Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451591727 Message started by Sir Crook on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am

Title: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Sir Crook on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am

Bill Shorten takes break from leave to tweet 'bring it on' as union battle looms

Date
January 1, 2016
Sydney Morning Herald

Labor leader Bill Shorten has responded to Malcolm Turnbull's vow to fight an election on trade union reform, taking to Twitter to declare, "Bring it on". :-?

After the release of the trade union royal commission's final report on Wednesday, Mr Turnbull flagged major reforms to union governance and said he would make it an election issue if the Senate blocked new laws.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says he is happy to take on the government over workplace relations.

On Thursday Mr Shorten, who is on leave and did not front the media on Wednesday, tweeted: "If Mr Turnbull and his Liberals want to fight an election on industrial relations, bring it on. We won on WorkChoices & we'll win again."

He followed by adding: "Labor will always fight for workers, decent pay & conditions. Mr Turnbull & his Liberals will fight for big business & to cut penalty rates." :(

In a separate statement sent to Fairfax Media, Mr Shorten said he would "welcome any day of the week" Australian voters stacking up his record against Mr Turnbull's on workplace relations.

Mr Shorten said the government was using the royal commission's report as "a smokescreen for its full-scale attack on penalty rates". :(

He was referring to a Productivity Commission paper released before Christmas that found penalty rates for Sunday work should be dropped to the same rate as Saturday penalties.

Mr Shorten accused the government of having "a desire to destroy the ability of unions to effectively represent workers, making it easier to rip away pay and conditions like penalty rates". :(

Mr Turnbull repeatedly called on Mr Shorten to back the government's reforms to union governance, which will be based heavily on 79 recommendations by royal commissioner Dyson Heydon.

Mr Heydon's report concluded that the union movement was riddled with "widespread" and "deep-seated" misconduct.

"It would be utterly naive to think that what has been uncovered is anything other than the small tip of an enormous iceberg," his report states.

Mr Turnbull said Mr Heydon's report was a "watershed" moment for Labor and for unions, stressing that union members would be the biggest beneficiaries of reform.

The government will also reintroduce legislation to create an independent union watchdog similar to corporate regulator the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and try to re-establish a workplace relations regulator for the building and construction industry.

Labor has its own proposals for union reform, including giving ASIC the power to deal with the most serious transgressions by unions, but the government has rejected these.

On Wednesday Mr Turnbull, when asked how hard he was willing to fight for reforms, said: "We are willing to fight an election on this … If we cannot get the passage of this legislation through the Senate, then in one form or another it will be a major issue at the next election."

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Armchair_Politician on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:59am

Quote:

Labor leader Bill Shorten has responded to Malcolm Turnbull's vow to fight an election on trade union reform, taking to Twitter to declare, "Bring it on".

What a doofus! May as well call the election now because if that's what Bull Shitten really thinks, he hasn't got a hope. ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Sir Crook on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:17am

Mr Turnbull, why wont you support low income workers weekend penalty rates. :(

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Phemanderac on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:03am

Mr Turnbull may need to worry more about workers response than Mr Shorten's...

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by macman on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am

I would say Mr Shorten would be very happy to fight an election campaign on WORKCHOICES because that is what this pack of rsoles are trying to bring back! Nothing has changed with this lot except instead of a nasty dick%ead we now have a waffling dick%ead. BRING IT ON!

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Armchair_Politician on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by the good ole boys on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am

What choice does Shorten have but to cry "witch hund"? He can't even mention reform given the unions own him because of his shady past.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

HILARIOUS>. I thin k its funny hes popped his little head up at long last...

havent seen him since he broke the law driving using a phone.... ::) ::) ::)..

poor dear but his beloved UNION under threat of being made to be more HONEST.. and boy...

out he comes in full gorilla suit..

trouble is he thinks we are all rusted on unionists....

I think there might be a few HSU members who will gladly give Bill the BIG FINGER

and I think his dealing with those companies that shortchanged penalty rates to give $300.000 to the unions.......may have left a bad taste in a few mouths...

sadly Bob not all union members are like those you see at the top.. bullies and blackmailers..

no they are they are not.. when it comes to the election you have no control over them...mercifully...

but I am sure the cfmeu has a few dollars aside to back you with.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:15am

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

What choice does Shorten have but to cry "witch hund"? He can't even mention reform given the unions own him because of his shady past.

its not all in the past... he is still doing deals with them .. to get them to back him up.. he knows he is on very rocky ground with the electorate.....a puppet PM... just what we need.. >:( >:(

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Kat on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:18am

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:15am:

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

What choice does Shorten have but to cry "witch hund"? He can't even mention reform given the unions own him because of his shady past.

its not all in the past... he is still doing deals with them .. to get them to back him up.. he knows he is on very rocky ground with the electorate.....a puppet PM... just what we need.. >:( >:(

It's just what we've GOT - but beholden to big-business and multi-nationals.

I know which I prefer.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Armchair_Politician on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:26am

Kat wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:18am:

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:15am:

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

What choice does Shorten have but to cry "witch hund"? He can't even mention reform given the unions own him because of his shady past.

its not all in the past... he is still doing deals with them .. to get them to back him up.. he knows he is on very rocky ground with the electorate.....a puppet PM... just what we need.. >:( >:(

It's just what we've GOT - but beholden to big-business and multi-nationals.

I know which I prefer.

Yes - you much prefer union scum, corruption, nepotism, rorting and standover thugs.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:02am

Labor should look at what Turnbull comes up with before deciding - some of the recommendations look ok but some don't.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by aussie100percent on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:08am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:59am:

Quote:

Labor leader Bill Shorten has responded to Malcolm Turnbull's vow to fight an election on trade union reform, taking to Twitter to declare, "Bring it on".

What a doofus! May as well call the election now because if that's what Bull Shitten really thinks, he hasn't got a hope. ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D "BRING IT ON" ;D ;D ;D ;D F/CHILD

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by the good ole boys on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:17pm

I'm going to cry "witch hunt" the next time i get a speeding fine.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:19pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

yeah right ... and you probably believe that too ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:21pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:02am:

Labor should look at what Turnbull comes up with before deciding - some of the recommendations look ok but some don't.

can you tell us what your disagree with... I havent read any of them so far..

it wont make the slightest difference anyway... its far to well entrenched.. and as we know the Unions are afraid of no one...

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:26pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

yeah right ... and you probably believe that tooÂ ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yet I don't see a reference to support your contention.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:34pm

And then of course there is this -

'Bob Hawke has called on the Labor Party and the ACTU to consider cutting ties with the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, it's been reported.

Paul Keating, meanwhile, has warned that trade union influence inside the party must be reduced.

The two former Labor prime ministers have told The Australian newspaper they are appalled by the evidence of systemic union corruption.

"The unions need to clean up their act and get their house in order ... It just is appalling. I mean, I wouldnt tolerate it," Mr Hawke said.

Asked if the CFMEU should still be affiliated to the ACTU and Labor, Mr Hawke, who was ACTU president throughout the 1970s, said: "Well, I would be very happy for them not to be at this stage."

