Society/Culture Unionism is holding Australia back

[Power Raid]

lol this is a joke, right?

This is sexism.

"Public sector reform

In late 2010, the Gillard federal government announced that a target of 40% women, 40% men and 20% unallocated will apply to government boards. The target applies to each portfolio"

Lets forget if the women are best qualified for the job or not, lets make 40% of them women just for the point of having women.
What you are talking about is excluding men from positions for women. If the claim is AS qualified women who can do the job are being excluded for reasons of gender then prosecute the people who are excluding women.
Placing artificial quotas based on gender is abhorrent and sexist. True equality is getting the best people for the job, irrespective of gender, if that is 100% women then go for it. What you and feminist promote is inequality.

EQUAL does that ******* word mean anything to anyone?

we should apply this 40% quota in our sporting teams.

it might make our rugby team a little more competitive

 

[Tas]

Without wanting to comment too much on the feminism issue in a union thread, I agree with Tas that it's wrong to say "X number of Y must be women," it is sexism. My own test for these things is if you swap the words "man" and "women" around in the statement, would you be chastised for it.

If they said "half of all board members must be men" people would rightfully be up in arms, changing the genders doesn't make it any more acceptable IMHO. I think delirious's link, while it raises some important points, needs to look at the % of graduates in those professions as of 20 years (or however long it takes to reach management level in that field) ago, as those are the ones in line for the top jobs now.

Back on topic, unions occasionally have their place and occasionally do more harm than good. I'd hate to think of the condition our health system would be in without the nurses union.

But there is a fantastic article (which I can't find, that's frustrating) which raises several great points about the closure of Ford in Geelong, along the lines of the conditions put on EAs by the union made it impossible for Ford to reduce costs in order to keep running. Every now and then a union seems to ignore the commercial realities facing the business and just pushes for pay rises + no redundancy, even when the company is losing market share/money etc.

So in a sense it is like feminism, in that in some areas they are still needed, in other areas they have gone too far and need to be pulled back into line.

I think there is too much focus on the feminism part of my post, but the same inability to see what something does and promotes is what blinds people to unionism as well. There is nothing a union does now which can't be achieved without unions. But, you are not going to get that message from a political body.

Does the Feminism promote some valuable ideals, sure. But, the modern ideal is for a workplace that gives equal opportunity and fairness to people irrespective of gender.

I just don't believe personally you will ever get to a 50/50 split especially at high level jobs because a lot of women do not find that lifestyle agreeable with them and they have an alternative. Men do not have a viable alternative lifestyle.

One of my sisters, for example, got a very good education in economics from a good university and was heavily career motivated all through high school and uni and went into the work force and busted her arse and I believe she went up the ladder faster than her male peers. But, when she hit around mid 30s her priorities changed, she had her first child, left mainstream workforce, did consulting work from home, had another kid but also completed her MBA. She was as qualified as any guy to do leadership roles in business.

She went back into mainstream work after her kids got to high school age and she just didn't like it, her values changed and she went back to doing something she liked instead and vanished from the potential 50% of women who could have reached the upper echelon in business.

There is no right or wrong, it is her choice. She evolved different priorities. There proportion of men that get the same opportunity to have the similar epiphany is far smaller in men, the male house husband while being more common nowadays is an insignificant fraction compared to women.

My point about the modern feminism movement is that you could be promoting equality for all genders, all races, all religions, you should always promote equality. You do not need minority groups hanging on to represent a subset. Equality is equality. The more these people hang on and try to justify their position, the more their message will move from equality to inequality.

People who seek political power in any form have an agenda outside of the cause they fight for. We should not get caught up in micro issues, you should always look at the big picture. People who are pro equality are pro equality for everyone. Feminism is pro opportunity for women, it is not about equality.

What happens if they reach this mythical 50/50 split, are they going to disband? Pigs arse. People do not surrender power. People need to widen their eyes to focus on the big picture. You will then understand the relevance this has with unionism. People do not surrender power.

 

[Tas]

we should apply this 40% quota in our sporting teams.

it might make our rugby team a little more competitive

I support women playing sport. I do not like this women playing sport in underwear, not that the visual isn't unappealing but I find it demeaning. They should get those Sydney Swans tight uniforms, leave something to the imagination.

 

[Tas]

But there is a fantastic article (which I can't find, that's frustrating) which raises several great points about the closure of Ford in Geelong, along the lines of the conditions put on EAs by the union made it impossible for Ford to reduce costs in order to keep running. Every now and then a union seems to ignore the commercial realities facing the business and just pushes for pay rises + no redundancy, even when the company is losing market share/money etc.

