Unions need more power in Australia

[spinynorman]

Because thread titles here need to make a contentious statement.

An ongoing train dispute in Sydney has been relieved with the Fair Work Commission ordering the RTBU to cease its industrial actions, including a planned strike on Monday, and a current refusal to work overtime.

While I think it's particularly astonishing that the industrial relations commission has ordered workers to work overtime, it's a good example of just how unfair our workplace laws are, and how far too much power is with the bosses.

Last year, Sally McManus caused controversy when she said sometimes unjust laws need to be broken, but she was absolutely right. This article written at that time goes to the heart of how Australia's labour laws are more restrictive for workers than almost any other democratic country in the world.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/have-the-right-to-strike-laws-gone-too-far/8370980

The Fair Work Act was passed with the intention of restoring balance after the great unfairness of WorkChoices. But a "balanced" industrial relations system isn't the same as a "fair" one, given the great inequality of power between employer and employee. The pendulum needs to be swung much further in favour of working people.

 

[nobbyiscool]

The Fair Work Act is a funny beast. Coming out of the Work Choices era, it appeared a pretty good, fair document - albeit one that we knew at the time was still beholden to the right faction of the ALP.

Now though? I guess it's the interpretation that's the problem. The Fair Work Commission is now stacked with Tory stooges, including the Deputy President who made today's decision - Jonathon Hamberger, who was a Howard appointment to the old Australian Industrial Relations Commission, who was previously staffer of attempted union buster Peter Reith (who oversaw the Patrick shipping dispute), and who was previously appointed by Howard to the ABCC.

The reasoning for the strike being struck down was particularly egregious - essentially it was going to cost too much money and inconvenience too many people. Which is the entire ******* point of a strike!

The ability to withdraw our labour is a fundamental right in western democracies. The fact that we no longer have that ability is disgusting. The fact that our employer owns our labour, and not ourselves, is ******* outrageous.

So what do we do? The first problem is that industrial relations and unionism has always been about power. And at the moment we don't have it. Membership in the public sector was, last time I checked, at around 15% (which is greatly inflated by professions such as teaching and nursing); in the private sector it's around 10%.

We know that much, much more people than that agree with unions, and profess to support unions - but they don't see membership as important enough to fork out for. So in deciding that the money is more important in their pocket than in the unions, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. In refusing to join the union and to put their money where their mouth is, they've contributed to their own lack of workplace power, their almost non-existent wage growth, and the diminution of their workplace rights, including their right to strike.

As a devout unionist, and as a former union organiser, we can bleat about the lack of union power all we like. But Liberal Governments didn't remove our power - we did that ourselves.

When I was working with a union, we used to wistfully lament that 20- and 30-somethings don't join their union because they never experienced "the struggle" ie. the struggle that took place in the 70s and 80s to win those workplace rights.

So I guess my only hope is that younger workers realise that they are living the struggle, and that they realise it yesterday. Their employers - backed by the government and by a stacked FWC - are ******* them roughly in the arse.

The premise of the OP is correct. Unions do need more power in Australia. But no one is going to give it to us - we have to revolt and take the power.

Do people have the courage to do that? I strongly suspect they don't - especially when the Fair Work Commission has the power to fine individuals who participate in wildcat strikes.

 

[Cmarsh]

The Fair Work Act is a funny beast. Coming out of the Work Choices era, it appeared a pretty good, fair document - albeit one that we knew at the time was still beholden to the right faction of the ALP.

Now though? I guess it's the interpretation that's the problem. The Fair Work Commission is now stacked with Tory stooges, including the Deputy President who made today's decision - Jonathon Hamberger, who was a Howard appointment to the old Australian Industrial Relations Commission, who was previously staffer of attempted union buster Peter Reith (who oversaw the Patrick shipping dispute), and who was previously appointed by Howard to the ABCC.

The reasoning for the strike being struck down was particularly egregious - essentially it was going to cost too much money and inconvenience too many people. Which is the entire ******* point of a strike!

The ability to withdraw our labour is a fundamental right in western democracies. The fact that we no longer have that ability is disgusting. The fact that our employer owns our labour, and not ourselves, is ******* outrageous.

So what do we do? The first problem is that industrial relations and unionism has always been about power. And at the moment we don't have it. Membership in the public sector was, last time I checked, at around 15% (which is greatly inflated by professions such as teaching and nursing); in the private sector it's around 10%.

