Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

We are still awaiting approval to put a sign up for our business. We were told when we applied in mid January that it would take 6 weeks. Sure enough we got approval 6 weeks later.

Can we now put a sign up?

NO - because we only have approval to put up a sign.

What we don't have is a licence to put up a sign. This takes a further 3 months to approve.

Needless to say it's now more than 3 months and have not heard a thing from the council.

I know teenagers with a faster work rate.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

Wasn't this proved to a big myth the other day? Wheel in Amazulu.

A plug on a wire is not a 'fixed structure' (or something).

I wire all my own plugs.

Bad luck boys. ;)

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

I hope it is a myth - let's say it is. I can hear Vash researching as I type!

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

We'll see then mate what he finds. There are alot of myths around; like a fisherman's tale, the story grows with the telling.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

It IS a myth!

What all this shows is, like everywhere, it pays dividends to research every detail before committing. There ARE some good companies, and some good employees despite the best efforts of the governments to legislate and regulate everyone out of business.

We have today been visiting the MD of a large company from which we will be ordering a substantial amount of building items: he has had enough of the Australian "work" ethic and has relocated to China. It's no longer viable to make things here, at least quality things.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

It's a wonder he has any blue ink left.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

It all starts at the top I'm afraid. I recently had a conversation with a Australian friend who is an FD of a big multinational (Australian subsidiary). A nicer guy you wouldn’t meet but as for work ethic….He told me he recently had to let his Pom PA go, when I asked why he said it was she thought the whole finance department could be streamlined with more modern working practices and started to implement a few. He didn’t like this at all and in his own words, “It’s the way we’ve been doing it for 20 years, I know it’s not the best way but it works and so what if it’s a bit inefficient”. I know it’s only one first hand experience but combined with another mate who is a Pom trouble shooter who goes into the big multinationals at the Oz end to try and find out what is going wrong at this end and has to solve them, He also thinks it’s all down to a very poor national work ethic.

Combine it all with my business dealings here now and from my previous life then I’m afraid it just has to be true.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

Yes, Ark: it wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so upbeat about Australia all the time, he says. Things are often as disorganised as they are in most African states - but at least the Africans recognise it! Banging on about how much better Australia and Australian products are than everywhere else actually doesn't make them such....

It's called denial I believe in the world of shrinks!

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

Given the re-emergence of the nuclear debate it might be good idea to keep your fingers crossed that Australian companies are not given the contracts to build the power stations.

"No, the reactor should have a one brick wall. We meant to build it like that and we meant to complete it 150 years after deadline. It's how we do things. You're just a whinger. If you don't like our one-brick-reactor-walls, bugger off back to Pommieland."

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

I won't.

Or is the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 that regulates the operation of super funds something else?

I don't think so. So, that makes it a full house :)

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

They even regulate pulling coffee's! I was thinking of doing the Tafe coffee course just to see exactly what it's all about.

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

That act was superceded in 2005............... :beer: mm

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

By deregulation or re-regulation?

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

Firstly, you've completely misinterepreted my use of the word "regulated." By "regulated", I don't mean "subject to regulations", but "privatised" - ie. run by the government. (The privatisation of Australia's domestic airlines was known as "deregulation" at the time.)

And if you think that all industries should be free to practice in any way that they please, all I can say is that I don't want to live in whatever universe you're currently inhabiting.

Re. "govt restricting the rights of international carriers to land in Aus" - so what? Is Australia the only nation which does this? I hardly think so.

In fact...
Source.

Re. "preferential treatment that Qantas has on landing slots" - again, so what? And does this occur at all Australian airports? I doubt it! (Incidentally, BA enjoys the unique privilege of 224 landing slots at Heathrow, granting it unrivalled preferential status.)

Re. "recent govt report stating that Qantas needed to be 'treated differently'" - what's all that about? Details, please.

Re. "the subsequent removal of Valuair's services to Perth":
Source.

What's that got to do with the government, pray tell? Oh, wait - I've just realised! It's because for some strange reason, you think that Qantas is "majority owned by the government." Exactly why you think this, I am at a loss to say. Perhaps you're still living in 1994, when this was actually true. :rolleyes:

BTW, Jetstar itself still flies between Perth and Melbourne.

