Dismissal Wharfies
tj...@eisa.net.au
If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Billy Shields
tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
Since they have to pay out $150m in redundancy packages I think it'll
set the precedent that people might actually have to do some of the
work they're paid to do.
Billy
Joseph Askew
tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
Joseph
Ashraf Ghebranious
>tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>Joseph
Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
Nice work if you can get it!
Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
George Dragicevic
>In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
>
>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
>
>The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
>will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
>
>Nice work if you can get it!
>
>Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
>to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
>look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
>
>I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
>
We live in a sick system. I note today that the shareprice of the
parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
sackings were announced. Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
increased dividends. Like most of these disputes, the misfortune of
one section of the community...ie the sackees, results in an increase
in the fortunes of another section of the community....ie the sackers.
There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation.
regards,
George Dragicevic
Melbourne PC User Group
Owen Dare
>In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
>>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
>>Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
>>the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
>>face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
>>ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>
>>Joseph
>
>Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
And this tells us what about the productivity of the now sacked warfies?
>
>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
>
Duty of care does not cease just because you employ contract labour.
But in any case I am unsure what you mean. Are you saying that the workers
will be forced to work in unsafe conditions?
Why?
>The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
>will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
>
>Nice work if you can get it!
Yes apparently it was.
>
>Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
>to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
>look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
So the answer is to allow the company to continue to bare the burden of
unproductive workers?
Last time I looked, the CEO was charged with the responsibility of making
sure the company turned a profit.
Profitable companies tend to expand. Expanding companies tend to hire more
staff.... See how it works?
>
>I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
As opposed to the union leaders?
Owen Dare E-mail: ow...@globec.com.au
River City BBS ow...@rcbbs.ambience.com
Brisbane, ICQ# : 1512158
Australia BBS. (07) 3805 5332
Cameron Bell
So much for workplace "Agreements".
tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
> If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
> precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
Zenith
>We live in a sick system.
Go somewhere else then :)
>I note today that the shareprice of the
>parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
>sackings were announced.
Hmmm...people seem to thing Patricks may become productive after
divesting themselves of the losers. Interesting.
>Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
>the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
>increased dividends.
What a totally meaningless piece of drivel.
>Like most of these disputes, the misfortune of
>one section of the community...ie the sackees, results in an increase
>in the fortunes of another section of the community....ie the sackers.
Wish I was facing a 250k redundancy package. Sounds like friggin' good
fortune to me :) But then it's worth every penny. Got for it Reithy!
>There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation.
There is? I can't see it.
Ashraf Ghebranious
>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:37:55, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf
>Ghebranious) wrote:
>>
>>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
>>
>Duty of care does not cease just because you employ contract labour.
>But in any case I am unsure what you mean. Are you saying that the workers
>will be forced to work in unsafe conditions?
>Why?
No. What i am suggesting is the shifting of heavy containers is not necessary
a piece of cake. Familiarity with equipment and experience can be the
difference between being spot on and being a few feet out.
Everytime they are a few feet out, the chance someone will be under it as it
comes down increases. I dont think any of the staff will be experienced beyond
their training courses. I hope they will be using experienced supervisors or
the chance of a problem increases greatly.
That and given the antiquity of the equipment at the Patricks wharves leads
me to believe that over confidence and an attempt to try and show up the
MUA will get people killed.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"If it takes only one person to suppress your religion, then it cant be
much of a religion then can it?" - me
To find out more about the cult that is Scientology, subscribe to
ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY. Dont get me wrong, these people are dangerous!
smc...@shoal.net.au
Chris Maltby
:tj...@eisa.net.au began:
:: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
:: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
:: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
So Billy Shields writes:
:Since they have to pay out $150m in redundancy packages I think it'll
:set the precedent that people might actually have to do some of the
:work they're paid to do.
Whose $150M is it though?
--
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Limited Internet: ch...@sw.oz.au
PHONE: +61-2-9698-2322 "In most companies the Managing Director has
FAX: +61-2-9699-9174 his office in the future." _- Mark V. Shaney
Zenith
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:19:45 GMT, e88...@anu.edu.au (Ashraf
Ghebranious) wrote:
[snip]
>That and given the antiquity of the equipment at the Patricks wharves leads
>me to believe that over confidence and an attempt to try and show up the
>MUA will get people killed.
I was wondering when they'd get around to the safety bit :) They
always do when all else fails.
Rob Silva
>In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
>>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
>>Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
>>the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
>>face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
>>ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>
>>Joseph
>
>Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
On the news tonight they were talking about replacing 1400 with 500 -
a little over a third. This lends some credibility to the oft quoted
figure of 14hrs a week earned by a present day wharfie.
Perhaps the replacements will get the same pay but work a full week?
>
>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
Patricks have the same OH&S obligations whether workers are employees
or contractors. The difference is who pays the workcover premiums and
who covers the salary difference in the event of lost-time injury.
Nothing unusual about this at all.
>
>The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
>will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
>
>Nice work if you can get it!
>
>Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
>to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
>look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
And the shareholders' way. But then maybe obscene 'profits' are OK if
they are paid as salary to workers?
>
>I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
Why do you wonder that?
>
>Ashraf
>
>
>
>---
>DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
> OR my service provider.
>
>**************************************************************************
>Ashraf Ghebranious
>Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
>
Rob Silva
>In article <352c4171....@news.globec.com.au> ow...@globec.com.au (Owen Dare) writes:
>
>>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:37:55, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf
>>Ghebranious) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>>>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>>>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>>>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
>>>
>
>>Duty of care does not cease just because you employ contract labour.
>>But in any case I am unsure what you mean. Are you saying that the workers
>>will be forced to work in unsafe conditions?
>>Why?
>
>No. What i am suggesting is the shifting of heavy containers is not necessary
>a piece of cake. Familiarity with equipment and experience can be the
>difference between being spot on and being a few feet out.
>
>Everytime they are a few feet out, the chance someone will be under it as it
>comes down increases. I dont think any of the staff will be experienced beyond
>their training courses. I hope they will be using experienced supervisors or
>the chance of a problem increases greatly.
>
>That and given the antiquity of the equipment at the Patricks wharves leads
>me to believe that over confidence and an attempt to try and show up the
>MUA will get people killed.
>
The duty of care Patrick's have extends to ensuring that the workers
are properly qualified and have proper equipment.
Containers aren't the only blunt intruments that get people killed :-)
Rob Silva
>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:37:55, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
>(Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>
>>In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>
>
>>Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
>>
>>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
>>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
>>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
>>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
>>
>>The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
>>will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
>>
>>Nice work if you can get it!
>>
>>Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
>>to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
>>look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
>>
>>I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
>>
>We live in a sick system. I note today that the shareprice of the
>parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
>sackings were announced. Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
>the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
>increased dividends. Like most of these disputes, the misfortune of
>one section of the community...ie the sackees, results in an increase
>in the fortunes of another section of the community....ie the sackers.
>There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation.
Much better it should be the other way around, eh?
smc...@shoal.net.au
In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
> tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
> Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than the
> sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or face the
> sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time ago in
> fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
> Joseph
It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
glorious wages and conditions. The required qualifications are so
minimal that various members can brag and bleat that they are nth
generation wharfies. Actually that is probably the main qualification.
How people, that may have studied for years, in their own time and
receive pay and conditions well beneath that of those greedy yobs,
can empathize with them, is beyond me. The severence packages being
offered - redundancy and superannuation - are mind blowing, yet we are
expected to see them as the downtrodden. Notice that they will all
shake their heads at the suggestion of receiving ninety-thousand a
year, but they won't say what they actually get. Does a company sack a
_whole_ force that is good value? Perhaps, but it is very very
unlikely. Most likely, their huge remuneration for diminutive effort,
has little to do with with what THEY are worth but much to do with the
worth of that which they hold to ransom. That being the rest of us.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh.
Billy Shields
Geoff <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
: On 8 Apr 98 09:56:09 GMT, ch...@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) wrote:
:>:tj...@eisa.net.au began:
:>:: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
:>:: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
:>:: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
:>
:>So Billy Shields writes:
:>:Since they have to pay out $150m in redundancy packages I think it'll
:>:set the precedent that people might actually have to do some of the
:>:work they're paid to do.
:>
:>Whose $150M is it though?
: The government's, to start with. And it may even work. Lot less than
: the $430 million spent by the ALP in the WIRA process which achieved
: exactly nothing.
: The abuse of monopoly power by the MUA is undoubted, and they have, by
: their greed, created their own destruction, just like all monopolists
: eventually do.
: This ALP Opposition is a bad joke. They lose government leaving a
Its politicking in the classic sense: the ALP knows that anything
the government proposes will get rubbestamped by the Lower House so
they can get on their soapboxes and rant and rave not changing the
outcome but winning brownie points with the trade union movement and
its supporters.
: trail of problems which they lacked the guts to resolve and then
: complain about the solution. Loved that comment by Reith about how the
: ALP now insist that, having failed for 13 years to solve these
: problems, had they been reelected in '96 they would have solved them
: in their 14th year of government. The wharves and Native Title are
: prime examples.
Its also a classic case of not biting the hand that feeds you. I
don't think I need to tell you where the ALP gets a lot of its
political donations and the demographics of the classic ALP voter.
Billy
smc...@shoal.net.au
In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>,
ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
> In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>
> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>> tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>> Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than the
>> sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or face
>> the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time ago in
>> fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>> Joseph
> Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous
> work force.
> I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime,
> but I have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of
> these new workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the
> new workforce is on contract, the liability would surely shift to the
> NFF who are their employers.
> The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian
> public will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
The farmers have been a source of income for Australia. They have
supported the likes of the warfies. By contrast, how more eloquently
can it be shown, that the wharfies are redundant, than by recent
events?
> Nice work if you can get it!
What utter garbage!!!
Do you see people scrambling to be farmers? Do you see the farmers
rejoicing at a drought? Why do you think that after a lifetime of
continuous hard work, farmers are now having to sell up and move to the
cities. Compare that to the first few hours after Patrick's workers
were sacked. Hundreds were jamming the switchboards applying for
positions. It will be a cold day in hell before the wharfies would
think of willingly abandoning their jobs to do farming. "Nice work if
you can get it"? I'm sure you can. I'm also sure you wouldn't want it.
That is, unless you are genuinely as foolish as that last sentence
might suggest.
<snip>
Sean McHugh
Ashraf Ghebranious
>It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
>glorious wages and conditions.
Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
pay and the same conditions.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"If it takes only one person to suppress your religion, then it cant be
much of a religion then can it?" - me
To find out more about the cult that is Scientology, subscribe to
ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY. Dont get me wrong, these people are dangerous!