We know that much, much more people than that agree with unions, and profess to support unions - but they don't see membership as important enough to fork out for. So in deciding that the money is more important in their pocket than in the unions, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. In refusing to join the union and to put their money where their mouth is, they've contributed to their own lack of workplace power, their almost non-existent wage growth, and the diminution of their workplace rights, including their right to strike.

As a devout unionist, and as a former union organiser, we can bleat about the lack of union power all we like. But Liberal Governments didn't remove our power - we did that ourselves.

When I was working with a union, we used to wistfully lament that 20- and 30-somethings don't join their union because they never experienced "the struggle" ie. the struggle that took place in the 70s and 80s to win those workplace rights.

So I guess my only hope is that younger workers realise that they are living the struggle, and that they realise it yesterday. Their employers - backed by the government and by a stacked FWC - are ******* them roughly in the arse.

The premise of the OP is correct. Unions do need more power in Australia. But no one is going to give it to us - we have to revolt and take the power.

Do people have the courage to do that? I strongly suspect they don't - especially when the Fair Work Commission has the power to fine individuals who participate in wildcat strikes.

Union power in my (potentially misinformed) view seems stifled by the Liberals constant tarring of a minority of heavy handed union organizers as "union thugs", which is also eagerly portrayed by conservative newspapers like the daily telegraph.

It seems the Unions message that workers rights are undermined gets lost in the labeling and name calling of a few rogue unionists.

Care to comment?

 

[Crankyhawk]

It will be up to individuals to defy to FWC and potentially face jail to make the point. With low Union membership it is hard to wield any power in negotiations.

 

[spinynorman]

It will be up to individuals to defy to FWC and potentially face jail to make the point. With low Union membership it is hard to wield any power in negotiations.

Especially once a union does all the things it is legally obliged to do to have any power, including getting official permission to do so, only to have that revoked inexplicably at the last minute.

The ruling today, disallowing train staff from taking action that would be socially costly, would be a major blow to many professions that seek to go on strike, including teachers. An absolutely terrible judgment.

 

[TimmeT]

Because thread titles here need to make a contentious statement.

An ongoing train dispute in Sydney has been relieved with the Fair Work Commission ordering the RTBU to cease its industrial actions, including a planned strike on Monday, and a current refusal to work overtime.

While I think it's particularly astonishing that the industrial relations commission has ordered workers to work overtime, it's a good example of just how unfair our workplace laws are, and how far too much power is with the bosses.

Last year, Sally McManus caused controversy when she said sometimes unjust laws need to be broken, but she was absolutely right. This article written at that time goes to the heart of how Australia's labour laws are more restrictive for workers than almost any other democratic country in the world.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/have-the-right-to-strike-laws-gone-too-far/8370980

The Fair Work Act was passed with the intention of restoring balance after the great unfairness of WorkChoices. But a "balanced" industrial relations system isn't the same as a "fair" one, given the great inequality of power between employer and employee. The pendulum needs to be swung much further in favour of working people.

Unions do not need more power. The actions of these entities and their leaders have clearly shown this. The countless examples of organisations like the Maritime Union and the CFMEU engaging in disturbing practices to try and stop companies from doing lawful acts which they disagree with or their harrassment of persons in enforcement roles demonstrates that they should not be given unfettered access and rights to managing workplace labour matter.

While we have already heard from some prominent left wing activists and unions that the right to strike is dead, this simply is not true. The unions have decided to make this claim in a calculated and clearly deceitful manner in order to attain promotion and have simply decided to avoid stating why the overturn on the strike was lawful. The simple reason the strike could be overturned was under the economic effect provision in the Fair Work Act and thus it wasn't overturned just because the member hearing the case dislikes Unions as the Unions claim. To prevent over 1 million people or around 20% of the population of Sydney from being able to get to work or school or other places is going to negatively impact the economy in a significant manner. Thus the reason such a provision was implemented was to prevent workers from taking short term industrial action which is likely to unnecessarily and unfairly impact others whi are not party to the dispute.

Sally McManus did say that unjust laws need to be broken, something which has been done by a number of subsections of the union movement like the Maritime Union and the CFMEU on multiple occasions. I'd then want to know what Sally's views are on companies breaking the unjust parts of the law which they disagree with or dislike. As by her own standards and logic, this would be completely acceptable to her.