I wanted to focus on this part in isolation. We have many industries we can not compete with against foreign markets.

With our labour cost we need economies of scale to compensate but this is only going to occur where you allow the market forces to take over.

Our worst mistake was propping up the car industry, protectionism doesn't work, it just makes you more and more inefficient. We do not produce enough cars in Australia to make regular cars, we can't compete with factories that mass produce them much cheaper.

What should have happened to our car industry was for Ford and Holden to go from a large car producer into becoming a luxury car producer. Focus on small numbers of cars produced and go in competition with high end luxury cars where you make smaller numbers of really expensive cars where lower production and higher labour cost isn't debilitating.

We never allowed that to happen because our car industry got on the government drip feed and once you are on welfare it is hard to get off welfare. All Australians got was overpriced cars.

Under the principals of our economic system, you let industries that can't compete either find a way to compete or die and you focus on making something else or go into a different industry.

I am sure we could have struck a deal with major car companies to allow our manufacturing industries to die and remove local competition in exchange for sourcing a greater supply of components from Australian producers. At present a certain proportion of an imported car has to be made up of Australian resources, I am sure we could have found a more effective solution without wasting the money we did over the decades.

But that doesn't buy politicians votes.

 

[Power Raid]

I support women playing sport. I do not like this women playing sport in underwear, not that the visual isn't unappealing but I find it demeaning. They should get those Sydney Swans tight uniforms, leave something to the imagination.

I would prefer women wearing underwear, under their uniforms, but if they feel more comfortable going commando it should be their choice.

If it's OK for men to wear underwear, I don't see why women can't.

 

[amer]

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

Productivity = Pay Rise

It's called stop thinking like a ****ing robot and consider things other than ****ing production possibility frontiers. We are -humans-. How about as a society we concern ourselves more with arriving at good human outcomes? This is why the planet is being torn apart. We are the only ones ****ing making this market happen and we don't even chase what we want!

Unionism is absolutely necessary. See America for a picture of what our workforce may look like if we go the way Tas proposes.

 

[RU486]

Unionism has completely destroyed the Australian manufacturing industry. Look at what is happening in Europe right now, it is a direct result of people wanting more than they are worth. Not to mention the fact that unions are completely unnecessary, government regulation gives workers the protections they are worthy of (safety, health etc).

Should one seek an increase in pay they should simply quit there job and find another. Then they complain because they won't be able to find other employment, then you realise it's a case of people being greedy and wanting to receive more without giving anything in return.

 

[Power Raid]

It's called stop thinking like a ****ing robot and consider things other than ****ing production possibility frontiers. We are -humans-. How about as a society we concern ourselves more with arriving at good human outcomes? This is why the planet is being torn apart. We are the only ones ****ing making this market happen and we don't even chase what we want!

Unionism is absolutely necessary. See America for a picture of what our workforce may look like if we go the way Tas proposes.

rubbish

the problem with the US is not unionism (or lack there of) its culture.

ie Switzerland has a high level of gun ownership, with almost every adult male having possession of a high powered rifle, yet the gun crime is low. Yet America has a massive problem with gun crime. Why? The culture is wrong.

America's social framework is wrong not because of lack of unionism rather their culture is wrong. Hey if unions are so great why do they have such a history with crime?

Australia has a similar problem with culture. If we are to change the direction our nation is heading, we do not need more unionism; as unionism = crime, hate and inefficiency. That doesn't sound positive does it?

What we do need is better education and social programs that change our culture. Simple ideas:
1) work for the dole - not because we want value from our dole recipients, rather to get them engaged, feeling like they are contributing and a valuable part of society.
2) work for the pension - again, its not about getting pensioners on assembly lines rather creating work opportunities to run a art class, a singing class or stretching class in the park. I love walking through parks in China and seeing the elderly participating in the arts. People need to feel they belong.
3) our schooling should include classes on how to build teams, motivate teams and build the confidence in kids to give things a go. I read so many BF posts here saying the government should do this and that. The government is simply a representative us! Why not just do it with the help of friends and family? Why not help others to achieve the same thing? We need more confidence in our


In short, there are better ways to get better social outcomes than:
- having a group of thugs hire bikies to stand in picket lines.
- having people kicked out of their own country (mainly Scotsman) tell us how we should hate foreigners and hate our own industry
- having jealousy driven policy
- having a group limited to representing workers (worse still workers in the click)
- having a group which doesn't respect our current laws (including violent crime) dictate our social policy and future laws


I think we could enjoy each other more, feel prouder as a collective and getter better social policy if we have greater participation by all (including workers, employers, the unemployed, the retired, immigrants and even want to be Australians).

