Election

Quote:

---

The affected people seem to need it to move on

---

I don't know, every affected person I've ever heard speaking publicly about it has said they don't need or want our apology. It wont change anything and it just gives people somewhere to focus blame. What they need to do is move on from it. Take the assistance that is given, ask for help where it is needed, and accept that past wrongs cannot be undone. They need to take some responsibility for their own future.

My memory may not be 100% but I only recall Hawke beating the crap out of one union strike and that was the upper class silver tail pilot's union.

Don't recall either Keating or Hawk taking on any other.

Have any workers union had a flogging with them?

I do recall the Wharves and Liberals but . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

"We'll all be ruined," said Hanrihan, "Before the year is out."

Arr well, we have lived through changes in government before, we will live through this one too, it is just a pity that it is such a waste of money. http://theblokeyshed.com/forums/imag...s/rolleyes.gif

Next???

---

:2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

Give Rudd a full quarter in office Jan-March and we'll see:

• unemployment up

• GDP down

• we'll see more millitant union strikes like that in Newcastle in 96 or was it 97?

Tonight we'll see the local markets bomb dive.

Australia will be in the poo.

---

Market seems to like Kevin Eleven,..............up 140 points or over 2%!:;

Oh just looked,the $A is up 0.5c as well, there may be life after Howard after all.............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

My memory may not be 100% but I only recall Hawke beating the crap out of one union strike and that was the upper class silver tail pilot's union.

Don't recall either Keating or Hawk taking on any other.

Have any workers union had a flogging with them?

I do recall the Wharves and Liberals but . . .

---

BLF

Once again I detect in these posts this terrible fear of unions and strikes. It's completely unfounded for two reasons:

(1) society has changed to the extent that we are more affluent and in a booming economy (mainly because of WA's mineral boom), and while we are enjoying such wealth there is less of a need for employers to screw the workers.

(2) Unions have never been the oppressive, dark and destructive force that some here would suggest. Apart from a those few unions that occasionally lost the plot over time because of power and greed, they have in the main been beneficial and the only source of power for workers. I annoys the hell out of me that people who have benefited enormously because of unions over the years so quickly decry them. It reminds me of people who run the police down, and then when they need help they're desperately phoning 000 to get help from a copper as soon as possible. In other words, the union and the police are only mongrels when you don't need them.

I always declare my political allegiances in this forum because I abhor the practice of people pretending they are "swinging voters", neutral and objective, and then run a very consistent string of strong anti-Labor and anti-union arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apricotripper

Whats the difference between 'feeling remorse' and 'sorry' ?

I don't like the thought of the stolen generation etc either. I think its horrible. But I'm not responsible for it.

When somebody says their sorry, their expressing remorse for some direct involvement in it......arn't they ?

Howards not directly responsible for it. Nor is anyone here. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry. Nor should Rudd. Its a rediculous expectation.

---

He was sorry for the interest rates hike - does that mean he caused it? No - it was economic factors outside his control as was the economic groth and the low interest rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

(2) Unions have never been the oppressive, dark and destructive force that some here would suggest. Apart from a those few unions that occasionally lost the plot over time because of power and greed, they have in the main been beneficial and the only source of power for workers. I annoys the hell out of me that people who have benefited enormously because of unions over the years so quickly decry them. It reminds me of people who run the police down, and then when they need help they're desperately phoning 000 to get help from a copper as soon as possible. In other words, the union and the police are only mongrels when you don't need them.

---

You reckon? :? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

You reckon? :? :no:

---

Ask the people with asbestosis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

(2) Unions have never been the oppressive, dark and destructive force that some here would suggest. Apart from a those few unions that occasionally lost the plot over time because of power and greed, they have in the main been beneficial and the only source of power for workers. I annoys the hell out of me that people who have benefited enormously because of unions over the years so quickly decry them. It reminds me of people who run the police down, and then when they need help they're desperately phoning 000 to get help from a copper as soon as possible. In other words, the union and the police are only mongrels when you don't need them.

