Former ACTU president and Labor leader Simon Crean believes unions like the CFMEU need to "get their house in order" after "substantial evidence of wrongdoing".

In light of the findings of the royal commission into trade unions, Mr Crean said steps have to be taken to make sure thuggery and intimidation don't reoccur.

"I would prefer the unions get their house in order, but if they don't it will be put in order for them. They will have to accept the consequences," he told The Australian on Friday.

And he is of course 100% correct.    I think there is a gradual awakening in the union membership of just where their fees are going.   It will take a while though - I remember Norm Gallagher of the BLF and also the Head Honchos of the Painters and Dockers getting houses built and renovations done all on member's levies.  Time it stopped at all levels.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

Former ACTU president and Labor leader Simon Crean believes unions like the CFMEU need to "get their house in order" after "substantial evidence of wrongdoing". In light of the findings of the royal commission into trade unions, Mr Crean said steps have to be taken to make sure thuggery and intimidation don't reoccur. "I would prefer the unions get their house in order, but if they don't it will be put in order for them. They will have to accept the consequences," he told The Australian on Friday.

Yes.  Agreed.

Simon is 100% correct.

Bad Luck Bogey but "lefties" as you call us are actually thinking, principled people.

You won't find many going the "But they did it 1st" road as you see in every the Dutton/Briggs & every thread critical of "Righties"
;)

nothing wrong with Creans sentiments. The unions does have to get it's house in order. Corruption should be stamped out of every ones lives, not just union officials.

I find it hilarious however, when those that scream the loudest about corruption in the union movement (Hi boges), turn their heads, or excuse corruption altogether with dumb excuses like 'it's their money', in the corporate sector.

Yep - Simon is very right.

Seems that nobody disagrees with him.

Simon Crean is spot on.

Crean is an old guard

It was disgusting how the ALP treated him

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:13am:

Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century.

wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:14am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D

Simon said..... :D ;D

I agree corruption should be stamped out, but most of the findings of "thuggery" were Unions just doing their job and often having to step around corporate suits to do it (like getting on work sites to inspect safety complaints while the corporate body would do anything to not allow them on) the vast majority of infractions found were basically low level stuff like this or dear god, people striking! How evil! I find it hilarious the numerous accounts of CORPORATE thuggery uncovered, one of which involved private firearm pulled on Union officials, is apparently not an issue.

Only the right would make up crap that nobody doesn't want to see corruption squashed in the Unions, but suddenly when its corporate corruption, collusion often between members of the LNP and the business world, suddenly its A-OK.

This is why everyone on the left has been pushing for a Federal ICAC while the right sits on their hands.

Damn those blasted lefties eh? How dare they undermine this thread by agreeing with the OP...

Seriously!

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:13am:

Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings.

Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people.

Everything Simon Crean said is correct.

It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings:

"There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct."

https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx

Kiron22 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:30am:

I agree corruption should be stamped out, but most of the findings of "thuggery" were Unions just doing their job and often having to step around corporate suits to do it (like getting on work sites to inspect safety complaints while the corporate body would do anything to not allow them on) the vast majority of infractions found were basically low level stuff like this or dear god, people striking! How evil! I find it hilarious the numerous accounts of CORPORATE thuggery uncovered, one of which involved private firearm pulled on Union officials, is apparently not an issue. Only the right would make up crap that nobody doesn't want to see corruption squashed in the Unions, but suddenly when its corporate corruption, collusion often between members of the LNP and the business world, suddenly its A-OK. This is why everyone on the left has been pushing for a Federal ICAC while the right sits on their hands.

From the RC could you give examples of this thuggery as "doing their job"?

Or is this just your humble opinion that the thuggery is them doing their job and has no basis for this opinion other than to defend the left?

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:13am:

Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century.

Some of the things the RC uncovered were worthwhile but the problem is that the RC was a politically motivated Union / Labor bashing exercise and has very little credibility.

Maqqa wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

Crean is an old guard It was disgusting how the ALP treated him

Refresh my memory ?

How did they treat him ?

