Here comes Workchoices III the elimination of penatly rates

[Grin]

I believe union bosses put their own interests ahead of their members, the unemployed and society as a whole

What about the German example?
What about most members of parliament?
What about bosses of other representative groups e.g. grain, small business, various other industry groups etc.?

I think you could mount a much stronger argument that CEOs put their own interests ahead of their share holders, the unemployed and society as a whole

 

[Power Raid]

You got there
But I thought you were in favour of self interest?
Didn't Magi T. say something about society? Or it's lack of existence?

Eddit: Sorry Power Raid
Thought you were meds
Should remember to wear my glasses
Should remember that Meds would take much longer, if ever, to get here.

Wouldn't it be good to apply corporate law to unions? even better, concepts of misleading and deceptive conduct regarding what unions say they do and what really happens.

 

[Power Raid]

Most probably don't.
Most probably do their job as well and ethically as they can whilst trying to earn an honest living.


You could argue that. And I've been waiting for someone to. (thought it would be medusala ). I think you've hit the nail on the head.
It could also be argued that unions have a vested interest in maintaining long term employment for their members, as the German example teaches us.


See above comment.

unions are motivated by self interest and amazingly short term and long term goals align.

1) the short term

bribes, racketeering, etc is rewarded by kick backs. These can come in the form of paper bags, "donations" and institutionalised corruption such as training.

2) the long term

workers don't need unions if pay, job security and conditions are good. The short term drivers cause inefficiencies in the market resulting in lower pay, less job security and lower conditions.



unions would probably do themselves out of a job if the criminal elements were removed.

 

[Grin]

Wouldn't it be good to apply corporate law to unions? even better, concepts of misleading and deceptive conduct regarding what unions say they do and what really happens.

Doesn't the rule of law apply to unions?

Anyway. The point I'm trying to drive at is that the majority have a vested interest in the wellbeing of society.
Where we find examples of workers and bosses and legislation/regulation coming together, we often find positive outcomes, in terms of wages, productivity, work satisfaction, company profits and employment.

 

[Grin]

unions are motivated by self interest and amazingly short term and long term goals align.

1) the short term

bribes, racketeering, etc is rewarded by kick backs. These can come in the form of paper bags, "donations" and institutionalised corruption such as training.

2) the long term

workers don't need unions if pay, job security and conditions are good. The short term drivers cause inefficiencies in the market resulting in lower pay, less job security and lower conditions.



unions would probably do themselves out of a job if the criminal elements were removed.

Really?
Is that what you really believe?

 

[Power Raid]

What about the German example?
What about most members of parliament?
What about bosses of other representative groups e.g. grain, small business, various other industry groups etc.?

I think you could mount a much stronger argument that CEOs put their own interests ahead of their share holders, the unemployed and society as a whole

I would love to see politicians and unions held to account and governed by the same principles of the corporations act.

You are right there are CEOs who put their own interest ahead of shareholders. Being a non-exec on a number of boards it is amazing how hard it can be to align management and shareholder interests especially if the CEO has an ego (many do). Its also amazing how many CEOs are quietly shitting themselves that they are out of their depth and can't do the job required. They often feel they can't talk to the board (fear of the response), can't talk to the executive (fear of showing weakness) and can't talk to their wives (want to leave work at work).

The strength of a board and the CEOs conduct falls squarely on the non-execs. This albeit difficult can be achieved through being supportive rather than being an arm chair quarter back. There is a line though and "chopping" heads for poor conduct is a must. This decision is always much easier when you feel your own funds as a shareholder are being disrespected.

 

[Power Raid]

Really?
Is that what you really believe?

how else can you explain the martime union, the CFMEU and co's criminal activities?

or do you think they just have short term motives and no long term vision?

 

[Power Raid]

Really?
Is that what you really believe?

something stinks - Mr McDonald's history of lawlessness

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...ulsion-dangerous/story-e6frg13u-1111113729569

 

[medusala]

It could also be argued that unions have a vested interest in maintaining long term employment for their members, as the German example teaches us.

Many of them are too thick to achieve that in Australia. See SPC, auto, Ansett etc.

German unions on the other have agreed to real wage cuts in the past to maintain employment.

 

[Grin]

how else can you explain the martime union, the CFMEU and co's criminal activities?

or do you think they just have short term motives and no long term vision?

