What's what?

Sheepdog, I personally know 3 uni students and 2 single mums who will be impacted by this ruling. All low paid and all living week to week. I suspect the ACTU and Labor will vigorously attack it and it will form a major issue come the next election. Bill Shorten should be on solid ground here. Thin edge of the wedge etc. Work choices style attack ads. Turnbull will not be argue a successful response, think Hewson and the GST cake! Will all feed into the housing affordability debate.

My interest will also be on the Senate cross bench and especially the Hanson block, the party that pretends to support the "little man" but todate have voted with the Liberals on cost cutting again mostly effecting the poor. If some private member's bill gets up One Nation will be in a real bind, vote with the government and be exposed for what they are or side with Labor and also risk a vote bleed (given what I think of their voters - disgruntled Liberals and Nationals).

We live in some country these days - the lowest paid and poor are being screwed while multinationals avoid billions in tax!

I see that all those in the hospitality industry are getting great value for money on their union fees. Another great argument as to why union representation at the federal level is an absolute failure.

Pauline Hanson has her heart in it but she just doesn't have the IQ to play in the arena that she's in. From what I read she rejected all of the welfare cuts/ child care changes solely because these imaginary inter-generational breeder mums that live their lives on welfare could exploit it to keep having kids on maternity leave. Problem is, unemployed mums aren't eligible because they're already on the dole. People need to be employed to gain all of the benefits she's blocked on the basis that unemployed people could exploit them. Paradox?

I reckon she'd be easily manipulated too dear old Pauline especially by wiley old Mal and his slippery digits.

Gaz - "I see that all those in the hospitality industry are getting great value for money on their union fees. Another great argument as to why union representation at the federal level is an absolute failure."

Garbage.... I actually think this greedy nose rub will strengthen the union movement... Joe Bloggs is starting to see through the conservative demonizing of unions which has been happening since the late 90s.

Unions fatcats and corporate fatcats sit at the same table sheepdog. The sooner people realise it the better off we all are

Unions fatcats and corporate fatcats sit at the same table sheepdog. The sooner people realise it the better off we all are

Utter bollocks, Gazzy

Fact Turkey. Biggest "organisation" (if that's what you'd call it) in the country after the Church is the union movement. Both are allowed to exist with zero transparency completely tax free & allowed to self regulate. Both have their fingers so far up the governments backside that you can see fingernails every time a PM opens his mouth. Both also squeal like stuck pigs when people try and clip any of the feathers on their golden goose and both are rife with corruption.

Sheepy I see your point but those industries already had union representation and they were failed yet again. My wife was a member for ten years when we first moved to Adelaide and left a few years back because the union conveniently negotiated away all over time and brought in 2 hour breaks between split shifts, meaning she was still away from home for a ten hour day but only got paid for 7.5, instead of the previous arrangement which allowed 7.5 hours plus 2 hours over time. As a member she paid for that handy union helper to wreck the joint. She left the union & industry shortly after.

In this day & age unions are about as useful to us as an interfering mother-in-law and they are desperate for relevance.

Again, utter bollocks, Gazzy. We've had that tired old narrative given media play especially for years...decades even.

Stay tuned.

I never had you picked for a staunch catholic unionist turkey but swellnet is definitely a diverse bunch!

25% of the nation are Catholic (somehow) and 15% are union members. Both have the biggest representation in Government.

If a company of any size wants to raise public funds they have to list on the ASX and face huge compliance costs not to mention asic regulations and all the hoops of the corporations act.

If a church or a union wants public funds they just ask for it and are more or less governed by the weather on the day.

Compare the trade unions act & the corporations act if you like. The corporations act is 20 times the size for a start and has penalties ranging from 3 months to 6 years jail plus fines. Trade Union act suggests fines of $10-$100. Also note there is ZERO outside scrutiny in the trade union act and if they fail anything the fines are still peanuts. The corporations act DEMANDS all listed companies be independently audited. The penalty is de-registration, bankruptcy, fines, court.

The first 4 or 5 lines of the trade union act says the courts can't prosecute them for breaking the law!!!!

Also have to mention that the 1958 act is the only thing I can find on union regulation - if someone has a newer one I'm happy to be corrected.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/tua1958150/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/

Freedom of religion is in the constitution so the church doesn't even seem to get a mention, so they must be above the law!

You've heard of the ol' "Gish Gallop", Gazzy? Popular on here. Hmmm, the beauty of the alliteration.