The current workplace laws aren't unfair and do not give excessive power to employers but rather they strike a good balance between the two.

 

[TimmeT]

Especially once a union does all the things it is legally obliged to do to have any power, including getting official permission to do so, only to have that revoked inexplicably at the last minute.

The ruling today, disallowing train staff from taking action that would be socially costly, would be a major blow to many professions that seek to go on strike, including teachers. An absolutely terrible judgment.

The decision puts a temporary halt on their right to strike and sends them back to negotiate. If the discussion fails then they can strike in 6 weeks time.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Union power in my (potentially misinformed) view seems stifled by the Liberals constant tarring of a minority of heavy handed union organizers as "union thugs", which is also eagerly portrayed by conservative newspapers like the daily telegraph.

It seems the Unions message that workers rights are undermined gets lost in the labeling and name calling of a few rogue unionists.

Care to comment?

No, you're pretty right. Howard was a shitty PM, but one thing his government did well was fearmonger. I would suggest that his government is responsible for the massive dumbing down of Australian politics. Governments/potential governments no longer even try to appeal to peoples hopes and dreams - they try to appeal to their fears. And News Corp absolutely contributes to this. It's why this board is so ridiculous - cos the standard of debate is so pathetic that it ends up in "leftard"/"lefty scum" vs "RWNJ" arguments.

I think the most effective thing that Tories & Murdoch have done is make ill-informed people - which is the majority of people when it comes to industrial relations - see "the union" as bunch of self-appointed thugs "controlling" workers. Those ill-informed people either don't realise, or they haven't stopped to think about it, that the union isn't the organiser, it's not John Setka (from the CFMEU) - the union is its members. And they're much more democratically run than any government! If the members weren't happy with their leadership, they can vote them out.

I guess the problem though is that the rusted on unionists like myself have different values, and different goals for our union than the people sitting on the fence. I want my union to be loud, to bang tables, and to be prepared to walk off the job. But to the pragmatist who sits on the fence, that's much too intimidating, because of how LNP governments have been able to frame the union movement.

With all that said though, I would still go back to what I said in my initial post. This can - and hopefully will - change when people realise that they're living the struggle, and that a soft pragmatist approach has made them nothing more than their boss' bitch.

It will be up to individuals to defy to FWC and potentially face jail to make the point. With low Union membership it is hard to wield any power in negotiations.

You don't get jailed for wildcat strikes. I think the fine for individuals though is up to $10k? For unions, I think it's $250k. Which is the real reason that wildcat strikes are so risky - if an individual member was fined $10k, I tend to think that the union would cover it. But they couldn't cover potentially hundreds of members on top of the fine that they'd also cop.

Even in situations where workers are prepared to go wildcat, the current legislation means that it can be really ineffective anyway. When Fairfax staff went wildcat last year - which was an awesome, brave move - it was barely effective because their union was too s**t scared to get their hands dirty. They waved some flags and did a barbeque, but they didn't kick up the stink that their members deserved.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No, you're pretty right. Howard was a shitty PM, but one thing his government did well was fearmonger. I would suggest that his government is responsible for the massive dumbing down of Australian politics. Governments/potential governments no longer even try to appeal to peoples hopes and dreams - they try to appeal to their fears. And News Corp absolutely contributes to this. It's why this board is so ridiculous - cos the standard of debate is so pathetic that it ends up in "leftard"/"lefty scum" vs "RWNJ" arguments.

I think the most effective thing that Tories & Murdoch have done is make ill-informed people - which is the majority of people when it comes to industrial relations - see "the union" as bunch of self-appointed thugs "controlling" workers. Those ill-informed people either don't realise, or they haven't stopped to think about it, that the union isn't the organiser, it's not John Setka (from the CFMEU) - the union is its members. And they're much more democratically run than any government! If the members weren't happy with their leadership, they can vote them out.

I guess the problem though is that the rusted on unionists like myself have different values, and different goals for our union than the people sitting on the fence. I want my union to be loud, to bang tables, and to be prepared to walk off the job. But to the pragmatist who sits on the fence, that's much too intimidating, because of how LNP governments have been able to frame the union movement.

With all that said though, I would still go back to what I said in my initial post. This can - and hopefully will - change when people realise that they're living the struggle, and that a soft pragmatist approach has made them nothing more than their boss' bitch.



