Australian Work Ethic
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:23 pm
#46
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 85
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by JaneandJim
Yes, the postal system here is very efficient, but have you ever tried to post a letter with the wrong postage on (overpay) because those are the stamps you happen to have to hand? The people behind the counter won't let you! Oh no, that won't do, it has to be the correct amount.
Jane
Jane
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:37 pm
#47
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,375
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
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...
However, U.S.-U.K. aviation is still governed by a restrictive accord, commonly known as Bermuda II.
Among other things, Bermuda II, which was signed in 1977, restricts U.K. and U.S. flights serving London's Heathrow airport to two carriers from each country -- AA, BA, United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic -- and provides that both countries' regulatory agencies approve airline's fares.
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":
Valuair currently offers flights between its base in Singapore to Jakarta and Surabaya, with Bangkok as a codeshare with Jetstar Asia. The Airline will begin to fly to Denpasar, Bali, from the 27 January 2006.
Since the merger with Jetstar Asia, the airline has cut routes to Perth, Hong Kong, Xiamen, Chengdu and Bangkok, as part of a consolidation exercise between both budget carriers.
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.
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!"
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:
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...
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.
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...
However, U.S.-U.K. aviation is still governed by a restrictive accord, commonly known as Bermuda II.
Among other things, Bermuda II, which was signed in 1977, restricts U.K. and U.S. flights serving London's Heathrow airport to two carriers from each country -- AA, BA, United Airlines, and Virgin Atlantic -- and provides that both countries' regulatory agencies approve airline's fares.
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":
Valuair currently offers flights between its base in Singapore to Jakarta and Surabaya, with Bangkok as a codeshare with Jetstar Asia. The Airline will begin to fly to Denpasar, Bali, from the 27 January 2006.
Since the merger with Jetstar Asia, the airline has cut routes to Perth, Hong Kong, Xiamen, Chengdu and Bangkok, as part of a consolidation exercise between both budget carriers.
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.
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!"
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...
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.
Vash has it ever occured to you, young australian men go to the UK to drink beer, shag women, party, live it up, travel all over europe, party, shag women, drink beer and live it up. Maybe you would enjoy the UK a bit more if you just got out now and again.
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:37 pm
#48
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,948
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by jad n rich
SOURCESource
Source
source
source
source
Hell thats a good feature People will really believe everything I post now, it must be correct
Source
source
source
source
Hell thats a good feature
People will really believe everything I post now, it must be correct
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:39 pm
#49
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,375
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
You're getting there, mate; now all you need to do is add some hyperlinks to verifiable facts, and you'll have the makings of what might one day be a legitimate point.
Oh really I thought you just had to stick colourful sources on utter crap, righty ho then, will give it a go
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:41 pm
#50
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,948
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by jad n rich
Vash has it ever occured to you, young australian men go to the UK to drink beer, shag women, party, live it up, travel all over europe, party, shag women, drink beer and live it up. Maybe you would enjoy the UK a bit more if you just got out now and again.
(2) I'm one of many Australians who visit the UK for far more sensible reasons.
(3) If bigoted cretins didn't keep posting utter bollocks, I wouldn't have to keep coming along to prove them wrong.
(4) You had no problems with the original contender kicking this thing off with a massive post of his own, so why raise eyebrows when I respond in kind?
(5) It's a thread on the Internet; you're not obliged to read it if you don't want to.
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:42 pm
#51
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,948
From: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by jad n rich
Oh really I thought you just had to stick colourful sources on utter crap, righty ho then, will give it a go
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:48 pm
#52
Bitter and twisted
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,503
From: Upmarket
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by TanyaN
That's because you're at the counter you twit so obviously they're wonderiing why the hell you just didn't buy the correct stamp. Australia Post employees need to be paid twice as much if they're constantly having to deal with idiots like this.
G
Jun 7th 2006 | 6:57 pm
#53
Ex BE ***** Addict
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,773
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by jad n rich
SOURCESource
Source
source
source
source
Hell thats a good feature People will really believe everything I post now, it must be correct
Source
source
source
source
Hell thats a good feature
People will really believe everything I post now, it must be correct HP Source
BBQ Source
Horseradish Source
Getting the hang of this now....
And before some pickle headed Australian tells me I've spelt source wrong, I know!
Jun 7th 2006 | 7:05 pm
#54
Ex BE ***** Addict
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,773
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by TanyaN
That's because you're at the counter you twit so obviously they're wonderiing why the hell you just didn't buy the correct stamp. Australia Post employees need to be paid twice as much if they're constantly having to deal with idiots like this.
Today I went to post a A4 sized letter to the UK and the post mistress actually had the nerve to see if it fitted through a pretend letterbox template she had to make sure it wasn't too big to be a big letter post price!! Nothing wrong with that I suppose except she had just sold me the envelope for that express purpose!! I put the papers in it, wrote the address on it and she just had to check to see if it still fitted in the prescribed box!!
How anyone can defend this stupidity is beyond me, but I'm sure someone will try. Source to a verifiable link that took ages to find I refer you to paragraph 2.11 section 2.111
Last edited by arkon; Jun 7th 2006 at 7:08 pm.