Mr Keating said there should be a rethink of party-union connections.

"The preponderance of trade union weight in the Labor Party's councils is now too large, given organised labour's influence in the current and contemporary labour market," he said.'

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/01/01/hawke-and-keating-promote-union-rethink.html?cid=BP_RSS_top-stories_2_hawke-and-keating-promote-union-rethink_010116#sthash.ssgY3nyB.dpuf

But BS (Bill Shorten) needs them.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:14pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:34pm:

its extremely sad... for the rusted on....

thankfully he will never be PM.. thats my prediction for 2016...

anyone agree with that????..

or are the rusted on laughing their heads off..

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think its about the only laugh they will get this year...... ;) ;)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:17pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

yeah right ... and you probably believe that tooÂ ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yet I don't see a reference to support your contention.

you can start with all the talk of cutting penalty rates, the return of the ACCC and eroding unions powers in the workplace. ...

oh wait, you thought that if they didn't name their policy 'workcover' no one would notice?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:01pm

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:17pm:

I'm going to cry "witch hunt" the next time i get a speeding fine.

Won't matter they will still suspend your broom license.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by macman on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:20pm

While we are having these union reforms to weed out union corruption,what little exists,I am sure malcolm would be happy to look at the introduction of a federal ICAC to sort out the political rorts carried out by the libs as was exposed by the NSW ICAC. Would be very interesting to see a proper investigation of political donations and politicians travel allowances to see just what these arseholes on both sides get away with.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:17pm:

you can start with all the talk of cutting penalty rates,

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

'Whatever the economics, politically, this issue is explosive, which is why Malcolm Turnbull will tread cautiously. The government desperately wants to circumvent another Labor-ACTU election campaign of the anti-Work Choices ilk, and is stressing no change for nurses, teachers and emergency service workers. Further, it says any future decision on hospitality and retail Sunday rates will be taken by the independent Fair Work Commission - i.e. at arm's length from the government.'

On the minus side, these advocates have no direct skin in the game and thus can be said to have no idea what they're talking about when contemplating slashing someone's pay. This is the guts of the reality-for-people-at-the-bottom-of-the-income-scale justification. It is particularly compelling for those who rely on Sunday penalties to make ends meet.

The first argument assumes that if more cafes are open on a Sunday, then more coffee and croissants will be sold. Maybe that's true but it seems an optimistic view of the elasticity of cafe demand. '

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-tricky-politics-of-sunday-penalty-rates-for-malcolm-turnbull-20151221-glshu4.html#ixzz3vyNEwGOt

I tend to agree that there won't be more lattes, croissants sold with a drop in penalty rates. That it is not ideal to drop rates for the poorest in the community.

Another Fairfax publication.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:28pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:17pm:

you can start with all the talk of cutting penalty rates,

The Libs asked for the productivity commission to do the investigation and simultaneously told the business community to fight hard for what it wanted.

There was never any justifiable reason for penalty rates to have been included in the process but it was due to the pressure produced as a result of the Liberals actions.

The Liberals set up the framework and then set up the driving agenda while trying to appear to be a disinterested party. Almost the same as the GST process, they are behind it but want a big dose of plausible deniability.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:03pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:28pm:

The Libs asked for the productivity commission to do the investigation and simultaneously told the business community to fight hard for what it wanted.

Did they ask the Productivity to come to their (apparently, according to you) preferred conclusion? Are you further saying that the Australian Government coerced an independent body?

You should take your findings including proof to the AFP.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:15pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:28pm:

The Libs asked for the productivity commission to do the investigation and simultaneously told the business community to fight hard for what it wanted.

they dont need Proof to come to their conclusions lee...

their hatred carries them forth..

I was hoping dna would have come along with his list of No Nos by now.. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:28pm

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:13am:

HILARIOUS>. I thin k its funny hes popped his little head up at long last...

havent seen him since he broke the law driving using a phone.... ::) ::) ::)..

Did you miss this, cods?

Quote:

Bill Shorten takes break from leave

Shorten has been away from the media because he is ON LEAVE. Many of our politicians take a break at this time of the year (but not all at once, of course). For that reason, I consider it to be poor form to criticise any of our politicians for being absent at this time of the year (between Christmas and Australia Day) when many people are on leave. Politicians need a break too.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:02am:

Labor should look at what Turnbull comes up with before deciding - some of the recommendations look ok but some don't.

can you tell us what your disagree with... I havent read any of them so far..

How about this one?

Quote:

Recommendation 60
For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

Parliament passing specific legislation against particular individuals? That would be the greatest overreach of parliamentary power against specific people since Menzies tried to ban the Communist Party (this attempt failed because it was unconstitutional). Once someone is named in this way, it's not possible to remove one's name except by hoping the legislation is repealed. That's a gross breach of the separation of powers. Such power against individuals belongs to the courts, not the Parliament.

If we're going to have any legislation like this, it should be framed in general terms. For example, the legislation could specify that anyone with criminal convictions could not be a senior officer in a union, a director of a company, etc. As long as the legislation was even-handed - the same rules applied to unions, companies, churches, political parties or any other organisation - it would be reasonable and stand constitutional scrutiny.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:54pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

it's not limited to the productivity commission

In March, Mr Hawke was one of a group of Liberal MPs, including fellow western Sydney backbencher Craig Laundy and Victorian MP Dan Tehan, who called for a debate on cutting penalty rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/backbencher-calls-for-action-on-youth-unemployment/5719194

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:56pm

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:15pm:

they dont need Proof to come to their conclusions lee...

their hatred carries them forth..

;D ;D ;D

says the person who still makes dumb claims against Gillard and Shorten despite an RC that cleared them of any wrongdoing

:D :D :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:04pm

Or these?

Quote:

Recommendation 69
A new provision be inserted into Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which requires permit holders to complete approved right of entry training annually in relation to the rights and responsibilities of permit holder. This recommendation is reflected in the model legislative provisions in Appendix 1 to Volume 5 of the Report.

Quote:

Recommendation 71
Section 510 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended so that it requires a right of entry permit to be suspended or revoked by the Fair Work Commission if:
(a)
an official has failed to complete approved training; or
(b)
a new permit qualification matter has arisen which means the official is no longer a fit and proper person.

Training once may be reasonable, but annual training? That's a bloody joke. That's more frequent than first-aid refresher courses that are required every two years because people's lives could be at risk. Annual training is like killing a spider with a rocket launcher. It's massive overkill. It is completely unnecessary and adds unreasonable costs. Why is annual training being considered? For one reason only - to put as many barriers to unions doing their work as the government think they can get away with.

It's simply over-regulation.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

So backbenchers make Liberal Party policy. Who knew?

Like Labor backbenchers make Labor Party policy?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:01pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

So backbenchers make Liberal Party policy. Who knew?