Agree totally with simon crean. Unions must get their house in order as Shorten was saying just before xmas " THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CORRUPTION IN THE LABOR PARTY OR THE UNION MOVEMENT".Now, can one of you gentlemen from the right tell me what steps have been taken by the NSW liberals to clean out the proven corruption within their ranks. Are property developers with brown paper bags still welcome as donors? Has anything been done about the corruption surrounding the North Sydney forum?

macman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

Agree totally with simon crean. Unions must get their house in order as Shorten was saying just before xmas " THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CORRUPTION IN THE LABOR PARTY OR THE UNION MOVEMENT".Now, can one of you gentlemen from the right tell me what steps have been taken by the NSW liberals to clean out the proven corruption within their ranks. Are property developers with brown paper bags still welcome as donors? Has anything been done about the corruption surrounding the North Sydney forum?

Joe's emigrating........

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:14am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D Simon said..... :D ;D

;D ;D ;D ...OK, I'll give you that one!

macman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

Agree totally with simon crean. Unions must get their house in order as Shorten was saying just before xmas " THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CORRUPTION IN THE LABOR PARTY OR THE UNION MOVEMENT".Now, can one of you gentlemen from the right tell me what steps have been taken by the NSW liberals to clean out the proven corruption within their ranks. Are property developers with brown paper bags still welcome as donors? Has anything been done about the corruption surrounding the North Sydney forum?

ZIP , NIL, and NADA to each of your questions 

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 10:08am:

Simon is 100% correct. Bad Luck Bogey but "lefties" as you call us are actually thinking, principled people. You won't find many going the "But they did it 1st" road as you see in every the Dutton/Briggs & every thread critical of "Righties" ;)

as long as none of the actions taken to correct involves Liberal govt legislation, liberal govt-initiated royal commisions or any laws that might make unions transparent.

you want to outcomes of honesty and integrity with none of the hard efforts to make it happen.

wel all know a labor govt is never going to reign in the unions in any effective way and you lefties with automatically oppose ANY liberal govt attempt to do so.

you are hypocrites which at least means you are consistent.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:14am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D

and as predictable as morning... out comes a JS stupid comment proving my point.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 11:46am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx

is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:14am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D and as predictable as morning... out comes a JS stupid comment proving my point.

He was right, it does look like another convoluted rant.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:14am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D and as predictable as morning... out comes a JS stupid comment proving my point.

Only if your point was to show the world what a dumb dickhead you are.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:14am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings and the necessity of the RC and that union's collusive bullying and mob intimidation tactics are a throw back to a bygone era.  Welcome to the 21st century. wow ... how did you manage to twist it into that convoluted rant? No one mentioned the RC or it's findings. :D :D and as predictable as morning... out comes a JS stupid comment proving my point.

Speaking of predictable...  ::) ::) ::)

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

Former ACTU president and Labor leader Simon Crean believes unions like the CFMEU need to "get their house in order" after "substantial evidence of wrongdoing". In light of the findings of the royal commission into trade unions, Mr Crean said steps have to be taken to make sure thuggery and intimidation don't reoccur. "I would prefer the unions get their house in order, but if they don't it will be put in order for them. They will have to accept the consequences," he told The Australian on Friday.

my daughter used to deal with the members when she worked in comcar many years ago... and Simon Crean being one of them.. and she said he was always the real gentlemen.. knew all their names always said goodmorning and asked how they were..... most were the other way....

I have time for a gentlemen...and of course he is only talking commonsense...

not a lot understand that though do they?...

it will always come down to the members though....how much they are prepared to put up with...are they being looked after.????? are they first every time?????....

its up to them.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:25pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:08am: Simon is 100% correct. Bad Luck Bogey but "lefties" as you call us are actually thinking, principled people. You won't find many going the "But they did it 1st" road as you see in every the Dutton/Briggs & every thread critical of "Righties" ;) as long as none of the actions taken to correct involves Liberal govt legislation, liberal govt-initiated royal commisions or any laws that might make unions transparent. you want to outcomes of honesty and integrity with none of the hard efforts to make it happen. wel all know a labor govt is never going to reign in the unions in any effective way and you lefties with automatically oppose ANY liberal govt attempt to do so. you are hypocrites which at least means you are consistent.

How do you come to that conculsion?

Lets play "use Longy's reasoning"

You would never support any Labor legislation, Labor government initated RC or any laws that make business transparent and accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Simply because you are critical of Labor governments.

Wow that was fun and insightful.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful?