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
Zenith
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 00:02:18 +1000, Pete <th...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Zenith wrote:
>
>> Wish I was facing a 250k redundancy package. Sounds like friggin' good
>> fortune to me :) But then it's worth every penny. Got for it Reithy!
>>
>> Like everything else to do with the issue, only the exagerated facts and
>> figures are considered. Redudancy packages are to vary between $40k and
>> $250K superannuation included. Lots of these workers have been on the
>> wharves most of their lifes and would have a nice amount of super
>> already. But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story now.
You quote 250K and I quote 250K. What you dribbling about with the
"facts" bit?
Peter Lucas
In article <e884077.51...@anu.edu.au>, e88...@anu.edu.au (Ashraf
Ghebranious) wrote:
**In article <352c4171....@news.globec.com.au> ow...@globec.com.au (Owen
** Dare) writes:
**
**>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:37:55, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf
**>Ghebranious) wrote:
**
**>>
**>>I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
**>>have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
**>>workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is
** on
**>>contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their
** employers.
**>>
**
**>Duty of care does not cease just because you employ contract labour.
**>But in any case I am unsure what you mean. Are you saying that the workers
**>will be forced to work in unsafe conditions?
**>Why?
**
**No. What i am suggesting is the shifting of heavy containers is not necessary
**a piece of cake. Familiarity with equipment and experience can be the
**difference between being spot on and being a few feet out.
**
**Everytime they are a few feet out, the chance someone will be under it as it
**comes down increases.
You obviously haven't been out to the wharves and watched the proccess, have
you? It is *very**very* rare to have *anyone* near a container that is being
shifted. There are locking lugs on the top of the containers that have to be
in place and engaged or the container can't be lifted. Occassionly you will
have people that have to access the wharf area. If they do it in vehicles,
they have to have flashing lights, if they walk they have reflective vests.
But in either case the onus is on the person *on the ground* to look out for
the crane drivers, not the other way around.
Each container sits perfectly on top of another by the same lugs that are used
to lock it into the crane.
I have watched *supposedly* highly experienced ex-Patrick crane drivers here
in Brisbane, take 5 or 6 shots to get a container into place. A bad day?? No.
They had attended a party the night before and it hadn't finished till 6am.
They were still pissed.
I know who I'd rather take my chances with.
**I dont think any of the staff will be experienced beyond
**
**their training courses.
Which would put them on a par with the experience level of the ex-Patricks
people.
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia
"At any rate, I think the sentiment is to keep pulling handles 'til your goggles fill with blood. It's bad manners to bounce with any handles intact."
Winsor Naugler III
07 Oct 1997
Peter Lucas
In article <chris.8...@suite.sw.oz.au>, ch...@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris
Maltby) wrote:
**:tj...@eisa.net.au began:
**:: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
**:: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
**:: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
**
**So Billy Shields writes:
**:Since they have to pay out $150m in redundancy packages I think it'll
**:set the precedent that people might actually have to do some of the
**:work they're paid to do.
**
**Whose $150M is it though?
Not the taxpayers, and that's all we have to be concerned about.
Peter Lucas
In article <352B4EF9...@ozemail.com.au>, Cameron Bell
<cam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
**So much for workplace "Agreements".
WRONG.
After the first strike, the MUA had agreed to go back to work, then that
fuckwit Coombs stuck his pea sized brain and enormous ego into the thick of
things and stirred the pot again. The blame for the current situation rest's
squarely on the shoulders of that little industrial terrorist. If the MUA has
a beef, go looking for him.
Joseph Askew
Ashraf Ghebranious (ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: >Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
: >the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
: >face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
: >ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
: Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
That would be about right I expect. So what? Are you claiming those
few workers will be paid less than the old ones used to be? Remember
that Patricks has made an effort to target Union members. They could
not do that if they weren't offering reasonably good wages. At least
not while they had not sacked their workforce.
: I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime, but I
: have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
: workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the new workforce is on
: contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
But the old workers were on contracts too. But even if it is true so
what? The Liability is, in Victoria at least, a mess and full backed
by the State Government and the tax payerof Victoria.
: The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
: will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
How can the NFF cry drought and if they did why would the money go to
a company they have set up with no connection to the land? Can you say
"completely irrelevant distraction"?
: Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of
: wages you paid in the year before due
: to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
: look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
We can only hope. And at the same time hope that some of that increased
efficiency flows on down to the poor exporters who will have to pay a
lot less to move freight. But of course all this rests on the ability
of Patricks to move the same amount of cargo. If the international
boycott fizzles (and given they have not been able to halt non-Union
docks in Britain I don't see what they can hope to do here) I would
think they will be moving far more than their old lifts.
: I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
Good luck to him if he does. I think legally not paying tax has almost
become a moral requirement.
Joseph
Joseph Askew
Ashraf Ghebranious (e88...@anu.edu.au) wrote:
: No. What i am suggesting is the shifting of heavy containers is not necessary
: a piece of cake. Familiarity with equipment and experience can be the
: difference between being spot on and being a few feet out.
It is odd then that people seem to be able to move containers off the
docks without any trouble. The MUA doesn't control the people who put
them on trucks, or who load them at the factory gate, or the off site
stevedores who load and unload containers prior to their move onto the
docks. All these people move containers without a great deal of risk
or with huge training requirements and until now people like you have
not mande any fuss about it at all.
: Everytime they are a few feet out, the chance someone will be under it as it
: comes down increases.
I doubt that any well run, or indeed poorly run, dock operation allows
people to move about underneath the lifting cranes. There are rules
about these things. Containers do occasionally drop, but most of the
time people aren't that stupid.
: I dont think any of the staff will be experienced beyond
: their training courses. I hope they will be using experienced supervisors or
: the chance of a problem increases greatly.
And again we have the problem of why the docks are uniquely dangerous.
Anyone else is allowed to do it. Why not Patricks?
: That and given the antiquity of the equipment at the Patricks wharves leads
: me to believe that over confidence and an attempt to try and show up the
: MUA will get people killed.
Antiquity? The Australian average is fifteen years. That puts them
well ahead of most industries. The Patricks equipment is probably
newer still but I don't know for sure. In any event what do you care?
They are being paid, and paid well, to work there. What is it to you?
Joseph
Pete
Zenith wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wish I was facing a 250k redundancy package. Sounds like friggin' good
> fortune to me :) But then it's worth every penny. Got for it Reithy!
>
> Like everything else to do with the issue, only the exagerated facts and
> figures are considered. Redudancy packages are to vary between $40k and
> $250K superannuation included. Lots of these workers have been on the
> wharves most of their lifes and would have a nice amount of super
> already. But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story now.
By the way, that crane drivers wage increased from $90k to $125k just today
alone. Is this the same Smith family that Vanstone used as an example
previously?
Pete
Pete
Craig Welch wrote:
>
>
> This is the market's view of what Patricks have done. What is wrong
> with that? Should the shareprice be controlled in some way?
>
> Was the market advised that the company was nearing insolvency, and this
> was the reason for sacking the staff? If so the market is even stranger
> than i thought. If not was Patricks negligent in their duty to do so, or
> more probable was they had already known they had the funding to payout
> the workers. Peter Reith has stated he had been in talks with the banks
> for days trying to shore up funding, yet had only known not long before
> the sackings what had happened. What of Patricks leasing dock space to
> the NFF to setup their OWN stevedoring company. This now appears to have
> confirmed the MUA's suspicions of it being no more than a training
> facility for what has happened. What of the guy who was training with the
> NFF, who said that patricks was going to sack all their workforce at
> easter, and was called a liar by the NFF and Patricks? He was obviously
> right. Throw in the Dubia incident and it appears no more than a baiting
> excercise by patricks on the MUA. If Patricks have sent in the
> liquidators and not rightly advised the necessary bodies, ASC, ASX, then
> surely JOhn Howard and Peter Reith could be seen as aiding and abetting
> an ilegal act. If this government gives monetary help to Patricks as an
> insolvent company, why has it not given the same support to the BHP
> workers, mine workers etc.
Divide and Conquer John Howard, it is the only way you seem to know how to
"reform".
Pete
>
>
>
George Dragicevic
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 10:31:40 GMT, nos...@nospam.com.au (Zenith) wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:21:41 GMT, geo...@melbpc.org.au (George
>Dragicevic) wrote:
>
>
>>We live in a sick system.
>
>Go somewhere else then :)
>
>>I note today that the shareprice of the
>>parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
>>sackings were announced.
>
>Hmmm...people seem to thing Patricks may become productive after
>divesting themselves of the losers. Interesting.
>
>>Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
>>the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
>>increased dividends.
>
>What a totally meaningless piece of drivel.
>
Thankyou for the elucidation. It's called sarcasm however I don't
pretend everyone can pick it when they see it.
George Dragicevic
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:37:51 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:21:41 GMT, geo...@melbpc.org.au (George
>Dragicevic) wrote:
>
>*snip*
>
>>We live in a sick system. I note today that the shareprice of the
>>parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
>>sackings were announced.
>
>Good management tends to get rewarded. Why do you find that offensive?
>Resources are limited.
Good management? I can't believe the rejoicing by various sections of
the community at the sacking of 1400 people, especially when
unemployment is such a blight on society. I am not here to defend poor
work practices or monopoly situations. People have labelled the 1400
as bludgers. Well in any organisation there are time wasters and to
label all of them as bludgers is drawing a very long bow indeed. Why
have the people in Townsville been sacked. Is it not the case that
they run a wharf at very close to world's best practice standards?
>> Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
>>the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
>>increased dividends.
>
>Maybe we should just sack the monopolies like the MWU. After all, they
>just create featherbedded workplaces where efficiency is anathema and
>the customers are stuck with all the downsides.
Is it not the case that productivity on the wharves has increased 4
fold since 1991? Is it also not the case that reforms on the wharves
have cut the workforce dramatically in the past 10 years? There are
monopolies all over the place many run by companies. The ideal
situation where there is true competition is not possible in many
areas..viz power, telecommunications etc. Those who espouse free
enterprise principles don't extend their ideology to unions. The
unions are there to get the best deal and conditions for their
members.
The fact that wharfies are relatively well paid means the union has
done the job well.
>
>Can't see you supporting a monopoly petrol supplier or a monopoly food
>supplier - how come you're supporting a monopoly labour supplier? All
>monopolies are bad, no matter what they monopolise. They are all
>inefficient and they are all overpriced.