Was it the act of the union, or of individuals.
Such criminality, especially in a collective organisation like a union, is utterly disgraceful
Far more so, in my opinion, than criminality in a private firm.

 

[Grin]

Many of them are too thick to achieve that in Australia. See SPC, auto, Ansett etc.

German unions on the other have agreed to real wage cuts in the past to maintain employment.

So you agree that unions and employers should work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes?

 

[AM]

Wouldn't it be good to apply corporate law to unions? even better, concepts of misleading and deceptive conduct regarding what unions say they do and what really happens.

It would also be good if corporations weren't full of crooks and double dealers and they actually worked within the corporate laws rather than treating them as a plaything.

Union representatives get there by popular vote. Corporate executives get there by who-knows-who. Individual shareholders have no effective say.

 

[Grin]

I would love to see politicians and unions held to account and governed by the same principles of the corporations act.

You are right there are CEOs who put their own interest ahead of shareholders. Being a non-exec on a number of boards it is amazing how hard it can be to align management and shareholder interests especially if the CEO has an ego (many do). Its also amazing how many CEOs are quietly shitting themselves that they are out of their depth and can't do the job required. They often feel they can't talk to the board (fear of the response), can't talk to the executive (fear of showing weakness) and can't talk to their wives (want to leave work at work).

The strength of a board and the CEOs conduct falls squarely on the non-execs. This albeit difficult can be achieved through being supportive rather than being an arm chair quarter back. There is a line though and "chopping" heads for poor conduct is a must. This decision is always much easier when you feel your own funds as a shareholder are being disrespected.

But I bet you have also met some CEOs who were leaders, role models and very decent people?
Or do you think that power always corrupts?

 

[Rob]

only if you spin it as such.

Yes ongoing costs like rent still apply on public holidays and weekends and lat nights, but then you may as well claim that you're losing money every time you aren't open. You can say a business loses money every time it closes for the night. Imagine how much money an advertising firm loses by not having its staff work 24 hours a day. This isn't an argument, its propaganda, and can be used to argue against any and all regulation with equal validity. Or lack thereof.

Rubbish. It's a concept known as 'fixed costs'. Really not that complicated. You will incur these costs regardless. So yes, every time you are not open, you are losing money. Being those fixed costs.
Just as uncomplicated is a concept known as 'variable costs', which are a different set of costs that, generally, you will save by not being open. Whether it's viable to open at any given time is dependent on whether your income exceeds these variable costs. For the time you are open, you need that margin of income > variable costs to exceed your fixed costs. Then your business is viable.

It's simplistic yes (hell it's year 9 economics)- your advertising firm example is hindered by the idea that most people don't want to work from 6pm to 6am, and asking them to do so will have them f**k off to another firm that offers better conditions. But the idea of 24 hour opening times is not unheard of. BHP and Rio run iron ore mines 24 hours a day for the very reason you say is propaganda.

 

[medusala]

So you agree that unions and employers should work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes?

That depends, no one should be FORCED by legislation to negotiate with scum like the CFMEU, however, if a business CHOOSES to work with a union, that is another matter entirely.

 

[Power Raid]

Was it the act of the union, or of individuals.
Such criminality, especially in a collective organisation like a union, is utterly disgraceful
Far more so, in my opinion, than criminality in a private firm.

it is always disappointing no matter where you see it

FTR I believe unions have an extremely important role to play.


thanks Grin

 

[Power Raid]

It would also be good if corporations weren't full of crooks and double dealers and they actually worked within the corporate laws rather than treating them as a plaything.

Union representatives get there by popular vote. Corporate executives get there by who-knows-who. Individual shareholders have no effective say.

FTR ASIC is an incompetent organisation filled with fools who have no idea what their job should be, what they should be looking for or how to remedy a situation if they identified it.

We need to move away from box ticking, forms and tip toeing around issues. One very simple way of cleaning up large companies would be to make it compulsory that institutional shareholder meetings with management are recorded and put on a ASIC/ ASX like youtube.

Nothing quite like seeing the whites of people's eyes.......that's how you know when they are lying.

 

[Grin]

no one should be FORCED by legislation to negotiate

Sometimes, when you're the parent of unruly children, you're forced to knock a couple of heads together.
Does 'em good in the long run.

 

[Power Raid]

That depends, no one should be FORCED by legislation to negotiate with scum like the CFMEU, however, if a business CHOOSES to work with a union, that is another matter entirely.

