Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain.

Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab?

maybe thats where all the "name"calling came from....Unions...

they also used to send someone to "coventry"...

its a mental thing fd...playing with peoples minds.

Scabs are things that cover sores.

The sore in this case is a toxic work environment.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 4:52pm:

Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab?

Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place.

China, here we come.  No protection for workers.

Aussie wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 5:26pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers.

So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good?

Can you explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more, and belittle and demean them in the process?

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. Quote: So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good? No. The unions want to stop lower-paid people coming in and "re-setting" the wage bar lower for all future employees. This was explained clearly in the previous post. [quote]Can you explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more?

Only if you first explain why it is fair and reasonable for employers to continually try and force wages down (rather than negotiate in good faith), by bringing in workers who will work for less.

This is where the concept of 357 Visas came from. Curry favour with the Business lobby, by allowing them to bring in people from low wage countries to work for comparative peanuts, and drive wages down.

Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be someone who is very good at asking questions...but not so hot when it comes to answering them.

Is it just me? (Cue another question, in lieu of an answer).

Mix_Master wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 6:43pm:

Is it just me? (Cue another question, in lieu of an answer).

FD rarely answers question.  I refuse to answer his.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

I am not in a union. I do not pay union dues. If I get fired from my job, I have Fair Work Australia to mediate any problems regarding my work conditions.

If someone walks off the job over a pay and conditions dispute and I walk into their job, it is tough luck for those who were not willing to work the pay and conditions. Not my problem.

Having watched some news footage of protesters abusing workers going to their job, I have to wonder how spoiled they are for what they think is fair pay and conditions.

Aussie wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 5:26pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers.

If they're not striking to retain current conditions but for increased pay when nobody is being undermined.

And didn't you once tell us the Indians who drive your cabs earn less than minimum wage after you take your cut?

Quote:

No. The unions want to stop lower-paid people coming in and "re-setting" the wage bar lower for all future employees. This was explained clearly in the previous post.

So the unions understand they are harming other people? I can never seem to get a clear answer on whether they accept or deny this reality. Are they as deluded as they make out, or just plain selfish?


Quote:

Only if you first explain why it is fair

Why does this influence your ability to explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more?


Quote:

Having watched some news footage of protesters abusing workers going to their job, I have to wonder how spoiled they are for what they think is fair pay and conditions.

But are they really spoiled, or just deluded? Some appear to think they are doing these 'scabs' a favour if they can stop them getting a job.

And why do they so gleefully demean these unemployed people who actually want to work? The term seems far more appropriate for the unionists who would deny them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay. And still no unionist has been able to tell me the meaning of scab.

Unionists are greedy yobbos.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 8:38pm:

Quote: No. The unions want to stop lower-paid people coming in and "re-setting" the wage bar lower for all future employees. This was explained clearly in the previous post. So the unions understand they are harming other people? I can never seem to get a clear answer on whether they accept or deny this reality. Are they as deluded as they make out, or just plain selfish? [quote]Only if you first explain why it is fair

Why does this influence your ability to explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more?


Quote:

Having watched some news footage of protesters abusing workers going to their job, I have to wonder how spoiled they are for what they think is fair pay and conditions.

But are they really spoiled, or just deluded? Some appear to think they are doing these 'scabs' a favour if they can stop them getting a job.

And why do they so gleefully demean these unemployed people who actually want to work? The term seems far more appropriate for the unionists who would deny them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay. And still no unionist has been able to tell me the meaning of scab.[/quote]


Strange thinking there - how is it 'harming' anyone to ensure that all workers are paid the same, rather than allowing outsiders to come in and accept lower wages, which is against the law?

In this country, unlike Faroffistania under the boot heel of Despot III and his cohorts - we have RULES.

You mean you, of all Australians, are the only one to not know that a scab is a low-life scum-sucking parasite prepared to harm others and their families and starve their children by offering to take a job at lower than required and honestly negotiated standards, thus reducing the bargaining power of every other worked regardless of skills, experience, and service to an organisation and creating a flow-on effect to all other negotiated and signed off on agreements on wages and conditions, thus destroying the fundamental underpinnings of this nation to suit a few filthy rich adventurist vultures who masquerade as business people these days?

Is that a good enough definition for you?

"fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more? " 

Because in even raising the issue of 'being paid more' you are admitting that a scab will actively work to lower the agreed and signed off via Award or enterprise agreement rates of pay and conditions... as in certain other areas, fd - you have the shoe on the wrong foot.  NOBODY is preventing willing workers coming on board to do a job at the agreed and signed off rates and conditions WHEN VACANCIES ARE AVAILABLE AND THE BOSSES DECIDE THAT - however - those who seek to come in and reduce those rates and conditions are seeking to stop others working so they can get a job, when the only ones preventing employment for the scab are the bosses who claim they run the show so efficiently.

Tomorrow FD you go to work and you and all your fellow workers decide to go on strike because its been years since you got a rise and the cost of living is leaving you behind.

So you all walk out and forma picket line outside your work asking for $x amount of dollars more a week to help keep up with the cost of living which now after a few years of no pay rise you and your fellow workers are starting to feel at home.

The next day you go to work to man the picket line and with police escort a group of workers not from your place of work have been brought in at half the price to do the job you are doing to feed your family.

What would you call these people.............. :)

Quote:

Strange thinking there - how is it 'harming' anyone to ensure that all workers are paid the same

That's not what happens. You are an example of the deluded unionist. The people who are unemployed because of the actions of unions get paid less. Do you really think the unemployed person you belittle as a scab is benefiting from the union?


Quote:

rather than allowing outsiders to come in and accept lower wages, which is against the law?

Are you conflating unions and minimum wages?


Quote:

You mean you, of all Australians, are the only one to not know that a scab is a low-life scum-sucking parasite

There we go. You may be deluded. But you are honest. Can you explain how wanting a job makes them a parasite?


Quote:

prepared to harm others and their families and starve their children

Starve whose children? The guy who cannot get a job because of the unions, or the unionist who thinks it is worth denying him a job to take home a little bit more pay?


Quote:

at lower than required and honestly negotiated standards

Why is a 'scab' unable to honestly negotiate his own standards?


Quote:

and service to an organisation and creating a flow-on effect to all other negotiated and signed off on agreements

This is the delusion kicking back in. The flow-on effect is unemployment.


Quote:

thus destroying the fundamental underpinnings of this nation

What are you on about here?


Quote:

to suit a few filthy rich adventurist vultures who masquerade as business people these days?

To suit the man you call a scab who is unemployed because of the unions.


Quote:

Because in even raising the issue of 'being paid more' you are admitting that a scab will actively work to lower the agreed and signed off via Award

He doesn't give a bugger about your delusions. He wants a job. Nothing more.


Quote:

Tomorrow FD you go to work and you and all your fellow workers decide to go on strike because its been years since you got a rise and the cost of living is leaving you behind. So you all walk out and forma picket line outside your work asking for $x amount of dollars more a week to help keep up with the cost of living which now after a few years of no pay rise you and your fellow workers are starting to feel at home. The next day you go to work to man the picket line and with police escort a group of workers not from your place of work have been brought in at half the price to do the job you are doing to feed your family. What would you call these people..............

They are my fellow Australians. Honest. Hard working. Deserving of a job. Capable of thinking for themselves and negotiating on their own behalf.

What do you call them? And why do you think your greed gives you the right to deny him what he wants?

I canna' reason with the mon.... he's nae ears to think with...

WHAT people are unemployed because of the actions of Unions?   ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  You yourself said the scabs come in to try to scalp the jobs at a lower rate... so it's not the Unions making people in that situation unemployed, is it?  It's the bosses... al you want to do is replace workers operating on a signed agreement with people who are prepared to accept less without having a valid agreement that abides by the rules.  So throwing people working on a signed agreement out and replacing them with people who accept no agreement or an illegal agreement is NOT rendering people unemployed? 

Where did all your Unionists go then?

Even St John Of The Right Howard stipulated that under no circumstances could or would an 'enterprise agreement' reduce wages lower than Award.... but of course his plan was to open the door for that very thing, as clearly demonstrated by your posts.

Cor Jayzuz!

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 4:52pm:

Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab?

Seeings you are going back trolling old posts to further your Union bashing with yet another thread....

you would have seen that I explained exactly what constitutes a "scab".

Do members of Unions of Employers not pay dues to belong to those collectives?

You just continue with your hypocrisy writ large.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good? Can you explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more, and belittle and demean them in the process?

A new post to continue your cracked record one sided rhetoric.

How many times do you need it explained as to why those who receive the benefits of others sacrifice should make a contribution?

Why is it that you as a rabid conservative capitalist think that there is a free ride to be had?

But then again that's how people like you think.  ::)

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 7:11pm:

I am not in a union. I do not pay union dues. If I get fired from my job, I have Fair Work Australia to mediate any problems regarding my work conditions. If someone walks off the job over a pay and conditions dispute and I walk into their job, it is tough luck for those who were not willing to work the pay and conditions. Not my problem. Having watched some news footage of protesters abusing workers going to their job, I have to wonder how spoiled they are for what they think is fair pay and conditions.

You are so naïve as to be unbelievable for your age.

And you're another that doesn't seem to get it.....

whatever conditions and wage rates you receive at any job in this country ....

has been through the hard fought & won actions of Unions.

And your words above about your attitude would have you fit the description of this thread title ...

knowingly or unwittingly.

Would you have one clue about how you think you'd be able to present a case to Fair Work Australia?

And believe me the title "Fair Work" doesn't mean it has your interests at heart.

Do you have the money to employee an Industrial Advocate to represent you?

Your boss will probably belong to an association (Union of Employers) who will provide him/her with their own advocate or solicitor/s.

::) 

Gordon wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 7:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. If they're not striking to retain current conditions but for increased pay when nobody is being undermined. And didn't you once tell us the Indians who drive your cabs earn less than minimum wage after you take your cut?

Rubbish .... they're entitled to make application for a pay increase just as anyone else does....

and a fair & reasonable rise to keep up with the CPI & inflation is generally what is on their log of claims.

Why are businesses entitled to increase prices & profit margins? ...

why don't they just maintain the levels they currently receive?

Their margins don't increase to keep up with wage demands .... it's the other way round. ::)

Cause they are scabs.
They either work under EBA conditions and are not a member of the organisation that fought for those conditions....or.....they have come in on the sly to continue work on a site that is under negotiation.


Tell me FD.....do you have a problem with the Australian Government?
They are the biggest union in Australia....but no one seems to go after them.
Their conditions are what us EBA workers could only dream of.