>
>> Like most of these disputes, the misfortune of
>>one section of the community...ie the sackees, results in an increase
>>in the fortunes of another section of the community....ie the sackers.
>
>Actually, the non-sackees. 1,400 featherbedded bludgers are worse off
>and 18 million Australians are better off because the 1400 are not
>able to rip them off any more. Why should laws only be applicable to
>non-labour monopolies?
>
There you go again...labelling all wharfies as bludgers. There are a
multitude of areas that need a good hard looking at. Do we get good
value from our politicians....how about lawyers?
Brian
On 8 Apr 1998, Joseph Askew wrote:
> tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
> : If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
> : precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> : increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
> Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
> the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
> face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
> ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
Does it?
One of the premises which this industrial dispute has been based
is that Australian unionised docks are less efficient than overseas docks.
Several factors which have not really emerged are that:-
1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
technology increases.
2) The way in which "efficiency" of a dock in Australia has been
different to the method used in those supposedly more efficient docks.
In Australia, the time taken to unload a ship is considered to be from
the moment it ties up to the wharf to the moment it unties from the
wharf. Overseas, the measurement is more usually from the moment when
actual unloading commences to when it ceases. As the actual
unloading/loading time for a ship is only a fraction of the total time
spent tied to the wharf, the measurements between Australian docks and
other docks has been wildly inflated in comparison.
3) The measurement of "efficiency" should be dependent on more than just
time taken to move containers. Some overseas docks, which are held up as
paragons of virtue, due the speed at which they can load/unload a ship,
do so without consideration as to the requirements at the other end of
the ships journey for unloading. In otherwords, containers are packed,
willy-nilly onboard and when a ship arrives in the first Australian port
of call, the *_ENTIRE_* ship has to be unloaded, the load re-arranged and
reloaded so that the containers to be unloaded at the next port of call
are those at the top of the pile, rather than mixed in with all other
containers. This obviously has an effect on whether or not a particular
wharf and hence a port is to be considered "efficient" but is not
considered in the way the government considers its stats. Obviously the
"more efficient" overseas port is gaining that rating at the expense of
the Australian ports.
4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
freedom of association.
The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
-Brian Ross-------http://www.cis.unisa.edu.au/staff/ross.b./bookshelf.html
"I do not suppose that when history is written and finality is reached
anybody will be shown to have been irrefutably right or wrong on this matter"
_____________________________________________________Senator John G. Gorton
David Palmer
I agree,
if this is not reversed by the high court it will set a dangerous precedent
for employers to sack workers just because they are union members. This
Government promised that we would be comfortable and relaxed... I'm less
comfortable and less relaxed now then I ever was.
Dave
----------
In article <352B4EF9...@ozemail.com.au>, Cameron Bell
<cam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>So much for workplace "Agreements".
>
>tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
>> If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>> precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>> increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>>
Pete
Geoff wrote:
>
>
> And you're happy with the fact that the MUA was charging Patricks $3
> million pa for maintenance and that when the NFF took over, they
> contracted out the same work for $500K?
>
> You're paying for that sort of ripoff, sunshine, no one else.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Geoff geoffatiwsdotcomdotau
>
>
They maybe charging that, but can they do the job for that price. So far they
have done one job at Freemantle. Whats more as they are both in the same bed,
why would they want to be seen to be charging more? Maybe thats where Patricks
money has disappeared to. Gone to help subsidise the NFF. Who really knows. One
thing is certain, the truth will be well and truly hidden from the public. It's
election time.
pete
Pete
>
>
> The government's, to start with. And it may even work. Lot less than
> the $430 million spent by the ALP in the WIRA process which achieved
> exactly nothing.
>
Nice to know it is the governments money. Wonder where they get it from?
> The abuse of monopoly power by the MUA is undoubted, and they have, by
> their greed, created their own destruction, just like all monopolists
> eventually do.
>
Sounds like the petrol industry to me, how many committees have looked
into them over the years with no results?
> This ALP Opposition is a bad joke. They lose government leaving a
> trail of problems which they lacked the guts to resolve and then
> complain about the solution. Loved that comment by Reith about how the
> ALP now insist that, having failed for 13 years to solve these
> problems, had they been reelected in '96 they would have solved them
> in their 14th year of government. The wharves and Native Title are
> prime examples.
>
>
Malcolm Fraser and John Howard his trusty treasure ring a bell?
Pete
Pete
> Do you see people scrambling to be farmers? Do you see the farmers
> rejoicing at a drought? Why do you think that after a lifetime of
> continuous hard work, farmers are now having to sell up and move to the
> cities. Compare that to the first few hours after Patrick's workers
> were sacked. Hundreds were jamming the switchboards applying for
> positions. It will be a cold day in hell before the wharfies would
> think of willingly abandoning their jobs to do farming. "Nice work if
> you can get it"? I'm sure you can. I'm also sure you wouldn't want it.
> That is, unless you are genuinely as foolish as that last sentence
> might suggest.
>
> <snip>
>
> Sean McHugh
>
Do you see government rushing out to help the farmers or the outback in
general? I think not.
Pete
David Brindley
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 16:38:01 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote words of
wisdom thus:
>On 8 Apr 98 09:56:09 GMT, ch...@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) wrote:
>
>>:tj...@eisa.net.au began:
>>:: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>:: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>:: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>>
>>So Billy Shields writes:
>>:Since they have to pay out $150m in redundancy packages I think it'll
>>:set the precedent that people might actually have to do some of the
>>:work they're paid to do.
>>
>>Whose $150M is it though?
>
>The government's, to start with. And it may even work. Lot less than
>the $430 million spent by the ALP in the WIRA process which achieved
>exactly nothing.
>
>The abuse of monopoly power by the MUA is undoubted, and they have, by
>their greed, created their own destruction, just like all monopolists
>eventually do.
>
Which monopoly do the MUA control?
Aren't the stevedore coys Aptricks, P&O, SeaLand, et al?
And isn't the ultimate goal of capitalism to create a monopoly by
destroying all opposition?
Isn't it amusing how worried the capitalists get when the socialists
adopt their tactics?
>This ALP Opposition is a bad joke. They lose government leaving a
>trail of problems which they lacked the guts to resolve and then
>complain about the solution. Loved that comment by Reith about how the
>ALP now insist that, having failed for 13 years to solve these
>problems, had they been reelected in '96 they would have solved them
>in their 14th year of government. The wharves and Native Title are
>prime examples.
>
Funny, but we had a lot of industrial peace and harmony under the
accord. And Reith and his masters are prepared to piss that up against
the wall to rescue a "mate" who runs the MOST inefficient stevedore in
the country, quite possibly the world.
Funny how P&O don't have the problems Patricks do.
----
David Brindley
----
Vigoro for Sydney 2000.
-----------------------
David Brindley
On Wed, 08 Apr 98 21:41:23 GMT, sky...@earthling.net (Peter Lucas)
wrote words of wisdom thus:
>In article <352B4EF9...@ozemail.com.au>, Cameron Bell
><cam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>**So much for workplace "Agreements".
>
>WRONG.
>After the first strike, the MUA had agreed to go back to work, then that
>fuckwit Coombs stuck his pea sized brain and enormous ego into the thick of
>things and stirred the pot again. The blame for the current situation rest's
>squarely on the shoulders of that little industrial terrorist. If the MUA has
>a beef, go looking for him.
>
>
So according to skyslime, it has nothing to do with Corrigan's
absolute failure as a manager. And nothing to do weith outdated
equpiment because Corrigan and Patrick refused to make the investment
in cpaital equipment needed to make Patricks more efficient.
>
>
>
>Peter Lucas
>Brisbane
>Australia
>
>"At any rate, I think the sentiment is to keep pulling handles 'til your goggles fill with blood. It's bad manners to bounce with any handles intact."
> Winsor Naugler III
> 07 Oct 1997
----
David Brindley
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:50:01 GMT, cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch)
wrote words of wisdom thus:
>geo...@melbpc.org.au (George Dragicevic) wrote:
>
>>We live in a sick system. I note today that the shareprice of the
>>parent company of Patrick had a 29 cent increase on value when the
>>sackings were announced.
>
>This is the market's view of what Patricks have done. What is wrong
>with that? Should the shareprice be controlled in some way?
>
>>Maybe we could all become shareholders, sack
>>the entire Australian workforce and live happily ever after on the
>>increased dividends. Like most of these disputes, the misfortune of
>>one section of the community...ie the sackees, results in an increase
>>in the fortunes of another section of the community....ie the sackers.
>>There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation.
>
>The "sackees" have been wreaking misfortune on the rest of Australia
>for far too long.
>
Perhaps you'd like to quote some examples, from recent histiory.
Feel free to use facts, illustrations and handouts if it helps, but
please do provide some genuine examples.
I'd love to know more.
> -- Craig --
David Brindley
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 17:03:11 -0600, smc...@shoal.net.au wrote words
of wisdom thus:
>In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>,
>ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>
>> In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>
>> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>>> tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
>>>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
>>> Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than the
>>> sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or face
>>> the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time ago in
>>> fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>
>>> Joseph
>
>> Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous
>> work force.
>
>> I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime,
>> but I have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of
>> these new workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the
>> new workforce is on contract, the liability would surely shift to the
>> NFF who are their employers.
>
>> The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian
>> public will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
>
>The farmers have been a source of income for Australia. They have
>supported the likes of the warfies. By contrast, how more eloquently
>can it be shown, that the wharfies are redundant, than by recent
>events?
>
>> Nice work if you can get it!
>
>What utter garbage!!!
>
>Do you see people scrambling to be farmers? Do you see the farmers
>rejoicing at a drought? Why do you think that after a lifetime of
>continuous hard work, farmers are now having to sell up and move to the
>cities. Compare that to the first few hours after Patrick's workers
>were sacked. Hundreds were jamming the switchboards applying for
>positions. It will be a cold day in hell before the wharfies would
>think of willingly abandoning their jobs to do farming. "Nice work if
>you can get it"? I'm sure you can. I'm also sure you wouldn't want it.
>That is, unless you are genuinely as foolish as that last sentence
>might suggest.
>
><snip>
>
So why is the NFF fucking around playing at being stevedores when
there are much greater problems on farms to be sorted out?
When will we see soem measureable producrtivity increases from farms?
When will all farms become drought proofed?
When will sheep yield fifteen per cent more meat and twenty per cent
more wool each year?
when will grain returns improve 71/2% each year?
Why can't freshly picked apples and pears be available all year round?
What about ensuring a guaranteed minimum crop from each cereal
paddock?
