Society/Culture Unionism is holding Australia back

[Tas]

Like the Feminism movement, it had its time and place but going on for the point of going does more harm than good.

Unionism has grown from beyond looking out for the best interests of employees to power and control. Measures taken to protect workers and their rights go against the fundamental principals of our chosen economic system and in many cases undermines the workers as a whole.

I think unions have their place in order to represent worker rights in terms of the conditions of employment, because employers neglect their responsibilities as employers and often treat workers as a liability instead of the asset they are.

However, some of the fundamental principals of unionism create massive employment barriers for prospective employees. Minimum wage rate has caused chronic unemployment issues with younger people, especially during harder economic times. Are you going to pay minimum wage to a young inexperienced kid or someone mature with more experience? It is a bad deal for younger potential employees, they do not have the option to compete for employment.

Younger people often have significantly lower personal overheads, many live with family or in shared accommodation, they are usually in a better position to exchange lower remuneration for the opportunity to gain vital training and work experience. With minimum wages this cost is an additional burden to the employer which makes younger people less attractive to employ.

Younger people are more likely to be on welfare payments for longer, have lower prospects for employment and get less experience by the time they mature than they would with a supply and demand system. Working, even for less, is a better alternative to a welfare state.

Defined minimum wages have made us unable to competitive in some markets, there would be significant more opportunity for part time and casual work for less hours for more people in performing work for some industries where we are competing against significantly lower foreign wage rates and destroying our own industries. While the average person needs a significant income to meet their requirements, not everyone does, there are many people who could be productive but are not because they are at risk of losing welfare benefits for working at all, even on a casual or part time basis.

Our welfare system makes it to easy for people to get on it and too hard for people to get off it. It doesn't empower people to work or maintain a level of self-respect, people are looked down who are on welfare and there are massive employment barriers for people who have been on them for too long.

Our welfare system could encourage people to take lower paying work without losing benefits for a period of time, would allow them to gain much needed experience and develop social skills required, it would help promote productivity rather than sloth and waste.

Unfair dismissal protection is another problematic aspect of unionism, if the employer doesn't think the employee is suited for the position any longer he should be able to let go the employee, the principal of unfair dismissal was appropriate back in ye olden days where jobs were often a lifetime commitment, that isn't the case any longer. We have massive barriers now which makes it very hard to remove poorly efficient employees, especially where militant unions are involved. This makes it an even bigger decision for employers about who they let through the doors.

Easing up on draconian rules of employment would make employers more willing to employ, more willing to give heckups with poor employment history a go at lower wage rates until they prove themselves, more willing to give kids out of school opportunity at a fair rate given their lack of skills and usually lack of physical conditioning for many jobs to do them as productive as a mature worker.

A problem we have is the moral compass of employers is broken, many do not invest in their employees, most value short-term profit over long-term growth because they employ CEOs and reward them for achieving short-term benchmarks and the bottom dollar looks better if you fire people and overwork the ones remaining int he short-term but is often destructive to the business long-term.

We don't need unions because the health, happiness and well-being of the employee should be of paramount importance of the employee, the business and the shareholder.

We are stuck in an old system, a defunct one and it is causing significant harm to our nation economically and socially. We need to overhaul our system, our way of thinking before our bloated system becomes too big a mess to resolve like it has for other nations.

 

[Richo83]

I'd just like to point out that in its modern form, western feminism pushes for things like paid maternity leave. Yeah, what an outdated relic of politics.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Unionism has grown from beyond looking out for the best interests of employees to power and control. Measures taken to protect workers and their rights go against the fundamental principals of our chosen economic system and in many cases undermines the workers as a whole.

That's it, I'm quitting my union. There I was thinking that those protective measures I've been supporting all these years were a positive advancement, when in actual fact they undermine undermine me.

 

[Tas]

That's it, I'm quitting my union. There I was thinking that those protective measures I've been supporting all these years were a positive advancement, when in actual fact they undermine undermine me.