Like Labor backbenchers make Labor Party policy?

no ones made any policy .... YET.

the comment you seemed to object to was

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 3:17pm:

you can start with all the talk of cutting penalty rates

. .. now you're arguing that they are only talking? :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:42pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:28pm:

The Libs asked for the productivity commission to do the investigation and simultaneously told the business community to fight hard for what it wanted.

You must be a conservative supporter , you have poor comprehension skills.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:46pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:42pm:

You must be a conservative supporter , you have poor comprehension skills.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

I tend to agree that there won't be more lattes, croissants sold with a drop in penalty rates. That it is not ideal to drop rates for the poorest in the community.

Hmm, a conservative supporter who believes in the little man? Wouldn't you consider that a contradiction?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:48pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:01pm:

no ones made any policy .... YET.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:01pm:

. now you're arguing that they are only talking?

And you seem to agree that there is no policy. Strange eh?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:02pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:01pm:

no ones made any policy .... YET.

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:01pm:

. now you're arguing that they are only talking?

And you seem to agree that there is no policy. Strange eh?

that's funny, I don't recall ever saying that there was .... can you show me where I made such a claim so that I can withdraw it?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:12pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:56pm:

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:15pm:

they dont need Proof to come to their conclusions lee...

their hatred carries them forth..

;D ;D ;D

says the person who still makes dumb claims against Gillard and Shorten despite an RC that cleared them of any wrongdoing

:D :D :D

Flogging a dead horse with that one , if it exists in ones mind it exists , crazzzzzzzzzy :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:27pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

macman wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:17am:

There's been zero talk of anything remotely like WorkChoices. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a lie, will you?

So -0 we just don't name the beast... but then go ahead and pursue it?

Shows how little a Fascist like Turnbull is from a Fascist like Abbott... both serve their party and its policy thrusts....

Anyone want to argue again about who actually elects the PM?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:31pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

So backbenchers make Liberal Party policy. Who knew?

Like Labor backbenchers make Labor Party policy?

So..... (long meaningful pause)........ if the body entire of the elected party in government doesn't make policy........................................... who does?

Thank you for opening this question to the general public for scrutiny...

Oh - I know.... they only get a pre-selection BECAUSE they already adhere to the Party policy line!! As handed down by the faceless men (and the odd woman) who actually determine which way things will go.... very few, if any, of whom are elected.

Again we must thank you for raising this issue to the public consciousness......

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:33pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:02pm:

that's funny, I don't recall ever saying that there was .... can you show me where I made such a claim so that I can withdraw it?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 8:48pm:

And you seem to agree that there is no policy. Strange eh?

We agree there is no policy. Comprende?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:31pm:

So backbenchers make Liberal Party policy. Who knew?

Like Labor backbenchers make Labor Party policy?

So..... (long meaningful pause)........ if the body entire of the elected party in government doesn't make policy........................................... who does?

So sad to see that someone doesn't know the difference between backbenchers and the party room. Or perhaps backbenchers and Caucus? Depending on the flavour of Government.

You see ...Backbenchers (long meaningful pause) ... are not the body of the entire elected party in government. They are a subset. A portion.

So to answer your question - the party room or Caucus make policy - not backbenchers on their lonesome.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:43pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm:

it's a common tactic for the party room or caucus to use a back bencher to make public an idea so that they can see the publics reaction prior to doing anything. If you think one back bencher in the liberal party is the only person pushing for this, you're deluded.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:50pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:43pm:

No argument there. Now can you link yours? Backbencher to party room or Caucus?

Edit: I see on another thread Coalition voters are against dropping penalty rates. Based on what has been said so far; it is dead in the water. If in fact backbenchers were pushing the change for the party room to get a feel of community thoughts

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:13pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:31pm:

You miss my point... the backbenchers form a part of the elected body of the Party - in theory their vote should go towards determining policy. In fact, the opposite is true - they are constrained to vote along Party lines.. and the policies they vote on are not the result of the elected body of the Party, but are policy directions formulated by a combination of many bodies, all controlled by a relative few, the majority of whom are unelected.

Same occurs with Labor, thus making of our elected representatives just mouthpieces for a largely unelected group's policies, and thus giving the lie to democracy as the ruling issue here (and elsewhere).

Now come back with the content of 'caucus'........... at least 60% unelected...... on both 'sides'.

Do try not to obfuscate and don't do a Longy and attack the messenger of truth instead of discussing the issues.

Thhe highlighted section is not my comment - it was what I responded to. Kinda give a different slant, neh?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:16pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:31pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:54pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 4:45pm:

isn't that from the Productivity Commission? Not the Libs. just askin.

So backbenchers make Liberal Party policy. Who knew?

Like Labor backbenchers make Labor Party policy?

Your quote includes in my comment things not said by me but responded to by me...... I would prefer not to think that was a deliberate action to give a false impression of what I said.....here is the correct quoting for both...

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:16pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:13pm:

the backbenchers form a part of the elected body of the Party

Exactly. They don't formulate policy.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:20pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:16pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:13pm:

the backbenchers form a part of the elected body of the Party

Exactly. They don't formulate policy.

So .. we return to my original question...... Who Does (Qui Bono?)? And what basis do they have to determine national policy in a democracy?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:23pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 9:43pm:

I've already provided a link to a back bencher calling for cuts to penalty rates. Not sure what you are asking for now.

here, you want more ... this only took me 2 minutes to find. I'm sure there are more if you want to search some more

A Government backbencher, ACT Senator Zed Seselja says the Coalition should take a workplace relations policy to the next election which cuts Sunday penalty rates for workers in the hospitality, retail and entertainment sectors.

Former workplace relations minister Eric Abetz says the Fair Work Commission cannot ignore calls to reduce Sunday penalty rates, if as expected the Productivity Commission recommends the move on Monday.

I think it's to early yet to call it dead in the water ... the report has only recently come out. I'll suspect they'll put it on the backburner for now and revive it after the election

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:34pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:23pm:

A link between the backbench and the party room, but we both know it won't be found.

A Senator wants to take "work place relations to the next election? Not binding on anyone. May or may not happen.

Senator Abetz says Fair Work Commission can't ignore calls to reduce Sunday penalty rates. But then again the Fair Work Commission is an independent body and can ignore such calls.

So much huff and puff.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:43pm

So 'the party room' and not our elected representatives get to run the government?

Sounds awfully like an OOPS moment to me..... in terms of democracy......

So it follows that any self interest group (SIG) can determine government policy with or without reference to the people... and can 'spin' that policy any way they like?

Where are The People in all this?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:44pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:43pm:

So it follows that any self interest group (SIG) can determine government policy with or without reference to the people... and can 'spin' that policy any way they like?

Well the Greens try. ;)

Edit: We may not have democracy; but we have a fair simulation. That's what oppositions are for.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:46pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

So much huff and puff.

of course it's huff and puff .... what were you expecting? policy details?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:50pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:46pm:

of course it's huff and puff .... what were you expecting? policy details?
Posted by: lee Mark & Quote Quote

Nope; but a little substance to your fears.