Re. "Jetstar owned by Quantas, majority owned by - you guessed it - the government" - incredibly, you're claiming that Qantas is majority owned by the government?

The most appropriate response to this absurd accusation is "ROTFL!" :D :D

Yes, Jetstar is majority owned by Qantas, but Qantas is majority owned by foreign companies (46% at last count) of which the lion's share was previously owned by British Airways.

Contrary to popular (ignorant) opinion, Qantas has not been owned by the government in any way, shape or form since it was privatised by Paul Keating in 1995. I really wish that poeple like you would get their facts straight before sticking their feet in their mouths.

Or perhaps not, since it's so immensely entertaining. ;)

Ironically, Qantas' biggest foreign rivals are themselves part-owned by their home governments, and are kept afloat by massive amounts of government money. The UK encourages this practice by exempting airlines from fuel tax; the massive shortfall is made up by (yes, you guessed it) the long-suffering British taxpayer, known for his willingness to chip in a few bob whenever the government has cocked up its accounting (again) or simply doesn't want to pay for its own policies.

Re. energy - yes, there are laws regarding the establishment of energy-providing companies, just as you will find everywhere else in the Western world (including the UK.) Is this a problem?

Re. newspapers - same as above. Is this a problem too? (Incidentally, the British newspaper industry is dominated by three major players which share around 79% of the market. Food for thought.)

Re. Telstra - see BT. Can't believe you even threw that one in, but you were clearly desperate for "examples" so perhaps it's not so surprising.

"Enough examples"? No, because I was talking about privatisation, not government regulation of industries. And as we have seen, the situation in the UK is virtually identical (and in some cases worse) so where's the beef?

Don't even get me started again on your mistake about Qantas being "majority government owned"; that's just too hilarious for words.

Or would you rather I started a thread on the laughable mess of red tape which divides British bathrooms into four different zones and specifies precisely what may and may not be installed in each one?

An excerpt follows, because I simply can't resist the temptation:

• Zone 0 is the smallest rectangular volume that contains the bathtub, shower basin, etc.
  
  
• Zone 1 is the area above Zone 0, up to a height of 2.25 m above the floor.
  
  
• Zone 2 is the area above Zone 1 up to a height of 3 m, as well as the area that is horizontally within 0.6 m from Zone 1.
  
  
• Zone 3 is the area above Zone 2 up to a height of 3 m, as well as the area that is horizontally within 2.4 m from Zone 2.
  
  Within Zone 0, only SELV devices are permitted. Any AC transformer supplying such a device must be located outside Zones 0–2. The minimum required ingress protection rating in Zone 0 is IPX7 and IPX4 in Zone 1 and 2. If water jets are likely to occur, at least IPX5 is required in Zone 1–3. Otherwise, in Zone 3 and beyond, an ingress protection rating of IP20 is the minimum required. Equipment in Zone 1–3 must be protected by a 30 mA residual-current circuit breaker (except for shower pumps and shower heaters, where the use of an RCD is so far only recommended).

Did you get all of that, boys? Tucked it away for future reference, eh? Because you'll need to know it all when you eventually go back home... that and the other 52 pages of bathroom regulations... :D

BTW, according to Wikipedia, "The 2001 edition of the Wiring Regulations is more flexible now." If this is true, I shudder to think of the prehistoric conditions which must have prevailed in British bathrooms during the 20th Century.

Heck, in many cases, they still do - just look at all those ridiculous cord-pull switches.

It's like stepping into the Dark Ages. :rolleyes:

Re: Australian Work Ethic
 

That's barista training, you numpty - not "regulation." Anyone can pull a coffee; they don't need special training for it. But if they want to be officially recognised in the industry as a barista, that's another thing entirely.

And if you don't know what a barista is, or why he/she requires training, I can only assume you believe that food at restaurants is cooked by some random bloke or bird who's just wandered in off the street. :rolleyes:

The hypocrisy, ignorance and bigotry on this thread is just pathetic.