 

[Gus Poyet]

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.

Maternity leave is rubbish. A business shouldn't have to pay for someones personal decisions.

 

[Gus Poyet]

It's called stop thinking like a ****ing robot and consider things other than ****ing production possibility frontiers. We are -humans-. How about as a society we concern ourselves more with arriving at good human outcomes? This is why the planet is being torn apart. We are the only ones ****ing making this market happen and we don't even chase what we want!

Unionism is absolutely necessary. See America for a picture of what our workforce may look like if we go the way Tas proposes.

And yet when people say they will work for lower wages than unionists on sites becuase they would rather have a job than not, they are called scabs by the unions and physically hindered and threatened.

Yeah, we need ****wits like that in society.

 

[Power Raid]

And yet when people say they will work for lower wages than unionists on sites becuase they would rather have a job than not, they are called scabs by the unions and physically hindered and threatened.

Yeah, we need ****wits like that in society.

worse still they would be visited by guys like my uncle who are called "safety officers". Their job was to punch people out and put then in hospital to claim 100% strike rate.

Wow, these unions are just great for society!

 

[Gus Poyet]

worse still they would be visited by guys like my uncle who are called "safety officers". Their job was to punch people out and put then in hospital to claim 100% strike rate.

Wow, these unions are just great for society!

My father was a union shop steward.

Put me off them for life sitting around listening to them talk about what they would do to the company/bosses etc if they wouldn't cowtail to their requests.

 

[Power Raid]

My father was a union shop steward.

Put me off them for life sitting around listening to them talk about what they would do to the company/bosses etc if they wouldn't cowtail to their requests.

This is the issue; anyone who has actually dealt with or has close affiliation with a union hates them. Anyone who has who doesn't hate them should be embarrassed.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I wanted to focus on this part in isolation. We have many industries we can not compete with against foreign markets.

With our labour cost we need economies of scale to compensate but this is only going to occur where you allow the market forces to take over.

Our worst mistake was propping up the car industry, protectionism doesn't work, it just makes you more and more inefficient. We do not produce enough cars in Australia to make regular cars, we can't compete with factories that mass produce them much cheaper.

What should have happened to our car industry was for Ford and Holden to go from a large car producer into becoming a luxury car producer. Focus on small numbers of cars produced and go in competition with high end luxury cars where you make smaller numbers of really expensive cars where lower production and higher labour cost isn't debilitating.

We never allowed that to happen because our car industry got on the government drip feed and once you are on welfare it is hard to get off welfare. All Australians got was overpriced cars.

Under the principals of our economic system, you let industries that can't compete either find a way to compete or die and you focus on making something else or go into a different industry.

I am sure we could have struck a deal with major car companies to allow our manufacturing industries to die and remove local competition in exchange for sourcing a greater supply of components from Australian producers. At present a certain proportion of an imported car has to be made up of Australian resources, I am sure we could have found a more effective solution without wasting the money we did over the decades.

But that doesn't buy politicians votes.

None of this is actually about unionism.

It's a strange quirk of history regarding exchange rates and the relative value of currencies of the industrialised nations compared to developing nations. How it can be that a worker in Africa or South East Asia can get paid far far less than a worker in an industrialised country for doing essentially the same task. It's a disparity that arisen for much broader reasons that simply blaming the unions. It's a legacy of imperialism in some ways, and racism, and the way international trade has developed over the decades.

 

[Tas]

None of this is actually about unionism.

In part it is, minimum wage destroyed any ability we had to compete in the industry, labour is one of the major component in manufacturing and the nations that do well have reduced the amount of labour per item produced, with automation and economies of scale.

The only way we can reduce cost is to lower the labour cost but the unions refuse to lower wages, the result is the manufacturing plants will shut down entirely or ask the government for hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars over a number of years to keep a living dead industry from permanently dying. It should die, it is not economically viable within our current system.

Unionism is in part why it went down the path of protectionism in the first place, to try and save jobs that already existed, to try and guarantee wage levels based on a predetermined levels rather than what supply and demand dictates can be afforded. The industry had no hope in evolving into a viable industry due to unionism and government interference.

We had the same problems with farming, we could not afford to subsidise wheat farmers though, that would have cost billions of dollars, many wheat farmers went out of business, those farms were bought out and became mega farms, they had to find better ways to compete because our major competitors in the USA and Europe were subsidising small inefficient farmers so our big farmers were quicker to develop and deploy sophisticated farming techniques and we now have an industry which can out produce and under-sell the USA who spend billions of dollars every year to keep their farmers afloat. They are so far gone it is very difficult for them to become competitive again, that path of protectionism is a cancer that kills your ability to compete.