So what is wrong with taking a work place relations policy to an election? Surely that is a good thing. BS thinks it absolutely fantastic.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:51pm

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:46pm:

of course it's huff and puff .... what were you expecting? policy details?
Posted by: lee Mark & Quote Quote

Nope; but a little substance to your fears.

So what is wrong with taking a work place relations policy to an election? Surely that is a good thing. BS thinks it absolutely fantastic.

my fears are based on the libs history .....

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:53pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:51pm:

my fears are based on the libs history .....

Ah - paranoid.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

On Thursday Mr Shorten, who is on leave and did not front the media on Wednesday, tweeted: "If Mr Turnbull and his Liberals want to fight an election on industrial relations, bring it on. We won on WorkChoices & we'll win again."

He followed by adding: "Labor will always fight for workers, decent pay & conditions. Mr Turnbull & his Liberals will fight for big business & to cut penalty rates." :(

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:29am

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:51pm:

my fears are based on the libs history .....

Ah - paranoid.

no, not paranoia, reality.

you probably claimed paranoia when we were telling you prior to the last election that abbott couldn't keep his promises of no cuts to anything and still reach a surplus, like he was claiming at the time ... :D :D :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

The royal commission was to look into the possibility of union corruption - in which endeavour it has signally failed.

It was not to 'about union corruption' - but rather to find out if there was any.. and the results are not worth the paper it is written on.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:44am

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:44pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:43pm:

So it follows that any self interest group (SIG) can determine government policy with or without reference to the people... and can 'spin' that policy any way they like?

Well the Greens try. ;)

Edit: We may not have democracy; but we have a fair simulation. That's what oppositions are for.

So, then - who exactly formulates policy? The elected representatives of the people, in whom such things are vested and in whom the people repose their trust in order to do best for all, or some amorphous group of self-interested individuals acting in concert to achieve an end that suits them alone?

Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws.

- John Adams.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:08am

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:23pm:

Senator Abetz says Fair Work Commission can't ignore calls to reduce Sunday penalty rates. But then again the Fair Work Commission is an independent body and can ignore such calls.

Yes they can and should especially considering that the justification used in the report is clearly flawed.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:15am

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:08am:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:23pm:

I believe penalty rates to be counter productive to margin growth and part of an outdated concept of labour supply.
In today's global market economy, penalty rates are outdated.

Australian employees no longer compete just with other Australian employees but with Asian, European and South American employees too.

In fact the admirable success of the Cameron Government employment stats have been centred around relaxing of the employment rules and penalty rate removals.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:21am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:15am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:08am:

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 10:23pm:

The old race to the bottom argument I see. $2 an hour and into the mines at 7 years of age.

Improved wages and conditions are the way forward, going back to positions of lower conditions is not going in this direction.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:33am

It's not a race to the bottom but it's about competing in a vastly different market economy now to the 1970s - where a lot of these concepts were born.

I spent a lot of time understanding and analysing our WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital on labour intensive projects.
Think of people as EPUs - Economic Production Units - then look at the variable cost into a specific project. This is what we do in the Global FP&A teams I run at corporate, compare EPUs and our workforce productivity metrics by country.

Australia for many companies like mine is just a land mass and a production line of people. I have zero loyalty to place or incentivise a project to continue in Australia or be switched to Canada, UK, Puerto Rico etc.
Australia needs to have laws and industrial relations which make it attractive.
One of its assets is educated workforce, ancillary services and transportation, security of country etc. so no it does not have to be a race to the bottom as you say.

But when it competes with like for like western countries such as the UK which does not have a very high superannuation cost in force, a much lower wage restriction, much more employer friendly rules on penalty rates - then Australia shoots itself in the foot.

The example is already there for you.
Ford pulled out of Australia citing high cost of labour - in the same month INCREASED production and took on more staff in Dagenham, Essex.

General Motors pulled out of Australia. They have recently increased the capacity of the plant in Bedfordshire.

Is this a coincidence or the fact that Australian labour (I'm sad to say it's true) is just too damn expensive?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Kat on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:44am

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

I'm sorry Kat I don't agree.
I've never been in a union, never needed to hide behind someone else to fight my own battles, sign my own work contracts.
I've never worked for a company that turns over less than $3bn per year, it's hardly an equal discussion.
But we have statute employment laws that aren't going anywhere and a market rate of employment pay.

Unions really aren't needed. They are dinosaurs out of place in today's world.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:50am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:33am:

It's not a race to the bottom but it's about competing in a vastly different market economy now to the 1970s - where a lot of these concepts were born.

I spent a lot of time understanding and analysing our WACC Weighted Average Cost of Capital on labour intensive projects.
Think of people as EPUs - Economic Production Units - then look at the variable cost into a specific project. This is what we do in the Global FP&A teams I run at corporate, compare EPUs and our workforce productivity metrics by country.

Australia for many companies like mine is just a land mass and a production line of people. I have zero loyalty to place or incentivise a project to continue in Australia or be switched to Canada, UK, Puerto Rico etc.
Australia needs to have laws and industrial relations which make it attractive.
One of its assets is educated workforce, ancillary services and transportation, security of country etc. so no it does not have to be a race to the bottom as you say.

But when it competes with like for like western countries such as the UK which does not have a very high superannuation cost in force, a much lower wage restriction, much more employer friendly rules on penalty rates - then Australia shoots itself in the foot.

General Motors pulled out of Australia. They have recently increased the capacity of the plant in Bedfordshire.
The example is already there for you.
Ford pulled out of Australia citing high cost of labour - in the same month INCREASED production and took on more staff in Dagenham, Essex.

Is this a coincidence or the fact that Australian labour (I'm sad to say it's true) is just too damn expensive?

It's not a race to the bottom but it's about competing in a vastly different market economy now to the 1970s - where a lot of these concepts were born.

You should not show in the first sentence that you have no idea what you are talking about, things like penalty rates go back about 60 or 70 years at least.

But when it competes with like for like western countries such as the UK which does not have a very high superannuation cost in force, a much lower wage restriction, much more employer friendly rules on penalty rates - then Australia shoots itself in the foot.

You say it isn't a race to the bottom and then point out how attractive the countries moving towards the bottom are competitively.

The example is already there for you.
Ford pulled out of Australia citing high cost of labour - in the same month INCREASED production and took on more staff in Dagenham, Essex.

Ford not only didn't not say that labor cost were a reason but specifically ruled it out, they talked about low turn over and other factors.

I suppose the Treasurer Joe Hockey telling them to get out or the Liberals removing $500 Million in industry subsidies by 2016 or a very high AUD at the time were not more genuine factors ?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:54am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:44am:

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

Your generous work contracts are based on and backed by the union negotiated results of normal workers. That position is the rock that you negotiations start from, undermining that position is undermining your own outcomes.

Yes penalty rates overtime and RDO's etc are all factored into the package you are offered.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:58am

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:54am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:44am:

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

Yes and that's all done and locked into statute.
Unions had their day.
Like the cassette player, we have all moved on now.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:03am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:54am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:44am:

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

Yes and that's all done and locked into statute.
Unions had their day.
Like the cassette player, we have all moved on now.