You don't get jailed for wildcat strikes. I think the fine for individuals though is up to $10k? For unions, I think it's $250k. Which is the real reason that wildcat strikes are so risky - if an individual member was fined $10k, I tend to think that the union would cover it. But they couldn't cover potentially hundreds of members on top of the fine that they'd also cop.

Even in situations where workers are prepared to go wildcat, the current legislation means that it can be really ineffective anyway. When Fairfax staff went wildcat last year - which was an awesome, brave move - it was barely effective because their union was too s**t scared to get their hands dirty. They waved some flags and did a barbeque, but they didn't kick up the stink that their members deserved.

I was meaning what happens when the individual goes "f u" and refuses to pay the 10k fine.

 

[pazza]

To ban a strike is against democracy. About time the right in this country realise that.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

No, you're pretty right. Howard was a shitty PM, but one thing his government did well was fearmonger. I would suggest that his government is responsible for the massive dumbing down of Australian politics. Governments/potential governments no longer even try to appeal to peoples hopes and dreams - they try to appeal to their fears. And News Corp absolutely contributes to this. It's why this board is so ridiculous - cos the standard of debate is so pathetic that it ends up in "leftard"/"lefty scum" vs "RWNJ" arguments.

I think the most effective thing that Tories & Murdoch have done is make ill-informed people - which is the majority of people when it comes to industrial relations - see "the union" as bunch of self-appointed thugs "controlling" workers. Those ill-informed people either don't realise, or they haven't stopped to think about it, that the union isn't the organiser, it's not John Setka (from the CFMEU) - the union is its members. And they're much more democratically run than any government! If the members weren't happy with their leadership, they can vote them out.

I guess the problem though is that the rusted on unionists like myself have different values, and different goals for our union than the people sitting on the fence. I want my union to be loud, to bang tables, and to be prepared to walk off the job. But to the pragmatist who sits on the fence, that's much too intimidating, because of how LNP governments have been able to frame the union movement.

With all that said though, I would still go back to what I said in my initial post. This can - and hopefully will - change when people realise that they're living the struggle, and that a soft pragmatist approach has made them nothing more than their boss' bitch.



You don't get jailed for wildcat strikes. I think the fine for individuals though is up to $10k? For unions, I think it's $250k. Which is the real reason that wildcat strikes are so risky - if an individual member was fined $10k, I tend to think that the union would cover it. But they couldn't cover potentially hundreds of members on top of the fine that they'd also cop.

Even in situations where workers are prepared to go wildcat, the current legislation means that it can be really ineffective anyway. When Fairfax staff went wildcat last year - which was an awesome, brave move - it was barely effective because their union was too s**t scared to get their hands dirty. They waved some flags and did a barbeque, but they didn't kick up the stink that their members deserved.

This is the attitude that will sadly destroy unions in Oz, it's always someone else's fault. Btw Tory's in Australia?? FFS.

Unions here are of ill reputation precisely because of the likes of Setka and his thugs, members get threatened if they don't tow the line, you are now nothing more than a dictatorship however from your posts you are happy to serve your masters and their wishes without having the balls to put forward your own contributions, because you're in your own words "rusted on".

Thomson abusing members money on pro's? This s**t does stick in members minds when they're looking at their fee deductions from their payslip.

You want to be loud and bang tables as you are ill equipped to negotiate mentally.

It's not just Murdoch press, they've all caught on now. You keep up this attitude and you will be extinct, the conservative's and media will destroy you. Change your tact and actually try and represent the ones that need protection rather than blaming everyone else for your perception.

 

[MrPortAdelaide]

I hate the Unions because all they do is serve themselves under the flag of helping the worker and have been the cause of many a industry in Australia to disappear, but in saying that they are required, i just hate how they all get into bed with multinationals and then bash up the small - med businesses

 

[rodney hoo]

I hate the Unions because all they do is serve themselves under the flag of helping the worker and have been the cause of many a industry in Australia to disappear, but in saying that they are required, i just hate how they all get into bed with multinationals and then bash up the small - med businesses

I'm not certain unions have anything to do with multinationals not paying any tax.

 

[TimmeT]

To ban a strike is against democracy. About time the right in this country realise that.

LOL right. These laws were implemented by a democratically elected government if my memory serves me correctly. I'm pretty sure it was a Labor one too

 

[Power Raid]

To ban a strike is against democracy. About time the right in this country realise that.

A supply strike should be allowed.