It is unlikely to undermine people within the union, it undermines everyone else and the economy itself.

 

[RU486]

It is beyond me why people expect pay rises above the rate of inflation when they are not working any harder.

Productivity = Pay Rise

 

[Contra Mundum]

Like the Feminism movement, it had its time and place but going on for the point of going does more harm than good.

Unionism has grown from beyond looking out for the best interests of employees to power and control. Measures taken to protect workers and their rights go against the fundamental principals of our chosen economic system and in many cases undermines the workers as a whole.

I think unions have their place in order to represent worker rights in terms of the conditions of employment, because employers neglect their responsibilities as employers and often treat workers as a liability instead of the asset they are.

However, some of the fundamental principals of unionism create massive employment barriers for prospective employees. Minimum wage rate has caused chronic unemployment issues with younger people, especially during harder economic times. Are you going to pay minimum wage to a young inexperienced kid or someone mature with more experience? It is a bad deal for younger potential employees, they do not have the option to compete for employment.

Younger people often have significantly lower personal overheads, many live with family or in shared accommodation, they are usually in a better position to exchange lower remuneration for the opportunity to gain vital training and work experience. With minimum wages this cost is an additional burden to the employer which makes younger people less attractive to employ.

Younger people are more likely to be on welfare payments for longer, have lower prospects for employment and get less experience by the time they mature than they would with a supply and demand system. Working, even for less, is a better alternative to a welfare state.

Defined minimum wages have made us unable to competitive in some markets, there would be significant more opportunity for part time and casual work for less hours for more people in performing work for some industries where we are competing against significantly lower foreign wage rates and destroying our own industries. While the average person needs a significant income to meet their requirements, not everyone does, there are many people who could be productive but are not because they are at risk of losing welfare benefits for working at all, even on a casual or part time basis.

Our welfare system makes it to easy for people to get on it and too hard for people to get off it. It doesn't empower people to work or maintain a level of self-respect, people are looked down who are on welfare and there are massive employment barriers for people who have been on them for too long.

Our welfare system could encourage people to take lower paying work without losing benefits for a period of time, would allow them to gain much needed experience and develop social skills required, it would help promote productivity rather than sloth and waste.

Unfair dismissal protection is another problematic aspect of unionism, if the employer doesn't think the employee is suited for the position any longer he should be able to let go the employee, the principal of unfair dismissal was appropriate back in ye olden days where jobs were often a lifetime commitment, that isn't the case any longer. We have massive barriers now which makes it very hard to remove poorly efficient employees, especially where militant unions are involved. This makes it an even bigger decision for employers about who they let through the doors.

Easing up on draconian rules of employment would make employers more willing to employ, more willing to give ****ups with poor employment history a go at lower wage rates until they prove themselves, more willing to give kids out of school opportunity at a fair rate given their lack of skills and usually lack of physical conditioning for many jobs to do them as productive as a mature worker.

A problem we have is the moral compass of employers is broken, many do not invest in their employees, most value short-term profit over long-term growth because they employ CEOs and reward them for achieving short-term benchmarks and the bottom dollar looks better if you fire people and overwork the ones remaining int he short-term but is often destructive to the business long-term.

We don't need unions because the health, happiness and well-being of the employee should be of paramount importance of the employee, the business and the shareholder.

We are stuck in an old system, a defunct one and it is causing significant harm to our nation economically and socially. We need to overhaul our system, our way of thinking before our bloated system becomes too big a mess to resolve like it has for other nations.