---

:roll:And just when did you arrive from your alternative universe????:doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

Once again I detect in these posts this terrible fear of unions and strikes. It's completely unfounded for two reasons:

(2) Unions have never been the oppressive, dark and destructive force that some here would suggest. Apart from a those few unions that occasionally lost the plot over time because of power and greed, they have in the main been beneficial and the only source of power for workers.

---

Never went to sea for a living then ?

I work in the building industry and find the further you go South the more power and interfering the unions become.

Brisbane the place works fantastic

Melbourne sites I have been to are just run by union delegates, in a very confrontational and obstructionist way. Guys just cruising around the site all day looking for things to cause a stir about. Crazy.

I see it on the sites and a day here and there and you don't have to be Einstein to observe it - as it is so much in your face and ugly.

Yes I do see more than a moderate amount of stand over and it is the way many building unions operate, so i don't base my thinking on media sensationalism or rumour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopha

:roll:And just when did you arrive from your alternative universe????:doh:

---

You may be right. There's a lot of red necks on this planet. :wink:

Unions can be useful and sometimes they can do a lot of damage and need laws to control them. A bit like limited liability companies, drugs, dogs and table saws, really.

In any case, the decline in union membership (about one in seven private sector workers and falling) means the setting and enforcement of wages and conditions for most workers is now in the political domain.

By that I mean the parliament rather than industrial courts now does these things. The third alternative - leaving it up to market forces - has now been rejected by the electorate.

I would imagine the ALP would be very keen to show the anti-union scare campaign was wrong. Time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koala-Man

Unions can be useful and sometimes they can do a lot of damage and need laws to control them. A bit like limited liability companies, drugs, dogs and table saws, really.

In any case, the decline in union membership (about one in seven private sector workers and falling) means the setting and enforcement of wages and conditions for most workers is now in the political domain.

By that I mean the parliament rather than industrial courts now does these things. The third alternative - leaving it up to market forces - has now been rejected by the electorate.

I would imagine the ALP would be very keen to show the anti-union scare campaign was wrong. Time will tell.

---

Well written. Balanced and fair. Exactly the type of open-minded and intelligent post I like. :2tsup:

Quote:

---

the decline in union membership

---

I find myself wondering how much that has to do with the decline in relevance of unions under the Howard government's anti-union policies. Will be interesting to see if that statistic changes in the next couple of years.

the sky is falling!
Cheers
Michael

Are you being sarcastic? :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

the sky is falling!
Cheers
Michael

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Are you being sarcastic? :cool:

---

Nah its just raining up there:U:U

A couple of things unions have achieved that I doubt anyone would have got any other way; Sick leave, Annual leave, Workers Comp, OH&S legislation, Superannuation. We regard them as normal but at the beginning of the 20thC they were not at all available for the bulk of the population.

I remember being called out to strike because the shop steward wanted a few days off, or it costing about $300 to join the union before I could get a start on a building site. Or having my car beat up by fellow staff members who were being egged on by a firebrand because I refused to go out with them.

As with all things unions cut both ways, I hope Aus can move on from the bigotry and institutionalised hatred of those who are different from the official position. This is the biggest challenge in recovering from the Howard years. Ask any Muslim,

Sebastiaan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

costing about $300 to join the union before I could get a start on a building site.
Sebastiaan

---

Therein lies one point of my hatred towards unions - extortion. You can't work for someone who has employed you because someone else demands that you fill his pockets on a weekly basis with union fees. :((

If ever the day comes when a union tries to muscle into the advertising industry and walks into my door he'll never wish he tried.

Sure they have a place, but it's with a big but.

My old man loves to tell the story of the day a union official came into his sheet metal works wanting to speak to the union rep (there wasn't one). He backed him all the way out of the shop and told him if he ever set foot on his property again, he'd set the dog on him (big nasty looking German Shepherd called Major). He never came back. I suppose if we'd been in Sydney or somewhere, he'd have come back with a few mates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

We regard them as normal but at the beginning of the 20thC they were not at all available for the bulk of the population.

---

You are absolutely correct Sebastiaan, the unions did a great job... but that was 100 years ago.

The slave abolition guys did a great job too 100 years before that, but they aren't too bothered about being in business now.