I bet you didn't sit on the grass years ago to get fair conditions for workers.
You were the scab that came in and took advantage of a delicate situation.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 8:38pm:

Quote: No. The unions want to stop lower-paid people coming in and "re-setting" the wage bar lower for all future employees. This was explained clearly in the previous post. So the unions understand they are harming other people? I can never seem to get a clear answer on whether they accept or deny this reality. Are they as deluded as they make out, or just plain selfish? [quote]Only if you first explain why it is fair

Why does this influence your ability to explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more?


Quote:

Having watched some news footage of protesters abusing workers going to their job, I have to wonder how spoiled they are for what they think is fair pay and conditions.

But are they really spoiled, or just deluded? Some appear to think they are doing these 'scabs' a favour if they can stop them getting a job.

And why do they so gleefully demean these unemployed people who actually want to work? The term seems far more appropriate for the unionists who would deny them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay. And still no unionist has been able to tell me the meaning of scab.[/quote]

It's only your reality.

It's not about "denying them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay"as you repeatedly parrot.

It's because "they are being denied their rightful more pay" by unscrupulous Labour Hire Firms & non complying farmers.

You support blatant wage theft. 

Gnads wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 6:32am:

Gordon wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 7:32pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. If they're not striking to retain current conditions but for increased pay when nobody is being undermined. And didn't you once tell us the Indians who drive your cabs earn less than minimum wage after you take your cut? Rubbish .... they're entitled to make application for a pay increase just as anyone else does.... and a fair & reasonable rise to keep up with the CPI & inflation is generally what is on their log of claims. Why are businesses entitled to increase prices & profit margins? ... why don't they just maintain the levels they currently receive? Their margins don't increase to keep up with wage demands .... it's the other way round. ::)

I've never been on strike because I want a pay increase.
It's always been because employers are cutting corners or not paying their blokes what they agreed to pay them.

All pay ncreases are laid out in the EBA that the employers agree too, well before work commences.
If they don't honor their side then yes, a representative ie. union, comes in and questions motives as to why the agreement is being broken.

It gets tiring hearing people like FD shitcan unions all the time while they sit at home on holidays or sick pay benefits.
Stop attacking the workers.
It's time you attacked the buisinesses because they are the ones that cut the corners. 

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 9:37pm:

Quote: Strange thinking there - how is it 'harming' anyone to ensure that all workers are paid the same That's not what happens. You are an example of the deluded unionist. The people who are unemployed because of the actions of unions get paid less. Do you really think the unemployed person you belittle as a scab is benefiting from the union? [quote]rather than allowing outsiders to come in and accept lower wages, which is against the law?

Are you conflating unions and minimum wages?


Quote:

You mean you, of all Australians, are the only one to not know that a scab is a low-life scum-sucking parasite

There we go. You may be deluded. But you are honest. Can you explain how wanting a job makes them a parasite?


Quote:

prepared to harm others and their families and starve their children

Starve whose children? The guy who cannot get a job because of the unions, or the unionist who thinks it is worth denying him a job to take home a little bit more pay?


Quote:

at lower than required and honestly negotiated standards

Why is a 'scab' unable to honestly negotiate his own standards?


Quote:

and service to an organisation and creating a flow-on effect to all other negotiated and signed off on agreements

This is the delusion kicking back in. The flow-on effect is unemployment.


Quote:

thus destroying the fundamental underpinnings of this nation

What are you on about here?


Quote:

to suit a few filthy rich adventurist vultures who masquerade as business people these days?

To suit the man you call a scab who is unemployed because of the unions.


Quote:

Because in even raising the issue of 'being paid more' you are admitting that a scab will actively work to lower the agreed and signed off via Award

He doesn't give a bugger about your delusions. He wants a job. Nothing more.


Quote:

Tomorrow FD you go to work and you and all your fellow workers decide to go on strike because its been years since you got a rise and the cost of living is leaving you behind. So you all walk out and forma picket line outside your work asking for $x amount of dollars more a week to help keep up with the cost of living which now after a few years of no pay rise you and your fellow workers are starting to feel at home. The next day you go to work to man the picket line and with police escort a group of workers not from your place of work have been brought in at half the price to do the job you are doing to feed your family. What would you call these people..............

They are my fellow Australians. Honest. Hard working. Deserving of a job. Capable of thinking for themselves and negotiating on their own behalf.

What do you call them? And why do you think your greed gives you the right to deny him what he wants?[/quote]

That's a bald faced lie....... people who belong to Unions get paid more.

Tell me why so many Unemployed people refuse to work because they're prepared to take the dole & do nothing?

Why should someone who is prepared to work & contribute take a pay rate that is lower than the regulated pay rates or no better than the dole?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 12:42am:

I canna' reason with the mon.... he's nae ears to think with... WHAT people are unemployed because of the actions of Unions?   ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)  You yourself said the scabs come in to try to scalp the jobs at a lower rate... so it's not the Unions making people in that situation unemployed, is it?  It's the bosses... al you want to do is replace workers operating on a signed agreement with people who are prepared to accept less without having a valid agreement that abides by the rules.  So throwing people working on a signed agreement out and replacing them with people who accept no agreement or an illegal agreement is NOT rendering people unemployed?  Where did all your Unionists go then? Even St John Of The Right Howard stipulated that under no circumstances could or would an 'enterprise agreement' reduce wages lower than Award.... but of course his plan was to open the door for that very thing, as clearly demonstrated by your posts. Cor Jayzuz!

Exactly ...FD is just a repetitive Union bashing twat.

Captain Caveman wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 6:45am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 6:32am: Gordon wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 7:32pm: Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. If they're not striking to retain current conditions but for increased pay when nobody is being undermined. And didn't you once tell us the Indians who drive your cabs earn less than minimum wage after you take your cut? Rubbish .... they're entitled to make application for a pay increase just as anyone else does.... and a fair & reasonable rise to keep up with the CPI & inflation is generally what is on their log of claims. Why are businesses entitled to increase prices & profit margins? ... why don't they just maintain the levels they currently receive? Their margins don't increase to keep up with wage demands .... it's the other way round. ::) I've never been on strike because I want a pay increase. It's always been because employers are cutting corners or not paying their blokes what they agreed to pay them. All pay ncreases are laid out in the EBA that the employers agree too, well before work commences. If they don't honor their side then yes, a representative ie. union, comes in and questions motives as to why the agreement is being broken. It gets tiring hearing people like FD shitcan unions all the time while they sit at home on holidays or sick pay benefits. Stop attacking the workers. It's time you attacked the buisinesses because they are the ones that cut the corners.

Another simple explanation for FD ...the person who can't see the explanations for the clarifications.

Gordon wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 7:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. If they're not striking to retain current conditions but for increased pay when nobody is being undermined. And didn't you once tell us the Indians who drive your cabs earn less than minimum wage after you take your cut?

No I did not, and I am offended by your allegation of racism.  All my drivers are on the same 'pay scale.'  All my drivers earn as much as they work for themselves.  They are not my employees.

'capable of negotiating for themselves'?

One person goes into a negotiation with a bunch of managers.. he says "Yes, Sir - how low do you want me to jump?" .. or it's NEXT ... we'll call you....

Frankly I know who's delusional....  remember Longie (North Korean General Luong Yi) trumpeting how one of his books discussed the very real tool a negotiator has of sacking the worker..... same here - one very real tool the tool negotiating on behalf of a company has is to not employ the worker at all... that, my son, is called thuggery where I come from...

https://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/10/18/wbCARTOONpetty_gallery__470x328.jpg

You do understand what is this Signed Agreement, don't you? 

Quote:

WHAT people are unemployed because of the actions of Unions?

When you artificially increase wages, you decrease the number of jobs available. Supply and demand. I can't give you their names, if that's what you are asking.


Quote:

You yourself said the scabs come in to try to scalp the jobs at a lower rate... so it's not the Unions making people in that situation unemployed, is it?

Yes it is. They would already have a job if not for the unions.


Quote:

It's the bosses... al you want to do is replace workers operating on a signed agreement with people who are prepared to accept less without having a valid agreement that abides by the rules.

I want everyone who wants a job in an industry and is able to find an employer willing to give them one under mutually agreed conditions to have the right to do so. There would be more jobs available as a result. There would be higher salaries in non-union industries. The whole country would benefit.


Quote:

So throwing people working on a signed agreement out and replacing them with people who accept no agreement or an illegal agreement is NOT rendering people unemployed?

There would be more jobs.


Quote:

Where did all your Unionists go then?

Wherever their heart desires. Without unions, there would also be a broader variety of choices.



Quote:

Seeings you are going back trolling old posts to further your Union bashing with yet another thread....

How am I "trolling an old post"?


Quote:

you would have seen that I explained exactly what constitutes a "scab"

I assume you must have gone back and checked somewhere. Did it not occur to you to copy and paste it for us, so you don't have to go back yet again? Or have the unions trained you in the art of wasting everyone's time?


Quote:

Do members of Unions of Employers not pay dues to belong to those collectives?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?


Quote:

How many times do you need it explained as to why those who receive the benefits of others sacrifice should make a contribution?

Can you explain how someone who is unemployed because of the unions is receiving a benefit?


Quote:

Why is it that you as a rabid conservative capitalist think that there is a free ride to be had?

I think you have to work for a living, not sit around and whinge. You are the one who thinks downing tools is the way to go.


Quote:

whatever conditions and wage rates you receive at any job in this country .... has been through the hard fought & won actions of Unions.

Does that include the toilet paper?


Quote:

Why are businesses entitled to increase prices & profit margins? ...

Why shouldn't they be? Since when do they need permission from scabs like you to decide for themselves? We do not live in a communist state.


Quote:

It's not about "denying them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay"as you repeatedly parrot.

That's exactly what it is. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.


Quote:

That's a bald faced lie....... people who belong to Unions get paid more.

What is a lie? You don't appear to be addressing anything I actually said.


Quote:

Why should someone who is prepared to work & contribute take a pay rate that is lower than the regulated pay rates or no better than the dole?

It is their choice whether to do so, though I can't imagine they would. I do not claim to know what is best for them. I certainly wouldn't denigrate them for wanting to get a job.

Quote:

Frankly I know who's delusional....  remember Longie (North Korean General Luong Yi) trumpeting how one of his books discussed the very real tool a negotiator has of sacking the worker..... same here - one very real tool the tool negotiating on behalf of a company has is to not employ the worker at all... that, my son, is called thuggery where I come from...

Thuggery is what unions do. Deciding whether to offer someone a job, keep them in a job, accept a job, stay in a job is called exercising your freedom. We all have choices. The unions try to convince you that you don't, but you do. Fewer of course, thanks to the unions creating unemployment, but still a choice.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good? Can you explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more, and belittle and demean them in the process?

What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" when it comes to their country.  Thats because they're people who take all the benefits that the country or or the union can give them but will stab their country/fellow union members in the back when there's a short term benefit for them even though in the long run it hurts them as well (the race to the bottom).

