer did some unimportant work for someone who later on turned out to be dodgy. Show me a lawyer who has never had a dodgy client.
Meanwhile, Julie Bishop is an Abbott Cabinet Minister. Her last job involved representing the asbestos companies, in particular telling the court that a compensation case should be delayed yet again and that the fact that the victim the victim was dying of mesothelioma and might not live long enough to see the verdict brought down was irrelevant.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Q. What do you call a Lawyer on the bottom of the ocean?
A. A good start.
 |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Actually, this might surprise you, but I hate the bastards. I work for myself in the wilds of the global market, and hate any constraints on what I do, most of all constraints handed down by some overgeneralising bureaucratic organisation.
But you have to balance your personal aversion with empirical reality. Real wages track both the rise and fall of union participation, hence I place them in the necessary evil column.
As ever, I reckon Keating had it right when he said something like the problem isn't unions, it's that the bastards don't do their jobs very well.
In a non-free market where capital, power and plain old dumb national borders cause distortions, you have no choice but to counter power. It's the old necessary force argument; you have to stop the teenager stealing your car, but you don't have to pull a shotgun out and blow his head off (unless you're in Texas). In this instance, you have to stop the bastards amassing power at the top, imaging they're indispensible society creators who deserve more than the immoral peasants, and driving wages below that necessary to sustain a decent society and healthy, meaningful life. But you don't have to become a Stalinist in order to maintain that balance.
Opposing unions per se is ultimately either a case of outright support for unfettered elite authority and power, or a blind fundamentalism based on an imaginary free market that doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is accept the necessity of the bastards and try to reform them for the better without neutering the critical counter force to elite power they provide. |
Who are you and what did you do with Ptiddy? |
Now I've had a bit of time to consider I'd like to add a couple of points. I'm sure they'll meet with open derision from some but DILLGAF.
FWIW I don't hate unions and I don't want them forced out or removed. I do think they're largely irrelevant these days and that, in the main, their focus is all wrong. As a generalisation they've lost sight of their roots.
Unions should be there to look after the interests of working people. Not to play politics, be a stepping stone into politics or provide opportunities for people with the morals of a sewer rat to obtain wealth and power far above what they'd be able to achieve in any real job.
The true believers, the large number of people who work in the union movement for low pay and long hours, must cry themselves to sleep at night when they see what's going on.
What I'd like to see happen is this.
1. Do the royal commission, if it flushes out some of the rats and gives the system an enema, great. If it achieves nothing it will have put the crooks on notice. That's an achievement in itself.
2. Remove some of the legislative barriers that give them monopoly rights and make them compete so the working person has other options. Some things have been retained from Howards legislation like the ability of individuals to appoint bargaining agents other than the union when negotiating enterprise agreements, and the freedom of association laws which prevent "no ticket no start" and also prevent discriminating against union members.
Fair Work Australia (and it's previous incarnation as the Industrial Relations Commission) are unlike a court of law in that you don't need to be a lawyer to represent someone, you can be represented by a friend, a union organiser, or an industrial advocate (a growing business). These things are good but IMO not enough.
The Right of entry laws introduced by Howard were diluted by Krudd but still workable and then were further diluted by Gillard with wording that was blatantly written by the ACTU. They need IMO to be re-written to provide for representatives other than unions and by someone who fixated on a manufacturing or construction environment and can word something workable and realistic.
Grievance procedures that enshrine the role of unions in EBA's should be illegal and employees should be free to choose their own representative.
Basically, with the legislative safeguards in place and the changing of the workforce, people have clearly voted. I cbf looking up the data but only something like 20% of employees are actually union members and this figure is inflated by the CFMEU practice of requiring construction companies to buy union memberships for non union contractors.
So in essence, give them a shake up, weed out the bad apples and climbers, get people working for unions who actually believe in what they do and make them relevant and focused on their roots by making them compete against other alternatives by removing their monopoly status.
IMO, everyone benefits from that scenario except the bloodsuckers currently milking the system.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I was doing some work for a labour hire company that was contracted by another mob to install office furniture and partitions in a council office that was under construction. This was meant to be 1 day of loading/unloading work but the guys liked the cut of my jib and asked me to stay on for the week to help them. Keep in mind I'm a contractor, of a contractor of a contractor. The union guy bales me up and demands I join up to keep working. I just told him this is 3 days of work, might be my only 3 days of work for months and there's no way I can pay a yearly union fee (or 6 months, can't remember). Once called on his bullshit, he said as long as I was just 'moving things' then I was fine. Was the most obvious bully ever who gave up when I didn't piss my pants. Made me wonder how many barely employed labourers just gave in and paid more than they earned for the joy of working for the union. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | ^Actually, this might surprise you, but I hate the bastards. I work for myself in the wilds of the global market, and hate any constraints on what I do, most of all constraints handed down by some overgeneralising bureaucratic organisation.