It's a bit tough to blame the Howard government for a distrust of the Muslim community though, or any other ethnic community for that matter. Sadly the lack of integration was commenced if I recall correctly, with a policy of "multi culturalism" introduced by the Whitlam Government.

Before that, we were all Australians, or "New Australians" and life wasn't bad, even for the wogs!:wink:

P
:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

You are absolutely correct Sebastiaan, the unions did a great job... but that was 100 years ago.

---

tell that to this guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Before that, we were all Australians, or "New Australians" and life wasn't bad, even for the wogs!

---

Sorry Midge, disagree. We emigrated when I was four. As a kid I was an effin wog, I changed the way I walked home from school as often as I could to avoid being beaten up by the Aussies. Didnt always work. Bigotry was more prevalent and open then. From memory teachers were often the worst. Things improved as my english improved but modern immigrants have it much better in some respects. I have a big hot spot around bigotry. The powerful screwing the weak ticks me off big time.

Pity the Muslims, the mutual emnity has gone on for centuries http://www.newstatesman.com/200304070040 but Howard's style of wedge politics needed an enemy. Menzies had the cold war, Howard desperately needed some kind of other. 9/11, Children Overboard etc were his salvation. That said it was labour who started the camps for refugees, we will see.....

Waldo, As I said... a mixed bag, the truth is usually a mixed up greyish affair. Im finding it more difficult to be absolutist as I get older.

Sebastiaan

[/QUOTE]:but Howard's style of wedge politics needed an enemy.
Sebastiaan[/QUOTE]

what :censored2: carp.

Obviously unions do a lot of good in general, no-one debates that. You also can't debate that they have an image problem in general too. Compulsory unionism sucks. That's what we need to steer clear of. The idea of a couple of boys being sent around to your house to 'persuade' you to sign up. All the intimidation and bastardry that goes on. Surely no-one wants that back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Obviously unions do a lot of good in general, no-one debates that. You also can't debate that they have an image problem in general too. Compulsory unionism sucks. That's what we need to steer clear of. The idea of a couple of boys being sent around to your house to 'persuade' you to sign up. All the intimidation and bastardry that goes on. Surely no-one wants that back.

---

Agreed, I just thought I would bring the agrument back to a bit of reality after a bit of union bashing. Yes they are crooks in the unions, show me an industry that doesnt have them.. I grew up in a union house and saw what advantages they brought. I now work in a non union industry (White collar, IT). I can see those that dont REQUIRE a union not understanding the need for a union, but I have also seen what employers will try to get away with without the union.

What is needed is some balance between the two extremes. I am afraid no-one has come up with a good balance yet, but what has passed recently (Last 10 years) hasnt helped

The main problem, as I see it, is that if you allow people to work in a job without membership of the respective union, members get ticked off that some people are enjoying the benefits negotiated for all without the overhead of the fees and the involvement in union 'activities'.

On the other hand, if you try to force people to become members, you create this environment of coercion.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

I agree C, I believe one of the reasons that union membership is dropping is that people do get the benefit of their activity for free. There is no easy solution. I reckon we will see conditions further erode as globalisation kicks in. I reckon its only begun.

LOML part times as a nurse. The Health Dept payroll regularly gets her wages wrong, always to their benefit. Payroll stonewalls her so she trots off to see the union every couple of months and hey presto it gets fixed. And thats the Govt!

Dont worry about it Waldo, Howard (John and Janet - both) are now the stuff political science students will study for years to come. In cricket terms a good innings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

---

What say an arbitration commision???

Yes, just like that :wink:

Why not an Arbitration Forum that way people can still work (well be there anyway) get paid and all have big :D or :(( or :p or in desperate situations :C while the rest of us :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

This fear of the unions as if Stalin was about to take power in Australia and turn the country into a Soviet Union amuses me. It's reminiscent of the "reds under the beds" era and shows how successfully the coalition's PR machine tapped into peoples simple fears.

I think Kevin Rudd made it clear last night that he wants to work against differences identified as the Union/Business, State/Federal, indigenous/non-indigenous dichotomies.