Now to deal with your usual deceitful reasoning starting with this dumb strawman argument "So the unions ... want to stop ...scabs .... getting a job for their own good?". Which is like saying "So Australia wants to stop that traitor from getting that brand new car the Chinese Govt promised him in return for a few state secrets." 

So I think the Australian people need to ask themselves; "Why is it fair to deny that traitor the job he wants to do so that they can be safer and better off instead of demeaning and belittling that poor innocent traitor. 

Indeed the scab concept goes back to the beginnings of civilization. People who take the benefits derived from being a member of the group are expected to pull together when the group is threatened and if they don't they are rightly reviled, demonized and ostracized. 

And of course its not only to protect pay and conditions that unions go on strike.  Increasingly unions are going on strike to protect against job losses and the real aggressor in those situations is the scab who for his own self interest threatens the jobs of the union members. So why dont we ever hear you defending the right of union members to protect their own job.

Thats why I dont pay much regard to your opinions freediver because your starting point for your opinion is your contempt for working people and your belief that you and the business class has a right to exploit them. 

Quote:

What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" in war situations.

I am not at war with my employer. I am in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That you consider it war merely reveals how delusional the union mindset is.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:19am:

Quote: What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" in war situations. I am not at war with my employer. I am in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That you consider it war merely reveals how delusional the union mindset is.

I know who is delusional.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:15am:

Quote: WHAT people are unemployed because of the actions of Unions? When you artificially increase wages, you decrease the number of jobs available. Supply and demand. I can't give you their names, if that's what you are asking. [quote]You yourself said the scabs come in to try to scalp the jobs at a lower rate... so it's not the Unions making people in that situation unemployed, is it?

Yes it is. They would already have a job if not for the unions.


Quote:

It's the bosses... al you want to do is replace workers operating on a signed agreement with people who are prepared to accept less without having a valid agreement that abides by the rules.

I want everyone who wants a job in an industry and is able to find an employer willing to give them one under mutually agreed conditions to have the right to do so. There would be more jobs available as a result. There would be higher salaries in non-union industries. The whole country would benefit.


Quote:

So throwing people working on a signed agreement out and replacing them with people who accept no agreement or an illegal agreement is NOT rendering people unemployed?

There would be more jobs.


Quote:

Where did all your Unionists go then?

Wherever their heart desires. Without unions, there would also be a broader variety of choices.



Quote:

Seeings you are going back trolling old posts to further your Union bashing with yet another thread....

How am I "trolling an old post"?


Quote:

you would have seen that I explained exactly what constitutes a "scab"

I assume you must have gone back and checked somewhere. Did it not occur to you to copy and paste it for us, so you don't have to go back yet again? Or have the unions trained you in the art of wasting everyone's time?


Quote:

Do members of Unions of Employers not pay dues to belong to those collectives?

I have no idea. Do you have a point?


Quote:

How many times do you need it explained as to why those who receive the benefits of others sacrifice should make a contribution?

Can you explain how someone who is unemployed because of the unions is receiving a benefit?


Quote:

Why is it that you as a rabid conservative capitalist think that there is a free ride to be had?

I think you have to work for a living, not sit around and whinge. You are the one who thinks downing tools is the way to go.


Quote:

whatever conditions and wage rates you receive at any job in this country .... has been through the hard fought & won actions of Unions.

Does that include the toilet paper?


Quote:

Why are businesses entitled to increase prices & profit margins? ...

Why shouldn't they be? Since when do they need permission from scabs like you to decide for themselves? We do not live in a communist state.


Quote:

It's not about "denying them a job just so they can take home a little bit more pay"as you repeatedly parrot.

That's exactly what it is. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.


Quote:

That's a bald faced lie....... people who belong to Unions get paid more.

What is a lie? You don't appear to be addressing anything I actually said.


Quote:

Why should someone who is prepared to work & contribute take a pay rate that is lower than the regulated pay rates or no better than the dole?

It is their choice whether to do so, though I can't imagine they would. I do not claim to know what is best for them. I certainly wouldn't denigrate them for wanting to get a job.[/quote]

You should really try hard to put the persons name beside the selectively edited quote you copy & paste.  ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:17am:

Quote: Frankly I know who's delusional....  remember Longie (North Korean General Luong Yi) trumpeting how one of his books discussed the very real tool a negotiator has of sacking the worker..... same here - one very real tool the tool negotiating on behalf of a company has is to not employ the worker at all... that, my son, is called thuggery where I come from... Thuggery is what unions do. Deciding whether to offer someone a job, keep them in a job, accept a job, stay in a job is called exercising your freedom. We all have choices. The unions try to convince you that you don't, but you do. Fewer of course, thanks to the unions creating unemployment, but still a choice.

So do Unions of Employers. Hypocrite.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:19am:

Quote: What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" in war situations. Changed to "when it comes to their country I am not at war with my employer. I am in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That you consider it war merely reveals how delusional the union mindset is.

Sometimes yes sometimes no but when the unions are on strike then your in that conflict situation. Truth is you know full well what the concept of scab is because you use it all the time when it suites you

Gnads wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:27am:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:17am: Quote: Frankly I know who's delusional....  remember Longie (North Korean General Luong Yi) trumpeting how one of his books discussed the very real tool a negotiator has of sacking the worker..... same here - one very real tool the tool negotiating on behalf of a company has is to not employ the worker at all... that, my son, is called thuggery where I come from... Thuggery is what unions do. Deciding whether to offer someone a job, keep them in a job, accept a job, stay in a job is called exercising your freedom. We all have choices. The unions try to convince you that you don't, but you do. Fewer of course, thanks to the unions creating unemployment, but still a choice. So do Unions of Employers. Hypocrite.

Can you give an example?


Jest wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 7:30am:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:19am: Quote: What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" in war situations. Changed to "when it comes to their country I am not at war with my employer. I am in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That you consider it war merely reveals how delusional the union mindset is. Sometimes yes sometimes no but when the unions are on strike then your in that conflict situation. Truth is you know full well what the concept of scab is because you use it all the time when it suites you

Liar.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:27am: freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:17am: Quote: Frankly I know who's delusional....  remember Longie (North Korean General Luong Yi) trumpeting how one of his books discussed the very real tool a negotiator has of sacking the worker..... same here - one very real tool the tool negotiating on behalf of a company has is to not employ the worker at all... that, my son, is called thuggery where I come from... Thuggery is what unions do. Deciding whether to offer someone a job, keep them in a job, accept a job, stay in a job is called exercising your freedom. We all have choices. The unions try to convince you that you don't, but you do. Fewer of course, thanks to the unions creating unemployment, but still a choice. So do Unions of Employers. Hypocrite. Can you give an example? Jest wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:30am: freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 7:19am: [quote]What Unions call "scabs" in the industrial context, is what you, freediver and cods and the girls in her lammington baking club, call "Traitors" in war situations. Changed to "when it comes to their country I am not at war with my employer. I am in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That you consider it war merely reveals how delusional the union mindset is. Sometimes yes sometimes no but when the unions are on strike then your in that conflict situation. Truth is you know full well what the concept of scab is because you use it all the time when it suites you

Liar.[/quote]
So are you saying that when the union is on strike it is not in conflict with the employer and/or that you understand the concept of scab full well because you use it all the time when it suites you? Both states are true of course. 

No. I said that you are a liar. I apologise for your confusion.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 9:51am:

No. I said that you are a liar. I apologise for your confusion.

Well, since you wont answer I'll just take it that you know that both statements are true but are unable to deny the truth of what I said.Thats OK, we all knew that anyway.   

Jest wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 10:12am:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:51am: No. I said that you are a liar. I apologise for your confusion. Well, since you wont answer I'll just take it that you know that both statements are true but are unable to deny the truth of what I said.Thats OK, we all knew that anyway.

So when I called you a liar your takeaway message was that I agree with you? Not much gets through, does it?

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 10:24am:

Jest wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 10:12am: freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 9:51am: No. I said that you are a liar. I apologise for your confusion. Well, since you wont answer I'll just take it that you know that both statements are true but are unable to deny the truth of what I said.Thats OK, we all knew that anyway.    So when I called you a liar your takeaway message was that I agree with you? Not much gets through, does it?

Yes one has to go with the evidence they have and since your continuing to post replies but not denying what I said means that the more likely reason is that you cant deny it. Thats not my concluded view you understand. Im still open to other possibilities but the moire you refuse to answer the worse it looks for you.   

I see I was not clear enough. When I called you a liar, I expected you would understand that I am saying you are wrong. I apologise for your ongoing confusion.

Let me just get this right:-

According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs; but when a management retrenches workers of any kind and then replaces them with others who are specifically not Union members and are signing on for lower pay and conditions for the same jobs - those SCABS are not stopping people from getting jobs?

Seems to me you are distorting the idea of the 'jobs market' by trying to view it as a Union/Scab dichotomy; and are mistaking brute force by management for industrial relations and fair negotiation.

Why is that?  Have you been reading too much of the Preachings of Luong Yi?*

Seriously, freed - you used to be reasonably rational, but now you are taking on a rather sinister mental twist about your realities.

.. * for the uninitiated; Luong Yi is my version of Longie = the user LongWeekend59, who was rabidly right radical, knows it all (ask him), and an absolute trout in his discussions with others, using insult and put-down rather than facts.  For this, I compared him to a North Korean or CCP General, and created the name Yuong Li for him, even bringing to the table on the subject of 'negotiation' the issue of first needing to settle the shape of the table.... Longie espouses the 'tool' of being able to sack a negotiating worker as a useful tool in negotiation - I responded that only a tool in negotiation would use such a tool....

Laughter - the best medicine for twits...... of course the title General Luong Yi went right over his hugely intelligent head... He Who Knows It All....

Quote:

According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs

No.

To the extent they manage to increase wages and increase the cost of providing jobs through collusion, they cause unemployment. There are fewer jobs in total in the industry. It's not a zero sum game, they create a negative sum game. They benefit at everyone else's expense.

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 10:53am:

I see I was not clear enough. When I called you a liar, I expected you would understand that I am saying you are wrong. I apologise for your ongoing confusion.

Baby steps, baby steps. I cant say your fast to catch on but your getting there. Now, the next step in rational human debate is to tell us why you think that when unions go on strike they're not in conflict with their employer and/or why you say Im wrong that you use the concept iof scab when it suites you. For example you might never think or speak of people who betray their country as "traitors". Is that the reason you say Im wrong. Go ahead you can do this. 