That and he destroyed Tony  :)

and dna, you are the worst of them.  you want unions to be fair, legal, effective and not corrupt or bullying.  But only as long as no one does anything to enforce it.

you would be ineffective in a sheltered workshop.

Well this is good news.
When Turnbull takes the necessary steps to clean up the union/ workplace  relationship and union governance, we know that not a voice will be heard here by way of objection.
Thank you Mr Crean.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Well this is good news. When Turnbull takes the necessary steps to clean up the union/ workplace  relationship and union governance, we know that not a voice will be heard here by way of objection. Thank you Mr Crean.

and we know they will all squeal like stuck pigs.  and 'stuck' will be the only new adjective.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful?

"There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct."

Fact.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

and dna, you are the worst of them.  you want unions to be fair, legal, effective and not corrupt or bullying.  But only as long as no one does anything to enforce it. you would be ineffective in a sheltered workshop.

?  Unions are effective you idiot, that's why the conservatives continually try their very best to destroy them.  And miserably fail, because conservative w@nkers fail at life in general.

No one disagrees that corruption of any form, in any institution, should be found and removed.  The question was always whether the best way to do this was via a Royal commission, whose terms at one point were written to simply investigate labor as opposed to the labour movement. 

I'd say it was a waste of 80 million.  Nothing discovered by the commission was anything that would not have been discovered by the federal police. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful? "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." Fact.

Maria doesn't deal in facts.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 7:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful? "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." Fact. Maria doesn't deal in facts.

Indeed.

Lies and abuse are Maria/Longy's preferred method of communication.

Its time wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful? That and he destroyed Tony  :)

I think it was more a case of Tony destroyed Tony.

Wolseley wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful? That and he destroyed Tony  :) I think it was more a case of Tony destroyed Tony.

Not according to how conservatives think. Apparently Tony destroyed Rudd, Tony destroyed Gillard. going by the same thinking, Shorten must have destroyed Tony.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

Wolseley wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:03pm: Its time wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:46am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 11:13am: Good to see all the resident Leftoids agreeing with the findings. Absolutely. We're sensible, reasonable people. Everything Simon Crean said is correct. It's a shame, however, that some of those on the right can't accept the findings: "There is no submission that Mr Bill Shorten may have engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct." https://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Media/Pages/2015-media-releases/6-November-2015-Counsel-Assisting-releases-submissions-on-AWU-case-studies.aspx is this going to be your new 'boat people' style rant?  where you shout loudly that the best thing you can say about shorten is that he didnt do anything illegal/unlawful? That and he destroyed Tony  :) I think it was more a case of Tony destroyed Tony. Not according to how conservatives think. Apparently Tony destroyed Rudd, Tony destroyed Gillard. going by the same thinking, Shorten must have destroyed Tony.

Yep easy as that  :)

I see longstupoidone is still flapping around making random comments in the hope that he might sound like he has a clue ....  ;D ;D ;D

You wouldnt  find one person that condones corruption from the left , if you went to the effort of spending 100millllllllllllllion dollars of taxpayers money you would certainly give yourself some political capital by giving the investigative bodies the directive to investigate any suspect transactions irrespective of political affiliation.

Its time wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

You wouldnt  find one person that condones corruption from the left , if you went to the effort of spending 100millllllllllllllion dollars of taxpayers money you would certainly give yourself some political capital by giving the investigative bodies the directive to investigate any suspect transactions irrespective of political affiliation.

not if you're a lib :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:25pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 10:08am: Simon is 100% correct. Bad Luck Bogey but "lefties" as you call us are actually thinking, principled people. You won't find many going the "But they did it 1st" road as you see in every the Dutton/Briggs & every thread critical of "Righties" ;) as long as none of the actions taken to correct involves Liberal govt legislation, liberal govt-initiated royal commisions or any laws that might make unions transparent. you want to outcomes of honesty and integrity with none of the hard efforts to make it happen. wel all know a labor govt is never going to reign in the unions in any effective way and you lefties with automatically oppose ANY liberal govt attempt to do so. you are hypocrites which at least means you are consistent. How do you come to that conculsion? Lets play "use Longy's reasoning" You would never support any Labor legislation, Labor government initated RC or any laws that make business transparent and accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Simply because you are critical of Labor governments. Wow that was fun and insightful.