And you are not capable of understanding that rolling back things like penalty rates, overtime, hours worked etc all undermine the rock that your position is based on.

Unions are probably more relevant today than any time in the last 40 years because the attacks on employees are more real and more effective.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:04am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:54am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:44am:

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

Yes and that's all done and locked into statute.
Unions had their day.
Like the cassette player, we have all moved on now.

Like the cassette player, we have all moved on now

Removing penalty rates is going back pre 1950's - before the cassette player even.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:07am

It's not ATTACKS on employees it's about being competitive in a changing global market!!!
I work strongly within this field I understand it better than any.
In fact in the last few years I've earned more than ever before in incentives and bonuses based on these exact reallocation resource projects I refer!

It's not attacking employees but realigning their attraction to ensure employment remains within their grasp.
Countries not prepared to change will fail.

The Conservatives in the UK clearly understand this better.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:22am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:07am:

It's not ATTACKS on employees it's about being competitive in a changing global market!!!
I work strongly within this field I understand it better than any.
In fact in the last few years I've earned more than ever before in incentives and bonuses based on these exact reallocation resource projects I refer!

It's not attacking employees but realigning their attraction to ensure employment remains within their grasp.
Countries of prepared to change will fail.

The Conservatives in the UK clearly understand this better.

I work strongly within this field I understand it better than any.

Or you are too closely involved and have a skewed perspective.

It's not ATTACKS on employees it's about being competitive in a changing global market!!!

Where the only way to stay competitive is to continually spiral towards the bottom, the best option for employees is to not play your game at all.

The game is based on the fact that there will always be someone somewhere who will be willing to undercut your price.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:04am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:07am:

It's not ATTACKS on employees it's about being competitive in a changing global market!!!

trying to make Australia employees compete with Chinese and Indian wages IS an attack on employees. If your company wants to sell its products here, it uses Australian labor and pays Australian wages .. when they sell their product here for the same price they sell it in China, then you can start to ask for comparative wages.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 11:05am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 7:07am:

One day you'll understand that this "competitiveness" would also apply to YOUR salary. Are you willing to take an 80% to 90% pay cut next year to remain "competitive"?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 11:22am

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:29am:

you probably claimed paranoia when we were telling you prior to the last election that abbott couldn't keep his promises of no cuts to anything and still reach a surplus, like he was claiming at the time ..

Probably not. I've been around long enough to understand a few things -

a. All politicians lie. Especially at election time.

b. No political party is as bad as smeared by the opposition party.

c. You have to have a good scare campaign to get elected.

"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. "

Jean Giraudoux (29 October 1882 – 31 January 1944)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

Jackson's name appeared on the prosecution recommended list.

If it has failed then why was Jackson prosecuted?

If it's not worth the paper it's written on - certainly Thommo and Jackson disagree with you

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:16pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

The royal commission was to look into the possibility of union corruption - in which endeavour it has signally failed.

funniest thing I have read in a long time

It was not to 'about union corruption' - but rather to find out if there was any.. and the results are not worth the paper it is written on.

hilarious poor old grap he doesnt think over 20 people working for UNIONS are under investigation or being at least pointed in that direction by a ROYAL COMM is finding any Corruption within.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

its almost comical isnt it the way the lefties dodge the crisis in their set up..

labor is the unions..

the union is labor..

they are like Laurel and Hardy... one is no good without the other..

but they will never admit it....

I think its a hoot.. the more they defend the funnier it gets..

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:20pm

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 11:22am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:29am:

I remember reading somewhere.. that labor set Abbott up before the election.. they knew they couldnt win.. and they did stuff that would leave a massive hole for him to fill.....it may have had something to do with NDIS ... something that he couldnt back away from.. they of course were the only ones that also knew what state the finances were with the country...

didnt you notice how quiet swan went before the election.......

thats how much they care about the country...

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:20pm

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:16pm:

This is why Shorten's response was so hilarious

The Royal Commission talks about UNION CORRUPTION and recommendation on how to tackle UNION CORRUPTION

Turnbull ask Shorten/Labor/Union to take up the recommendation

Shorten's reply - this is about Workchoices ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Sir Crook on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:37pm

Workchoices. :o :o :o :o :o

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:25pm

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

Thomson and Jackson were in the spotlight before any 'royal commission'

"The Health Services Union expenses affair was an Australian political scandal that concerned criminal activities associated with the financial affairs of the Health Services Union of Australia (HSU), between 2006 and 2007; and the Health Services Union "east branch" (HSUeast) between 2006 and 2011.[12][13]

Following regulatory and administrative investigations, criminal trials and a subsequent appeal, on 15 December 2014 Craig Thomson, a former national secretary of the HSU and a former Labor politician, was found guilty in the Victorian County Court of thirteen charges of theft, and later convicted and fined A$25,000.[7][8] Other charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception were dismissed on appeal.[1]"

"Succeeding Thomson as general secretary of the HSU in January 2008, Kathy Jackson identified financial irregularities in the union's accounts and engaged external auditors to investigate." Hello - what part of 2008 do you NOT understand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Services_Union_expenses_affair#cite_note-ABC-2014-12-15-1

I know several of you have serious issues with english language and with reading - but try reading it.....

"In 2011 the Union Council of the HSUeast branch resolved to commence an investigation into the financial affairs of the branch; and sought counsel from the President of the New South Wales Bar Association to select an independent panel of experts to investigate:[37]

adequacy of governance arrangements and business practices of HSUeast;
access to financial and business related information for union members to ensure transparency and scrutiny;
policies and procedures and potential conflicts of interest for office bearers, or staff that hold directorships or shares/ownership in companies that supply goods to HSUeast;
policies around the use of HSUeast credit cards; and
other matters the panel deems appropriate."

What part of 2011 do you NOT understand - the time at which the Union itself launched action against wrongdoing?

Jackson is only on the 'to charge' list now because her Pussy Pass and Weasel Pass have both expired, and she is now being thrown to the wolves instead of being treated as the darling of the LNP.

(not that there's anything wrong with that).....

Jackson was already in the sights and tried to weasel out by turncoating to the royal commission.... the 'royal commission' even including Thomo and Jacko is nothing more than a puny attempt to pad out the 'evils' uncovered and make it look like the commission actually did something.

They were NOT charged as a result of any 'royal commission' - and so far the charges against other are few and most likely to fail, and the rest is just suggestions and innuendo.

Get a grip.... I know it's hard for some.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:01pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:25pm:

"Succeeding Thomson as general secretary of the HSU in January 2008
, Kathy Jackson identified financial irregularities in the union's accounts and engaged external auditors to investigate." Hello - what part of 2008 do you NOT understand?