Not sure if you have seen some of these farms, one in NSW would take you hours to drive from one side of the farm to the other, they are massive. There was a lot of hardship for us to get to that point, a lot of good people lost their farms, lost their livelihood, a lot of small communities died, a lot of the next generation of farmers had to find alternative jobs, many had to to bigger communities or major cities, but the industry survived in a fashion that allows it to compete.

Many farmers and farming families had to put in hours for returns that would have been far below the minimum wage. You can't exploit other people but you can your own family.

Our car industry has to be cut off from the teat and it has to sink or swim, if unions are going to destroy the industry then so let it die.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...eral-governments/story-fni6uo1m-1226677369721

Unions refuse to lower wages to save the plants, they will go cup in hand to the government to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars more than the hundreds of millions they are already getting to make cars at a loss.

Man, I should go ask the government for millions of dollars to fund my shit ideas for a business that can't make any money, how easy is this?

It's a strange quirk of history regarding exchange rates and the relative value of currencies of the industrialised nations compared to developing nations. How it can be that a worker in Africa or South East Asia can get paid far far less than a worker in an industrialised country for doing essentially the same task. It's a disparity that arisen for much broader reasons that simply blaming the unions. It's a legacy of imperialism in some ways, and racism, and the way international trade has developed over the decades.

Their cost of living is significantly less. Property doesn't have the same value as it does here, most live in slum type of residences, their diet is heavily swung towards eating pulses, which are rich in protein and composes a large portion of their dietary need, they are cheap to produce and can grow even in poor climates or poor agricultural conditions.

Their lives is a subsistence base one where below the poverty line is hunger, starvation, death and above it is being alive. They do not have the 'luxuries' such as heating, electricity, gas. They do not have to worry about cars, insurance, entertainment, superannuation, financial planning, etc. We do not really need a lot to survive, we evolved as a scavenging species and can survive on very little. Mortality is high though which is why people in third world countries breed like rabbits, because as you get older you will be dependent on your children to survive and if the mortality rate is high you need to hedge your bets.

Sadly, the more we try and feed them and stop them from starving to death with supplying aid to them, the faster they will reproduce which will eventually overload our ability to help them. It is imperative that a significant part of the aid that goes to third world nations is to build the infrastructure they need to help themselves and to educate them and for their governments to take greater responsibility towards promoting a lifestyle that is compatible with their environment.

As these nations get richer, the more they develop the same issues we have.

 

[MUYB]

If only those workers in the third world had some kind of collective bargaining power with which to better their conditions rather than having to treat with their employers at a massive power disadvantage on an individual level.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Still very simplistic Tas, the first part of your answer.

There has to be a deeper reason why the value of labour varies so much between one country to another. An hour of human labour should be broadly comparable everywhere, given that we all share the same biology. The problem is that it varies so widely. Why is a guy on an assembly line with a torque wrench worth $20 an hour in an industrialised country, while a guy doing the same job with the same tool in a developing country is worth $20 a day; when the exchange rates are converted - that's the core of the problem.

It goes so far beyond unions and the minimum wage. If you halved the minimum wage in Australia you still wouldn't have a car industry in Australia, you'd just have a load of silent and empty factories because nobody would work there. If a full time job doesn't pay enough to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, and send your kids to school etc, then nobody would do that work. Reducing the minimum wage is only tinkering around the edges, you can't reduce it enough to take away the fundamental disparity in value that is the real cause of the problem.

The second part of your answer alludes to the many other factors in play here. They all combine and work together to give us the situation we are in. Simply taking one part of it, wages, and lowering wages without addressing anything else is futile. You can't reduce wages and keep same costs structure in place in regards housing and services and so on. It just won't work.

I'm not for propping up the car industry indefinitely either, it is more good money after bad as far as I'm concerned. But the reason why we are uncompetitive is that we have an entire cost structure across our entire economy which makes us uncompetitive.

The only way we can compete with developing countries is to abandon our decades of development and become an undeveloped country ourselves.

 

[MUYB]

The reason labour costs in Australia are higher than those in the third world is because we have developed unsustainably high standards of living by exploiting the third world.

As the previous poster said, there is no way to compete with the third world on cost of labour without becoming the third world.

 

[Tas]

If only those workers in the third world had some kind of collective bargaining power with which to better their conditions rather than having to treat with their employers at a massive power disadvantage on an individual level.

lol unions in third world nations? If they also build a step ladder to the moon they could also eat unlimited moon cheese.