If a commodity price is too low, mining companies reduce supply until the price recovers. This is called a supply strike.

The customers of the commodity then have to pay a higher price to encourage more supply, substitute the commodity with another or simply deal with producing less themselves.

Same said with labour. They should have the right to strike but the trade off would have to be changes to IR laws to allow employers to terminate workers and find other solutions.

I’m not sure that’s where IR in this nation should go. A little more respect should be offered to workers and their families, along with a healthy dose of professionalism. But life is also a two way street.

 

[pazza]

The thing with this action was about more than just pay.

Train drivers have higher turnover than most. The job itself is stressful given that..among other things, the amount of people dumb enough to walk in front of these things to kill themselves. Drivers up until recently didn't have any path in which their trauma could be deal with. The pay rise being sort after were reasonable in reality.

As to Timme's point above..the "Fair Work Commsiion" is now loaded with blokes with heavy LNP leanings. The bloke who made the decision in this case, was actually a former staffer to Peter Reith - arguably a massive union basher! Therefore there needs to be reform of the FWC so that at least a couple of former Unionists have equal say as LNP luddites.

 

[TimmeT]

The thing with this action was about more than just pay.

Train drivers have higher turnover than most. The job itself is stressful given that..among other things, the amount of people dumb enough to walk in front of these things to kill themselves. Drivers up until recently didn't have any path in which their trauma could be deal with. The pay rise being sort after were reasonable in reality.

As to Timme's point above..the "Fair Work Commsiion" is now loaded with blokes with heavy LNP leanings. The bloke who made the decision in this case, was actually a former staffer to Peter Reith - arguably a massive union basher! Therefore there needs to be reform of the FWC so that at least a couple of former Unionists have equal say as LNP luddites.

Pretty sure a number of the panel on the penalty rate hearing were Labor appointees. The members are fairly balanced as there were a number appointed under the Rudd term post Fair Work Act.

Wonder what would have happened if it was a Labor appointed member who made the same call as the one yesterday, which would have likely happened as the law clearly stipulates that strikes can and should be overturned if they can lead to significant economic pain. It just helps the unions to go on their FWC/LNP bashing exercise having it made by a LNP appointed member.

 

[madmug]

Pretty sure a number of the panel on the penalty rate hearing were Labor appointees. The members are fairly balanced as there were a number appointed under the Rudd term post Fair Work Act.

Wonder what would have happened if it was a Labor appointed member who made the same call as the one yesterday, which would have likely happened as the law clearly stipulates that strikes can and should be overturned if they can lead to significant economic pain. It just helps the unions to go on their FWC/LNP bashing exercise having it made by a LNP appointed member.

I understand the parties have to go back & negotiate in good faith. Failing that can they strike? Or does it go to arbitration?

 

[A Cut Above]

Anytime anyone tries to tell me John Howard was a decent PM I remind them he's the narrow-minded little twat who gave us Workchoices & the GST.

Its been downhill for this country ever since. Obviously there have been many other factors at play so I'm hardly shifting the entirely of blame onto those two decisions, but worker bargaining power certainly took a nosedive when Workchoices came in.

 

[spinynorman]

You want to be loud and bang tables as you are ill equipped to negotiate mentally.

It's not just Murdoch press, they've all caught on now. You keep up this attitude and you will be extinct, the conservative's and media will destroy you. Change your tact and actually try and represent the ones that need protection rather than blaming everyone else for your perception.

I think there's a major misconception as to how negotiations work, that employers are on one side of the table and employees on the other and everyone has a debate, see the wisdom of the other side's ways and things get moving.

Realistically, the workers need to be able to threaten industrial action in order to win any major concession. Which is part of what makes this decision by Fair Work so horrendous, is that it has removed the one negotiating chip the union has, which is already an extremely difficult chip to attain in this country. And bosses are never so constrained in their right to take industrial action.

 

[nobbyiscool]

This is the attitude that will sadly destroy unions in Oz, it's always someone else's fault. Btw Tory's in Australia?? FFS.

Unions here are of ill reputation precisely because of the likes of Setka and his thugs, members get threatened if they don't tow the line, you are now nothing more than a dictatorship however from your posts you are happy to serve your masters and their wishes without having the balls to put forward your own contributions, because you're in your own words "rusted on".

Thomson abusing members money on pro's? This s**t does stick in members minds when they're looking at their fee deductions from their payslip.