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 11:02am:

Let me just get this right:- According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs; but when a management retrenches workers of any kind and then replaces them with others who are specifically not Union members and are signing on for lower pay and conditions for the same jobs - those SCABS are not stopping people from getting jobs? Seems to me you are distorting the idea of the 'jobs market' by trying to view it as a Union/Scab dichotomy; and are mistaking brute force by management for industrial relations and fair negotiation. Why is that?  Have you been reading too much of the Preachings of Luong Yi?* Seriously, freed - you used to be reasonably rational, but now you are taking on a rather sinister mental twist about your realities. .. * for the uninitiated; Luong Yi is my version of Longie = the user LongWeekend59, who was rabidly right radical, knows it all (ask him), and an absolute trout in his discussions with others, using insult and put-down rather than facts.  For this, I compared him to a North Korean or CCP General, and created the name Yuong Li for him, even bringing to the table on the subject of 'negotiation' the issue of first needing to settle the shape of the table.... Longie espouses the 'tool' of being able to sack a negotiating worker as a useful tool in negotiation - I responded that only a tool in negotiation would use such a tool.... Laughter - the best medicine for twits...... of course the title General Luong Yi went right over his hugely intelligent head... He Who Knows It All....

Spot on Grap.

Jest wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 9:47am:

So are you saying that when the union is on strike it is not in conflict with the employer and/or that you understand the concept of scab full well because you use it all the time when it suites you? Both states are true of course.

.. with the proviso that the employer is also in conflict with the union/employees ... this is, after all - a two way street, like having sex after a night out drinking together and indeed responsibility for engaging in sex at all which somehow - in this 21st Century, remains the absolute province of the man when it suits ONLY for blaming purposes ... what part of YES do they not understand? .....  8-)

Similarly, INDUSTRIAL Disputes are two way - not one - and the issues are mostly that it is the management wanting to change an agreement that brings it all about, such as the wharf thing at this moment, which I feel may have 'triggered' freediver on this series of issues about Unions.

I don't think that. Again, I apologise for your persistent state of confusion.

Jest wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 10:53am: I see I was not clear enough. When I called you a liar, I expected you would understand that I am saying you are wrong. I apologise for your ongoing confusion. Baby steps, baby steps. I cant say your fast to catch on but your getting there. Now, the next step in rational human debate is to tell us why you think that when unions go on strike they're not in conflict with their employer and/or why you say Im wrong that you use the concept iof scab when it suites you. For example you might never think or speak of people who betray their country as "traitors". Is that the reason you say Im wrong. Go ahead you can do this.

I notice you haven't denied being a liar yet. So what is the point of lying if you know you cannot get away with it?

You got your definition - you got your argument rebutted - why is this running at four pages+.

Unions of themselves do not cause unemployment or create income inequality, and you will not, as long as Australia draws breath, have a laissez faire jobs market again, since it demonstrably does not work and is nothing but a concept of tyranny and despotism of the employer over employee, something anathema in the 'civilised' West now for many decades and still in flux.... and you can keep your WOP master/servant mentality to yourself.

Beware the full response of the common folk - it generally leads to guillotines and the like ...

https://i.imgflip.com/4istll.jpg

Quote:

Beware the full response of the common folk - it generally leads to guillotines and the like ...

Are the unions going to help them deliver this response?

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 11:09am:

Quote: According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs No. To the extent they manage to increase wages and increase the cost of providing jobs through collusion, they cause unemployment. There are fewer jobs in total in the industry. It's not a zero sum game, they create a negative sum game. They benefit at everyone else's expense.

 
Bullshyte or should I say liar.

And rationalization ... who makes those decisions and takes away jobs??

Hypocrite.

Gnads wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 4:34pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 11:09am: Quote: According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs No. To the extent they manage to increase wages and increase the cost of providing jobs through collusion, they cause unemployment. There are fewer jobs in total in the industry. It's not a zero sum game, they create a negative sum game. They benefit at everyone else's expense.   Bullshyte or should I say liar. And rationalization ... who makes those decisions and takes away jobs?? Hypocrite.

It's an inevitable consequence Gnads. All you have to do is think about it. I dare you.

freediver wrote on Oct 13^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 5:26pm: freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2020 at 4:52pm: Our resident unionist parrots (white knight, Gnads, Ye Grappler) have been throwing around this term, which does not sound very nice to me. Gnads likes to call them bludging scabs. But they all shy away of explaining what they mean with this term. So now is their chance to explain. Why do you call your fellow Australians who are down on their luck at a given time, but who are willing and able to work and prepared to do a job that others consider beneath them in some way, a scab? Because they are undermining what has been long fought for.  Fair pay for job done, not exploitation of those 'down on their luck' who, if employed, would render those they replaced on the basis of prostitution, unemployed.  And the eternal downward spiral is set in place. China, here we come.  No protection for workers. So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good? Can you explain why you think it is fair to deny one person a job they want to do so that another can get paid more, and belittle and demean them in the process?

Quote:

So the unions call them scabs and want to stop them getting a job for their own good?

Most people called a scab in the workplace are likely unknown to the union. It is their fellow workers calling out people bludging on them and undermining their position.

The other type of scab are those employed as non union members under the industry pay rates in place of current employees who will be dismissed.

In other words odious grubs undermining pay rates and working conditions for all Australian workers.

Think the waterfront dispute which produces some epic scabs. A workforce trained secretly in Asia to replace an Australian companies workforce after a staged bankruptcy when the employment arm of the company was moved to a new underfunded business with no income.

In this case the big problem was that it was mostly political, meant to be aligned to the election a few months later.

The Politicians involved were very obviously miffed when the company went down 2 or 3 months early upsetting the timing with the election. I.E the Waterfront dispute was meant and planned to be an election stunt scabs political lies and all.

One of Australia's blackest Liberal party events.

Quote:

Most people called a scab in the workplace are likely unknown to the union. It is their fellow workers calling out people bludging on them and undermining their position.

By "bludging", do you mean not handing over their money?


Quote:

In other words odious grubs undermining pay rates and working conditions for all Australian workers.

Everyone who has a job is competing against other job seekers. Why do unions take this so personally?

freediver wrote on Oct 14^th, 2020 at 11:09am:

To the extent they manage to increase wages and increase the cost of providing jobs through collusion, they cause unemployment. There are fewer jobs in total in the industry. It's not a zero sum game, they create a negative sum game. They benefit at everyone else's expense.

That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.  :D :D :D

Pull your head out of the sand and stop overdosing on cool aid.

Quote:

That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed.

Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 6:33pm:

Quote: Most people called a scab in the workplace are likely unknown to the union. It is their fellow workers calling out people bludging on them and undermining their position. By "bludging", do you mean not handing over their money?

They are typically first in line to accept the wage increases and to benefit from the industry conditions the unions won despite them.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?

of course. Less money for your customers means less money for you to pay wages ... it's not rocket science. Even for you.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 6:39pm:

Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?

Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry.

The data shows that employees voted with their feet.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 6:47pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm: Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry. The data shows that employees voted with their feet.

That doesn't sound like unemployment. Did they vote to go on the dole?

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 7:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm: freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm: Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry. The data shows that employees voted with their feet. That doesn't sound like unemployment. Did they vote to go on the dole?

https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178


https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/penalty-rate-cuts-did-not-create-jobs-labor-20200522-p54vn7.html

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 7:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm: freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm: Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry. The data shows that employees voted with their feet. That doesn't sound like unemployment. Did they vote to go on the dole?

They just as likely found honest work and were paid the correct wage.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 5:31pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 4:34pm: freediver wrote on Oct 14th, 2020 at 11:09am: Quote: According to the Book of Freediver, Union members stop people from getting jobs by having jobs No. To the extent they manage to increase wages and increase the cost of providing jobs through collusion, they cause unemployment. There are fewer jobs in total in the industry. It's not a zero sum game, they create a negative sum game. They benefit at everyone else's expense.   Bullshyte or should I say liar. And rationalization ... who makes those decisions and takes away jobs?? Hypocrite. It's an inevitable consequence Gnads. All you have to do is think about it. I dare you.

There is a mountain of evidence that shows wage increases do not impact employment numbers, the employer side make the claim with every wage increase and when it happens the outcome fails to support this claim.

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.

Non Unionist = Scab
Unionist = GRUB

John Smith wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 7:05pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 7:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm: freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm: Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry. The data shows that employees voted with their feet. That doesn't sound like unemployment. Did they vote to go on the dole? https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/penalty-rate-cuts-did-not-create-jobs-labor-20200522-p54vn7.html

The SMH article states explicitly that Dna's conclusion should not be drawn from the data.

How about you John. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?


Dnarever wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 8:35pm:

The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase.

This is simplistic to the point of stupidity. If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow. If it grows, it "needs" more employees. No business has a fixed "need" of employees.

Jasin wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 8:55pm:

Non Unionist = Scab Unionist = GRUB

Anti-Unionist  = DUMB

Never met a Union hater who didn't run to the Union first thing when he/she was under threat from management... some people are just purely totally stupid or totally insane.

Had a bloke who hated Unions - he copped a bullet for flirting with the girls at a client's place - ran to the Union for help, but they couldn't save him.  He was begging, since he only wanted to keep his job until his son finished his education.

On the other hand, I saved a bloke who got irate and was alleged to have pointed a finger at a supervisor and abused him - witnesses said otherwise, and he was having at a fellow worker - and I won that one.  Put me squarely in the sights of the retard who was the general manager - who now, fortunately for the world, is dead.

A more deserving bloke you'd never meet....

When you permit management to ride rough-shod over your Union, and attack workers at will over anything, then you create your own problems - not least for those who stand up and represent you for free who are targeted by that same management, and while YOU are in your 'hate the unions' phase - you laugh about it and say they deserved it.  You never think the same when it comes to you, though, or when the same management destroys the company.

Funny thing - the Unions still go in to bat for those who are union haters... and the costs come in many ways for those doing the batting, let me tell you.

Die your own way - but don't blame me when you are the one in the barrel.

Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces.

My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000.

The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager...

The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) .....

then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year.

How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::)

These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves.

Gnads wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 12:58pm:

Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves.

Where is the illustrious Labor government in all this?  Nowhere to be seen other than on cloud nine feathering their own nests and pursuing their 'career' in politics.  Not that the other side would be better - if anything worse!

BTW - that's what companies call 'negotiation' these days - sign it or out you go.... WorkChoices - what are my choices?  Either your signature is on what we demand or your job is feeding the fishes..

We need a series of good old management massacres.... they do that a bit in the US....

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1048005?seq=1

"Abstract

Homicides committed against supervisors and coworkers by disgruntled employees have grown at a disturbing rate in the American workplace. Increasingly, embittered employees and ex-employees are seeking revenge through violence and murder for alleged mistreatment on the job. This article examines patterns and trends in available data and presents a theoretical profile of those who kill at the work site. It suggests that the typical homicide of employers and coworkers is committed by a disgruntled, white, middle-aged male who faces termination or who has recently been fired. Recommendations are advanced for how employers might better respond to problem employees and to homicidal threats at the workplace. These include prevention strategies, such as giving higher priority to the role of human resources, affording employees due process protection against unfair terminations, and changing the importance attached to the meaning of work in people's lives."