What you are talking about is not Capitalism - the state subsidisation of sub market wages - that is exactly how Wallmart survives and prospers in the States - it is the biggest subsidy in the history of subsidies

As for employers looking after the interests of employees - does not happen all the time and there are some employers out there who are capricious, grasping unfair arseholes. The Courts are not the answer because no one can afford to run a case themselves - even relatively well off individuals struggle to pay for representation

You are attacking a straw person and if you think that battle for equality of woman is won then I pity you. Have you seen how many woman are on company boards, or what they are paid relatively to men? You must be a white middle class bloke "I never see gender discrimination against anyone - if anything I am a victim"

Also how many blokes are primary care givers? until that load is shared equally there is no gender equality

 

[evo]

You are attacking a straw person and if you think that battle for equality of woman is won then I pity you. Have you seen how many woman are on company boards, or what they are paid relatively to men? You must be a white middle class bloke "I never see gender discrimination against anyone - if anything I am a victim"

says the middle class whiteboy ; )

Also how many blokes are primary care givers? until that load is shared equally there is no gender equality

As a long term primary caregiver, I'm happy to report it is the cushiest gig going. I invite all my fellow men to engage in it - it is the best lurk ever. Let the women go out to work 50 hour weeks, that'll show us!

 

[Contra Mundum]

says the middle class whiteboy ; )

As a long term primary caregiver, I'm happy to report it is the cushiest gig going. I invite all my fellow men to engage in it - it is the best lurk ever. Let the women go out to work 50 hour weeks, that'll show us!

Far Cop bruvver

 

[Upgrayedd]

Like the Feminism movement, it had its time and place but going on for the point of going does more harm than good.

I stopped reading there because within your first sentence you've shown you have NFI

 

[clogged]

Unionism has far less of a hold in US politics and the economic problems for the lowest paid are even worse there. In fact the middle class in the US are going backwards at a rate of knots.

So few people are members of a union, not really sure how it has that much influence.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I stopped reading there because within your first sentence you've shown you have NFI

spot on.

 

[Richo83]

As a long term primary caregiver, I'm happy to report it is the cushiest gig going. I invite all my fellow men to engage in it - it is the best lurk ever. Let the women go out to work 50 hour weeks, that'll show us!

Eh, I don't know about you but I'd rather spend time at my decent uni position than take care of the bunch of younguns bouncing around our family. I don't envy those who have to take care of kids at all.

 

[Tas]

I stopped reading there because within your first sentence you've shown you have NFI

Really? There is a huge backlash from women being anti modern-feministic, you should broaden your views.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Really? There is a huge backlash from women being anti modern-feministic, you should broaden your views.

 

[evo]

Eh, I don't know about you but I'd rather spend time at my decent uni position than take care of the bunch of younguns bouncing around our family. I don't envy those who have to take care of kids at all.

once they go to school it becomes a lot easier.

 

[Tas]

What you are talking about is not Capitalism - the state subsidisation of sub market wages - that is exactly how Wallmart survives and prospers in the States - it is the biggest subsidy in the history of subsidies

You quoted the paragraph where I was talking about the fear of losing welfare stops people being productive, because the welfare system punishes you for improving your chance of finding a job that pays enough so you can survive without welfare. Minimum wage prevents people on welfare getting work for lower wages while on welfare.

Put yourself in the position of the employer, who would you give a job to? Someone who is currently employed, has good skills and a good record or someone on welfare? It is just not attractive to employers if you have to pay both the same wage.

As for employers looking after the interests of employees - does not happen all the time and there are some employers out there who are capricious, grasping unfair arseholes. The Courts are not the answer because no one can afford to run a case themselves - even relatively well off individuals struggle to pay for representation

It doesn't happen all the time, it is part of the system which needs to be changed. That aspect is probably one of the easiest things to change. The problem is the greed is good fallacy, greed causes bad decisions. Desire to want to be profitable, desire to want to be productive, to achieve success without crushing employees, without harming the environment, our standards for corporations can be adjusted by law.

Laws are more or less what society deems as acceptable standards, we accept too poor a standard from companies in general. Unions have had to intervene to even secure basic minimum standards or conditions of employment, it should never have got to that point but it did because our society is driven by greed. That isn't the fault of the free market system, that just promotes supply and demand should dictate price. That incentive to be productive is a far more effective and efficient tool to promote productivity.