Jun 7th 2006 | 7:48 pm
#55
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,453
From: Perth
Re: Australian Work Ethic
[QUOTE=Vash the Stampede]
(3) If bigoted cretins didn't keep posting utter bollocks, QUOTE]
You'd know better than most Vash.
You just use a veneer of "researched" facts to prove your points - many of which miss the point - and type so much that most people have lost the will to live - never mind argue - after the first 7 paragraphs.
(3) If bigoted cretins didn't keep posting utter bollocks, QUOTE]
You'd know better than most Vash.
You just use a veneer of "researched" facts to prove your points - many of which miss the point - and type so much that most people have lost the will to live - never mind argue - after the first 7 paragraphs.
Jun 7th 2006 | 7:58 pm
#56
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,400
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by arkon
Tomato Source
HP Source
BBQ Source
Horseradish Source
Getting the hang of this now....
And before some pickle headed Australian tells me I've spelt source wrong, I know!
HP Source
BBQ Source
Horseradish Source
Getting the hang of this now....
And before some pickle headed Australian tells me I've spelt source wrong, I know!
Jun 7th 2006 | 8:11 pm
#57
Worongary
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,288
From: GC hinterland
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by Vash the Stampede
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:
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...
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.
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...
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.
sorry vash your talking crap mate
the above extract is for wiring zones within a bathroom from BS7671
uk wiring regs
exactley and i mean exactley the same zones apply to bathrooms in aus under as nzs 3000 ( aussie wiring rules ) see section 7.1.2 classification of zones page 172 of your own regs as attached for those that really need to see it
next
Last edited by steve`o; Jun 7th 2006 at 8:27 pm.
Jun 7th 2006 | 8:36 pm
#58
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,997
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by TanyaN
You don't need to be a graduate to do an MBA. Like I said, pay the fees and that's enough. The only reason a lot of these major companies ask for it just means if you get the job they know you won't be slugging them for it down the road.
If Australians are so slack and you're so wonderful, why aren't employers snapping you up? Maybe because a lot of Aussies have worked in the UK and know how slack Brits can be.
If Australians are so slack and you're so wonderful, why aren't employers snapping you up? Maybe because a lot of Aussies have worked in the UK and know how slack Brits can be.
As for MBA's .....even the good ones are worth nowt without relevant experience. And that is anywhere in the world. An MBA is like most qualifications i.e no good without years of experience within your given field. However here in Aus, experience and worthwhile MBA's are not valued as they are not understood. In deed it's laughable....
The other thing....most arrogant and stupid organisations here can't even be arsed to check out the universities or former companies people worked in before arriving here so how can they even think to assess anyones viability?
It's as if anything outside Australia in terms of experience, for tradespeople or skilled workers, doesn't exist
There is a lot of bullshitting going on re skills requirement. I'd be the first to say UK is a shit-hole....but lets not pretend the job / recruitment process in Aus is anything but substandard and backward
Jun 7th 2006 | 8:43 pm
#59
Born to be ignored
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,138
From: Anstead, Brisbane
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Originally Posted by Grayling
Another 'touchy' Aussie
G
G
Jun 7th 2006 | 9:09 pm
#60
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,650
From: Mornington
Re: Australian Work Ethic
Frankly there are not that many jobs so I think struggling people have genuinely not proved their worth or value - let alone qualifications. Remember, people have to like you, or feel you will fit in - to employ you. I would probably never compete in my specialisation if it was qual-based alone.
I have to agree with this. I got my job in 3 weeks but not before the agency I went through told me that I would have to work in Australia for 3 years doing a job I did 10 years ago to gain some experience. I told them what I thought of that and asked to speak to the MD of the agency, to cut a long story short I got an interview. Got on extremely well at it and was offered the job there and then.
I just carried on with my work as I did in the UK and have since been promoted and I really like the firm I work for. I don't know if it helps but it is a multi national company and the directors are from all points of the compass.
I like a lot of people on here have a valid qualification that I worked bloody hard for and it is not recognised over here, however as they said in work what happens in the UK normally happens over here 5 years later. So it may be worth having one day.
So I think you have to have a combination of experience, knowledge, qualifications and the ability to get on with people to get a decent job over here and last but not least a big bit of luck.
John
I have to agree with this. I got my job in 3 weeks but not before the agency I went through told me that I would have to work in Australia for 3 years doing a job I did 10 years ago to gain some experience. I told them what I thought of that and asked to speak to the MD of the agency, to cut a long story short I got an interview. Got on extremely well at it and was offered the job there and then.
I just carried on with my work as I did in the UK and have since been promoted and I really like the firm I work for. I don't know if it helps but it is a multi national company and the directors are from all points of the compass.
I like a lot of people on here have a valid qualification that I worked bloody hard for and it is not recognised over here, however as they said in work what happens in the UK normally happens over here 5 years later. So it may be worth having one day.
So I think you have to have a combination of experience, knowledge, qualifications and the ability to get on with people to get a decent job over here and last but not least a big bit of luck.
John