I see they don't address the real problems of problem management/supervision.

"disgruntled, white, middle-aged male who faces termination or who has recently been fired" ....

...dare one suggest that a loyal, long-serving employee just might be disgruntled over being unfairly booted out to suit some boy or girl manager's ideas, when that manager is most likely to have next to no real experience etc and be about as useful as an ejector seat on a submarine?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 12:53pm:

Jasin wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:55pm: Non Unionist = Scab Unionist = GRUB Anti-Unionist  = DUMB Never met a Union hater who didn't run to the Union first thing when he/she was under threat from management... some people are just purely totally stupid or totally insane. Had a bloke who hated Unions - he copped a bullet for flirting with the girls at a client's place - ran to the Union for help, but they couldn't save him.  He was begging, since he only wanted to keep his job until his son finished his education. On the other hand, I saved a bloke who got irate and was alleged to have pointed a finger at a supervisor and abused him - witnesses said otherwise, and he was having at a fellow worker - and I won that one.  Put me squarely in the sights of the retard who was the general manager - who now, fortunately for the world, is dead. A more deserving bloke you'd never meet.... When you permit management to ride rough-shod over your Union, and attack workers at will over anything, then you create your own problems - not least for those who stand up and represent you for free who are targeted by that same management, and while YOU are in your 'hate the unions' phase - you laugh about it and say they deserved it.  You never think the same when it comes to you, though, or when the same management destroys the company. Funny thing - the Unions still go in to bat for those who are union haters... and the costs come in many ways for those doing the batting, let me tell you. Die your own way - but don't blame me when you are the one in the barrel.

Oh. You mean the 'Union' (represented by a bloke that looked like Peter Coyote from the USA) that worked with an American Company to squeeze out the Australian Contractors that had been in the game for over 35 years as an 'Association'. So that the Union can get some 'clientele' from the American Company that brought in cheap Asian labour from South Korea. Who took 2 years to become 100% proficient compared to my 6 months with one month without a trainer (brought in from UK and ripped off by the American Company by $80,000 and thus he left). The 'cheap Asian labour' also worked without PPE... like shoes of all things while working. This Unionised Cheap Asian Labour also come into the job via 'Back Packer Visas' on a 6 month rotation although none stay in Back Packer Hostels or travel Australia.  They even had a big African American Security with Bollards galore because they thought the OZ Contractors would come and Protest etc, because they got shafted from the work. I worked for the Company and they screwed me over too because they only employ the 'token Aussie Local' for a training period of that particular duty, although mostly they try to push the menial other duties as much as they can get away with. Then they turf the local for another while the imported Cheap Asian just rotate for Visa reasons. Nah I saw that Security guy turn a blind eye to me as we drove past each other at break-neck speed. He was going to 'my' disturbance in the Office (Where big Aussie JaSin Labourer was taking on big South African Boer Manager). I was going to run over all his Security Bollards and such. If he tried to stop me, I would have dropped the wannabe. In the end, the Company called the Police who called me about my 'destruction' and 'threat of violence' to the Boer. Told em, I still haven't got used to the dirt roads out here - very slippery over 60km. He was a mate of my mate's in Sydney and laughed. He knew what the American Company and its yankee Union here were up to. Asked me how I went with that big African American security. Told him he had fled the scene before I got there because he knew I was heading in his direction. Went and consoled the Boer Manager. Who I put my fist to his face I reckon a ml more I would have brushed his whiskers. I could tell in his eyes that if this was South Africa - he would have easily tried pop me in the back of the head with a bullet from a safe hidden place. Instead, I put the word out that I will break both his knees if I caught him 'off property'. I think he couldn't cope with the 'home isolationism' and moved to Victoria in transfer.
Don't fly the Eureka Stockade Yankee Cross Flag.
We fly the Confederate Rebel Flag down here. Our methods are better than the yanks one.  ;)
Nah - f*uck the Yankee Unions. Australian Confederate raised Yellows are far better Workers than those silly little Asian types the Unions prefer.

You are off the planet today, JaSin - we don't do American unions here and we don't have Unions that permit body hire and other abuse without objection...

You sure you don't mean 'management' in place of Union? You sound very confused today.....

Gnads wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 12:58pm:

Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves.

His pay cut is more than what many people earn in a year. Forgive me for not getting out the violin.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 1:23pm:

You are off the planet today, JaSin - we don't do American unions here and we don't have Unions that permit body hire and other abuse without objection... You sure you don't mean 'management' in place of Union? You sound very confused today.....

You might be right Grapps. The word 'Union' just ticked me off. Got two issues I've gotta get the boot up the arse to the local Council on behalf of the poor and unfortunate (dis). Got a take over by a new Company that is doing the Chinese trick of letting everything go to crap to make the Renters get sick of it and leave (but they can't untill after the end of March next year). I refuse to pay Rent now because their lack of keeping up Standard (health & safety issues now galore). Few more other things. Not easy being Celibate.
"There's no sex in my violence
no sex in my violence."
"Everything Zen?
Everything Zen?"
"...I don't think so."

Maybe I should bash a Gay and butt-rape a Redneck just to piss both of them off for giving them what they fear and hate the most? Might be some good anger management? Whaddaya think Grapps? Us benevolent Medical/Support/Celibate/Buddhist-like types really should let some steam out like a Soldier on a Genocide Mission sometimes. Might do me some good? :-?

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 12:58pm: Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves. His pay cut is more than what many people earn in a year. Forgive me for not getting out the violin.

His good fortune - in another circumstance you would leap to defend him from criticism that he is somehow getting more than a fair deal.  If he's working away from home, he is entitled to payments for remote etc - and also tax deductions for meals etc.

Where would any company find $45k that someone was not entitled to somehow under 'enterprise agreements'?  Maybe we should all go back to Awards pure and simple.... see how that pans out for the vultures companies.

Hope he's got a good accountant who knows his stuff.

My son is a Qld tradie and works damned hard for his excellent dollars.  Going flat out at the moment he says.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 3:07pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 1:26pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 12:58pm: Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves. His pay cut is more than what many people earn in a year. Forgive me for not getting out the violin. His good fortune - in another circumstance you would leap to defend him from criticism that he is somehow getting more than a fair deal.  If he's working away from home, he is entitled to payments for remote etc - and also tax deductions for meals etc. Where would any company find $45k that someone was not entitled to somehow under 'enterprise agreements'?  Maybe we should all go back to Awards pure and simple.... see how that pans out for the vultures companies. Hope he's got a good accountant who knows his stuff. My son is a Qld tradie and works damned hard for his excellent dollars.  Going flat out at the moment he says.

Are you asking me to explain where the $45k came from, or where it went to?

And what exactly is your point here? If it's to make people feel sorry for your son, you've got an uphill battle. I expect most here would envy him if you told them what his salary is.

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 12:58pm: Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves. His pay cut is more than what many people earn in a year. Forgive me for not getting out the violin.

Relevance?

He worked, bettered himself & paid for the qualifications to earn that salary.

How much do you earn?

You sound just like Hockey, Scomo & Dutton.

A hypocritcal bunch of elitist TNUCs.

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 4:10pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 3:07pm: freediver wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 1:26pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 12:58pm: Heres' a fine example of the shyte going on in non union workplaces. My son works in waste water management in the Gas fields near Wondoan. He's employed as a plumber/fitter ..... he paid for his CERT IV courses in waste water treatment out of his own - over $6,000. The company he works for has just sold out to a larger firm .... his old boss has been kept on a manager... The new firm has been in charge albeit 5 mins when they inform my son that he is required to sign a new contract ... which involves him taking on more responsibility, paperwork & training an apprentice(govt subsidised) ..... then to boot  he got a cut in salary of - $45,000 per year. How is that sort of action fair & reasonable and not Employer thuggery?  ::) These are the same people who wanted to increase a qualification in the job description and make the employees pay for the training course & ticket themselves. His pay cut is more than what many people earn in a year. Forgive me for not getting out the violin. His good fortune - in another circumstance you would leap to defend him from criticism that he is somehow getting more than a fair deal.  If he's working away from home, he is entitled to payments for remote etc - and also tax deductions for meals etc. Where would any company find $45k that someone was not entitled to somehow under 'enterprise agreements'?  Maybe we should all go back to Awards pure and simple.... see how that pans out for the vultures companies. Hope he's got a good accountant who knows his stuff. My son is a Qld tradie and works damned hard for his excellent dollars.  Going flat out at the moment he says. Are you asking me to explain where the $45k came from, or where it went to? And what exactly is your point here? If it's to make people feel sorry for your son, you've got an uphill battle. I expect most here would envy him if you told them what his salary is.

And that too is irrelevant.

You are fine about people being able to negotiate a fair salary on their own ....

but when it comes to an example as to one who has done that & got shafted

you come out all about other people earning less & envy.

You are the ultimate hypocrite.

In fact you're a right TNUC.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 9:59pm:

The SMH article states explicitly that Dna's conclusion should not be drawn from the data.

So you're going to ignore the whole article and it's claim that penalty rate cuts DID NOT increase employment, and instead run with one bit of semantics?  Seems even you have little faith in your own claim FD ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 9:59pm:

How about you John. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts?

Did penalty rate cuts create jobs FD?? A simple yes or no will suffice.


freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 9:59pm:

This is simplistic to the point of stupidity. If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow.

really? ;D ;D You haven't met many business owners have you?

I see on tonights news that restaurant owners in Sydney are complaining that they cannot get staff as they begin to reopen. The overseas bodies they rely on are not available and they are no calling for Australians to step into the breach.

Fine to ask for Australian workers,  but an industry that has relied on casualisation of its work force and on foreign visa holders is now reaping what is has sown. 

This quote is a reality with todays employers.

---

Quote:

So you're going to ignore the whole article and it's claim that penalty rate cuts DID NOT increase employment, and instead run with one bit of semantics?

I'll run with what the article actually says.

Can you explain the mechanism by which you think artificially increasing salaries would lead to companies offering more jobs?


Quote:

Did penalty rate cuts create jobs FD?? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes. But seeing as you are into semantics, it might help if you think of it as reducing the extent of job losses in this particular case.


Quote:

really? Grin Grin You haven't met many business owners have you?

I've met enough to know that they are not idiots.

Belgarion wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 5:50pm:

I see on tonights news that restaurant owners in Sydney are complaining that they cannot get staff as they begin to reopen. The overseas bodies they rely on are not available and they are no calling for Australians to step into the breach. Fine to ask for Australian workers,  but an industry that has relied on casualisation of its work force and on foreign visa holders is now reaping what is has sown.

Agree

Gnads wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 6:12pm:

This quote is a reality with todays employers.

More likely JobReaper....


There I was shelling and butterflying prawns for dinner tonight, and I said to the ex - "I might not be as fast as the Chinese students the restaurants employ casually at slave rates - but I still get 'em done!  They have to be fast or they don't get to work."