You do not have to accept exploitation. Some people feel a lower than 'minimum wage' is exploitation. But there are a lot of people who are not productive enough to earn the minimum wage, who are less attractive to employers, these people end up on welfare, many of them for the rest of their life. We not only have the welfare system and minimum wage but we also have government pouring a lot of money into subsidising long-term welfare people to try and make them more attractive to employers. The whole system just costs a fortune to run and doesn't work.

The government has disguised the real unemployment rate, if we calculated unemployment like it used to be we would have alarming unemployment, youth unemployment is already at chronic proportions and our economy is one of the strongest western economies. Our system is failing the next generation.

You are attacking a straw person and if you think that battle for equality of woman is won then I pity you. Have you seen how many woman are on company boards, or what they are paid relatively to men? You must be a white middle class bloke "I never see gender discrimination against anyone - if anything I am a victim"

Men and women are different, you will never have equality unless women lose the womb. When you compare women who have never had children and who have been in employment since they left school they earn as much if not more then men, this data goes back to before the feminism movement.

The problem is women invariably stop employment to have kids, they comparably do not have the same level of experience as an equivalent male of the same age they are compared to, they often do not work the same hours. Women more often take part-time or casual work to be flexible with family commitments. I've never worked anywhere where they have had a different rate for wages or salary between men and women, it has always come down to the level of expertise and experience.

There is always going to be a difference while women are primary responsible for raising kids. Any woman who doesn't want to have a kid will have the same prospects as a man. If you want kids as a man, woman or family you have to make sacrifices.

Also how many blokes are primary care givers? until that load is shared equally there is no gender equality

There never will be, it is why feminism is obsolete. Feminism is also largely responsible for generating unreasonable expectations in women, the destruction of the modern family is being blamed on feminism, by women.

It is the whole entitlement thing. I want to have kids and come to work late and leave early to manage kids who are at school and I want to get paid the same. heck off. You want kids, you ******* deal with it.

 

[Contra Mundum]

You quoted the paragraph where I was talking about the fear of losing welfare stops people being productive, because the welfare system punishes you for improving your chance of finding a job that pays enough so you can survive without welfare. Minimum wage prevents people on welfare getting work for lower wages while on welfare.

Put yourself in the position of the employer, who would you give a job to? Someone who is currently employed, has good skills and a good record or someone on welfare? It is just not attractive to employers if you have to pay both the same wage.



It doesn't happen all the time, it is part of the system which needs to be changed. That aspect is probably one of the easiest things to change. The problem is the greed is good fallacy, greed causes bad decisions. Desire to want to be profitable, desire to want to be productive, to achieve success without crushing employees, without harming the environment, our standards for corporations can be adjusted by law.

Laws are more or less what society deems as acceptable standards, we accept too poor a standard from companies in general. Unions have had to intervene to even secure basic minimum standards or conditions of employment, it should never have got to that point but it did because our society is driven by greed. That isn't the fault of the free market system, that just promotes supply and demand should dictate price. That incentive to be productive is a far more effective and efficient tool to promote productivity.

You do not have to accept exploitation. Some people feel a lower than 'minimum wage' is exploitation. But there are a lot of people who are not productive enough to earn the minimum wage, who are less attractive to employers, these people end up on welfare, many of them for the rest of their life. We not only have the welfare system and minimum wage but we also have government pouring a lot of money into subsidising long-term welfare people to try and make them more attractive to employers. The whole system just costs a fortune to run and doesn't work.

The government has disguised the real unemployment rate, if we calculated unemployment like it used to be we would have alarming unemployment, youth unemployment is already at chronic proportions and our economy is one of the strongest western economies. Our system is failing the next generation.



Men and women are different, you will never have equality unless women lose the womb. When you compare women who have never had children and who have been in employment since they left school they earn as much if not more then men, this data goes back to before the feminism movement.

The problem is women invariably stop employment to have kids, they comparably do not have the same level of experience as an equivalent male of the same age they are compared to, they often do not work the same hours. Women more often take part-time or casual work to be flexible with family commitments. I've never worked anywhere where they have had a different rate for wages or salary between men and women, it has always come down to the level of expertise and experience.