What part of endemic union corruption don't you understand?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by aussie100percent on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:02pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:25pm:

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

Fateful trip to luxury Perth car dealer exposes TWU funds misappropriation

By Rebecca Turner

Updated 4 minutes ago

Proceedings at the Royal Commission
Photo: The trade union royal commission recommended Jim McGiveron and Richard Burton be referred to the Fair Work Commission. (AAP: Jeremy Piper, file photo)

Related Story: Further probe looms for union bosses who bought luxury 4WDs

Map: WA

It started with a fateful trip to a luxury car dealer in Perth three years ago and has resulted a damning

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm

Everybody applauds the pursuit of crooks - but please - let's keep with the realities... the 'royal commission' was a waste of money better spent on regulatory and investigatory bodies, and has a clear political intention.

"Proceedings at the Royal Commission
Photo: The trade union royal commission recommended Jim McGiveron and Richard Burton be referred to the Fair Work Commission. (AAP: Jeremy Piper, file photo)

Related Story: Further probe looms for union bosses who bought luxury 4WDs

Map: WA

It started with a fateful trip to a luxury car dealer in Perth three years ago and has resulted a damning "

Trouble with constant quoting is that the page gets too big to load... try again with link and full story.

I've long condemned the (ab) use of Other People's Money, an issue that crosses all boundaries where people have access to Other people's Money and feel the entitlement to use it for self. All these people - high Union officials, politicians, public servants etc feel they should be treated as royalty in return for their immense public service..... chopper flights..... VIP jets instead of a one night stop-over at full found in a class hotel... holidays ... cars... women.... more women.... maybe the odd bloke, who knows? Kiss tickets.... bike rides....

OPM lures many to their destruction..... ah - the moral decay....

On the other hand, I know Tony Sheldon of the TWU to be a man of integrity.... hope he stays that way and continues to watch over the industry with the highest mortality rate for workers......

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:22pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm:

So anything bad occurring to the left leaning parties will be deemed as "political intention"

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:05pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm:

So anything bad occurring to the left leaning parties will be deemed as "political intention"

No but anything specifically set up with political intent can not be ignored.

I hope that Labor respond in the same way preferably to a few businesses where Lib politicians have been involved.

I doubt any Australian business's integrity would survive the same type of scrutiny.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:44pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Jackson had admitted to her part before the RC was even announced ... we certainly didn't need to spend $100 million to nail Jackson :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 11:22am:

Probably not.

you're not sure? :D :D :D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:47pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:03am:

Mr Turnbull may need to worry more about workers response than Mr Shorten's...

you mean the 15% of the workforce that is in a union? that samr group of people who ahve seen how their money has been embezzled and spent on whores?

the more likely outcome is that it will increase the liberals vote.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:48pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm:

you're not sure?

You're the one with original 'probably'.

makes you 'probably' idiotic.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:48pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 2:16pm:

So anything bad occurring to the left leaning parties will be deemed as "political intention"

left leaning parties? I thought the RC was looking at unions, not at the ALP? What was it you all said about it not being a witch hunt ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:49pm

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm:

you're not sure?

You're the one with original 'probably'.

makes you 'probably' idiotic.

yes, I originally said probably because, believe it or not, I don't keep a record of what YOU said .... you on the other hand should know, shouldn't you?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:50pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:47pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:03am:

Mr Turnbull may need to worry more about workers response than Mr Shorten's...

you are seriously deluded

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:50pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:48pm:

eft leaning parties? I thought the RC was looking at unions, not at the ALP? What was it you all said about it not being a witch hunt Grin Grin Grin Grin

You mean unions don't lean left and right, but remain uniformly upright? Unions are parties too.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by lee on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:51pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:49pm:

yes, I originally said probably because, believe it or not, I don't keep a record of what YOU said .... you on the other hand should know, shouldn't you?

you're right. You are definitely idiotic.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:04pm:

Or these?

Quote:

[quote]Recommendation 71
Section 510 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) be amended so that it requires a right of entry permit to be suspended or revoked by the Fair Work Commission if:
(a)
an official has failed to complete approved training; or
(b)
a new permit qualification matter has arisen which means the official is no longer a fit and proper person.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:54pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

the car workers union demanded 6 additional weeks PER YEAR for training for its union organisers.

you never heard of an ambit claim you idiot?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:55pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

failed to find corruption??? you really are quite the idiot at times and then there are moments like this when much bigger, longer and banned words applied

you are one stupid fool.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:58pm

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

you have the union to thank for your 4hr/wk bike assembly job.

that says it all.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Redneck on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:00pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 6:39am:

We need unions now more than ever.

Don't believe in unions?

Then you don't deserve a job.

you have the union to thank for your 4hr/wk bike assembly job.

that says it all.

At least he has a job fool!

Your only job is playing with your sausage! ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:03pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:47pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 7:03am:

Mr Turnbull may need to worry more about workers response than Mr Shorten's...

you are seriously deluded

thats your area of experience. or did you miss the fact that the liberals have a landslide win in front of them on current polling? the union debate will only increase the margin.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:03pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

the car workers union demanded 6 additional weeks PER YEAR for training for its union organisers.

you never heard of an ambit claim you idiot?

it wasnt an AMBIT CLAIM, FOOL. they have had it for many years.

damn you are stupid.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:55pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

failed to find corruption??? you really are quite the idiot at times and then there are moments like this when much bigger, longer and banned words applied

you are one stupid fool.

they are such an embarrassment.. their heads up their bums so far as far as the UNIONS are concerned...they just keep on pretending.. they are in fact a branch of the Mother Teresa foundation.. ;D ;D ;D ;D

scary stuff.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:42pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

the car workers union demanded 6 additional weeks PER YEAR for training for its union organisers.

you never heard of an ambit claim you idiot?

it wasnt an AMBIT CLAIM, FOOL. they have had it for many years.

damn you are stupid.

or (pay attention now) perhaps I'm just so used to your making bullsh1t claims that no one believes you anymore?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by philperth2010 on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:26pm

Unions need to be reformed....Union officials should be subject to the same rules that apply to company directors....The behaviour of some union officials (Thomson /Jackson) and others shows unions need to be subjected to standards they cannot maintain without regulation....Regular independent published audits and clear expenditure guidelines would be a good start....Unions have brought this onto themselves and deserve all the criticism they are getting IMO!!!

:) :) :)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

I have no problem with a consistent and balanced approach. Making unions as accountable as companies and other organisations is not unreasonable.

The TURC's recommendations go far beyond what is necessary to achieve this outcome. The recommendations include one where the Parliament - and Parliament alone - would pass a law against specific people. That's a serious overreach and is not likely to stand scrutiny when it is inevitably appealed to the High Court. Parliament is not permitted to declare people guilty and then impose sanctions against them. That's the job of the courts. That's why Menzies' attempt to outlaw the Communist party failed.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

the car workers union demanded 6 additional weeks PER YEAR for training for its union organisers.

you never heard of an ambit claim you idiot?

it wasnt an AMBIT CLAIM, FOOL. they have had it for many years.

damn you are stupid.

What is it again Longy - either they were demanding 6 additional weeks or they had had it for years ?