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 7:37pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 18th, 2020 at 6:12pm: This quote is a reality with todays employers. More likely JobReaper.... There I was shelling and butterflying prawns for dinner tonight, and I said to the ex - "I might not be as fast as the Chinese students the restaurants employ casually at slave rates - but I still get 'em done!  They have to be fast or they don't get to work."

JobRorters

Belgarion wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 5:50pm:

I see on tonights news that restaurant owners in Sydney are complaining that they cannot get staff as they begin to reopen. The overseas bodies they rely on are not available and they are no calling for Australians to step into the breach. Fine to ask for Australian workers,  but an industry that has relied on casualisation of its work force and on foreign visa holders is now reaping what is has sown.

Don't worry. In a way this is 'old news' as many businesses have found it hard to employ people who get more $$ sitting on Welfare atm with all these stimulus packages.
Why work when the Welfare pays more?
Obviously, its more better to get a job and your foot in the door before the exodus of the Welfare cuts and everyone having to go back and look for work.
Imagine the exodus of 'homeless' when the Corona Law of being turfed out for not having the rent when March next year ends.

freediver wrote on Oct 18^th, 2020 at 6:13pm:

I'll run with what the article actually says. .

Bullshit you do ... you just make up crap to suit.
This is what the article said


Quote:

Sweeping cuts to penalty rates have failed to deliver the jobs boost promised three years ago when workers were told to accept lower pay for the good of the economy

Quote:

Yes. But seeing as you are into semantics, it might help if you think of it as reducing the extent of job losses in this particular case.

;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline


Quote:

I've met enough to know that they are not idiots.

I doubt it. From the crap you write I'd be surprised if you've ever spoken to one apart from when you ask him for a bag of bait.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2020 at 9:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 7:05pm: freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 7:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:47pm: freediver wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 6:39pm: Quote: That's funny, I recall hearing the same argument FOR cutting penalty rates. But when rates were cut, it was found that they didn't create a single job ... instead there were more unemployed. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Yes definitely the loss of jobs was industry specific. People walked and it hurt the industry. The data shows that employees voted with their feet. That doesn't sound like unemployment. Did they vote to go on the dole? https://theconversation.com/cutting-penalty-rates-was-supposed-to-create-jobs-it-hasnt-and-heres-why-not-117178 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/penalty-rate-cuts-did-not-create-jobs-labor-20200522-p54vn7.html The SMH article states explicitly that Dna's conclusion should not be drawn from the data. How about you John. Do you think there were more unemployed than there would have been without the rate cuts? Dnarever wrote on Oct 17th, 2020 at 8:35pm: The reason is that business will employ the number of people that they need. They do not employ people they don't need when wages are low and they do not sack people that they do need when wages increase. This is simplistic to the point of stupidity. If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow. If it grows, it "needs" more employees. No business has a fixed "need" of employees.

The SMH article states explicitly that Dna's conclusion should not be drawn from the data.

No a business representative said this and followed it with data that failed to support her statement.


Quote:

This is simplistic to the point of stupidity. If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow.

Why will it grow ? low wages does not contribute to growth ? Disenchanted employees on reduced wages does not encourage productivity. Employees leaving is not a positive, Hard to find replacement employees are not overly interested in low paying work. Nor are new employees efficient or effective in the workplace.

So the business may well be left with employee churn inexperienced employees and short numbers. This in turn has a negative impact on service quality.

In short typically lowering wages will make the business more difficult to grow.

Working with Mac bank their mantra was employ the best pay the best keep the best. At that time the most profitable bank in the southern hemisphere.

John Smith wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 8:18pm:

;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline

So the rates cuts did boost employment after all? Thanks John, your idiocy cuts both ways.


Quote:

Why will it grow ?

Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple?

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 9:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple?

It was Friedman's biggest lie; that tax cuts and business profitability leads to more jobs and higher wages. Business profitability can lead to more jobs but the effect is very minimal. That's because (i) putting on new staff is the last resort for any business and (ii) Business like to use the money to draw down debt (in other words give the many back to the banks), buy back shares, watch their bank balance grow and when they spend its usually for a big ticket luxury item o'seas.

So of course cutting penalty rates didn't generate new jobs and truth is they knew it wouldn't. Its was just another money grab by the Business Unions.      

Many of you have seen this guy B4 but his message is just as true today. More money to Business does not create jobs. More money in the pockets of the working/middle class does that. 

Only IPA stooges claim otherwise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Jest wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 6:17am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 9:14pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple? It was Friedman's biggest lie; that tax cuts and business profitability leads to more jobs and higher wages. Business profitability can lead to more jobs but the effect is very minimal. That's because (i) putting on new staff is the last resort for any business and (ii) Business like to use the money to draw down debt (in other words give the many back to the banks), buy back shares, watch their bank balance grow and when they spend its usually for a big ticket luxury item o'seas. So of course cutting penalty rates didn't generate new jobs and truth is they knew it wouldn't. Its was just another money grab by the Business Unions.       Many of you have seen this guy B4 but his message is just as true today. More money to Business does not create jobs. More money in the pockets of the working/middle class does that.  Only IPA stooges claim otherwise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Good video.....

the old saying money is made round to go round .. not flat to stack .....is true

As this bloke states .... take away income from the working classes with wage cuts & under-employment

only takes money out of the economy and business suffers.

The less people have the less they spend in their businesses.

They seem so hooked on this ideology that they don't see that they are starving themselves.

Gnads wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 6:39am:

Jest wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 6:17am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 9:14pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple? It was Friedman's biggest lie; that tax cuts and business profitability leads to more jobs and higher wages. Business profitability can lead to more jobs but the effect is very minimal. That's because (i) putting on new staff is the last resort for any business and (ii) Business like to use the money to draw down debt (in other words give the many back to the banks), buy back shares, watch their bank balance grow and when they spend its usually for a big ticket luxury item o'seas. So of course cutting penalty rates didn't generate new jobs and truth is they knew it wouldn't. Its was just another money grab by the Business Unions.       Many of you have seen this guy B4 but his message is just as true today. More money to Business does not create jobs. More money in the pockets of the working/middle class does that.  Only IPA stooges claim otherwise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g Good video..... the old saying money is made round to go round .. not flat to stack .....is true As this bloke states .... take away income from the working classes with wage cuts & under-employment only takes money out of the economy and business suffers. The less people have the less they spend in their businesses. They seem so hooked on this ideology that they don't see that they are starving themselves.

He hints at the reasons why the Business class persists with this policy even though it means less profit and growth for them. For many its about a sense of their own entitlement and about status. They deserve more from the State and more concessions from the State because if it wasn't for them everything would crumble and for status you need someone lower than you and the lower the better. 

So true.....

I refer you once again to St Julia's comment that:- 'Asians will become consumers of high quality finished goods' - in relation to his comment on 'consumers drive the economy (something that has been the mainstay of the very 'consumer society' that businesses promote as THE way of life).

Problem for St Julia is/was that while SOME Asians (etc) would fit that bill under the policy of shifting production to the Third World - (sorr) - SOME the majority would be 'promoted' from field hand slavery and street prostitution to wage and tax slavery working in industries that are only there to exploit their low 'labour cost'.  The majority would remain field hands and street prostitutes and earn their living as girlie-boys, while the top few would prosper mightily.  Once that 'market' for low labour dries up with escalating rises in income and such (as I've discussed as happening in China), and the 'labour costs' worldwide begin to level out - these same industries will once again shift shop to somewhere else, and the whole pattern will repeat.

In this context - both 'globalisation' and 'internationalism' are doomed to failure.  Once everyone is 'equal' there is no reason to trade - and the West once prospered ONLY because it had the capacity to produce finished goods and then sell them on to other countries at 'value added' prices.

Once you remove production (not productivity) from a nation, you doom it to Third World Status as the receiver of value added goods rather than the provider of those.

(p.s.  I once did figures that showed (roughly) that to 'compete' with someone in the Third World, an Australian wage earner would have to lose, at that time, something like $17 ph out of $20.  Lowering your own while boosting incomes of 'the rest' has never once succeeded in making everyone 'equal' or in creating a society that is genuinely prosperous across the board.... all it does is destroy a society/culture that has built itself up from the ruins of the kind of absolute laissez-faire you see in - say - Arab countries.

:o

Sorry - I suppose my program there is :-  The Global International Policy of Scabbery.  Employing scabs from the Third World is no different from bussing scabs onto the wharves.

Over there they hang or shoot their Unionists.... bloody Trotskyites...

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 9:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline So the rates cuts did boost employment after all? Thanks John, your idiocy cuts both ways. I think the point was that overall unemployment was declining when the unemployment in the impacted industries was going the other way (as shown in the numbers).  Your statment does support your contention when left stand alone and out of context. Quote: Why will it grow ? Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple?

Quote:

If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow.

The question was specific to your open unjustified statement above that it would if wages were reduced. I never asked what you have said here. I went on to show reasons why reduced wages would more likely produce the opposite result. Funnily enough with the penalty rate decreases what the real world result was in fact aligns with my view not yours.

Insult and non answer noted.

I don't mind non answers it is always the posters choice. I do it myself but usually in non posts.

I've noticed that in the past many businesses grew and grew under our Awards system of payment to workers.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 7:31am:

I've noticed that in the past many businesses grew and grew under our Awards system of payment to workers.

The New Deal Policies that strengthened Unions and delivered consistent wage increases right up until the mid 70s also delivered one of the longest (if not the longest) period of uninterrupted growth since the industrial revolution began.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 7:29am:

freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 9:14pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline So the rates cuts did boost employment after all? Thanks John, your idiocy cuts both ways. I think the point was that overall unemployment was declining when the unemployment in the impacted industries was going the other way (as shown in the numbers).  Your statment does support your contention when left stand alone and out of context. Quote: Why will it grow ? Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple? [quote]If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow.

The question was specific to your open unjustified statement above that it would if wages were reduced.
[/quote]

Where did I say that?

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 7:29am: freediver wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 9:14pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline So the rates cuts did boost employment after all? Thanks John, your idiocy cuts both ways. I think the point was that overall unemployment was declining when the unemployment in the impacted industries was going the other way (as shown in the numbers).  Your statment does support your contention when left stand alone and out of context. Quote: Why will it grow ? Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple? [quote]If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow. The question was specific to your open unjustified statement above that it would if wages were reduced.

Where did I say that?
[/quote]

Post 86 ?


Quote:

FD [quote]This is simplistic to the point of stupidity. If a business becomes more profitable, due to lower wages for example, it will grow.

Why will it grow ? low wages does not contribute to growth ? Disenchanted employees on reduced wages does not encourage productivity. Employees leaving is not a positive, Hard to find replacement employees are not overly interested in low paying work. Nor are new employees efficient or effective in the workplace.