There is always going to be a difference while women are primary responsible for raising kids. Any woman who doesn't want to have a kid will have the same prospects as a man. If you want kids as a man, woman or family you have to make sacrifices.



There never will be, it is why feminism is obsolete. Feminism is also largely responsible for generating unreasonable expectations in women, the destruction of the modern family is being blamed on feminism, by women.

It is the whole entitlement thing. I want to have kids and come to work late and leave early to manage kids who are at school and I want to get paid the same. **** off. You want kids, you ******* deal with it.

Your position on women is exactly the same as the enlightened one of the Catholic Church - the womb disqualified women from equality.

 

[Tas]

Your position on women is exactly the same as the enlightened one of the Catholic Church - the womb disqualified women from equality.

It doesn't disqualify them from equality, their choices in life can potentially deny them earning the same amount as women who choose a career ahead of family.

At one stage women were getting paid less for the same hours in some types of work and the faminism movement was good at addressing that. What equality does the crusade seek now? Get paid more for less hours? Put the burden on their life choices on other people? Destroy the family unit by placing unrealistic expectations on men? Promote violence against men and the destruction of male property?

What are they actually trying to achieve now? It was needed as a movement a long time ago, that race has been run and won, like unionism, it is now about power and control.

 

[Richo83]

once they go to school it becomes a lot easier.

I'm not sold evo, I'll take my position as a generic childless bourgeoisie lefty academic over a mother of.... one, let alone more than one.

 

[Richo83]

The problem is women invariably stop employment to have kids, they comparably do not have the same level of experience as an equivalent male of the same age they are compared to, they often do not work the same hours. Women more often take part-time or casual work to be flexible with family commitments. I've never worked anywhere where they have had a different rate for wages or salary between men and women, it has always come down to the level of expertise and experience.

There is always going to be a difference while women are primary responsible for raising kids. Any woman who doesn't want to have a kid will have the same prospects as a man. If you want kids as a man, woman or family you have to make sacrifices.

The way you talk fatherhood entails little more than slippers and a newspaper.

There never will be, it is why feminism is obsolete. Feminism is also largely responsible for generating unreasonable expectations in women,

Really? I think feminism understands what women want fairly well. The expectation that women should and will stay home is the unreasonable one.

the destruction of the modern family is being blamed on feminism, by women.

Oh please, the cost of living pressues, which both sides of pollitics bang on about force women into the workforce. Do we really want half of the population to be unemployed? The drive for productivity is pushing women out into the workforce, women are just happy that their lives aren't completely dominated by rearing shitty kids. If I was a women I'd thank god for John Logie Baird.

It is the whole entitlement thing. I want to have kids and come to work late and leave early to manage kids who are at school and I want to get paid the same. **** off. You want kids, you ******* deal with it.

I think you're behind the times Tas, never seen a father at a school or a footy game?

 

[Schism]

We don't need unions because the health, happiness and well-being of the employee should be of paramount importance of the employee, the business and the shareholder.

hahahahahahaha

 

[blackcat]

It is beyond me why people expect pay rises above the rate of inflation when they are not working any harder.

Productivity = Pay Rise

this post would be more appropriate to the executive class

What you are talking about is not Capitalism - the state subsidisation of sub market wages - that is exactly how Wallmart survives and prospers in the States - it is the biggest subsidy in the history of subsidies

alternate example, how about Detroit. They undertook a role for the state in providing healthcare to their workforce. ofcourse they then become uncompetitive, but they paid healthcare costs that in other States, the nation will underwrite.

got nothing meaningful to add (as always) just a devil's advocate/killswitch jammer

once they go to school it becomes a lot easier.

MILFs

 

[Tas]

The way you talk fatherhood entails little more than slippers and a newspaper.

Fatherhood is considered the parental joke by our courts and social system. I am not the one who is limiting the role of the father.

