 |
|
|
| 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: |  |
|
WTF does her contract of employment have to do with the cost of the trip? She was taken on the trip as the partner of a Government minister while on leave from work? She didn't pay for it, the tax payer did.
Try following your own advice | Quote: | | Read; comprehend; assess; post. It's a trusty sequence. |
Her level of remuneration is actually irrelevant. The main issues in the situation are:
1. The cost for a 10 day trip is exorbitant.
2. Should the tax payer pay for politicians partners to accompany them on "fact finding" exercises
3. As an ABC journalist did she follow the proper protocols in advising her employer that she was going on the trip.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | When I go away for work, my company does not pay for my wife 's airfares, meals or accommodation. If I want her to come, I have to pay for her airfares, meals and any upgrade in accommodation if required.
If Combet, or any other politician, Labor, Liberal, Green or whatever, why should the public pay for them to take their partners when they are away for work? |
What does your contract say? She is not a standard worker in the class of some standard form of employ. If her contract allows for it, Combet's identity has nothing to do with it at all whatsoever.
She's in the upper-income contract category of executives and special talent (newsreaders, entertainers, personalities, etc.). In that class, such an arrangement is very often part of contractual salary and conditions packages. As someone who has helped negotiate many such contracts between Korean and overseas companies, I can see the beat-up efforts in two seconds.
Now, as I haven't seen her contract I don't know if she has breached any conditions. As stated, if she has she deserves to be dealt with accordingly.
But if she hasn't breached any conditions, what the heck has that got to do with us? Or you don't believe in contract law anymore?
And if you don't like her salary, benefits package and conditions, you've got three choices: Set her salary in advance, tax her salary accordingly, or employ 3rd-year university students to do the job for the nation. |
Guess you would look at this differently if it was a Liberal politician.
My point is simple, Labor, Liberal or Green if you want to take your spouse pay for it yourself. Yes I am sure that it is within parliamentary guidelines, but the age of entitlement is over. Everyone needs to make sacrifices, including politicians. Time for the politicians to change the rules and lead by example with the sacrifice they are asking us. |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Half the LNP took tax-payer funded trips to India to celebrate a friend of Gina Reinhardt's wedding!
Abbott claims tax payer funded travel to air his budgie smugglers where-ever the weathers fine.
FMD some of you people are one eyed! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stui, if that's the case, the egg on face re. reading comprehension is mine. The shame of very vocal and premature schadenfreude worn accordingly.
However, I still addressed the right topic of Swoop's post, which was clearly about cost.
Yes, I thought he accompanied her. But the contract issue is still identical, isn't it?
On her side, they claim even in the article her contract wasn't breached. Is that true? If so, no issue on her or the ABC side. (Not enough info in the article).
On his contract, taking partners is not an uncommon contract condition. Was he on a contract comparable to his line of work? Would a commercial entity pay him much the same for his role with similar conditions? He was Climate Change Secretary and then Minister, wasn't he. If so, what's so exorbitant about that?
Some people are apparently unaware of commercial executive salary packages. The identity of his partner is irrelevant.
Please clarify with more information because I simply can't see the problem.
_________________
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
Last edited by pietillidie on Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | When I go away for work, my company does not pay for my wife 's airfares, meals or accommodation. If I want her to come, I have to pay for her airfares, meals and any upgrade in accommodation if required.
If Combet, or any other politician, Labor, Liberal, Green or whatever, why should the public pay for them to take their partners when they are away for work? |
What does your contract say? She is not a standard worker in the class of some standard form of employ. If her contract allows for it, Combet's identity has nothing to do with it at all whatsoever.
She's in the upper-income contract category of executives and special talent (newsreaders, entertainers, personalities, etc.). In that class, such an arrangement is very often part of contractual salary and conditions packages. As someone who has helped negotiate many such contracts between Korean and overseas companies, I can see the beat-up efforts in two seconds.
Now, as I haven't seen her contract I don't know if she has breached any conditions. As stated, if she has she deserves to be dealt with accordingly.
But if she hasn't breached any conditions, what the heck has that got to do with us? Or you don't believe in contract law anymore?
And if you don't like her salary, benefits package and conditions, you've got three choices: Set her salary in advance, tax her salary accordingly, or employ 3rd-year university students to do the job for the nation. |
Guess you would look at this differently if it was a Liberal politician.