So the business may well be left with employee churn inexperienced employees and short numbers. This in turn has a negative impact on service quality.

In short typically lowering wages will make the business more difficult to grow.
[/quote]

You are confused.

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 9:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 8:18pm: ;D ;D ;D Whose arse did you pull that one out of? Up until covid, unemployment was on the decline So the rates cuts did boost employment after all? Thanks John, your idiocy cuts both ways.

Not in the sector most affected by rate cuts it didn't



Quote:

Why will it grow ? Do I really have to explain why businesses grow? Are you really that simple?

Simple is the best word to describe you FD. Like I said earlier, you've never spoken to any small business owners have you.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 8:03pm:

You are confused.

Yes confused but I am still right.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 10:28pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right.

Ah, the quintessential unionist.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 8:00am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist.

Actually that's a mirror to your responses

you always think you are right .... always.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 8:00am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist.

Yes I didn't like to confederacy ?

Gnads wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 8:36am:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always.

And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 3:32pm:

And I can explain why,

I guess there's a first time for everything

go ahead!

I, SCAB

..... coming soon to a theatre near you.....

John Smith wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 7:49pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead!

Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow?

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 3:32pm:

Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always. And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted.

Oh.... is that why you write shyte like I wanted a list of people killed(GFC causers) on behalf of

"The Union"?

BTW .... you're another numpty who uses that terminology "the union" in an adhoc manner ad infinitum when there's no such thing as  "the Union".

And you continue to ignore the fact that your heroes in big business belong to Unions of Employers.

You are the consummate hypocrite. And a liar.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 9:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow?

If it wasn't so pathetic it would funny.  ::)

Gnads wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 5:57am:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always. And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted. Oh.... is that why you write shyte like I wanted a list of people killed(GFC causers) on behalf of "The Union"? BTW .... you're another numpty who uses that terminology "the union" in an adhoc manner ad infinitum when there's no such thing as  "the Union". And you continue to ignore the fact that your heroes in big business belong to Unions of Employers. You are the consummate hypocrite. And a liar.

If employer unions acted the same way employee unions did, they would go to jail.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:56am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 5:57am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always. And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted. Oh.... is that why you write shyte like I wanted a list of people killed(GFC causers) on behalf of "The Union"? BTW .... you're another numpty who uses that terminology "the union" in an adhoc manner ad infinitum when there's no such thing as  "the Union". And you continue to ignore the fact that your heroes in big business belong to Unions of Employers. You are the consummate hypocrite. And a liar. If employer unions acted the same way employee unions did, they would go to jail.

Funny how all the Industrial legislation makes it nigh on impossible for Unions to do anything.

And employer unions act worse and get away with it ...

if they didn't their would be no industrial conflicts. ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:56am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 5:57am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always. And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted. Oh.... is that why you write shyte like I wanted a list of people killed(GFC causers) on behalf of "The Union"? BTW .... you're another numpty who uses that terminology "the union" in an adhoc manner ad infinitum when there's no such thing as  "the Union". And you continue to ignore the fact that your heroes in big business belong to Unions of Employers. You are the consummate hypocrite. And a liar. If employer unions acted the same way employee unions did, they would go to jail.

.. and there, Poppets, is the quintessential difference between the worker's unions and the employer's unions - and it is based entirely on an outdated class concept.... according to this credo the worker have no Rights™ to object to anything while the employers have absolute Entitlement™ to do and say as they choose.....

Like politicians, judges and coppers - employer unions are above the law and above the rules of common decency.... those rules simply do not apply to them..... just look at industrial deaths .. if a worker does a shoddy job and someone is killed he is charged and tried and could lose his livelihood... if a management does a shoddy job and some are killed they are charged - fined and never lose their job and overfat income.  Like business vultures who repeatedly go broke, they can simply start again or just continue in their old job...

Amazing but true... and shows clearly the true nature of the egalitarian society in which we live...... egalitarian my arse.... put a grasping, brainless peasant in a suit and suddenly he/she takes on the mantle of dictatorial power... it's a Wog concept brought with them from the mud huts in the villages.... they know no better....

Gnads wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 11:26am:

freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:56am: Gnads wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 5:57am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: Gnads wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 8:00am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 10:28pm: freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 2020 at 8:03pm: You are confused. Yes confused but I am still right. Ah, the quintessential unionist. Actually that's a mirror to your responses you always think you are right .... always. And I can explain why, which is a bit better than making up stuff about what others have posted. Oh.... is that why you write shyte like I wanted a list of people killed(GFC causers) on behalf of "The Union"? BTW .... you're another numpty who uses that terminology "the union" in an adhoc manner ad infinitum when there's no such thing as  "the Union". And you continue to ignore the fact that your heroes in big business belong to Unions of Employers. You are the consummate hypocrite. And a liar. If employer unions acted the same way employee unions did, they would go to jail. Funny how all the Industrial legislation makes it nigh on impossible for Unions to do anything. And employer unions act worse and get away with it ...

Of course. What they do would be illegal in just about any other context.

I cannot say what employer unions get away with, but they are not allowed to do the things that unions are specifically permitted to.


Quote:

if they didn't their would be no industrial conflicts.

Crap.


Quote:

.. and there, Poppets, is the quintessential difference between the worker's unions and the employer's unions - and it is based entirely on an outdated class concept.... according to this credo the worker have no Rights™ to object to anything while the employers have absolute Entitlement™ to do and say as they choose.....

You got it backwards Graps. What unions do is in general illegal. There are specific exceptions for unions.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2020 at 9:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow?

Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week?

John Smith wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:51pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow? Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week?

Do you disagree with the statement, or are you just asking me to explain the bleeding obvious?

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:51pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow? Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week? Do you disagree with the statement, or are you just asking me to explain the bleeding obvious?

Are you going to run away from explaining it to me?

John Smith wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:53pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:51pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow? Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week? Do you disagree with the statement, or are you just asking me to explain the bleeding obvious? Are you going to run away from explaining it to me?

Probably. No point preaching to the converted.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:51pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow? Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week? Do you disagree with the statement, or are you just asking me to explain the bleeding obvious? Are you going to run away from explaining it to me? Probably. No point preaching to the converted.

Your white flag is accepted. Now go do something useful like watering your fish

John Smith wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:58pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:53pm: freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:52pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 22nd, 2020 at 6:51pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 9:49pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 7:49pm: freediver wrote on Oct 21st, 2020 at 3:32pm: And I can explain why, I guess there's a first time for everything go ahead! Are you asking me again to explain why profitable businesses grow? Sure, since that's the path you want to go, go ahead. Tell me how all these family owned cafe's and restaurants, who were always cited as beneficiaries of cuts to penalty rates, are going to grow their businesses given that most of them already work 80 hours a week? Do you disagree with the statement, or are you just asking me to explain the bleeding obvious? Are you going to run away from explaining it to me? Probably. No point preaching to the converted. Your white flag is accepted. Now go do something useful like watering your fish

So why make such a big deal out of something you actually agree with? If you are pretending to be an idiot, you are doing a very good job.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2020 at 7:02pm:

If you are pretending to be an idiot, you are doing a very good job.

I have never pretended to be you FD.

So why all the fuss about getting me to explain the bleeding obvious?

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2020 at 8:00am:

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

the only facts you've presented so far are off your ever increasing stupidity.

I see I was setting the bar too high when I suggested we consider the matter on principle.

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2020 at 8:47am:

I see I was setting the bar too high when I suggested we consider the matter on principle.

By making up lies?  ;D ;D

No bar should ever be more than two feet high so you can still grasp your drink even when lying on the floor.... you do meet a better class of low-life down there, though....

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2020 at 8:00am:

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

Your matter of principle is an outright lie.

More jobs mean more members, more members = more membership dues.

Unemployed people don't pay Union dues.

And the odd angry shot arose from the mob of employees.
"Pay me and I'll all get you a pay rise!"

They paid him each a small slice of their cake and he did indeed get them a pay rise (by gunpoint and some hired help) by the Employer (now shaken) - very small rise for starters. Wouldn't want to solve the problem in one go. Union Man gotta keep getting paid by his fellow workers - though he spends more time just talkin the workers up to go on strike and not work too.

In the end, the Workers had a great work environment, conditions and pay. The Union guy had saved them.

The following week the Factory shut down. The employer went broke. Everyone was unemployed again. The Union Rep ran away with their money.



...in South America. Many 'workers' own their Companies and Businesses, with CEO's and Managers hired by the Workers. No need for Union Reps. They stay employed, they have a job-roof over their heads and they can sack a CEO/Manager/etc any time.

Jasin wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2020 at 6:16am:

And the odd angry shot arose from the mob of employees. "Pay me and I'll all get you a pay rise!" They paid him each a small slice of their cake and he did indeed get them a pay rise (by gunpoint and some hired help) by the Employer (now shaken) - very small rise for starters. Wouldn't want to solve the problem in one go. Union Man gotta keep getting paid by his fellow workers - though he spends more time just talkin the workers up to go on strike and not work too. In the end, the Workers had a great work environment, conditions and pay. The Union guy had saved them. The following week the Factory shut down. The employer went broke. Everyone was unemployed again. The Union Rep ran away with their money. ...in South America. Many 'workers' own their Companies and Businesses, with CEO's and Managers hired by the Workers. No need for Union Reps. They stay employed, they have a job-roof over their heads and they can sack a CEO/Manager/etc any time.

What a load of bs.

And your STh American example is that of a Cooperative .... which have been around forever...

Even they go broke when they are mismanaged or there is disharmony amoungst the members who want more.

It doesn't alter the fact that you take what has been hard won by others and don't contribute....

That's a scab.

Gnads wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2020 at 6:10am:

freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:00am: Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? Your matter of principle is an outright lie. More jobs mean more members, more members = more membership dues. Unemployed people don't pay Union dues.

Do all unionists struggle with the concept of a principle?

Can any of the unionists here give a straight answer to this?

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2020 at 6:32pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:10am: freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:00am: Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? Your matter of principle is an outright lie. More jobs mean more members, more members = more membership dues. Unemployed people don't pay Union dues. Do all unionists struggle with the concept of a principle?

You don't have any principles.

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2020 at 8:20am:

Can any of the unionists here give a straight answer to this? Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

It's not a fact. Simple as that.

Gnads wrote on Nov 7^th, 2020 at 8:32am:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2020 at 8:20am: Can any of the unionists here give a straight answer to this? Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? It's not a fact. Simple as that.

It is a fact that you are afraid to answer the question.

It is a fact.
Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang.

Jasin wrote on Nov 12^th, 2020 at 8:07am:

It is a fact. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang.

Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang Business Mafia Mob.

You read the papers too much and are way behind the times - there is no 'press gang' about Unionism, and can you picture the likes of Shorten standing over anyone or even begin to imagine that nurses and ambos and firies, who are massively Unionised, stand over anyone?