Contradictory much ?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:55pm

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

but they deny everything phil.....and a few look at grap claim the Royal found nothing wrong....

if shortarse was fair dinkum...he would back Heyden all the way... well almost all the way....

he of all people would know the extent of what is going on.....

I do know of someone who is a contractor in ACT who has had dealing with Lomax....its rife... and its wrong...

if they people like Lomax did this working for say Neddy Smith they would be in jail.. but they work for the unions.. a protected species... and as we know they get worse because they know they can get away with it...what company is going to charge a stand over man with blackmail.. knowing full well he has the might of the Union standing behind him?..

it isnt going to happen is it?......these companies will pay up....it does after all mean their entire business is at stake....

I am very glad to see you claim the Unions have brought this on themselves... I am so sick of the
witch hunt chorus..

if there was nothing to find.... there wouldnt be a royal in the first place....

people dont go into these things blindfolded after all.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:35pm

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

The TURC's recommendations go far beyond what is necessary to achieve this outcome. The recommendations include one where the Parliament - and Parliament alone - would pass a law against specific people. That's a serious overreach and is not likely to stand scrutiny when it is inevitably appealed to the High Court. Parliament is not permitted to declare people guilty and then impose sanctions against them. That's the job of the courts. That's why Menzies' attempt to outlaw the Communist party failed.

Please post the exact recommendation

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 10:26pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:35pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

Please post the exact recommendation

Why don't you post it if you like.

What he said is about right.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 10:48pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:35pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

Please post the exact recommendation

Next time do it yourself.

Quote:

Recommendation 60:

For the purpose of seeking to combat the culture of disregard for the law within the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, consideration be given to the enactment of special legislation disqualifying those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons from holding office in any registered organisation or branch for a specified period.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:23am

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:55pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Dear, dear cods - the rc didn't find anything new against Thomson/Jackson, and next to buggar all but a lot of suppositions against others.... most of which will never reach the courts or will be dropped.

Get back to me once the fallout has dried into dung heaps on the ground.

Kindly do not misrepresent what I've said.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:26am

Downe at Ye Olde Can Garoo Court:-

"Docket number 14573 Yer 'Onnah' - people v Lomax on a charge of over-enthusiastic negotiation.... "

"How do you plead, Mr Lomax"

"Not Guilty".

"I agree - this case has no merit... next case....

Fer Chrissakes, cods - the charges against Lomax were dropped... got that?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:29am

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:55pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

failed to find corruption??? you really are quite the idiot at times and then there are moments like this when much bigger, longer and banned words applied

you are one stupid fool.

This from Longy and cods..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Get back to me, turkeys, when the final charges are finished.... and don't include Thomson and Jackson as the rc did - those matters were well in hand long before the rc was even an Abbott wet dream...

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:43am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 9:35pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 5:41pm:

Please post the exact recommendation

I already have - see Reply #27 (Recommendation 60)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:55am

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:52pm:

the car workers union demanded 6 additional weeks PER YEAR for training for its union organisers.

you never heard of an ambit claim you idiot?

it wasnt an AMBIT CLAIM, FOOL. they have had it for many years.

damn you are stupid.

or (pay attention now) perhaps I'm just so used to your making bullsh1t claims that no one believes you anymore?

nah you are just an ignorant more-on who knows nothing about anything and yet keeps talking.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:57am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:29am:

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 4:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 3:55pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2016 at 1:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 11:36pm:

wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 5:55am:

The Royal Commission was about UNION CORRUPTION

Shorten tried to change the topic by saying INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Shorten actually thinks voters are too stupid to see this childish trick

failed to find corruption??? you really are quite the idiot at times and then there are moments like this when much bigger, longer and banned words applied

you are one stupid fool.

hilarious.........keep dreaming then

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by cods on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:12am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:26am:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/john-lomax-knew-of-claims-cfmeus-fihi-kivalu-was-corrupt-royal-commission-reveals-20151005-gk1xdy.html

yeah a real sweetheart of a guy!!!!

right up your street....

as you well knwo.. or maybe you dont..

for the police to act they have to have someone stand up in court and poin t the finger..

have a little read of this guy and ask yourself... would you risk everything..knowing full well he has almost an army out there backing him up?????>.. >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:32am

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:12am:

for the police to act they have to have someone stand up in court and poin t the finger..

no, they need evidence ... maybe you've heard of it before?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm:

Quote:

The keyword is "OFFICER".

This word is defined in the Fair Work Act as well as Corporations Act

OFFICER is a general term describing anyone who represent the organisation

The term is further identified in RECOMMENDATION 25

So are wrong when you assume it's relating to "particular individuals"

RECOMMENDATION 60 further says "disqualifying those officers"

This disqualification is common with officers of Superannuation Funds, companies and Trusteeship.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 1:34pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm:

Quote:

But he addressed the idea specifically at Union people - nobody else - on the basis of some entirely unestablished "culture of disregard for the law".

Without all the charges being upheld against a significant number of Unionists, there is no "culture of disregard for the law" - only lawbreaking by the few.

Nothing new there.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 1:37pm

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 8:12am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 12:26am:

Doesn't matter what is represented in the media about his character - the charges against him have been dropped, dead, buried, cremated, staked through the heart and silver bullet shot, and will ever after rise no more...

You are dealing here with Zombie Charges, cods - they are dead but according to The Word of Cods they are still alive....

Are you suggesting the Lomax Army stood over the Federal Police?

Jesus God - this gets more hirsute by the moment......

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by red baron on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm

Getting Bill Shorten to sort out the problems in Trade Union movement, is like asking a pyromaniac to put out a fire in your house.

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

I am deeply suspicious of Malcolm Turnbull's 'secret agenda' for the average worker and there has never been a time when the Labor Party needed a champion to fight Turnbull tooth and nail on many issues involving workers.

However....Bill Shorten is not that man.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

"The trade union royal commission's top lawyer has found Labor leader Bill Shorten did not engage in any criminal or unlawlul conduct following an exhaustive investigation into his conduct during his years with the Australian Workers Union."

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/bill-shorten-cleared-by-royal-commissions-top-lawyer-20151106-gkt2zj

A glorified parking inspector from the Blue Mountains knows better though.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Aussie on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:14pm

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten was highly professionally interrogated for two days......under compulsion to answer............and, not a glove laid on him......and you call that 'squeaking through.' Come on, Mr Barron, there is a real World out here.

As to how he walked out unscathed.....well, it may come as a total surprise to you, but that is what happens with innocent people, and it is supposed to happen with innocent people.

You have a real problem with credentialled Umpires don't you, always preferring your own point of view no matter how shallow and ill-informed that is? What about Gillard. Did she too 'squeak out?'

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

you dont get the point. if the best you can do is to say he didnt do anything illegal then you know you are in trouble. it wasnt illegal to misrepresent his members and do side-deals with companies. but it damned sure was unethical and a breach of the job he was paid to do. but no, it wasnt illegal - perhaps the most damning indictment of all.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

So it's legal for any politician to claim cost of living etc, but being unethical has nothing to do with it? So legality is the yardstick by which we judge legitimacy of an act?