When will we see a truly efficent farming sector with genuine value
adding and an ability to command top price for all its produce?
Da Borg
Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
SNIP
>
> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>freedom of association.
>
What about the freedom to invest money where it actually makes a
profit rather than be used as a piggy bank for extortionist
organisations like the MUA.
> The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
>Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
>a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
>
Well...do we have a free country or don't we?
The MUA is preventing people who choose NOT to be a member of a Union
from excercising their right to work.
Nobody is preventing free association.
There may well be people who are "*_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
a union" but that doesn't confer a right to be employed.
Especially when the leadership of your own workforce has indicated
their desire to wreck your business.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
at people who sit back and applaud this attack (by the MUA) on one of
the most important and basic political freedoms in this country - the
right to invest our money where we see fit in order to make profit.
>
>
>-Brian Ross-------http://www.cis.unisa.edu.au/staff/ross.b./bookshelf.html
>"I do not suppose that when history is written and finality is reached
>anybody will be shown to have been irrefutably right or wrong on this matter"
>_____________________________________________________Senator John G. Gorton
>
>
Its still a free country ...
The MUA and ACTU could always set up their own stevedoring, or indeed
their own farming operation...no one will stop them...
Da Borg
Mum
Would somebody please tell me what they earn and what all their perks are.
I don't think they are very hard done by at all.
tj...@eisa.net.au wrote in article <6gefg0$keb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Rob Silva
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 00:02:18 +1000, Pete <th...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Zenith wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wish I was facing a 250k redundancy package. Sounds like friggin' good
>> fortune to me :) But then it's worth every penny. Got for it Reithy!
>>
>> Like everything else to do with the issue, only the exagerated facts and
>> figures are considered. Redudancy packages are to vary between $40k and
>> $250K superannuation included. Lots of these workers have been on the
>> wharves most of their lifes and would have a nice amount of super
>> already. But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story now.
FWIW, the Advertiser reported this morning between $41k and $239k
superannuation *excluded*.
Rob Silva
>In article <6gfuca$t4m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> smc...@shoal.net.au writes:
>
>
>>It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
>>glorious wages and conditions.
>
>Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
>pay and the same conditions.
>
>
>Ashraf
How long would you have to think about it to realise that this could
not possibly be true?
Unless of course you're trying to tell us that this whole schemozzle
is some grand scheme for raising the wages of wharfies?
Rod Pinna
>>Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
>>pay and the same conditions.
>>
>>
>>Ashraf
>
>How long would you have to think about it to realise that this could
>not possibly be true?
>
>Unless of course you're trying to tell us that this whole schemozzle
>is some grand scheme for raising the wages of wharfies?
Or have you considered the posibility that the government, and
the NFF, feel that the short term losses that might be incurred
are worth it if they achieve their aim of destroying the MUA.
BTW, how would you feel if the action Patricks, supported by the
government, have taken is illegal?
Rod Pinna
(rpi...@XcivilX.uwa.edu.au Remove the X for email)
Rob Silva
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:32:34 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>freedom of association.
Anyone who believes in freedom of association ought to understand that
this means the right to associate *and* the right not to associate.
Or to put it plainly - the right to belong to a union ought to be as
sacred as the right not to belong to a union.
Phil Herring
In article <352c4171....@news.globec.com.au> Owen Dare, ow...@globec.com.au writes:
>And this tells us what about the productivity of the now sacked warfies?
Not a lot. Patricks have been losing money for years (or so I've heard their
management say on TV), *plus* they're looking at having more competition for
their business, so maybe it's partly to do with poor worker productivity by
MUA members, or maybe it's partly due to some unrelated economic
considerations.
We don't know, nor can we expect to know. Patricks don't have to publish
reasons for these decisions, and are even allowed to lie about them if they
choose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Herring
In article <352b510f...@news.bigpond.com> Zenith, nos...@nospam.com.au writes:
>On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:21:41 GMT, geo...@melbpc.org.au (George
>Dragicevic) wrote:
>
>>We live in a sick system.
>
Or change the system through the electoral process :)
>Hmmm...people seem to thing Patricks may become productive after
>divesting themselves of the losers. Interesting.
Well, "people" in this case is just however many people bought shares in
Patricks that day. You might also bear in mind that for every share bought,
there's one sold, so it's not as if all Patricks shareholders held the same
opinion on the situation.
Brian
And for which right does a person get penalised by their
employer, Rob?
Phil Herring
In article <6ggs6v$4eg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> , smc...@shoal.net.au writes:
>The farmers have been a source of income for Australia. They have
>supported the likes of the warfies.
I can see how some of them have taken government subsidies, and enjoyed tax
breaks, and received drought relief, and clung to outdated production modes
(i.e, the family farm)... but how have they "supported the likes of the
warfies"?
>By contrast, how more eloquently
>can it be shown, that the wharfies are redundant, than by recent
>events?
The sackings don't prove that the wharfies were redundant. That will only be
demonstrated when Patricks show the same (or better) productivity with
their new, smaller workforce.
Ashraf Ghebranious
>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:08:30 GMT, e88...@anu.edu.au (Ashraf
>Ghebranious) wrote:
>>In article <6gfuca$t4m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> smc...@shoal.net.au writes:
>>
>>
>>>It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
>>>glorious wages and conditions.
>>
>>Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
>>pay and the same conditions.
>>
>>
>>Ashraf
>How long would you have to think about it to realise that this could
>not possibly be true?
>Unless of course you're trying to tell us that this whole schemozzle
>is some grand scheme for raising the wages of wharfies?
Mr Corrigan annouced it last night. More pay and better conditions. Less
workers.
The issue was NEVER pay and conditions. It was and is the union.
Ashraf
---
DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
OR my service provider.
**************************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
"Jesus woman! I dont give a fuck!" Rhett Butler, slightly paraphrased
**************************************************************************
Rod Pinna
>Well, "people" in this case is just however many people bought shares in
>Patricks that day. You might also bear in mind that for every share bought,
>there's one sold, so it's not as if all Patricks shareholders held the same
>opinion on the situation.
What about the way the government is talking as well. It would
seem that they are quite keen to support Partick's. Maybe some
confidence people have comes from the feeling that the government
is unlikely to let Patrick's fail.
Peter Lucas
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.98040...@cheops.anu.edu.au>, Brian
<br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
** Several factors which have not really emerged are that:-
**
And your source of facts on the unloading of containers is............ ???
Especially on the time differential and the "willy-nilly" loading of ships.
** Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
**at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
**important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
**freedom of association.
So you would rather see the country held to ransom by these union thugs?
**
** The refusal of the NFF funded container company
P&C Stevedoring.
Mark Addinall
> > : precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> > : increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
> >
> > the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
> > face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
> > ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>
>
> One of the premises which this industrial dispute has been based
> is that Australian unionised docks are less efficient than overseas docks.
>
>
> been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
> Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
> than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
> technology increases.
Comparing the docks in Singapore to ones in Australia is similar
to comparing a Sparc20 to an IBM XT. Differnt levels of technology.
>
> 2) The way in which "efficiency" of a dock in Australia has been
> different to the method used in those supposedly more efficient docks.
> In Australia, the time taken to unload a ship is considered to be from
> the moment it ties up to the wharf to the moment it unties from the
> wharf. Overseas, the measurement is more usually from the moment when
> actual unloading commences to when it ceases. As the actual
> unloading/loading time for a ship is only a fraction of the total time
> spent tied to the wharf, the measurements between Australian docks and
> other docks has been wildly inflated in comparison.
And many factors keep a ship tied to a wharf, not only the dockers.
. Tide
. The weather
. Movement priorities
. Availability of tugs
. Availability of pilots
. late cargo (trains not arriving)
>
> 3) The measurement of "efficiency" should be dependent on more than just
> time taken to move containers. Some overseas docks, which are held up as
> paragons of virtue, due the speed at which they can load/unload a ship,
> do so without consideration as to the requirements at the other end of
> the ships journey for unloading. In otherwords, containers are packed,
> willy-nilly onboard and when a ship arrives in the first Australian port
> of call, the *_ENTIRE_* ship has to be unloaded, the load re-arranged and
> reloaded so that the containers to be unloaded at the next port of call
> are those at the top of the pile, rather than mixed in with all other
> containers. This obviously has an effect on whether or not a particular
> wharf and hence a port is to be considered "efficient" but is not
> considered in the way the government considers its stats. Obviously the
> "more efficient" overseas port is gaining that rating at the expense of
> the Australian ports.
>
> 4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
> only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
> experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
> Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
> container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
> was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
> government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
> prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
>
> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
> at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
> important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
> freedom of association.
Welcome to my nightmare. Although, don't ask me to feel sorry for you.
After all, you have spent a good couple of years justifying why my
basic freedoms should be ignored or quashed.
>
> The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
> Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
> a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
Done deal. Live with it.
>
> -Brian Ross-------http://www.cis.unisa.edu.au/staff/ross.b./bookshelf.html
Mark.
Pete
Sorry Craig for the my error.
Pete
Craig Welch wrote:
> Please attibute correctly.
>
> Pete <th...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Craig Welch wrote:
>
> >> This is the market's view of what Patricks have done. What is wrong
> >> with that? Should the shareprice be controlled in some way?
>
> Which is correct. That is what I wrote.
>
> You then continued, with the same level of attribute indentation:
>
> >> Was the market advised that the company was nearing insolvency, and this
> >> was the reason for sacking the staff? If so the market is even stranger
> >> than i thought. If not was Patricks negligent in their duty to do so, or
>
> On and on, for a quite a few lines. Indicating that I wrote it. I
> didn't.
>
> -- Craig --
tr...@ozemail.com.au
tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
> If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
> precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Interesting that dejanews advertises thier spam free service by spamming
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <352d6028...@news.mtx.net.au> rsi...@dove.net.au (Rob Silva) writes:
>On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 15:37:55, ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
>(Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
>>I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
>Why do you wonder that?
>>
>>Ashraf
Because in the process of dismissing the current staff at Patricks, the share
market rose. Since he is a CEO and part of his salary is in shares, he made
just over a million dollars yesterday alone.
I assume he needs a trust setup so he can then avoid paying his rightful share
of taxes on his money.
Got a very brief on how trusts 'work'
For example, if you have $100,000 and you paid the right amount of tax, you
would pay around $40,000 to the tax man.
So what you do is set up a fund with say you, your wife and your two kids. You
then 'pay' the trustees some money.
Each adult gets $40,000 and each child $20,000.
Tax payable on this becomes $10,000 for each adult and nil for the children.
