the troubadour

Howards last term saw a lot of spending in order to influence voting. His overall term included brought in various inducements that led to a housing super charge inflation(halving of CG's and FHB's Grant) as well as ridiculous baby bonus. Not forgetting expensive overseas adventures.


The level of personal debt in this country owing to mortgage loan places the banks in a risky situation should interest rates rise abroad.


Falling house prices in certain areas of the country as well as rents as immigration intake falls poses further risks on the housing market and banks in general. Not forgetting other international events that may impact banking and loans as such.

Beoz

Errr. Great sell .... no cigar.

Labor government lost the suplus buffer and sent Australia on the downward trajectory.

Labors plan to return to surplus was a looooonnng way off.

That's what happens when you don't believe in the trickle down effect and your priorities are all about give give give to the me me me's

Beoz

You see. That's 3 of us then. Even the Tennis Ace agrees but still likes to argue

BadgeIsBack

As a member of the middle classes I have never worked in a dark satanic mill or factory so don't consider myself requiring protection.

Legislation for workers conditions started 150 years ago with various reform acts..working or education.
You could argue that some of the work creating good conditions started by the Victorians was the new noble order of classical 19th century liberals who were still socially conservative. Much like many modern day Liberals the world over whether they be named Libs or Tories.

As the law protects workers who have more affluence than ever before, we don't need Unions.

Beoz

Interestingly I was having a chat with a fella who was in management in a factory. He was telling me that he votes LNP and hates unions, but is the union rep so he maintains the respect of his staff.

What a weird world.

GarryP

Did you read anything I wrote?

Not only do we need unions, we need smarter unions, with better people and more laws to back them up.

I was struck by the information asymmetry. If the CEO had a brainwave that would adversely affect the staff (quite common) then the entire 'consultation and implementation' exercise could be gamed and planned in advance, with the brainwave only announced at the most opportune time.

Then union has to react, and try and get ahead of a foe (and they were foes) who had almost total information and battlespace superiority. All in an environment where corruption of politicians meant that the laws were against them.

Group representation, rather than individual, is a requirement of industrial relations - and it really needs to be strengthened to encompass international outsourcing, etc.

Beoz

Maybe .... just maybe ... if you work in a place that requires a union then that workplace is not worth spending so much time in ..... maybe you should move on.

BadgeIsBack

Probably guilty,Gerry: I'm on a phone and skim reading.

There were plenty of tradies who quoted during to spend that surplus driving the Labour led stimulus (splurge)

BadgeIsBack

Hmmm I'm inclined to agree..interesting how unions represent teachers : aren't these people educated enough to bargain themselves?

People forget sometimes that public sector workers often get larger awards than private sector employees and that many public sector employees are not saving the world. The average nurse works no more hours than hardworking private sector employees ..The average firefighter is not a superhero he's in a cushy little number with lots of safety in place with no actual requirement to go into a house if he thinks it's too dangerous ..who has a nice little trade on the side..

OzTennis

I read enough in the post I responded to - along the lines of yes we should help those who need help but we shouldn't rob the rich to give handouts; if you don't like what an employer offers you just go to another job, easy peasy.

Beoz

Blah blah blah .... what round did you make it to in Wimbledon this year?

ozzieeagle

This is true Badge, It's taken decades of negotiation and sometimes disputes with Unions to reach these standards that are now set in stone in EBA's. They also set precedents for the private sector to follow, which happens in most cases.

If the Unions hadn't have set these standards in the first place, Australia would not have some of the highest minimum wages in the world.

I think the election result, with Katter and Hanson stating hands of unions is testament to this fact.

Personally rather than condemn the unions for setting these standards I ask, why isn't a private sector nurse worth as much as a public sector nurse. ? First thing the private sector Nurses miss out on is the 12 pct minimum extra take home wage due to Salary packaging.

Your not suggesting that these people would be better off without unions are you ? Thats been proven wrong time and time again.

Beoz

Everything you say Ozzie true, but it goes back to the question I asked you earlier. Do you actually care about Australia as a whole or do you only care about me me me?

Garry kind of touched on it where he said unions could be doing more, and in many ways, unions now have the opportunity to attract a wider field, contribute in a more diverse way, rather than focussing on the 20% .... the me me me's.

Due to todays workplace laws, the role of the union is diminishing, so its really time for the union to diversify its interest, and look beyond what its traditional role is, otherwise its just going to be continually beaten up but the 80% who have no use for them. Their sales pitch is appaulling too. Strikes, demonstrations, bogans with placards. ... you wonder why thd 80% have a bad perception of unions.

Maybe they should be looking at the Scandinavian model.

GarryP

What I was referring to was the need to get change tactics and get ahead of a set of bosses who have convincingly rorted the system and now play them for fools. The idea of collective bargaining and dealing as a group with both bosses and politicians is still obviously needed.

For all you say that industrial relations are set in stone, the CEOs have jackhammer and a glint in the eye.

That means rather than nickle and diming it, THEY need to have a vision and a set of targets that they measure the businesses up against. Less "we are looking at 3% this year" more "and you will need to raise pay by 7% this year to reach your target". That also applies to politics, and as I said, the concepts of 'free' trade and global outsourcing.

They probably also need to look towards career planning and training for their members, since the CEOs are progressively walking away from that responsibility. In essence you get a merger of professional organisation and union into something more akin to guilds.

Automation is going to cut a swathe through the automatable jobs. What's left are the jobs that need humans, and a bunch of CEO rubbing their hands and cutting pay and conditions as unemployment mounts. About the only thing that will stop them and save society from riot and revolution is a stronger worker voice.

Beoz

Oh well. If that's the attitude then we go no where.

Firstly, you are being sold a dummy that all corps and CEO's don't train staff, provide share holdings, and create an us v them mentality is your problem to deal with. No one elses.

As I said earlier, if this is the way you get treated, time to move on and find yourself someone who offers the above.

There are an ever increasing amount of progressive employers who understand that high staff turnover costs money and reduces productivity. You should jump on one of those.

And as for unions, if they want to be doing something useful, they want to be working with corps and CEO's to be providing business benefit as well as helping their members with growth paths. Sounds like we have a common theme there.

The mentality you describe above is old skool. Time to move into the new world.