As ugly as we consider exploitation, exploitation creates wealth via foreign investment. Sure, the vast majority goes back overseas but it brings a lot of wealth into their economy.

China and India already know their countries, which have been exploited, are growing wealthier and wealthier and will soon outstrip the biggest western economies. They have already begun investing in Africa, the exploited are becoming the exploiter.

When there is nobody left to exploit it is going to be the economies that can control their labour cost the best that will have the competitive advantage.

 

[Power Raid]

The reason labour costs in Australia are higher than those in the third world is because we have developed unsustainably high standards of living by exploiting the third world.

As the previous poster said, there is no way to compete with the third world on cost of labour without becoming the third world.

unfortunately with globalisation we have no choice but to compete. Our goal as a globe is to get third world nations out of poverty without destroying our own standard of living.

Sure we may go backward but we can measure our success by where we eventually meet.

 

[Power Raid]

lol unions in third world nations? If they also build a step ladder to the moon they could also eat unlimited moon cheese.

As ugly as we consider exploitation, exploitation creates wealth via foreign investment. Sure, the vast majority goes back overseas but it brings a lot of wealth into their economy.

China and India already know their countries, which have been exploited, are growing wealthier and wealthier and will soon outstrip the biggest western economies. They have already begun investing in Africa, the exploited are becoming the exploiter.

When there is nobody left to exploit it is going to be the economies that can control their labour cost the best that will have the competitive advantage.

is bringing jobs and opportunity to a nation exploitation? So Ford closing down is a good thing because they are no longer exploiting the people of Geelong?

 

[MUYB]

unfortunately with globalisation we have no choice but to compete. Our goal as a globe is to get third world nations out of poverty without destroying our own standard of living.

Sure we may go backward but we can measure our success by where we eventually meet.

I think that people really need to accept that our standard of living at the moment is unsustainable and we need to give some slack in order to both lessen load on the environment and allow other nations to develop.

Buckley's chance of it happening though, or of even being able to have a calm and reasonable public discourse on the topic.

 

[Tas]

is bringing jobs and opportunity to a nation exploitation? So Ford closing down is a good thing because they are no longer exploiting the people of Geelong?

It is not exploitation because people in Geelong earn more than people in the USA do, a lot more.

In terms of wage control, people just don't get it. You just can't artificially increase the wage without spiraling inflation out of control. Rampant inflation is a bad thing. It has to be a supply and demand mechanism.

I'd love it if everyone who worked could earn a million dollars a year doing whatever job, a million dollar janitor. But, where would we be? How much would a loaf of bread cost if the lowest income earner was earning a million dollars?

The actual amount isn't as important as the comparison it is to other income earners, or what cost associated with that labour would employers need to charge for good and services to make a profit. An economy is like a fragile eco-system and setting artificial wage levels is like introducing cane toads into that ecosystem.

 

[Power Raid]

It is not exploitation because people in Geelong earn more than people in the USA do, a lot more.

In terms of wage control, people just don't get it. You just can't artificially increase the wage without spiraling inflation out of control. Rampant inflation is a bad thing. It has to be a supply and demand mechanism.

I'd love it if everyone who worked could earn a million dollars a year doing whatever job, a million dollar janitor. But, where would we be? How much would a loaf of bread cost if the lowest income earner was earning a million dollars?

The actual amount isn't as important as the comparison it is to other income earners, or what cost associated with that labour would employers need to charge for good and services to make a profit. An economy is like a fragile eco-system and setting artificial wage levels is like introducing cane toads into that ecosystem.

our system is built to work for the Lords. Until society open their eyes and hearts to this problem we are wasting our time with wage increases.

 

[Tas]

our system is built to work for the Lords. Until society open their eyes and hearts to this problem we are wasting our time with wage increases.

Our political and economic system is built around the illusion of choice and the delusion of freedom. Realistically, the vast majority are still slaves, just a more humane treatment of slaves so they do not revolt against their masters.

It is built around processing people rather than educating them, to know enough to consume and to motivate them with incentives to be more productive, so they can consume more.

Do we pick free market? Socialism? Communism? Does it really matter? We are just a cog in the machine, the question is how much do you sacrifice for how comfortable a lifestyle.

If the people wanted to opt for socialism or communism for a different model in terms of distribution of wealth then it doesn't really matter, you will always have your elite and your peons. It comes down to power and control.

Whatever system we have, it comes down to where in the system you want to find yourself and what sacrifices to your principals you are prepared to make to achieve it. Generally speaking, we do not educate or empower enough people to even be aware they even have a choice.