Do the unions ever destroy jobs that would otherwise pay above the award rate?

Do you think the unions have any influence at all on the award rate?

It seems convenient that the unions will happily claim credit for people getting paid more than a bowl of rice a day, but then blame the fair work commissioner for minimum wages, as soon as the conversation turns to the inevitable consequences. Hypocrits.

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 6:50pm:


Of course - every year they place a submission before the relevant council (whatever that may be at any given time due to ideologies), laying out where costs of living have out-stripped the general mass of the people's ability to earn, and put a case for an increase to suit.

As I've said countless times - wage rates - all supposed to be based on Award rates - always follow behind rises in costs of living.

Therefore it is incumbent on those who affect those costs of living to get on the team and stop those rises if they want to negotiate stagnant or even lower rates of pay.

Control costs of living first and then you can discuss wages desperately trying to keep up.

Therefore - it is not Unions who create unemployment - it is those who continually seek, through their Union, to raise costs of living and thus create greater profit for themselves.

That is why 'privatisation' of public utilities into primarily a few hands has resulted in nothing more than rising costs of living and inflation, and has not only perpetuated the cycle, but actually made it worse.  So whenever the vultures feel the pressure of not having enough income, they push up prices (look at the road tolls), and then the costs of wages inevitably follow, and everything costs more dollars for the same value = inflation, so EVERYBODY is caught in the same trap.*

Capisce?

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 6:39pm:


What you’re encouraging is scab labour and employers to pay below the regulated rates.

You give that away by making the statement that “ Bob is willing to work for $20 & Jo is willing to employ him for up to$20”.

So Jo is not willing to pay $20 all the time but “up to” $20 at some point - yeah?

And that is a perfect example of what employers do to cut wages and conditions, create under employment and insecure jobs.

From your own fingers you type that you condone non payment of award/mandated rates of pay.

Your posturing that you have a relevant point in this thread is a wasted effort because you don’t.

Like your pithy examples you’re pathetic.

freediver wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 6:31pm:

You're using parts of sentences quoted out of context to make a fallacious point (it's irrelevant). Don't do that either.

Here is the FULL text of the post that you have refused to discuss:
Bam wrote on Nov 1^st, 2021 at 9:32am:

As you have refused to engage with the points made therein, you have conceded all of them. I accept your surrender.

Gnads wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 6:28am:


It's true. For example, you probably don't even realise you are supporting the denial of the right to work with comments like this:

Quote:


Not only do you want to deny them a job, you want to insult them for trying to get one.

Quote:


What about the jobs that get destroyed because of increased wages?

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2021 at 9:11pm:


such as?