My point is simple, Labor, Liberal or Green if you want to take your spouse pay for it yourself. Yes I am sure that it is within parliamentary guidelines, but the age of entitlement is over. Everyone needs to make sacrifices, including politicians. Time for the politicians to change the rules and lead by example with the sacrifice they are asking us. |
Except "the Age of Entitlement" is an imaginary fairytale based on imaginary economics. Australia simply doesn't have a debt problem and no reputable economist or economic body would claim as much.
This is about competitive commercial standards. Who aside from complete ideological nutters would want to become a politician if they can't even build a high-level career around it?
Abbott, on the other hand, made a far more serious error with his failed declarations, particularly given the role he was seeking.
This is more Glib hysteria manipulating the anger of a disgruntled working class they work tirelessly to drive into the dirt, aided by a compliant Liberal-lite ALP.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm reasonably aware of commercial executive salary packages, but again that would be largely irrelevant to this situation. He was a government minister, it was a taxpayer funded trip, he took his partner as was his right. Her remuneration arrangements are irrelevant.
The main issue is the cost. No allegation of fraud, just a question of how the hell do you justify that amount of money? I don't reckon I could spend $72k on a 10 day trip with a partner unless I was paying the partner by the hour.
3.14etc, if some libs managed to wangle tax payer funded trips to india to a wedding, I'll bet they didn't cost as much as this one.
For mine, these "fact finding" trips have been viewed for years as a "perk of office" for Pollies of all flavours, and scrutiny on it should be tightened up severely, as should what constitutes "work related expenses" when claiming reimbursement for travel and accommodation.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I'm reasonably aware of commercial executive salary packages, but again that would be largely irrelevant to this situation. He was a government minister, it was a taxpayer funded trip, he took his partner as was his right. Her remuneration arrangements are irrelevant.
The main issue is the cost. No allegation of fraud, just a question of how the hell do you justify that amount of money? I don't reckon I could spend $72k on a 10 day trip with a partner unless I was paying the partner by the hour. |
They were fraternising with top ministers around the world; that's precisely parallel to high-end executive business, and those expenses are very plausible in that context (I'm not saying they actually were justified, because we don't have the details to know that). Audit them by all means and deal with them accordingly, but the number doesn't surprise me for a high-level trip.
Moreover, many of these perqs function as indirect components of remuneration, so they have to be looked at in the light of comparable executive packages.
I'm very happy to pursue that line of inquiry, too, but I don't think that's what the tabloids have in mind.
And if what they've done is unethical or illegal in any way, what does that say about what Abbott did?
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | An ABC newsreader gets paid $320k pa? |
I expect it's a fair bit less than what commercial newsreaders get. |
Just on that point, I expect you're correct. Keep in mind though that the ABC is a public sector organisation, even as a corporation, whereas the others are privately owned. The ABC has an EBA with the CPSU covering their employees (pleasure to read one written sensibly unlike the ones in Health)
Their EBA salary rates only go up to max $100k, but it contains provisions to build a salary package, so I'd suggest she would actually be on a common law agreement underpinned by the EBA. Interesting they pay less than $90k for an executive producer on Radio Australia. http://careers.abc.net.au/caw/en/job/494204/executive-producer-ra-mornings
I'm not sure about 9's EBA but I'll bet the base rates would be similar to those in the ABC EBA, then they pay above the EBA depending on how much they like the employee and how good they are. The key differences would be they'd have greater flexibility and more money.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | WTF does her contract of employment have to do with the cost of the trip?
Her level of remuneration is actually irrelevant. The main issues in the situation are:
1. The cost for a 10 day trip is exorbitant.
2. Should the tax payer pay for politicians partners to accompany them on "fact finding" exercises
3. As an ABC journalist did she follow the proper protocols in advising her employer that she was going on the trip. |
1. Wot does the cost of the trip have to do with anything?
Regardless of which side of politics they come from, any government employee or MP faces those same charges...
If you have an issue with it take it up with the airlines.
2. Well every politician is entitled to his bring his or her partner.
If you have an issue with that take it up with the mad mock.
3. She was on annual leave ffs.
Do you tell your employer what you plan to do every time your on leave or is it none of their business?
"If" she hadn't been on leave and charged the ABC for the air-fare she'd be in trouble but that didn't happen, so guess what?