Where to start to unpack your statements? Corporations equivalent to unions? Maybe you're getting mixed up with those 'business unions' - the minerals council, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, COSBOA, BCA, etc etc.? The IPA??

Or do I start with the Catholic church an organisation like a union? You have to pay $ to join the 'tims'?? Maybe getting mixed up with those uber-capitalist Seppo rackets?

Union numbers nothing to do with, say as one example of a myriad, increasing casualisation? The more casual (ie less full-time employed) positions, the lesser the particular union membership, and thus the less effective clout the particular union has?

So it instead of being, gasp, 'militant', they still get pilloried for trying to save jobs and the most basic of rights and awards.

Remember these guys? Who had a seat at that table again?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/may/05/ideology-ov...

Returning to the gist of the last few comments, and the recent events of late, let me get anecdotal (up to a point).

My town is a tourist town. A lot of small businesses. Main Street retail and hospitality. And a lot of bust-outs...for a lot of reasons. The unifying factor? Property leases. Rents that are getting exponential.

Ever hear, say Kate Carnell (former head of the the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry UNION, and now rewarded with a government gig), ever mention anything much about that real economic pressure in her previous life??

Yeah, nah.

Just lobbied like a muthafucka, for her members, for penalty rates to be flicked, and now has scored a real seat at the big table...!

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kate-carnell-quits...

Bloody (business) unions!

Looks like Peter Dutton wil be pm soon........ Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/peter-dutton-surges-after-...

DUTTON!

Interesting concept Turkey "business unions" but not factual in reality. TRADE unions exist due to a completely different, yet flimsy piece of dunny paper.

The catholic church is a religion and it has no compliance or transparency obligations whatsoever, I'd say mainly because it was here before the government was. The trade unions are similar in the fact that they are beyond scrutiny and this is legislated in that way.

Most of those entities you mentioned earlier are actually not-for-profit entities and regulated by the Australian Charities & Not-For-Profits Commission Act 2012, all very heavily regulated and as usual compliance is huge and transparency being the common theme. The remainder are private companies. The Aust Chamber of Commerce is a public company not a trade union. Registration details posted below above the not-for-profits act.

http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=85008391795
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/acanca2012523/

In my view the casualisation of the workforce has actually come about as it's too hard to fire someone on a permanent contract for poor performance. Unions offer reduced rates for casuals so this shouldn't be a driving force on membership. Could it be that they just deliver less? The union movement as a whole is in question here too, not individual unions as most are united under the ACTU.

There's a lot in that guardian article worthy of comment but if my posts get any longer I'm likely to be banned from this forum!

Your comments on Kate Carnell would also apply to 90% of Labor state & federal MP's & Senators I'll wager. A political position seems to be the only way to get rid of them these days.

Ever been a union member Turkey ?

Yep, and more.

"Interesting concept Turkey "business unions" but not factual in reality. TRADE unions exist due to a completely different, yet flimsy piece of dunny paper."

I thought, pedantry and legalese aside, that unions (or guilds/societies/councils/associations/cartels) were formed by people with a common interest or purpose, to pursue, and advocate for, their particular interests and purposes in a wider socio-political context. Pre-legislation.

No?

The Carnell example was specific to the penalty rates decision. Who were the Labor politicians, or rather the union officials, advocating FOR their removal? Oh, you mean the union dudes advocating for them to be kept...and then they get a gig in a Labor government. Got it!

Therein lies the dodginess with the equivalence narrative, I wager. The Lib/Lab 'they're both the same' narrative.

Kate Carnell, acting for the business cartel (that better?), advocates for the employers, and then gets a gig with the Libs. Ged Kearney advocates for employees, and gets a future gig with Labor?

How's that old classic go again? Re-made for now, as the difference between left/right gets starker, well, since this 30-40 year neo-liberal economic experiment at least.

You're barely coherent Turkey. Pedantry & legalese are the point here!

Guilds/societies/councils/associations/cartels are not recognized as any kind of legal structure which is why I've singled out religion and unions. They have gamed the system to ensure survival. A tax free existence with no scrutiny or accountability makes for happy pastors and branch secretaries!

Here in SA all the rats are scurrying before the election next year. ALP branch secretaries are desperate for a turn in the big boy chairs, existing ALP MP's are busy nominating their old assistants for plum positions or seats and sitting ALP MP's are desperate to look like they've been doing more than solitaire for the last decade.