Wonder why laws are always changing......

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:51pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm:

Quote:

The old confuse them with meaningless waffle technique.

Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons

Parliament are identifying the persons who happen to be union officers.

Parliament do not have the right to declare Superannuation officers or anyone else and unsuitable people to hold their position and disqualify them.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 10:36pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:24am:

Bam wrote on Jan 1^st, 2016 at 6:48pm:

Quote:

That's irrelevant. The keywords here are "those officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union that Parliament considers are not fit and proper persons" ...

I'll say it again since you seem to be a little slow in understanding this.

The Federal Parliament has no constitutional right to declare particular people guilty and then impose sanctions based on that declaration. See the High Court case Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951).

Declaration of guilt is the function of the courts, not Parliament. This is one aspect of the separation of powers.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm

FFS Bam

Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

Read my post again and refer to the relevant legislation I quoted as well as Recommendation 25 before replying

Understand the definition of "OFFICER" before replying

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:20pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:51pm:

You are just as bad as Bam

Understand the definition of the word "OFFICER" before replying

I am simply referencing the word "OFFICER" and the disqualification criteria of "OFFICER" in each of those areas

I've never said the government appoints an OFFICER

Even the knowledge pool required is millimetres deep - both you are out of your depth here

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:12am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm:

for goodness sake Bam

Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

Read my post again and refer to the relevant legislation I quoted as well as Recommendation 25 before replying

Understand the definition of "OFFICER" before replying

"Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

"persons" is the term used in the recommendation - it means the same thing.

You are still waffling - focusing on the word officer is meaningless and knowing what an officer means in the corporations act only damages your silly argument.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:13am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 9:51pm:

In terms of being in the pool Macca you will have no need of a towel not even for your toes.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

as I said... the faintest of praise at best. yep, he didnt break any laws... do you get all excited and proud when someone says of your tenure in a job that you didnt break any laws? Its the kind of thing people say at funerals when a persons life is insignificant and acheivement free while bing a total scumbag to everyone 'at least he didnt break any laws'

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:35am

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

You didn't seem to take that point of view when it was Abbott being looked at.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Bam on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:51am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm:

for goodness sake Bam

Now you are introducing the words "particular people". There's nowhere in the recommendation or legislation that mentioned "particular people"

Bullshıt. What do you think "those officers" means? Some "officers" chosen at random?

Do you have a problem understanding English?

Maqqa wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 11:16pm:

Read my post again and refer to the relevant legislation I quoted as well as Recommendation 25 before replying

Understand the definition of "OFFICER" before replying

Again, this is irrelevant. You are wilfully ignoring the qualifier. "THOSE".

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:57am

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

Considering it was a witch hunt specifically targeting him it is a good result.

Apparently now being found innocent isn't good enough.

They didn't even need to test if he were innocent as there was no charge where he could be found guilty.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by John Smith on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:02am

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

you idiot .... he was cleared of any unlawful or criminal conduct ..everything else is just you flapping your gums with your useless opinion

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:48pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

THERE'S your paranoia!! btw mr 14% (shorten) has obviously been viewed by the electorate as untrustworthy.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:49pm

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

you idiot .... he was cleared of any unlawful or criminal conduct ..everything else is just you flapping your gums with your useless opinion

I guess when you were last sacked your reference said "he was cleared of any unlawful or criminal conduct" i bet you dont show that to anyone. I wonder why?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:51pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

THERE'S your paranoia!! btw mr 14% (shorten) has obviously been viewed by the electorate as untrustworthy.

John Smith put it most elegantly:

John Smith wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

you idiot .... he was cleared of any unlawful or criminal conduct ..everything else is just you flapping your gums with your useless opinion

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:54pm

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

"persons" is the term used in the recommendation - it means the same thing.

Wrong again!

You haven't even read the recommendations ;D ;D

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 6:06pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

"persons" is the term used in the recommendation - it means the same thing.

Wrong again!

You haven't even read the recommendations ;D ;D

In reply # 111 I posted the term for your lazy self. Recommendation 60:

If I hadn't red the document how did I find it or know about it ?

Wrong again!

No I am not wrong you clearly have no idea how irrelevant your position is.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 5:49pm:

I guess when you were last sacked your reference said "he was cleared of any unlawful or criminal conduct" i bet you dont show that to anyone. I wonder why?

Told yez Longy argues like a woman - kitchen sink and all.... nothing is held back from an argument... if you have nothing pick up that sink and fling it gleefully..... loving dogs will get you the title 'Hitler' ...... fortunately I had a mother who was a raging schiz so I know the type.

(awaits Longmania's comeback with bated breath.... I love to set them up for a riposte)....

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:05pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

So when did he engage in criminal or unlawful conduct?

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:43pm

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

So when did he engage in criminal or unlawful conduct?

I see what you did there ;)

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Dnarever on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 10:28am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

So when did he engage in criminal or unlawful conduct?

I see what you did there ;)

Yes it was sneaky - he asked a question.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 11:15am

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

So when did he engage in criminal or unlawful conduct?

I see what you did there ;)

Yes it was sneaky - he asked a question.

Yes - it was a sneaky question..... not terribly relevant though..... to the issue....

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 11:22am

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 10:28am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

So when did he engage in criminal or unlawful conduct?

I see what you did there ;)

Yes it was sneaky - he asked a question.

It was a clever question.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by SupositoryofWisdom on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 11:38am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Shorten squeaked through the Trade Union Royal Commission and I don't think I'm the only one left scratching their heads about how he walked out unscathed.

Even though they were cleared and the commision found squat zero nenti nada we have a handful of knuckle draggers on here who still cant except as hard as the Libs tried to get Shorten and Gillard , after spending millions they could only get a handful of rogue nobodies that know one has heard of , Tonys legacy of failures lives on.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by The Grappler on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 12:29pm

Had to be Longy who called a retired cop a 'glorified parking inspector' - what a goose.... a little respect goes a long way....

What is the Police Comissioner - a 'glorified motor cycle cop'? Hillsong wept.....

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:23pm

the best part is how Shorten is found to have not broken the law and labor supporters and unionist are RELIEVED.

that says it all.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Maqqa on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

the best part is how Shorten is found to have not broken the law and labor supporters and unionist are RELIEVED.

that says it all.

Actually - I think they secretly prefer to see Shorten being found guilty

It would give the ALP an excuse to politically execute him on the spot and bring in Albo

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by Kat on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:49pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

the best part is how Shorten is found to have not broken the law and labor supporters and unionist are RELIEVED.

that says it all.

Not relieved.

Vindicated.

Title: Re: Bill Shorten Responded To Turnbulls Union Reform
Post by longweekend58 on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 5:13pm

Kat wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

the best part is how Shorten is found to have not broken the law and labor supporters and unionist are RELIEVED.

that says it all.

Not relieved.

Vindicated.

as usual, you miss the point. but as a bike assembler, we dont expect you to understand complex topics.