But you have to balance your personal aversion with empirical reality. Real wages track both the rise and fall of union participation, hence I place them in the necessary evil column.
As ever, I reckon Keating had it right when he said something like the problem isn't unions, it's that the bastards don't do their jobs very well.
In a non-free market where capital, power and plain old dumb national borders cause distortions, you have no choice but to counter power. It's the old necessary force argument; you have to stop the teenager stealing your car, but you don't have to pull a shotgun out and blow his head off (unless you're in Texas). In this instance, you have to stop the bastards amassing power at the top, imaging they're indispensible society creators who deserve more than the immoral peasants, and driving wages below that necessary to sustain a decent society and healthy, meaningful life. But you don't have to become a Stalinist in order to maintain that balance.
Opposing unions per se is ultimately either a case of outright support for unfettered elite authority and power, or a blind fundamentalism based on an imaginary free market that doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is accept the necessity of the bastards and try to reform them for the better without neutering the critical counter force to elite power they provide. |
Who are you and what did you do with Ptiddy? |
.......
IMO, everyone benefits from that scenario except the bloodsuckers currently milking the system. |
and one might add a little group called employees. Carry on then...
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I was doing some work for a labour hire company that was contracted by another mob to install office furniture and partitions in a council office that was under construction. This was meant to be 1 day of loading/unloading work but the guys liked the cut of my jib and asked me to stay on for the week to help them. Keep in mind I'm a contractor, of a contractor of a contractor. The union guy bales me up and demands I join up to keep working. I just told him this is 3 days of work, might be my only 3 days of work for months and there's no way I can pay a yearly union fee (or 6 months, can't remember). Once called on his bullshit, he said as long as I was just 'moving things' then I was fine. Was the most obvious bully ever who gave up when I didn't piss my pants. Made me wonder how many barely employed labourers just gave in and paid more than they earned for the joy of working for the union. |
They're the scum bags I'm referring to.
I've never had that face to face but I had a conversation with one like that when I used to work for Telstra.
Construction site at the docklands, Telstra Tech was sent in to do some cabling work. That's not even a contractor of a contractor, that's a total 3rd party. The douche nozzle manning the gate (getting paid full time wages by the company to do his union role  ) wouldn't let the tech in unless he proved he was a union member. He retreated, rang his manager, manager rang me, I rang the douche nozzle.
He explained (in his limited vocabulary) what his issue was.
I reminded him that he was acting illegally and that he could not discriminate against letting a person on site based on their union membership.
After some back and forth, his trump card was, "well if he comes in, I'll find a health and safety issue and shut the site down for days and cost the company millions".
After I hung up and some colleagues convinced me that it wasn't a great idea to get a taxi to the site and personally throw that douche nozzle into a concrete pour, I spoke to the manager and he found another tech who was a union member to go and do the job.
$$%^%%$ ridiculous that they have been able to get away with this shit for so long.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | I spoke to the manager and he found another tech who was a union member to go and do the job. |
Was that so hard and why can I ask wasn't that checked in the first place? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | I spoke to the manager and he found another tech who was a union member to go and do the job. |
Was that so hard and why can I ask wasn't that checked in the first place? |
Ummmm because it's illegal to discriminate on grounds of union affiliation? The tech should have been allowed on site. Period. Whether or not he was a union member should have been (legally) totally $$%^%%$ irrelevant.
Also, the manager didn't know (or care) which of the employees were union members, which is as it should be.
If you can't see the problem in that story you are part of the problem.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | 1061 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | I spoke to the manager and he found another tech who was a union member to go and do the job. |
Was that so hard and why can I ask wasn't that checked in the first place? |
Ummmm because it's illegal to discriminate on grounds of union affiliation? The tech should have been allowed on site. Period. Whether or not he was a union member should have been (legally) totally $$%^%%$ irrelevant.
Also, the manager didn't know (or care) which of the employees were union members, which is as it should be.
If you can't see the problem in that story you are part of the problem. |
Don't get me wrong I see the issue but I also see a person(manager) more interested in conflict with the union than getting the job done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