In the blue camp, same same but different. I'd say the only difference is more solitaire and they wouldn't trust their old assistants to make a sandwich.

Now on your Kate Carnell issue, she never worked for a union! It was a public company that lobbied for small business, and surprise surprise they thought she did a job and got the same portfolio in government.

In the news yesterday the AMWU were striking over a pay deal at ASC whilst manufacturing in the state crumbles without power and record unemployment. These guys must be the dumbest pricks in town. Not much point having union membership without a job. Will these dickheads get a government nomination for doing a good job for their members?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/asc-workers-on-strike-over-new-ent...

Whooshka! Through to the keeper, Gazzy. No, YOUR "pedantry & legalese" aren't the point here! Maybe your confirmation bias? I get that loud n clear. Which side are you on, indeed.

"Guilds/societies/councils/associations/cartels are not recognized as any kind of legal structure"...Huh? What does that barely coherent waffle even mean? Is that legalese, or journalese?

And..."no scrutiny or accountability"?! Seriously??

As for tax exemption...that really seems to be your top priority bug-bear. With the church and all. And all the other tax exempted organisations, like NPOs, NGOs, y'know, so-called think tanks and the like too, huh? Good old Gerard Henderson! Gamed the system. Mate, you're saying this with a straight face?

Which corporations pay NO tax again? No probs, Cayman Mal is right on to it! He looks 'em straight in the eye, apparently. Pink, brown, or Japanese?

As for your little report of AMWU hyperbole (not the actual ABC report link), you realise the hoops that are jumped through to even get to the point of "strike action"? The legal hoops alone? The cost? It's why EBAs are stretched out by employers and their tax exempt employer's associations (another mob...when applicable). Kill 'em off by Fair Work (!) submission! Of course you also realise that any action of this kind undertaken by a union has to go to member's ballot...legally?

Whatever. Keep fighting the good fight, comrade. Kate salutes you! How the right can be so on the wrong side of history...again?!

Oi, Fongo, stick to Ian MacFarlane and Kathy Jackson, legitimate axe to grind there. Funny, not in the news as much, but?

True drongos. Get too cosy with dogs, some lesser breeds get fleas.

Nothing says ‘Australian management culture’ like agitating to pay workers less. Except maybe putting your hand out for a $50bn tax cut.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/the-penalty-rates-...

It's the Great American Dream to pay your workers nothing !

USA ! USA ! USA !

Privatisation = better and cheaper ?

https://m.

Fongo, I contend that narrative barrow - they're both as bad as each other - is simply not right. It gets pushed for sure....see who does the pushing...but it's bullshit. It ain't balanced reporting...it's out of whack.

If Labor can be shit, the LNP are always shitter. History sees that. Always on the wrong side of the ledger.

The chasm between the two majors is as wide as it's been for years. And getting wider. The neo-liberal economic experiment is slowly flaming out - the so-called 'third way' is being jettisoned - but fark, hang on to your privates, 'cos the right pushers are not going anywhere without a nasty fight.

It's the Great Australian Dream to pay your workers nothing !

IPA ! IPA ! IPA !

There. Fixed it for you. I'm a fixer.

Turkey I can tell your hearts in it and confirmation bias is alive and well everywhere. I'm gonna out myself as a former tax/auditor/finance accountant before changing pastures so you can tell why I'm so focused on the compliance/tax side of the argument.

Your NGO/ NPO comments are still incoherent. These entities are governed by the acts I mentioned earlier with huge compliance. They answer to indepedent commissions. They don't make any money. The remuneration of members is determined independently.

The scrutiny & accountability are actually compliance issues in auditing and this normally includes delegation of duties and separation of internal controls. This stops directors just walking off with public shareholders money, or CFO's writing themselves blank cheque's. Churches & unions don't have this because they don't report to anyone. And no one audits them. There's no incentive for them to be honest because why would they? One honest person will make the crooks look bad that's why.

It's not a red vs blue/ good vs evil argument at all, which you're alluding to in recent comments. Both major political parties in AUS are rubbish but if you refuse to see that the church & the unions have gamed the system in their favor just as the corporations have you must be off licking tea leaves.

The AMWU shit going down at ASC is just crap turkey and you'd have to know this. Don't defend them just because they're the red coats! The negative macro effects that idiot union is inflicting on the nation, the defence industry & the ALP will haunt us all. All because those AMWU geese can't be seen to back down or settle for less after 2 years of crap without losing face in front of the members.