Longy puts a price on corruption , if a NSW premier can be purchased for a bottle of grange to sell out his pledge to serve his electorate with distinction it makes you wonder how principled he was in the first place .

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

and dna, you are the worst of them.  you want unions to be fair, legal, effective and not corrupt or bullying.  But only as long as no one does anything to enforce it. you would be ineffective in a sheltered workshop.

Yes I agree I would be ineffective there, however I am confident that you would be right at home.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 5:52pm: Well this is good news. When Turnbull takes the necessary steps to clean up the union/ workplace  relationship and union governance, we know that not a voice will be heard here by way of objection. Thank you Mr Crean. and we know they will all squeal like stuck pigs.  and 'stuck' will be the only new adjective.

Like you I would think there is every chance that Turnbull will do little but to play politics with it, lets just wait and see.

Zero Crean shredding so far.

The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:43am:

Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question.

So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have.

It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:43am: Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question. So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have. It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy.

Longy didn't say the same thing he went for a political advantage instead. There is a difference between being constructive and union bashing.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:43am: Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question. So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have. It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy.

hypocrisy

Isn't a picture of Longy listed under that title in the dictionary ?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:43am: Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question. So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have. It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy.

It seems that nobody disagreed with Crean ? Nobody has refuted that position from day one.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 9:55am:

Former ACTU president and Labor leader Simon Crean believes unions like the CFMEU need to "get their house in order" after "substantial evidence of wrongdoing". In light of the findings of the royal commission into trade unions, Mr Crean said steps have to be taken to make sure thuggery and intimidation don't reoccur. "I would prefer the unions get their house in order, but if they don't it will be put in order for them. They will have to accept the consequences," he told The Australian on Friday.

Good, we need to clean up misconduct wherever it occurs. A few unions do need to get their house in order. Now all we need to do is add all those businesses to the list that were implicated in misconduct in the TURC, the banking industry, the construction industry, property developers, lobbyists and political parties.

Not going to happen though. ICAC has shown us why.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:43am: Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question. So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have. It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy. It seems that nobody disagreed with Crean ? Nobody has refuted that position from day one.

Just as long as no one suggests any actual, real and effective action, right?

I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service.

But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster. 

Well - maybe Crean is out of touch these days and running so scared of being labeled a 'thug' that he's now prepared to accept that all Union negotiation should be done at the p0oint of a management gun... funny how the 'lefties' of yesteryear - heroic upholders of the Rights of Workers etc - once grown fat off the fat of the land, all become conservatives.

I wouldn't pay him much mind...

Like all past politicians - I think he should be politely overlooked and we'll get on with the real issues... issues that they helped to create for us all, including the steady demolition of Rights for all Australians.  Just when we were on the verge of beginning to actually codify what are Rights and what are not, and begin to uphold Rights as opposed to rights, and do so for all equally and for the betterment of this country as a whole (not a hole) - along came the PC mob on BOTH sides to f*ck it up for us all, and all so they could hold power in this society and treat us as their minions.

Now then - what about all these 'charges' against 'union thugs'?  Anyone got anything substantial in this flood of emotive nonsense?

Told yez before - Thomo etc are off the link - they began to be dealt with way back in 2007 and have not one thing to do with any 'royal commission' and will not be used to pad out the claims of corruption.

Now, children - let's trying dealing with hard facts for a change.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:42pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 6:43am: Zero Crean shredding so far. The only blip in conversation has been Longy trying to play aggressive anti union / Labor politics with the question. So, you agree with Crean but if a Lib said the same thing you would criticise it strongly. And have. It is an interesting style of debate. Technically, it is called hypocrisy. It seems that nobody disagreed with Crean ? Nobody has refuted that position from day one. Just as long as no one suggests any actual, real and effective action, right?

You may recall that in November Shorten made some suggestions that looked reasonable. You may also recall that my comment to the suggestions from the RC was that some of them were good and some were not.

The sensible thing to do is to wait to see what suggestions and other alternatives are finally put forward by the government and to judge it on its merit.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster.