People who start talking negatively about the country's future under Labor are engaging in self-fulfilling prophesies. Even the most red-necky Australian would agree that a lot of the money John Howard was throwing around should be channelled towards improving our health systems.

---

Very nicely put Rossluck:2tsup:

People who talk negatively about labour are not wishing for a negative self fulfilling prophecy - they are simply good enough at remembering the times of previous labour occupation and wishing this time is different.

If they are nothing of previous recent Labour governments GREAT and i hope they get re-elected.

We shall see.

And if it becomes a dogs breakfast again then surely it isn't the gov'ts fault it is because people were fulfilling a negative self prophecy - get real!

And before anyone gets hoodwinked by Rudd's Education Revolution and putting computers in the hands of every secondary school student doing years 11 and 12 I'd like to point this out :aro-d:

A client, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has put this tender out

http://www.tenders.vic.gov.au/domino...shing.nsf?Open

I have no doubt that Rudd will claim ownership of this as when the tender is awarded it will be in his term of office, and will say that he's extending his grand plan to teachers and principals of schools alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

People who talk negatively about labour are not wishing for a negative self fulfilling prophecy - they are simply good enough at remembering the times of previous labour occupation and wishing this time is different.

If they are nothing of previous recent Labour governments GREAT and i hope they get re-elected.

---

I agree with you Teejay, I wouldn't have voted for Beatie when I was still in Qld, but he proved he wasn't from the same mould as other Labor counterparts, with some exceptions eg. council amalgamations, he made the hard decisions like new dams (although the recommendations for the dam sites were made in '91) and desalination. So I'm not one-eyed after all. :q

This may be a little left field but the best thing about the change in govt is the govt loses the nepatism it has with the heads of the govt agencies which is a good thing.

It takes a few years for the networks to get established.

I was stunned a few years ago in a govt meeting when a boss said that Minister X had told them to make a prominant complainer to shut up and stop causing trouble and the organisation should focus on him.....a bridge too far!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

The main problem, as I see it, is that if you allow people to work in a job without membership of the respective union, members get ticked off that some people are enjoying the benefits negotiated for all without the overhead of the fees and the involvement in union 'activities'.

On the other hand, if you try to force people to become members, you create this environment of coercion.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe some form of government-funded representation could work. Sort of like the Ombudsman or legal aid, which works on behalf of employees, without any membership requirements, with the legal right to make representations to employers on behalf of any employee or group thereof.

---

Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks Silent. This type of open-minded ability to see both sides is what we need. Instead of dumping on unions we need to consider why we've needed them over time: because historically those with the power to employ have often mistreated workers and abused their rights. Just as unions are something we all wish we could do away with, so is this mistreatment of workers.

Unions, and the union movement emerged from this mistreatment of workers. And this union of people who joined forces as the only way of contesting this mistreatment do get annoyed when their fellow workers happily enjoy the benefits they gain while shunning their union.

People like Waldo have obviously never experienced this terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of an unscrupulous employer. I certainly have. Here's one mild example: I once worked underground in a mine, where your life and health are threatened and your life expectancy is reduced because of the dust that you swallow. One day an idiot manager suddenly decided that the ten minutes the company allowed the miners to wash their hands before the 30 minute "crib" break was to be used for washing hands only. Instead of washing your hands and walking into the Crib room for lunch a few minutes early, you were now required to stand outside like an idiot until the 30 minute break officially started, then walk into the crib room.

This was demeaning and disrespectful, and made the miners feel like school kids. We called the AWU, an official had a "frank talk" with the said manager, and the next day we were invited to sit down an enjoy our break whenever we were able. :2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

People like Waldo have obviously never experienced this terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of an unscrupulous employer.

---

Fairgo Rossluck, you don't know jack about me, so keep the comments to yourself.

And turnabout,

What about the terrible feeling of powerlessness at the hands of unscrupulous unionised labour?

I have watched the issues as a result of not being able to do anything about proffessional bludgers. More important, having to pay them the same as exceptional workers, and not being able to reward those better, as they are on the same award.

The point here is "unscrupulous", and while employers can be the bad guys, so by any stretch can unions. (and have been!)