Or instead of paying $40,000 in tax, he pays half the amount.
Of course you have to be a in a business to set up a trust which denies the
majority of the workforce to use the same tax minimisation schemes to avoid
tax.
With a million dollar win fall, I doubt Corigan wants to pay his right ful
share of taxes.
Ashraf Ghebranious
In article <35324e53...@news.ozemail.com.au> cr...@pacific.net.sg (Craig Welch) writes:
>Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Rob Silva wrote:
>>> Or to put it plainly - the right to belong to a union ought to be as
>>> sacred as the right not to belong to a union.
>> And for which right does a person get penalised by their
>>employer, Rob?
>And for which right does a person get penalised by not being able to
>work in the industry of their choice, Brian?
>
But Craig. That is exactly the problem here. None of the MUA were offered the
chance to sign a new agreement. Nor will they work at Patricks again purely
because they are members of the MUA.
Dont get me worng. Strickly speaking, the MUA is a out of step in demanding
the worker must have a ticket. Yet Patricks is out of step by demanding that
it's workers NOT have tickets.
Zenith
>So according to skyslime, it has nothing to do with Corrigan's
>absolute failure as a manager.
When all else fails blame management, regardless of the vandalism
perpetrated by the "workforce" (and I use the term lightly)
Zenith
>1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
>been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
>Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
>than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
>technology increases.
I've often seen efficiency figures quoted but never any figures
supporting any of what you have said above.
[snip the excuses]
>4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
>only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
>experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
>Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
>container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
>was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
>government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
>prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
Bullshit! Was great watching Reith ram the above crap back down that
dragon's throat last night.
> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>freedom of association.
What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
> The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
>Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
>a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
Zenith
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:20:06 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
> And for which right does a person get penalised by their
>employer, Rob?
And for which right does one get penalised by the Union? One word
springs to mind .. HYPOCRITE!
Tjay
David Brindley wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 17:03:11 -0600, smc...@shoal.net.au wrote words
> of wisdom thus:
>
> >In article <ashraf.ghebranio...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>,
> >ashraf.gh...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>
> >> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> >
> >>> tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
> >
> >>>: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
> >>>: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> >>>: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
> >
> >>> Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than the
> >>> sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or face
> >>> the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time ago in
> >>> fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
> >
> >>> Joseph
> >
> >> Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous
> >> work force.
> >
> >> I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime,
> >> but I have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of
> >> these new workers is injured or worse, killed on the job. Since the
> >> new workforce is on contract, the liability would surely shift to the
> >> NFF who are their employers.
> >
> >> The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian
> >> public will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
> >
> >The farmers have been a source of income for Australia. They have
> >supported the likes of the warfies. By contrast, how more eloquently
> >can it be shown, that the wharfies are redundant, than by recent
> >events?
> >
At least the farmers work hard and are prepared to work harder.Not like the
bludgers on the wharves. Defend them as much
as you want David but you are fighting a losing battle.
Sure there are good dock workers but they are overshadowed
by the scum sucking militant unions who can hold Australia to
ransom.
If the wharfies were doing such a good job, then there wouldn't be
all this mess.
Tjay
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
> In article <6gfuca$t4m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> smc...@shoal.net.au writes:
>
> >It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
> >glorious wages and conditions.
>
> Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
> pay and the same conditions.
>
The big difference is that they know the meaning of the word WORK.
> Ashraf
>
> ---
> DISCLAIMER: My comments are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
> OR my service provider.
>
> **************************************************************************
> Ashraf Ghebranious
> Email: ashraf.gh...@anu.edu.au
>
> "If it takes only one person to suppress your religion, then it cant be
> much of a religion then can it?" - me
>
> To find out more about the cult that is Scientology, subscribe to
> ALT.RELIGION.SCIENTOLOGY. Dont get me wrong, these people are dangerous!
Stan Rosenthal
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 01:01:58 GMT, r...@iinet.com.au (Da Borg) wrote:
:>Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
:>
:>SNIP
:>>
:>> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
:>>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
:>>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
:>>freedom of association.
:>>
:>
:>What about the freedom to invest money where it actually makes a
:>profit rather than be used as a piggy bank for extortionist
:>organisations like the MUA.
Profit at what cost to those by whose labour it is made? The
waterfront has a long history of confrontation and the waterside
workers were being extorted for a long time before they gained
sufficient strength through their organisation to achieve their
control over employment that they have had until this week.
<SNIP>
:>Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
:>at people who sit back and applaud this attack (by the MUA) on one of
:>the most important and basic political freedoms in this country - the
:>right to invest our money where we see fit in order to make profit.
That is not an unmitigated right. It is a limited right (certain
activities are illegal - such as gun running, or dealing in illicit
drugs). What limitations are put in place are political questions and
those questions are answered differently from time to time.
The actions of Patricks in dismissing all its MUA staff are clearly
discriminatory on the basis of union membership which is against the
current IR laws.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Delete nomail. to email from this post %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Most people do not accumulate a body of experience. Most people go through
life undergoing a series of happenings, which pass through their systems
undigested." - Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"
Stan Rosenthal
On Thu, 09 Apr 98 03:09:08 GMT, sky...@earthling.net (Peter Lucas)
wrote:
<SNIP>
:>So you would rather see the country held to ransom by these union thugs?
So you prefer to see the country being held at ransom by these
business and LibNat thugs?
Stan Rosenthal
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 05:56:36 GMT, nos...@nospam.com.au (Zenith) wrote:
<SNIP>
:>And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
There are a few types of closed shop. One is the "cosy deal" type
where the employer signs up the employees as part of taking on a new
employee and in return, the union leadership keeps things industrially
quiet. The Shop Assistants had such arrangements in place at times.
Then there is the sort of closed shop that is achieved by membership
support. That is, by the active and on-going support of union members
for that policy to be in place. The MUA is an example of that.
One thing I have not yet noticed, in this industrial war with its
attendant propaganda, is anyone being trotted out to say that s/he
wanted to work on the waterfront but was unable to because s/he would
not join the union and so was not hired.
Billy Shields
Stan Rosenthal <st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au> wrote:
[snip]
: :>Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
: :>the most important and basic political freedoms in this country - the
: :>right to invest our money where we see fit in order to make profit.
: That is not an unmitigated right. It is a limited right (certain
: activities are illegal - such as gun running, or dealing in illicit
: drugs). What limitations are put in place are political questions and
: those questions are answered differently from time to time.
: The actions of Patricks in dismissing all its MUA staff are clearly
: discriminatory on the basis of union membership which is against the
: current IR laws.
Actually, legally speaking, they haven't been sacked. Patricks
doesn't employ them directly. They are employed by subsidiaries of
Patrick. Patricks has terminated their provision of labour
contracts. Faced with no cash flow, no assets and a bunch of
workers they can't pay those subsidiaries have had administrators
appointed (effectively gone into receivership).
Legally speaking, thats an important difference.
Billy
Billy Shields
Stan Rosenthal <st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au> wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 05:56:36 GMT, nos...@nospam.com.au (Zenith) wrote:
: <SNIP>
: :>And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
: There are a few types of closed shop. One is the "cosy deal" type
: where the employer signs up the employees as part of taking on a new
: employee and in return, the union leadership keeps things industrially
: quiet. The Shop Assistants had such arrangements in place at times.
: Then there is the sort of closed shop that is achieved by membership
: support. That is, by the active and on-going support of union members
: for that policy to be in place. The MUA is an example of that.
: One thing I have not yet noticed, in this industrial war with its
: attendant propaganda, is anyone being trotted out to say that s/he
: wanted to work on the waterfront but was unable to because s/he would
: not join the union and so was not hired.
The NFF stevedoring company is the only stevedoring company not
affiliated with the MUA (affiliation with the MUA basically means
that company will only employ MUA members). Because Patricks leased
equipment and dock space to that company, it was subjected to
industrial action. The conditions at Patricks didn't change in
that time. Nor were any workers replaced.
Now you tell me, was either company free to employ non-union
labour?
I don't think so.
Billy
Tom Davies
In article <e884077.51...@anu.edu.au>,
Ashraf Ghebranious <e88...@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <6gfuca$t4m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> smc...@shoal.net.au writes:
>>It would an injustice if the wharfies continued to receive their
>>glorious wages and conditions.
>Then let the injustice begin! Apparently the new NFF wharfies have much more
>pay and the same conditions.
So why do you think Patrick is going through all this pain?
Tom
Brendan Johnston
Patrick are going through this for two reasons:
1 In the long term a de-unionised work force can be pushed around pretty
easily.
2 After a long struggle they hate the unions and want to beat them.
In the short term surely all the hassle and those reduncies will cost
more money than is saved.
Brendan
George Dragicevic
On 9 Apr 1998 18:52:49 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
I doubt your argument would stand up in court. The shifting of assets
to get around IR laws would be seen for what it is.
regards,
George Dragicevic
Melbourne PC User Group
Alan Luchetti
"David Palmer" <dapa...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>> If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
>>> precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
>>> increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>>So much for workplace "Agreements".
>I agree,
>
>if this is not reversed by the high court it will set a dangerous
>precedent for employers to sack workers just because they are
>union members. This Government promised that we would be
>comfortable and relaxed... I'm less comfortable and less relaxed
>now then I ever was.
The motto was 'whatever it takes'. This is what it took. I mostly
blame the MUA for breaking instead of bending. Keating could have
used their help and didn't get it. How on earth would Howard have
got it? We were a island being held to ransom by a monopoly. I'm
glad we aren't. My sympathies for any sacked wharfies who would
have been flexible.
- -
alan
L
\-/
Brian
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Peter Lucas wrote:
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.98040...@cheops.anu.edu.au>, Brian
> <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> ** Several factors which have not really emerged are that:-
> **
> And your source of facts on the unloading of containers is............ ???
> Especially on the time differential and the "willy-nilly" loading of ships.
>
> ** Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
> **at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
> **important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
> **freedom of association.
>
> So you would rather see the country held to ransom by these union thugs?
So, then Mr. Lucas, its not OK for someone to attack your
supposed "right" to have a firearm, but it is to attack someone else's
right to association?
Seems a tad silly to me.
BTW, the only "holding to ransom" which seem to be occuring is
that by the right-wing idealogues who are more interested in union
busting than they are in "efficiency".
Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
an hour against the government's required 25)?
Zenith
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:42:29 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
sorry to butt in ... but ..
> So, then Mr. Lucas, its not OK for someone to attack your
>supposed "right" to have a firearm, but it is to attack someone else's
>right to association?