Anyhoo, heres one for ya Turkey coz we'll let that one slide. What if Globalisation has made both LNP & ALP relics of the past? Think about it, trickle down economics don't work if all the workers are now offshore, and similarly who needs union representation if there's no jobs? Food for thought ey!

Fark this is as boring as shit for a Friday night I'm sorry gents I won't spew anymore of this garbage.

Too much Gish/Gazzy gallop! One note: AMWU member's ballot. MEMBERS.

Dumb-arse workers, hey?

Theres some adult words in there turks I'll give you that.

If the workers are in favor of leveraging a company thats now offshore in an industry thats failing in a state with record unemployment then yes they are dumb-arse workers.

Now we're getting simewhere...

"There are only so many assets that can be privatised and, as the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, has noted, replacing a public-sector monopoly with a private-sector monopoly has simply driven up prices. The fetish for deregulation and tax cutting has caused immense harm – for consumers, for workers and for governments seeking to provide services demanded of them but hampered by inadequate revenue."

"...Progressive politicians and political parties have had decades to develop alternative policies and programs and then prosecute them. Overwhelmingly, they have failed. In fact, they have lagged behind conservative institutions and politicians in recognising the failings of neoliberalism and moving away from market–dominated politics."

"...The financial crisis constituted an assault on conservative ideology. Paradoxically, it has triggered a crisis of belief for the left."

".. By contrast, for many in the electorate, listening to a modern progressive politician is like taking a tepid bath. The era of technocrats seeking to impress and persuade by their mild-mannered mastery of evidence-based policy is well and truly redundant."

"The era of technocrats seeking to impress and persuade by their mild-mannered mastery of evidence-based policy is well and truly redundant"

Repeated for the those blinded and resistant

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2017/feb/25/jus...

A good article...contains a lot of stuff I concur with and have done for years...BUT...

dated, especially in regards to the Oz political situation.

For the umpteenth time we're not the States or the UK. Mostly for the best, as in we're not as degraded, yet...worst? Our corporate media concentration. And that's up for debate. Getting worse?!

Actually, we're at a real juncture. Glass half full, things are learnt from the goings on OS, positive things. There are signs. Plenty of them, if you look beyond what the media dishes up. For example who'd have thought the Warren Buffett tax rule would be getting discussed on a serious level? Any level??

Glass half drained? Take your pick. WA state election is a privatization referendum. One side is of course spruiking this, the same side that is partnering up with Hanson.

Interesting times. Which way we wanna/gonna go?

A further note. The Guardian! Absolutely part of the problem he decries , especially in the UK and US. They hammer Corbyn and the leftwards shift he represents in the UK. And they first ignored Sanders then railed against him, whilst shamelessly cheerleading for Clinton.

Again, here we're not as buggered. Even Katharine Murphy, the political editor and Turnbull tragic, is finally seeing, and more importantly reporting, the obvious.

Unfortunately I don't see that neoliberalism is crumbling.

I do see that people are more aware of its clear failings but this doesn't mean that things are going to change at the top.

At the risk of being repetitive, we have a two-party system with both parties having similar masters and similar ideologies.

People clearly have the shits with the two major parties but that's not really solving anything when the Lower House is designed to facilitate a two-party system and nothing more.

Minor parties might push a few buttons but certainly when it comes to the buying power and influence of corporations, nothing fundamental is going to change with regards to neoliberalism - my belief is that things are going to have to head a lot further south economically and socially before real change will be considered.

Footnote: When George W. Bush said that "you're either with us or against us", I saw him as clearly speaking on behalf of the neoliberal agenda. If they go down, they will go down kicking and screaming and with a very big bang.

Andy, pedantic perhaps, but the Liberals are in partnership with the Nationals federally. They have to be. They wouldn't be able to get enough votes on their lonesome. In WA the Nationals are more their own entity too. Stay tuned for the Hanson preference deal fall-out.

And what was the Gillard government arrangement with the Greens again?

As for similar ideologies?? Labor and Liberal?? Jeez.

Even economically, I contend, as above, there is divergence afoot, and it's getting starker. It doesn't happen overnight, but it will happen. It has to.

But the fact remains that the voting system is designed for a two party system, and the Libs and Labor are it, regardless of which minnow they team up with.
We are not a multi-party system.