The more likely issue is that it will be attempted by a Liberal government who will stuff it up and produce an unfair and unreasonable list of negative changes aimed more at shackling the union movement and disadvantaging Labor than addressing any problem.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service.

see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster.

that's because righties can't help but twist whatever they do to try and gain a political advantage ... reducing corruption has nothing to do with reducing union powers.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:36pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster.  The more likely issue is that it will be attempted by a Liberal government who will stuff it up and produce an unfair and unreasonable list of negative changes aimed more at shackling the union movement and disadvantaging Labor than addressing any problem.

swags already proven that point ... see highlighted section

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 2:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:28pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:36pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster.  The more likely issue is that it will be attempted by a Liberal government who will stuff it up and produce an unfair and unreasonable list of negative changes aimed more at shackling the union movement and disadvantaging Labor than addressing any problem. swags already proven that point ... see highlighted section

Yep Jonathon, the public service unions are indeed a blood sucking leech on the income tax payer.... :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/psu%20leech.jpg

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:36pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. But it will be done by a Liberal government and therefore must be rejected and resisted by all the ideological persuasion they can muster.  The more likely issue is that it will be attempted by a Liberal government who will stuff it up and produce an unfair and unreasonable list of negative changes aimed more at shackling the union movement and disadvantaging Labor than addressing any problem.

And there you go. You are already foreshadowing how you will disagree with anything the government comes up with. I repeat... you support the notion of reducing corruption as long as nothing is done that will actually achieve it.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 2:45pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive

A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that.

not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it.

Proof of what?  Proof that union influence is unrelated to its proven corruption?

Are you naturally this stupid or did you train for it?

I have a plant that makes more sense than you and has more value.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

Proof of what?  Proof that union influence is unrelated to its proven corruption?

struggling to follow the little ball I see ... ::) ::)

OK, we'll try again. Proof that the libs are only interested in undermining the unions influence. Influence and corruption are two different things.

the answer to your second question is that I have recently started training for it ... I hope to one day get as stupid as you. And I can certainly understand why a plant makes sense to you when it talks to you. You both talk the same language.

The righties must be draggn their bottom lips , not a one post slamming Crean  :) , unlike those righties who slam the likes of Hewson when he tells it the way it is .

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it. Proof of what?  Proof that union influence is unrelated to its proven corruption? Are you naturally this stupid or did you train for it? I have a plant that makes more sense than you and has more value.

Is this plant your friend, longie? Do you hug it good night?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:24pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it. Proof of what?  Proof that union influence is unrelated to its proven corruption? Are you naturally this stupid or did you train for it? I have a plant that makes more sense than you and has more value. Is this plant your friend, longie? Do you hug it good night?

That's cruel.

Longy doesn't have any friends.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:24pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it. Proof of what?  Proof that union influence is unrelated to its proven corruption? Are you naturally this stupid or did you train for it? I have a plant that makes more sense than you and has more value. Is this plant your friend, longie? Do you hug it good night? That's cruel. Longy doesn't have any friends.

You mean even the plant is repulsed?

damn you Alevine .... you just beat me to it!

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that.

No unlike your twaddle his statement was spot on, Removing any corruption has nothing to do with restraining a unions proper functions.

May be worth considering that there was no corruption found in public service unions either.

won't have any objection to the tough measures



No they need sensible measures - tough measures are likely to be counter productive.

The statement contained 3 points and they were all clearly wrong.

Tough measures won't help, attacking unions ability to function correctly for political reasons is the wrong approach and the public service unions came out of the process clean.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it.

Choice is not ignorance - it is intent.....

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

damn you Alevine .... you just beat me to it!

;)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 11:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it. Choice is not ignorance - it is intent.....

that makes it even worse. It's not ignorant it's an imbecile.

I thought I made a fair chop at Crean - nobody responded.... so I must be correct.....

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 11:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 5:09pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 2:45pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:26pm: I'm delighted with the lefties' response here because it means they won't have any objection to the tough measures that will be taken to clean up the unions and reduce their restrictive  influence, especially in the public service. see, that's where you come unstuck ... reducing corruption should have nothing to do with reducing unions influence ..... that's a political motive A naive and presumptive statement. Naturally, you don't understand that. not presumptive at all .... we have plenty of proof . Naturally, you don't understand what you see and so are ignorant of it. Choice is not ignorance - it is intent..... that makes it even worse. It's not ignorant it's an imbecile.

I can train a m-m-m-oh-ron to the limits of his abilities - I cannot teach a fool beyond what he wishes to learn.....  ;)