You want to be loud and bang tables as you are ill equipped to negotiate mentally.

It's not just Murdoch press, they've all caught on now. You keep up this attitude and you will be extinct, the conservative's and media will destroy you. Change your tact and actually try and represent the ones that need protection rather than blaming everyone else for your perception.

Yep, 150,000 people who protested WorkChoices - just in Melbourne - certainly showed that getting loud and banging tables doesn't work

The irony is that you claim it's not just the Murdoch press, when your post is exactly the kind of ignorant bullshit that spills from people who get their "news" from the Herald Sun/Daily Tele/Australian and think it's factual.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Yep, 150,000 people who protested WorkChoices - just in Melbourne - certainly showed that getting loud and banging tables doesn't work

The irony is that you claim it's not just the Murdoch press, when your post is exactly the kind of ignorant bullshit that spills from people who get their "news" from the Herald Sun/Daily Tele/Australian and think it's factual.

I'm not your enemy and your use of the word "irony" is incorrect. I get my information from the very people you rusted on senior bloks are supposed to protect.

You fail to see your errors and blame everyone else. Quite simply you are ****ed if you don't change.

Yeah Workchoices was overturned, the cleaners aren't getting much better pay though are they? you achieved * all while defending campaigners who spurned $ on hookers.

Stay rusted on, you'll be extinct soon.

Apologies nobbyiscool i didn't mean to call you a campaigner so changed my term.

 

[AM]

Union power in my (potentially misinformed) view seems stifled by the Liberals constant tarring of a minority of heavy handed union organizers as "union thugs", which is also eagerly portrayed by conservative newspapers like the daily telegraph.

It seems the Unions message that workers rights are undermined gets lost in the labeling and name calling of a few rogue unionists.

Care to comment?

It's far from a misinformed view. The Tories are intent on destroying the union movement. They have a right-to -rule mentality and the only thing that stands in their way of effectively achieving that one party system is the union movement.

That's why the Tories have set-up Royal Commissions with rigged terms of reference and conservative friendly chairmen with the purpose of attacking unions. It's why they've stacked the F Unfair Work Commission - who could forget that dubious character Lawler who resigned in disgrace. The same UWC that has just denied NSW train drivers the right to withdraw their labour for one day while doing sweet-stuff-all about Glencore who have locked out their workers for 200 days.

Then there's the deliberate casualisation of the workforce to thwart union membership and allowing the - virtually unfettered- use by businesses of labor hire companies who use foreign workers to take aussie jobs and underpay them in the process while the Tories happily sit on their hands. The only way these rorts are uncovered is through investigative journalism - most often by the ABC. Thank God for the ABC. The 7Eleven rorts being the most recent. Murdoch wouldn't know investigative journalism if it whacked him on his bald ugly visage. And doesn't wish to as while his lying, prejudiced, error ridden, trumped-up publications purport to be for the punter, in reality he couldn't give a stuff about them.

Any employee who isn't a union member has been conned. Or is either a dimwit or a little to the right of Genghis Hanson/Bernardi - one and the same really.

 

[Rob R]

Some unions are doing a great job of destroying themselves. I believe we need unions but take CPSU as an example. ALP offers crap pay rise to Defence APS staff. Union hq muted. Libs offer crap pay rise, union fighting. 50 jobs to leave Canberra world is ending and they are working with alp. 200 jobs including many union members moved from west Melbourne, ALP doesn't care so unions dont. If the unions still cared about workers instead of the political career of their Hq staff who have never worked a day in a proper job, they would get a lot more members.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rodney hoo]

Lots of the work force got conned by right wing governments and there media bosses how trading your working conditions for a few bucks extra an hour and then working 10/12 hour days for no over time and penalties. People are now working longer and all on casual rates, no holiday pay, sick pay, overtime etc.

I find it amazing how Turnbull can just pay his workers an extra $25g a year on top of there enormous pays already and there is hardly a complaint. Private health insurance forced on people by Howard goes up continually far exceeding the cpi, 1/3 funded by the tax payers and we are told it's good for us, and the nsw train drivers want 6% over two years, hardly unreasonable and there portrayed as the bad guys.

I worked in senior management for 40 years out of a 48 year career and while working with the unions at times was tough it was always better than most of greedy hungry cry poor bosses that never seem to make a dollar but always live in the wealthiest suburbs with merc or the the latest BMW in the garage.