Hang on a sec...who was running the closed shop? You're another of
those hyprocrites who believe freedom of association is a one way
street... i.e. you should be free to join a union but you should not
be free to not join a union.
> Seems a tad silly to me.
Not surpirsing given you're email address :)
> BTW, the only "holding to ransom" which seem to be occuring is
>that by the right-wing idealogues who are more interested in union
>busting than they are in "efficiency".
Nah, the only holding to ransom which seems to be occuring is that by
the left-wing ideologues who are more interested in feathering their
own nests than they are in efficiency.
> Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
>were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
>required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
>an hour against the government's required 25)?
That's already been covered in other threads.
Peter Mackay
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980410...@cheops.anu.edu.au>,
Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
} Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
} were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
} required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
} an hour against the government's required 25)?
Nobody has been sacked, Brian. Patricks has terminated their arrangement
with the labour contracting companies. And nobody is attacking the workers'
right to associate. Do you have a problem with union and non-union folk
working side by side?
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \
_\ /_ Personal opinion only
bi...@collective.com.au
In article <B154506C9...@slcan2p39.ozemail.com.au>,
pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.HPP.3.91.980410...@cheops.anu.edu.au>,
> Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> } Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
> } were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
> } required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
> } an hour against the government's required 25)?
>
> Nobody has been sacked, Brian. Patricks has terminated their arrangement
> with the labour contracting companies. And nobody is attacking the workers'
> right to associate. Do you have a problem with union and non-union folk
> working side by side?
>
people employed, just won't be paying them. Another example of Mackay's
contorted logic. Of course they have been sacked. They don't have a job
anymore. If that's not sacked, what is?
This entire dispute effectively centres around the rights of association. The
MUA demand of dockside companies the right for employees to join the union,
but will not work alongside those who choose not to join. This is illegal in
Australia and justification for terminating any arrangement with the MUA. It
could even be argued that according to law, Patricks and others in the
stevedoring industry are legally obliged to do so.
I am quite sure that if the MUA and it's members had been prepared to abide by
the law of the land and adhere to the conditions of their agreement with the
employer, including the "no strike" clause in their award, the current
situation would never have arisen.
Any employer has the right to determine the wages and conditions they are
prepared to pay to their employees for the work they do, and every employee
has the right to reject that offer any seek employment elsewhere if they are
not happy.
The MUA does not have the right to tell an employer that they must pay a
certain amount under certain conditions or they can't employ anyone. That
violates the rights of both the employer, and any potential employees who
might find a lesser offer acceptable.
Given the social security safety net in this country, it is impossible for
employers to "exploit" their workers. Should any incumbent Government attempt
to substantially remove that safety net, they would very quickly find
themselves out of office.
Provided you always do your job to the best of your ability, and only take
those jobs that are within your abilities, you will rarely be mistreated by an
employer. Those who are lazy or incompetent in their job can expect to get
their just deserts.
have a wonderful day
Bill Evans
Brian
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Craig Welch wrote:
> st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au (Stan Rosenthal) wrote:
>
> >The actions of Patricks in dismissing all its MUA staff are clearly
> >discriminatory on the basis of union membership which is against the
> >current IR laws.
>
> Not at all. The bums were sacked because they wouldn't do the work
> they were employed to do.
If true, then why were the MUA members at Bernie in Tasmania and
at Townsville in Queensland sacked? They had, routinely been exceeding
the figure stated by the government as indicating they were "efficient"
(25 containers an hour). Yet, they were sacked. Why?
Could it be because they were members of the union?
Brian
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:32:34 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
> >been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
> >Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
> >than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
> >technology increases.
>
> I've often seen efficiency figures quoted but never any figures
> supporting any of what you have said above.
Its been discussed both in the media and here in aus.politics,
quite extensively. Mark, who has consulted on port design made the above
point several times.
> [snip the excuses]
>
> >4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
> >only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
> >experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
> >Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
> >container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
> >was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
> >government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
> >prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
>
> Bullshit! Was great watching Reith ram the above crap back down that
> dragon's throat last night.
In your own word *_BULLSHIT_*. The proof is in the pudding.
Adelaide is the *_MOST_* efficient port in Australia. That reform was
achieved through negotiation. Sea/Land employs MUA members and yet it
was still able to negotiate serious workplace reform. Why hasn't
Patricks? Perhaps it needs to learn, like Reith, what the word
"negotiation" means.
> > Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
> >at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
> >important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
> >freedom of association.
>
> What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
> decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
Errr, excuse me. Where have I said I disagree with that point?
Care to provide a direct quote?
If you can't, then an apology would do.
Simply because I make a statement in support of one point does
not necessarily mean I do not support a similar point, "Zenith".
As an adjunct, I'll point out that by having a closed shop, the
MUA has cut its nose to spite its face. However, that still does not
deny that fact that MUA members are being penalised for exercising
_their_ "freedom of association".
You cannot say that simply because they have committed a similar
"crime" in running a closed shop, that they cannot in turn be victims of
the same "crime" when their employer and the government commit it against
them.
The law and morality doesn't work that way, "Zenith".
> > The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
> >Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
> >a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
>
> And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
Have I ever made a post suggesting otherwise, "Zenith"?
Brian
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:42:29 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> sorry to butt in ... but ..
Not in the slightest "Zenith", go right ahead. I'll let anybody
make a fool of themselves at their own expense...
> > So, then Mr. Lucas, its not OK for someone to attack your
> >supposed "right" to have a firearm, but it is to attack someone else's
> >right to association?
>
> Hang on a sec...who was running the closed shop? You're another of
> those hyprocrites who believe freedom of association is a one way
> street... i.e. you should be free to join a union but you should not
> be free to not join a union.
You are indeed free not to joint a union. You appear to be
another of these people who assume that when a statement is made about
one point, then all other points are automatically denied. Silly method
of argument or debate, if you ask me.
I have never denied that the MUA's closed shop does not infringe
on the right of people not to associate (although its hard to see how it
does, as the choice is their's ultimately).
However, being a sinner does not mean that you cannot be sinned
against (sorry Troy, those bible-movies this weekend are getting to me
:-). If the MUA commits it, its bad, but if Patricks and the government
does it, its good? Is that your reasoning, "Zenith"?
Using your reasoning, if a person commits a murder and in turn is
murdered by someone else, that third person shouldn't be considered to
have committed a crime, correct?
Funny sort of legal, let alone moral reasoning, "Zenith".
> > Seems a tad silly to me.
>
> Not surpirsing given you're email address :)
Ah, the old, attack the messenger, rather than the message.
Sorry, mate, I just work here. I haven't been a student for
nearly 8 years now. Nor am I an academic. So your attempted insult
falls flat on its face (as they usually do).
> > BTW, the only "holding to ransom" which seem to be occuring is
> >that by the right-wing idealogues who are more interested in union
> >busting than they are in "efficiency".
>
> Nah, the only holding to ransom which seems to be occuring is that by
> the left-wing ideologues who are more interested in feathering their
> own nests than they are in efficiency.
Really? Well, then I can't be amongst their members then. I'm
interested in efficiency. I just question whether its necessary to
achieve it through bull-at-a-gate, fascist bully-boy tactics, or whether
or not negotiation is a better way of getting there.
> > Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
> >were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
> >required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
> >an hour against the government's required 25)?
>
> That's already been covered in other threads.
Has it? Well, I'm not reading other threads, I'm reading this
one. So, then care to comment why the workers in Bernie and Townsville
were sacked when they were in fact *_MORE_* efficient than what the
government said they had to be?
Seems to me that you, like the government are condemning people
for their association with a union than whether or not they were
efficient or inefficient workers, "Zenith".
Zenith
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:25:10 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:42:29 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> sorry to butt in ... but ..
>
> Not in the slightest "Zenith", go right ahead. I'll let anybody
>make a fool of themselves at their own expense...
Cool. That's one thing I *am* good at, "Brian" :) However, you seem to
surpass even me.
>> > So, then Mr. Lucas, its not OK for someone to attack your
>> >supposed "right" to have a firearm, but it is to attack someone else's
>> >right to association?
>>
>> Hang on a sec...who was running the closed shop? You're another of
>> those hyprocrites who believe freedom of association is a one way
>> street... i.e. you should be free to join a union but you should not
>> be free to not join a union.
>
> You are indeed free not to joint a union.
Not in the view of the leadership of the MUA, "Brian"!
>You appear to be
>another of these people who assume that when a statement is made about
>one point, then all other points are automatically denied. Silly method
>of argument or debate, if you ask me.
>
> I have never denied that the MUA's closed shop does not infringe
>on the right of people not to associate (although its hard to see how it
>does, as the choice is their's ultimately).
Hard to see? You're blind, "Brian"! Choice is theirs? Very funny,
"Brian"!
> However, being a sinner does not mean that you cannot be sinned
>against (sorry Troy, those bible-movies this weekend are getting to me
>:-). If the MUA commits it, its bad, but if Patricks and the government
>does it, its good? Is that your reasoning, "Zenith"?
Not at all "Brian". I do believe in fighting fire with fire however.
> Using your reasoning, if a person commits a murder and in turn is
>murdered by someone else, that third person shouldn't be considered to
>have committed a crime, correct?
Wouldn't have a clue. Dunno what you're raving about, "Brian".
> Funny sort of legal, let alone moral reasoning, "Zenith".
>
>> > Seems a tad silly to me.
>>
>> Not surpirsing given you're email address :)
>
> Ah, the old, attack the messenger, rather than the message.
>
> Sorry, mate, I just work here. I haven't been a student for
>nearly 8 years now. Nor am I an academic. So your attempted insult
>falls flat on its face (as they usually do).
Not at all. Still applies. Join the real world rather than your
cloistered little workshop. I could get in to the who's providing your
access that enables to post on this group, but I'll avoid it at the
moment, coz I know it'll only piss you off and you'll just start
ranting and raving about it being your right and blah blah blah...
>> > BTW, the only "holding to ransom" which seem to be occuring is
>> >that by the right-wing idealogues who are more interested in union
>> >busting than they are in "efficiency".
>>
>> Nah, the only holding to ransom which seems to be occuring is that by
>> the left-wing ideologues who are more interested in feathering their
>> own nests than they are in efficiency.
>
> Really? Well, then I can't be amongst their members then. I'm
>interested in efficiency. I just question whether its necessary to
>achieve it through bull-at-a-gate, fascist bully-boy tactics, or whether
>or not negotiation is a better way of getting there.