Labor do have a more social bent but how can you deny that when it comes to economics/privitisation/neo-liberalism labor are almost as far to the right as the Libs.
The continued insistence of Labor being centrist or even centre left is nonsense.

Look at the histories of both major parties and it is absolutely clear that their ideologies have converged to a very large extent.

My point is (apart from neoliberalism not going down without a fight) that we need more fundamental change than just swinging back and forward between a far-right and a centre-right party.

I do agree with your last paragraph, if Labor has a brain amongst them (??) now is the time to pick up the fucking ball and run with it, the electorate is screaming for it.

Interesting comment Andy. I'm always banging on about the media and their role in 'manufacturing consent'. Check this article from the UK Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/jul/19/yes-jeremy-corb...

More importantly, check the comments from their 'screaming electorate'. I've cherry-picked a few.

"Typical arrogant response that I'd expect from the Guardian on this matter. "Yeah, we're acting just the same as the Sun - but who cares eh ?".

I can remember growing up with the Guardian in our household, where the rest of my friends parents all read the sun or the mirror, and feeling a bit more informed. Long gone are those days.

Really disappointing - but to quote this article, not surprising !"

"Exactly. And at the heart of Greenslade's piece, this old chestnut:

With something like 80% of his parliamentary party against him, would democracy benefit from a failure to reflect that reality?

The rebel PLP are 172 people in a country of about 70 million. There is nothing democratic about their attacks on Corbyn. The people who voted for them did not give them a mandate to mount their botched coup. The actions of the PLP and their cheerleaders in the media are utterly shameful. The media has an important constitutional role to play, and yet again they have failed all of us woefully. The people who run the media deserve to lose their positions for this. They won't. But they have lost an enormous amount of credibility, on top of the damning verdicts of Chilcott, Leveson and the Hillsborough enquiry. If Corbyn is elected PM, I hope he introduces a media code of conduct to stop this tiny minority of self-important spivs from trying to tell us all what to think."

"And the argument that they are reflecting reality, as if a continued campaign that “systematically attacked” Corbyn as the study quoted in the article stated, would not have affected both public and MP's opinion.

The standard criticism is along the lines of "He's a decent man, and I agree with a lot of his policies, but he's not a strong leader and won't get votes". Where do you think this idea comes from that despite agreeing with what he says, and thinking well of the man generally, people won't vote for him? This argument can have only come from the press and media coverage."

Any resonance here in Australia at all?

Talking to yourself now turkey?

Fark, you read any of this? It just ain't me, peanuts.

Got an idea there somewhere?

I'm with you Turkey.

But can you make the connection between the UK experience and the US experience ?

The unbiased media !

Geddit ?!?!

Fong your comment is basically incoherent.
What are you trying to say?

Fong is saying that he's way smarter and that any contrary opinion is to be discounted due to mental enfeeblement .

I think it's meant to be ironic.

Pssssst !! - I don't think it's intended as ironic ......but it sure reads that way .

Bugger! Out of office. Where's my Dunning-Kruger meme when ya need it?!

Meanwhile in Oz. The wonderful media land of Oz...

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2017/02/22/fears-labor-may-raise-ta...

Fongo, we get it. BUT it's not what I was banging on about in the "they're both/
all the same" barrow pushing exercise.

Chuck a dart at any organisation, of any type, and you'll hit ethically and morally challenged humans.

The deeper question, do certain people seek and join certain organisations for their own nefarious ends? And does that null and void the other members and the organisation in total? Are there organisations that encourage dodginess??

God forbid!

I just face palmed reading your last question turkey especially after the rant i posted on churches and unions last week, but you're point is still solid. I would also add should the actions of others in an organisation be called into question if they dont call it out? I reckon it should.

SA gov and public sector has some of the harshest whistle blower restrictions in the country. If you're not familiar its worth a look.

No shit Sherlock...I gave you a legitimate 'in' for your previous 'drawn long bow'.

And now your latest 'long bow', let's call it the faux Nuremberg defence...as only applicable to the one side of politics...really??

Fair call turks. The side of politics isn't relevant, just convenient in this case.

Nuremberg is alive on both sides of politics and the 24 hour news cycle feeds it relentlessly.

Anyone else ever thought that if we limited the term a person can be an MP they might be more inclined to act with integrity and get shit done? Or is this a bit optimistic?

3 terms seems like plenty of time to get stuff done in their electorate I reckon.