Genetically men are different to women, this genetic difference doesn't just dictate physical differences it dictation ideological differences. Women want and need different things than men do, we operate totally differently. Nature has bred women to reject the vast majority of men, men have been bred to be receptive to the vast majority of women. This is how our species has survived.

Socially we are very different beasts and the social role of marriage and family is born and bred around sacrifice and compromise. It doesn't work very well when both sides do not equally compromise and make sacrifices.

Feminism eats away at the compromises women make to sustain a stable family unit but still demands the male adhere to the compromises he has to make. People think it is easy being a male or father, it is anything but easy.

The rise of modern feminism has just lead to a rise in rejection of males for the family unit, the vast majority of males over 40 that I know are single never married (happy), divorced (miserable) or married (miserable). It isn't males who are de-humanising their role in the family unit, it is modern feminism which is doing it.

But, I do not push the economic burden of any choice I make on to society itself. If I wanted to be married and have a litter of kids than that is my choice, my burden. If my partner has to sacrifice lost income because she is knocked up, takes years off work to care for children and when she goes back to work can't work the same hours as men then it is my burden to compensate if we chose to have a family that way. That isn't anyone else's burden. That isn't a burden you should lump economically on society in general. People have to take responsibility for their own choices.

Really? I think feminism understands what women want fairly well. The expectation that women should and will stay home is the unreasonable one.

I do not expect women to stay at home. But if it is their choice is to have children then it is the responsibility solely of the woman and her partner, not everyone else. They can decide who stays at home and who earns money and in what combination. We shouldn't subsidise people for their own personal choices, it shouldn't be the burden of the economy either.

Oh please, the cost of living pressues, which both sides of pollitics bang on about force women into the workforce. Do we really want half of the population to be unemployed? The drive for productivity is pushing women out into the workforce, women are just happy that their lives aren't completely dominated by rearing shitty kids. If I was a women I'd thank god for John Logie Baird.

Forced into the workforce? Everyone has to work to earn money to put food on the table, why should it be any different for women? There is more to life than reproduction. If people have a burning desire to reproduce then they are solely responsible for their choice. Making employers pay women the same money for being less experienced and working less hours isn't equality, they are promoting economic inequality.

It is why feminists never compare hours worked and years of experience, just compare age and average earnings and say we need to pay women more. Who is going to absorb the burden for that? Everyone else for your life choices?

Unemployment is a bad thing but unionism has made it difficult for less desirable people to be employed. Unionism is about protectionism, protecting the people who already have the job and who are already in the union, it is less about protecting the interests of future employees.

I think you're behind the times Tas, never seen a father at a school or a footy game?

I see them all the time, I have helped both my sisters in raising their kids and have often picked them up from school and helped to look after them. The younger of my sister only worked three days a week and she often had to go in late dropping the kids to school before heading to work, she didn't expect to earn as much as some guy who works full time.

My brother-in-law often looks after the kids, they share the parenting and workload and share the working opportunity. He doesn't make as much as other guys who do not have that burden but nobody is burning boxer shorts wanting equality for the dude who looks after kids.

People make their choices in life and it is their responsibility alone. You shouldn't automatically look to push that burden onto society in general.

Women have been free for a long time to do what ever they want without severe negative social stigma for their choices, it is a lot more common for women to be single, to not have kids. These women are not repressed by the modern workforce.

 

[blackcat]

Genetically men are different to women, this genetic difference doesn't just dictate physical differences it dictation ideological differences. Women want and need different things than men do, we operate totally differently. Nature has bred women to reject the vast majority of men, men have been bred to be receptive to the vast majority of women. This is how our species has survived.

thought the biological determinism was going out as a respected theory.

there will be a lag and legacy effect. Trying to change things in one generation could never happen.

The only difference as I see it, is a ~nine month hiatus to self for progeny.

 

[stralia]

Have you seen how many woman are on company boards

Equal opportunity ≠ equal outcomes.