.. It's just another grubby little union/ABC bashing non-story from that non-news paper the Daily Tells-lies... |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If he was truly over there for work then why the need for a partner (not even his wife) in the first place?
It was for only for 10 days after all and he's meant to be busy working(sarcasm).
If she was to go then they should have paid for her portion.
No this is nothing but a tax payer funded holiday, both sides do it and pretending it's anything other than that is a joke.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 3.14159 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | WTF does her contract of employment have to do with the cost of the trip?
Her level of remuneration is actually irrelevant. The main issues in the situation are:
1. The cost for a 10 day trip is exorbitant.
2. Should the tax payer pay for politicians partners to accompany them on "fact finding" exercises
3. As an ABC journalist did she follow the proper protocols in advising her employer that she was going on the trip. |
1. Wot does the cost of the trip have to do with anything?
Regardless of which side of politics they come from, any government employee or MP faces those same charges...
If you have an issue with it take it up with the airlines. |
No, the cost for 2 return flights and accommodation is ridiculous. and that's the main point.
| Quote: |
2. Well every politician is entitled to his bring his or her partner.
If you have an issue with that take it up with the mad mock.
|
Should labor have changed it while they were in charge? Someone should.
| Quote: |
3. She was on annual leave ffs.
Do you tell your employer what you plan to do every time your on leave or is it none of their business?
|
I'm not a TV reporter but I do work in the public sector and am covered by similar conflict of interest and reporting of gratuities arrangements as politicians and ABC employees are. So, if I was rooting the health minister and was being taken off on a 10 day holiday disguised as a fact finding mission at tax payers expense, damn right I'd be telling my employer before I went.
| Quote: |
"If" she hadn't been on leave and charged the ABC for the air-fare she'd be in trouble but that didn't happen, so guess what?
.. It's just another grubby little union/ABC bashing non-story from that non-news paper the Daily Tells-lies... |
_________________
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: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | If he was truly over there for work then why the need for a partner (not even his wife) in the first place?
It was for only for 10 days after all and he's meant to be busy working(sarcasm).
If she was to go then they should have paid for her portion.
No this is nothing but a tax payer funded holiday, both sides do it and pretending it's anything other than that is a joke. |
But can was to go then they should paid for her portion ever happen? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | If he was truly over there for work then why the need for a partner (not even his wife) in the first place?
It was for only for 10 days after all and he's meant to be busy working(sarcasm).
If she was to go then they should have paid for her portion.
No this is nothing but a tax payer funded holiday, both sides do it and pretending it's anything other than that is a joke. |
That's a nonsense far left argument. At executive and senior level, people always take packages based on total remuneration and benefits. Once satisfied with that, he takes the job. What sort of unqualified fool do you want meeting high-level ministers around the world negotiating treaties which impact billions of lives and billions of dollars locally?
No one, from tedious and demanding roles such as social workers, childcare employees to teachers, lecturers and international treaty negotiators should be forced to take worse packages than their peers in comparable roles. That is an unethical abuse of people trying to get things done for the country and shows contempt for the importance of government and democracy.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So what was the cost of the LNP's Bollywood trip?
The air-fares were the similar (except there was a lot more of them), Hotels would be cheaper because of the bulk booking...(who paid for the wedding gifts btw? I'm guessing us)
Gina was there as the host and what did she get out of it?
A 6 billion dollar tax wind-fall and right to bring as many low-paid OS workers as she pleases.
We are told "hard decisions need to made, we have to share the load but they piss $billions out the window and all for the cost of a Bollywood wedding!
Is this News worthy? Barely according to this paper yet it runs crap like this...
...a story is about a reporter who, in the Daily Huns opine did something that "they"consider wrong but no one is quite sure what wrong has been done except that it was done by an ABC reporter, in a de facto relationship, with a Union leader and a tax dollar is involved but not in anyway that's against the rules or currently not enjoyed by ALL polliticans so they aren't calling for an enquiry just outraged howling at the moon!
So tell me?
is this grubby little smear piece worthy of media coverage in this hysterical and aggressive way?
What is the REAL cost of wroughting the tax dollar?
Do you want a Royal Commission into this sort of behaviour?
I sure as hell do! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Don't need a royal commission, a very simple tightening up and clarification of the rules would do nicely.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
