Aussie wrote on Apr 21
st, 2018 at 7:18pm:
Thing is....fact is....Shorten was found to have done no wrong, the RC did not even suggest he had. Do you agree?
NO. No finding was made; an entirely different thing.
"There are two central allegations against Shorten.
While he was its national secretary, the Australian Workers Union negotiated a number of workplace deals for its members with major employers, at the same time accepting large payments from those employers for various ostensible purposes.
Separately, after Shorten went into politics, a labour hire company paid most of the salary of his campaign director in the 2007 election campaign, a fact which Shorten failed to declare to the AEC until days before his appearance at the Commission.
Do these stack up as "union rorts, rackets and rip-offs" to match the Prime Minister's current three word slogan? No, there's nothing criminal here, no fraud or theft or extortion. There is, however,
a strange set of ethics at play, which is worth a closer look."
"When everyone's a winner how can there be a conflict of interest?
Well, I'll call it. Win-win is not the test of propriety for people who are placed in positions of absolute trust.
Union executives are analogous to company directors or trustees of super funds; they have been entrusted with the power to make decisions in the interests of others. Directors and trustees are burdened by the law with fiduciary duties, which are absolute duties to act in the best interests of those whose interests they are tasked with protecting, to not prefer their own interests in any circumstances, and to not ever place themselves in a position where their duties conflict with those interests.
Whether trade union leaders are also fiduciaries is a nice legal question; I have no doubt they should be. Their job - their only job - is to advance and protect the interests of their members. The sole reason unions exist is the reality that, otherwise, vulnerable workers with no individual bargaining power are prone to exploitation. The 7-Eleven scandal amply illustrates that (and they have a union! Evidently a useless one.)"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/bradley-does-bill-shorten-really-deserve-t...ETHICS. That is the question facing Bill Shorten.
You do trust the ABC to be Fair and Impartial; don't you?
Aussie wrote on Apr 21
st, 2018 at 7:18pm:
I see you are back to using the wink, indicating yet again, you are unsure of your ground, taking two bob each away, and leaving weasel room.
Which phsychobabble book did you get that from?