WTF are you talking about, JaSin?

Gnads wrote on Nov 7^th, 2020 at 8:30am:

freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:32pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:10am: freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:00am: Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? Your matter of principle is an outright lie. More jobs mean more members, more members = more membership dues. Unemployed people don't pay Union dues. Do all unionists struggle with the concept of a principle? You don't have any principles.

Would you like you demonstrate your principles for us by giving a straight answer to the question?

freediver wrote on Nov 12^th, 2020 at 8:02am:

Gnads wrote on Nov 7th, 2020 at 8:32am: freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2020 at 8:20am: Can any of the unionists here give a straight answer to this? Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? It's not a fact. Simple as that. It is a fact that you are afraid to answer the question.

Responded to all your bs union bashing questions.

Jasin wrote on Nov 12^th, 2020 at 8:07am:

It is a fact. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang.

Time to change hands stupid.  ::)

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2020 at 3:02pm:

Gnads wrote on Nov 7th, 2020 at 8:30am: freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:32pm: Gnads wrote on Nov 2nd, 2020 at 6:10am: freediver wrote on Nov 1st, 2020 at 8:00am: Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to? Your matter of principle is an outright lie. More jobs mean more members, more members = more membership dues. Unemployed people don't pay Union dues. Do all unionists struggle with the concept of a principle? You don't have any principles. Would you like you demonstrate your principles for us by giving a straight answer to the question?

Why don't you explain your principles first?

Oh that's right your principles are based on elitist greed & suppression/oppression of working class people so you get paid higher dividends.

Anyone who believes "trickle down" economic theory(bs) is a ......

higher level up scab.  ::)

My answer is no. Yours?

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2020 at 6:45pm:

My answer is no. Yours? Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

Lets not put aside that false assertion -

Unions do not increase unemployment.

It's a lie

If it were remotely true why would businessmen/women belong to the Unions of Employers they do?

Ever asked a builder or plumber what their costs are to belong to the Master Builders or Master Plumbers Associations - & what benefits they get from belonging?

Hypocrite.

Quote:

If it were remotely true why would businessmen/women belong to the Unions of Employers they do?

They would end up in jail for doing the same thing the employee unions do. They are entirely different institutions. And it's not like this is the first time I have pointed this out to you.

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 12^th, 2020 at 10:37am:

Jasin wrote on Nov 12th, 2020 at 8:07am: It is a fact. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang Business Mafia Mob. You read the papers too much and are way behind the times - there is no 'press gang' about Unionism, and can you picture the likes of Shorten standing over anyone or even begin to imagine that nurses and ambos and firies, who are massively Unionised, stand over anyone? WTF are you talking about, JaSin?

Bullshit. I've even heard it from Union Rep mouths. Once when doing my Confined Space with Sydney Water and a few times on Construction sites. Once from an Ex-Wharfie on a volunteer stint for Marine Rescue. The Unions use violence and have been 'associated' (corrected) with 'accidents'. Don't worry, I have reported what I know to my Cop mate. He also convinced me to hand in that loaded gun I found. It wasn't hard. He told me he'll give me a floggin if I didn't.

So the Unions do use 'violence' and you only have to see the treatment of NON-Unionists trying to get to work, by Union Members - to know this is very true.

Unions are a Terrorist organisation of unlawful violence.
I wouldn't be able to get my vehicle to the work carpark because all the Union Members would crowd around it and tip it. Hurling verbal abuse at me, etc.

Unionism is Violence.

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2020 at 7:39am:

Quote: If it were remotely true why would businessmen/women belong to the Unions of Employers they do? They would end up in jail for doing the same thing the employee unions do. They are entirely different institutions. And it's not like this is the first time I have pointed this out to you. Let's put aside for the moment the fact that unions increase unemployment and consider this on a matter of principle. If you do someone a favour that they did not ask for, and they do not want to hand over their money in return or obey your insane edicts, do you think you have the right to force them to?

There is more legislation in place that would see Trade Unionists in jail than anything in place(SFA) that would see Employers or their Unions go to jail.

They get paltry fines for deaths on job sites.

Keep lying - anything else would seem unbelievable. ::)

Jasin wrote on Dec 5^th, 2020 at 7:55am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 12th, 2020 at 10:37am: Jasin wrote on Nov 12th, 2020 at 8:07am: It is a fact. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang Business Mafia Mob. You read the papers too much and are way behind the times - there is no 'press gang' about Unionism, and can you picture the likes of Shorten standing over anyone or even begin to imagine that nurses and ambos and firies, who are massively Unionised, stand over anyone? WTF are you talking about, JaSin? Bullshit. I've even heard it from Union Rep mouths. Once when doing my Confined Space with Sydney Water and a few times on Construction sites. Once from an Ex-Wharfie on a volunteer stint for Marine Rescue. The Unions use violence and have been 'associated' (corrected) with 'accidents'. Don't worry, I have reported what I know to my Cop mate. He also convinced me to hand in that loaded gun I found. It wasn't hard. He told me he'll give me a floggin if I didn't. So the Unions do use 'violence' and you only have to see the treatment of NON-Unionists trying to get to work, by Union Members - to know this is very true. Unions are a Terrorist organisation of unlawful violence. I wouldn't be able to get my vehicle to the work carpark because all the Union Members would crowd around it and tip it. Hurling verbal abuse at me, etc. Unionism is Violence.

No - the BS is in your court

re: the highlight - you mean when they agree to undercutting wages & conditions & being non contributing scabs?

Kiwis are good at that.  ;D

BTW - what haven't you done? You've been in everything bar a shyte sandwich -  only your breath gives you away.

You must be over 100 years old. ::) 

Gnads wrote on Dec 5^th, 2020 at 8:22am:

Jasin wrote on Dec 5th, 2020 at 7:55am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Nov 12th, 2020 at 10:37am: Jasin wrote on Nov 12th, 2020 at 8:07am: It is a fact. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang. Standover, Bullying, Violence and even Murder - all associated with the Union Press Gang Business Mafia Mob. You read the papers too much and are way behind the times - there is no 'press gang' about Unionism, and can you picture the likes of Shorten standing over anyone or even begin to imagine that nurses and ambos and firies, who are massively Unionised, stand over anyone? WTF are you talking about, JaSin? Bullshit. I've even heard it from Union Rep mouths. Once when doing my Confined Space with Sydney Water and a few times on Construction sites. Once from an Ex-Wharfie on a volunteer stint for Marine Rescue. The Unions use violence and have been 'associated' (corrected) with 'accidents'. Don't worry, I have reported what I know to my Cop mate. He also convinced me to hand in that loaded gun I found. It wasn't hard. He told me he'll give me a floggin if I didn't. So the Unions do use 'violence' and you only have to see the treatment of NON-Unionists trying to get to work, by Union Members - to know this is very true. Unions are a Terrorist organisation of unlawful violence. I wouldn't be able to get my vehicle to the work carpark because all the Union Members would crowd around it and tip it. Hurling verbal abuse at me, etc. Unionism is Violence. No - the BS is in your court re: the highlight - you mean when they agree to undercutting wages & conditions & being non contributing scabs? Kiwis are good at that.  ;D BTW - what haven't you done? You've been in everything bar a shyte sandwich -  only your breath gives you away. You must be over 100 years old. ::)

I'm flattered Gnads. Thankyou. Yes - I've done a lot. I travel many worlds, despite most being here to be found. Everything is an experience - good and bad and always a learning curve. I've worked with some of the best this country has. I even worked briefly with the renowned Pia Winberg. I just walked in after seeing her on Catalyst and asked her directly if a very smart and highly educated person like herself and her team need a dumb strong Labourer to do the things you and your team would rather not do? I was hired on the spot.  ;D Timing was everything. They were about to install two new 'pools' and needed a Labourer.  ;) Psychic.  :D
I've worked under missiles being thrown as an American Company pushes Australian Contractors out with Chicken Sexing and with the help of the Union - slides in workers from South Korea on back-packer visas.
Working in a Theatre with the famed Dr Crozier (Hadley's arch enemy) and letting one rip (regarding Hadley's 'Golf' comments) on the good Dr during a surgery, with a wink ;) while the rest of the Theatre team wail I can't say something like that about the Dr/Surgeon Crozier. He laughed to himself behind his mask. Laughter is the best medicine.


Anyway. The Unions can offer an 'alternative' - but they can't force 'everyone' to beat to their drum. It's obvious the Unions need to chest beat themselves on the backs of the Worker who has always been. If you thought working for a Boss was hard. Now one of your fellow employees wants your money or he'll beat you down too.

Turan .  (the little chocolate that helps pass the page)

---

They ask, I answer.

I really don't appreciate a Union Member or Representative calling me a 'Scab' because I won't give them my money to empower themselves over people like myself.
Why would I do a job if I don't like my Employer? Am I a slave to his business with no other choice?
I don't know what type of Worker the Unions parasite over. But there are tens of thousands of Employees who are very happy with their Employers and enjoy being a part of the team 'with' the Employer.
I worked for Owen Toyota out in the Riverina. Two (Twins) Bosses of whom I consider up there with the best I've worked for. So friendly, approachable and worked 'with' how I go about things as an Employee. Sometimes I've enjoyed a cuppa sitting on the couch in their personal Office. They took my advice and decisions on some things. Not only that - they were willing to spend money on things associated with my level of duties. I loved how they sneakly bent the rules with smirks, but they never ever 'broke' the rules. They were simply 'cool' to work for.  8-) Didn't get too drunk  at the Christmas Party - isn't fun seeing 'double' of Twins. They run a successful business and are hard, but fair. The best type to work for. They juggle Family and Business life well.

Well - maybe they don't appreciate your taking the income and benefits bought often at the cost of their rep's jobs for standing up to thug management.

You are always welcome to go enter any agreement you want without the safety net provided by the blood sweat and tears of others - and you'll soon find you place among the impoverished in the Third World.

None so blind as they who will not see... Kiwis have been such strong, independent negotiators that they live in total insecurity and near poverty for the main part, having given away all their bargaining chips through imagining themselves Jake The Mus, strong and able to look after himself etc....

Amazing how these tough, independent union haters are the first to come crying when they are booted out or robbed...

Oh don't you worry Grapps ol boy. We 'Scabs' have our methods of staying ahead and coming out on top. We just call ourselves Confederates. Some call themselves Rebels. Same thing really. I ain't gonna give away trade secrets. But we have a good level of success. Criminal they still call us. We don't exploit our fellow Australians, but any new boaty worker that comes in needs to know their place and learn to rise with us in a way like we all had to here. We also learn the Aboriginal ways like a TV out your back door.
Criminal you still call us. No offence but I listen to the Banks on how to make money, not a Politician.
So you can take your grubby Yankee Unionism and kiss our Confederate arses.

---