Yes, negotiation is a better way to get there. Oh... You are talking
about the negotiations that the MUA and the ACTU walked out of aren't
you, "Brian"?
The statement was just as fair and valid as the crap you posted.
>> > Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
>> >were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
>> >required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
>> >an hour against the government's required 25)?
>>
>> That's already been covered in other threads.
>
> Has it? Well, I'm not reading other threads, I'm reading this
>one. So, then care to comment why the workers in Bernie and Townsville
>were sacked when they were in fact *_MORE_* efficient than what the
>government said they had to be?
I think you'll find it might have had something to do with the supply
of contract labour.
> Seems to me that you, like the government are condemning people
>for their association with a union than whether or not they were
>efficient or inefficient workers, "Zenith".
Seems to me that you are turning a blind eye to facts that are
incontravertible, "Brian", and forming opinions on things that you
have no first hand experience of, "Brian". Still working in your
isolated little environment eh "Brian"? Even 8 years after being a
student in your own little environment "Brian"? Have you ever lived
off other than the taxpayer "Brian"? Have you ever come face to face
with a militant union rep and seen what they are capable of "Brian"?
Have you ever had to bow to unreasonable demands just to keep your own
business running "Brian"? Didn't think so .... you haven't got a
fucking clue!!!!
Zenith
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:39:36 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
> Could it be because they were members of the union?
Nup
Zenith
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:15:50 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:32:34 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
>> >been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
>> >Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
>> >than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
>> >technology increases.
>>
>> I've often seen efficiency figures quoted but never any figures
>> supporting any of what you have said above.
>
> Its been discussed both in the media and here in aus.politics,
>quite extensively. Mark, who has consulted on port design made the above
>point several times.
Still waiting for the figures. I really would be interested to see.
Oh, and make sure that the figures are related to the volume of
freight through the port and that sort of stuff please.
>> [snip the excuses]
>>
>> >4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
>> >only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
>> >experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
>> >Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
>> >container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
>> >was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
>> >government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
>> >prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
>>
>> Bullshit! Was great watching Reith ram the above crap back down that
>> dragon's throat last night.
>
> In your own word *_BULLSHIT_*. The proof is in the pudding.
>Adelaide is the *_MOST_* efficient port in Australia.
Ahhh...in Australia!!! This was exactly what George was spouting,
until, as I said, Reith rammed it back down her throat by pointing out
that it is still well behind world standard.
>That reform was
>achieved through negotiation. Sea/Land employs MUA members and yet it
>was still able to negotiate serious workplace reform.
Serious? What you mean serious? See above.
> Why hasn't
>Patricks? Perhaps it needs to learn, like Reith, what the word
>"negotiation" means.
No no no....MUA needs to learn what the word "negotiation" means
"Brian".
>> > Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>> >at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>> >important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>> >freedom of association.
>>
>> What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
>> decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
>
> Errr, excuse me. Where have I said I disagree with that point?
It's obviously implied by your defence of the MUA's closed shop.
> Care to provide a direct quote?
Don't need to. How else can you fight the closed shop mentality of
the MUA than to hire non-union labour? As I said, your defence of the
MUA implies support for the closed shop and therefore an assault upon
the right to NOT join a union.
> If you can't, then an apology would do.
HAHAHAHA!!! Very funny :)
> Simply because I make a statement in support of one point does
>not necessarily mean I do not support a similar point, "Zenith".
>
> As an adjunct, I'll point out that by having a closed shop, the
>MUA has cut its nose to spite its face. However, that still does not
>deny that fact that MUA members are being penalised for exercising
>_their_ "freedom of association".
Bullshit again. Another attempt to make this whole issue seem to be
about union membership. It's not!!!
> You cannot say that simply because they have committed a similar
>"crime" in running a closed shop, that they cannot in turn be victims of
>the same "crime" when their employer and the government commit it against
>them.
>
> The law and morality doesn't work that way, "Zenith".
>
>> > The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
>> >Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
>> >a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
>>
>> And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
>
> Have I ever made a post suggesting otherwise, "Zenith"?
See above
George Dragicevic
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:21:17 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 18:15:24 GMT, st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au (Stan
>Rosenthal) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 01:01:58 GMT, r...@iinet.com.au (Da Borg) wrote:
>>
>>:>Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>:>
>>:>SNIP
>>:>>
>>:>> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>>:>>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>>:>>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>>:>>freedom of association.
>>:>>
>>:>
>>:>What about the freedom to invest money where it actually makes a
>>:>profit rather than be used as a piggy bank for extortionist
>>:>organisations like the MUA.
>>
>>Profit at what cost to those by whose labour it is made?
>
>Profit accrues to enterprise, nothing else, and that communist
>bullshit about workers owning the means of production is just that.
>
>Since when was labour a contribution to profit?
Always....to see it as a cost is a strange way of looking at it.
Without labour there is no profit. Downsizing (seeing labour as a
cost to be diminished) is a shortsighted measure which places the onus
of production levels back on those who are left and is possibly
deleterious to the long term expansion of any enterprise. If you don't
value your workers your business is doomed to failure.
Arthur
Brian wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
>> What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
>> decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
>
> Errr, excuse me. Where have I said I disagree with that point?
>
> Care to provide a direct quote?
>
> If you can't, then an apology would do.
>
>
> As an adjunct, I'll point out that by having a closed shop, the
>MUA has cut its nose to spite its face. However, that still does not
>deny that fact that MUA members are being penalised for exercising
>_their_ "freedom of association".
>
> You cannot say that simply because they have committed a similar
>"crime" in running a closed shop, that they cannot in turn be victims of
>the same "crime" when their employer and the government commit it against
>them.
I don't live in Australia and I'm not up to date on this issue, but as I
understand it the union refuses to work with those who choose not to join
their union. By maintaining the union monopoly over the supply of labour to
the waterfront the employers would in effect be limiting the right to free
association, something Australia has pledged not to do in signing the
International Covenant on Human Rights.
The union has an appalling record of thuggery , inefficiency and corruption
and yet still manages to conjure up in the feeble minds of many, romantic
images of workers rights and workers struggle. Don't let ideological
prejudice blind you to decency.
Peter Mackay
In article <6gmhjl$385$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bi...@collective.com.au wrote:
} In article <B154506C9...@slcan2p39.ozemail.com.au>,
} pete...@netinfo.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
} >
} > In article
<Pine.HPP.3.91.980410...@cheops.anu.edu.au>,
} > Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
} >
} > } Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
} > } were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of
that
} > } required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33
containers
} > } an hour against the government's required 25)?
} >
} > Nobody has been sacked, Brian. Patricks has terminated their
arrangement
} > with the labour contracting companies. And nobody is attacking the
workers'
} > right to associate. Do you have a problem with union and non-union folk
} > working side by side?
} >
} And of course the labour contracting companies are going to keep all
these
} people employed, just won't be paying them.
Spot on. They *can't* be sacked, because that would be wrongful dismissal.
} Another example of Mackay's
} contorted logic. Of course they have been sacked. They don't have a job
} anymore. If that's not sacked, what is?
Hardly contorted logic. Happens every day. Say you run a building business
and you contract with a firm of plumbers to install your pipes whilst you
knock up the house. You pay the contractor who pays his employees. There's
another plumbing contractor new in town who promises better performance for
lower rates, something your current plumber cannot match. So you switch.
You haven't sacked anybody -- it's up to the contractor to find his
employees new work to generate income.
M.E.
Arthur wrote:
> Brian wrote in message ...
> >On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> >> What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
> >> decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
> >
> > Errr, excuse me. Where have I said I disagree with that point?
>
> I don't live in Australia and I'm not up to date on this issue, but as I
> understand it the union refuses to work with those who choose not to join
> their union.
As you said yourself, you don't live in Australia.
And you are not up to date on the issue, so why comment about it?
Mike
Brian
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:25:10 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:42:29 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> sorry to butt in ... but ..
> >
> > Not in the slightest "Zenith", go right ahead. I'll let anybody
> >make a fool of themselves at their own expense...
>
> Cool. That's one thing I *am* good at, "Brian" :) However, you seem to
> surpass even me.
Really? Is that you keep "projecting"(tm, Kym, 1997) onto me
your own inadequacies, "Zenith"?
> >> > So, then Mr. Lucas, its not OK for someone to attack your
> >> >supposed "right" to have a firearm, but it is to attack someone else's
> >> >right to association?
> >>
> >> Hang on a sec...who was running the closed shop? You're another of
> >> those hyprocrites who believe freedom of association is a one way
> >> street... i.e. you should be free to join a union but you should not
> >> be free to not join a union.
> >
> > You are indeed free not to joint a union.
>
> Not in the view of the leadership of the MUA, "Brian"!
Do I represent the MUA or their leadership, "Zenith"?
Your point being?
> >You appear to be
> >another of these people who assume that when a statement is made about
> >one point, then all other points are automatically denied. Silly method
> >of argument or debate, if you ask me.
> >
> > I have never denied that the MUA's closed shop does not infringe
> >on the right of people not to associate (although its hard to see how it
> >does, as the choice is their's ultimately).
>
> Hard to see? You're blind, "Brian"! Choice is theirs? Very funny,
> "Brian"!
The choice they make, "not to associate" is satisfied by not
applying for the job, well in the knowledge that they will not get it, if
they refuse to join the union. If they were offered the position, it
would have been done so with the clear proviso that they had to join the
union. In accepting the offer, they are also making the choice to join
the union.
As to my relative "blindness", "Zenith", it woull appear you have
to attack people who are making a point, personally. Why?
> > However, being a sinner does not mean that you cannot be sinned
> >against (sorry Troy, those bible-movies this weekend are getting to me
> >:-). If the MUA commits it, its bad, but if Patricks and the government
> >does it, its good? Is that your reasoning, "Zenith"?
>
> Not at all "Brian". I do believe in fighting fire with fire however.
Ah, and so the whole house burns down?
Really quite intelligent. I suppose you believe in throwing
petrol on a fire, as well, just to make it go along a little better?
Most intelligent people use something to *_QUENCH_* the fire,
"Zenith", but it appears like Peter Reith, you left your intelligence at
the door, so to speak.
> > Using your reasoning, if a person commits a murder and in turn is
> >murdered by someone else, that third person shouldn't be considered to
> >have committed a crime, correct?
>
> Wouldn't have a clue. Dunno what you're raving about, "Brian".
It is self-evidence that I'm drawing a similie, "Zenith".
> > Funny sort of legal, let alone moral reasoning, "Zenith".
> >
> >> > Seems a tad silly to me.