We have to put gates up and lock the gates to protect workers from union thugs. They will send thugs around and threaten workers with violence.

Its actually quite scary to witness.

 

[medusala]

Sometimes, when you're the parent of unruly children, you're forced to knock a couple of heads together.
Does 'em good in the long run.

Don't post on the smacking thread, Chief, he of unmatched wisdom will have you for dinner!!

 

[Fire]

Rubbish. It's a concept known as 'fixed costs'. Really not that complicated. You will incur these costs regardless. So yes, every time you are not open, you are losing money. Being those fixed costs.
Just as uncomplicated is a concept known as 'variable costs', which are a different set of costs that, generally, you will save by not being open. Whether it's viable to open at any given time is dependent on whether your income exceeds these variable costs. For the time you are open, you need that margin of income > variable costs to exceed your fixed costs. Then your business is viable.

It's simplistic yes (hell it's year 9 economics)- your advertising firm example is hindered by the idea that most people don't want to work from 6pm to 6am, and asking them to do so will have them f**k off to another firm that offers better conditions. But the idea of 24 hour opening times is not unheard of. BHP and Rio run iron ore mines 24 hours a day for the very reason you say is propaganda.

You don't need to explain fixed vs variable costs, I gave no indication of not understanding that.

Your bhp example is likewise ******* obvious because there are plenty of 24 hour businesses.

Talking down to people doesn't make your position any higher.

Aside from that, nothing you said countered my point. Advertising employees won't be asked to work 24 hours, because employers wouldn't be able to get away with it. Petrol station employees will be asked to work 8 hour shifts on Christmas, so why you thought pointing that out was relevant I have no idea.

I was simply using it as an example of how you have framed the issue. An advertising firms fixed costs don't go away at night so they are losing money when they close at night. And on weekends. It's dishonest propaganda to frame it as such, in exactly the same way its propaganda to claim a buisiness loses money when it closes on a public holiday.

But you missed the point entierley.

 

[Demosthenes]

This thread is hilarious. Has anyone in here even read the Productivity Commission's report? There's zero reason for penalty rates on Sunday to be higher than Saturday.

This isn't the 1970s, when nothing was supposed to open on the Sabbath. The community expects businesses - particularly in hospitality and entertainment - to operate all weekend, and you don't get that by arbitrarily doubling their labour costs for half of it.

 

[Rob]

You don't need to explain fixed vs variable costs, I gave no indication of not understanding that.

Your bhp example is likewise ******* obvious because there are plenty of 24 hour businesses.

Talking down to people doesn't make your position any higher.

Aside from that, nothing you said countered my point. Advertising employees won't be asked to work 24 hours, because employers wouldn't be able to get away with it. Petrol station employees will be asked to work 8 hour shifts on Christmas, so why you thought pointing that out was relevant I have no idea.

I was simply using it as an example of how you have framed the issue. An advertising firms fixed costs don't go away at night so they are losing money when they close at night. And on weekends. It's dishonest propaganda to frame it as such, in exactly the same way its propaganda to claim a buisiness loses money when it closes on a public holiday.

But you missed the point entierley.

Oh no, I got your point. It's just your point is rubbish.

You either don't understand basic economics or you just ignore it.

 

[Maggie5]

This thread is hilarious. Has anyone in here even read the Productivity Commission's report? There's zero reason for penalty rates on Sunday to be higher than Saturday.

This isn't the 1970s, when nothing was supposed to open on the Sabbath. The community expects businesses - particularly in hospitality and entertainment - to operate all weekend, and you don't get that by arbitrarily doubling their labour costs for half of it.

Are you serious? Why would you take any report written for the Abbott government that was prepared by their appointees and use it as a benchmark?
Not sure that the arguments put up by some has even talked about the "Sabbath".

The two arguments put forth to reduce these penalty rates are because:
a) increase employment - Wrong
b) More business will open on Sunday - Doubt it.

 

[Demosthenes]

Are you serious? Why would you take any report written for the Abbott government that was prepared by their appointees and use it as a benchmark?
Not sure that the arguments put up by some has even talked about the "Sabbath".

The two arguments put forth to reduce these penalty rates are because:
a) increase employment - Wrong
b) More business will open on Sunday - Doubt it.

It would have been quicker to say "You're absolutely right - I haven't read the PC report".