> >>
> >> Not surpirsing given you're email address :)
> >
> > Ah, the old, attack the messenger, rather than the message.
> >
> > Sorry, mate, I just work here. I haven't been a student for
> >nearly 8 years now. Nor am I an academic. So your attempted insult
> >falls flat on its face (as they usually do).
>
> Not at all. Still applies. Join the real world rather than your
> cloistered little workshop.
Sorry, "Zenith", you seem to assume that I started work in the
tertiary education sector immediately after graduating. Sorry, like so
much of your "projecting" (tm, Kym, 1997) you're mistaken. Try again.
As we used to say in the army, "been there, done that, got the t-shirt to
prove it". I've worked in private industry quite a few times over the
years, for extended periods, as well.
> I could get in to the who's providing your
> access that enables to post on this group, but I'll avoid it at the
> moment, coz I know it'll only piss you off and you'll just start
> ranting and raving about it being your right and blah blah blah...
Nope. Not my right. I know its a privilege that I have been
granted by my employer. However, as my employer requires me to log on
out of hours, on their behalf, a little piece of quid-pro-quo does not
seem out of place, either in my or their view.
You seem to have forgotten, that without me and people like me,
you wouldn't even have a net to play with.
> >> > BTW, the only "holding to ransom" which seem to be occuring is
> >> >that by the right-wing idealogues who are more interested in union
> >> >busting than they are in "efficiency".
> >>
> >> Nah, the only holding to ransom which seems to be occuring is that by
> >> the left-wing ideologues who are more interested in feathering their
> >> own nests than they are in efficiency.
> >
> > Really? Well, then I can't be amongst their members then. I'm
> >interested in efficiency. I just question whether its necessary to
> >achieve it through bull-at-a-gate, fascist bully-boy tactics, or whether
> >or not negotiation is a better way of getting there.
>
> Yes, negotiation is a better way to get there. Oh... You are talking
> about the negotiations that the MUA and the ACTU walked out of aren't
> you, "Brian"?
Nope. I am talking about the very successful negotiations which
resulted in Port Adelaide becoming the most efficient port in Australia,
"Zenith". These occurred before the current outbreak of disputation on
the behalf of the government.
The present negotiations which the MUA "walked out on" were
intended to clearly gain an unfair advantage over the MUA by forcing them
to accept less than optimum outcomes for their members through the mass
sackings of the Patricks labour force. So, I'm not surprised that the
MUA "walked out" on them. Indeed, I'd have been surprised if they hadn't.
Unlike yourself, I seem to understand that the concept of
"negotiation" does not involve holding a gun to the heads of some of the
participants.
Now, answer the point, please "Zenith", instead of dodging it.
If negotiated change worked in Adelaide, why couldn't it work in other Ports?
> The statement was just as fair and valid as the crap you posted.
Ah, now we resort to the use of plain bad language. Tsk, tsk,
are you always this childish when you're losing an argument?
> >> > Care to comment why the wharfies in Tasmania (I think it was)
> >> >were sacked despited having a productivity level well in excess of that
> >> >required by the government's own recommendations (shifting 33 containers
> >> >an hour against the government's required 25)?
> >>
> >> That's already been covered in other threads.
> >
> > Has it? Well, I'm not reading other threads, I'm reading this
> >one. So, then care to comment why the workers in Bernie and Townsville
> >were sacked when they were in fact *_MORE_* efficient than what the
> >government said they had to be?
>
> I think you'll find it might have had something to do with the supply
> of contract labour.
In the words of the der Fuhrer, "please explain?"
> > Seems to me that you, like the government are condemning people
> >for their association with a union than whether or not they were
> >efficient or inefficient workers, "Zenith".
>
> Seems to me that you are turning a blind eye to facts that are
> incontravertible, "Brian", and forming opinions on things that you
> have no first hand experience of, "Brian". Still working in your
> isolated little environment eh "Brian"? Even 8 years after being a
> student in your own little environment "Brian"? Have you ever lived
> off other than the taxpayer "Brian"? Have you ever come face to face
> with a militant union rep and seen what they are capable of "Brian"?
> Have you ever had to bow to unreasonable demands just to keep your own
> business running "Brian"? Didn't think so .... you haven't got a
> fucking clue!!!!
I rather think I will leave that there and not bother to answer
it. Dear fellow readers/lurkers/participants, what I have always found
interesting in the 10 years I've been posting to the 'net is the way in
which people who are losing an argument seem to think lapsing into
childish shoolyard insults will further their cause and not make them
look even more like pillocks.
I'll let you be the judge.
Brian
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 17:15:50 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 08:32:34 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> >1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
> >> >been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
> >> >Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
> >> >than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
> >> >technology increases.
> >>
> >> I've often seen efficiency figures quoted but never any figures
> >> supporting any of what you have said above.
> >
> > Its been discussed both in the media and here in aus.politics,
> >quite extensively. Mark, who has consulted on port design made the above
> >point several times.
>
> Still waiting for the figures. I really would be interested to see.
> Oh, and make sure that the figures are related to the volume of
> freight through the port and that sort of stuff please.
I must admit I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm more than
willing to take the word of Mark. Will you dispute his word, "Zenith"?
> >> [snip the excuses]
> >>
> >> >4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
> >> >only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
> >> >experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
> >> >Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
> >> >container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
> >> >was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
> >> >government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
> >> >prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
> >>
> >> Bullshit! Was great watching Reith ram the above crap back down that
> >> dragon's throat last night.
> >
> > In your own word *_BULLSHIT_*. The proof is in the pudding.
> >Adelaide is the *_MOST_* efficient port in Australia.
>
> Ahhh...in Australia!!! This was exactly what George was spouting,
> until, as I said, Reith rammed it back down her throat by pointing out
> that it is still well behind world standard.
"Well behind world standard"?
Interesting, which "world standard" are we talking about, "Zenith"?
The "world standard" which applies in Singapore, where the
quantity of investment in improved container handling systems, improved
rail systems and improved management far exceeeds what has been invested
in comparable Australian ports?
Or is it the "world standard" which applies in say, Japan, or in
Hong Kong, what about Rotterdam (world's largest port) or say, New York?
Interestingly, Sea/Land, operators of Adelaide's container port,
make the point that Adelaide is now fast climbing into the top third of
the ports they operate, world-wide, for efficiency. Seems they're
telling a different story to the government's, "Zenith".
Perhaps you need to do a little bit of critical thinking before
swallowing the government's line?
> >That reform was
> >achieved through negotiation. Sea/Land employs MUA members and yet it
> >was still able to negotiate serious workplace reform.
>
> Serious? What you mean serious? See above.
I'd say a near doubling of the number of containers moved while
the workforce has nearly been halved is pretty serious, "Zenith".
> > Why hasn't
> >Patricks? Perhaps it needs to learn, like Reith, what the word
> >"negotiation" means.
>
> No no no....MUA needs to learn what the word "negotiation" means
> "Brian".
Funny, then why is the MUA calling for negotiations while the
government desires to avoid them as much as possible?
> >> > Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
> >> >at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
> >> >important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
> >> >freedom of association.
> >>
> >> What about the right of freedom of association in an individuals
> >> decision NOT to be a member of a union. Hypocrite!
> >
> > Errr, excuse me. Where have I said I disagree with that point?
>
> It's obviously implied by your defence of the MUA's closed shop.
Errr, what defence? Again I challenge you to provide a direct
quote please.
>
> > Care to provide a direct quote?
>
> Don't need to. How else can you fight the closed shop mentality of
> the MUA than to hire non-union labour? As I said, your defence of the
> MUA implies support for the closed shop and therefore an assault upon
> the right to NOT join a union.
Again you're assuming that because I point out the fallacies of
the government's stance, I must be supporting the MUA's, why?
> > If you can't, then an apology would do.
>
> HAHAHAHA!!! Very funny :)
We aim to amuse. Whats so hard about admitting you were wrong
"Zenith"?
> > Simply because I make a statement in support of one point does
> >not necessarily mean I do not support a similar point, "Zenith".
> >
> > As an adjunct, I'll point out that by having a closed shop, the
> >MUA has cut its nose to spite its face. However, that still does not
> >deny that fact that MUA members are being penalised for exercising
> >_their_ "freedom of association".
>
> Bullshit again. Another attempt to make this whole issue seem to be
> about union membership. It's not!!!
Isn't it? Then why were the efficient workers of Bernie and
Townsville sacked along with the supposedly inefficient workers elsewhere?
> > You cannot say that simply because they have committed a similar
> >"crime" in running a closed shop, that they cannot in turn be victims of
> >the same "crime" when their employer and the government commit it against
> >them.
> >
> > The law and morality doesn't work that way, "Zenith".
> >
> >> > The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
> >> >Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
> >> >a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
> >>
> >> And the MUA's closed shop doesn't?
> >
> > Have I ever made a post suggesting otherwise, "Zenith"?
>
> See above
Can't see it myself. In fact I beleive I've said the reverse, above.
David Moss
Mark Addinall <addi...@vic.ozland.net.au> wrote:
>Comparing the docks in Singapore to ones in Australia is similar
>to comparing a Sparc20 to an IBM XT. Differnt levels of technology.
You mean business feels confident enough to invest capital in the
waterfront in Singapore but not Australia ? Why might that be I wonder
? Strangely enough Patricks have invested $300million in the last 3
years in equipment upgrades and their equipment is now amongst the
most modern in the world. Their MUA workers still only manage 18
containers an hour in comparison with overseas competitors 35 an hour.
>And many factors keep a ship tied to a wharf, not only the dockers.
>. Tide
>. The weather
>. Movement priorities
>. Availability of tugs
>. Availability of pilots
>. late cargo (trains not arriving)
Indeed they do.
Trouble is, if the cargo is loaded, the weather and tides are right,
you've got port authority approval for a movement, the tug is standing
by and the pilot is aboard THEN the wharfies decide to knock off for
a paid union meeting before untying your ship from the wharf- you have
to wait for the next time your little list above has all ticks
alongside its items. Time is money in the transport industry, guess
who gets to pay for the wasted time ?
David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics
Joseph Askew
Brian (br...@coombs.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: > Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
: > the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
: > face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
: > ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
: Does it?
Yes it does.
: One of the premises which this industrial dispute has been based
: is that Australian unionised docks are less efficient than overseas docks.
A fact more than a premise.
: Several factors which have not really emerged are that:-
Not really emerged? I think they have been done to death myself.
: 1) The degree of investment in new technology on Australian docks has
: been lower than in the most efficient docks overseas, such as
: Singapore's. As a consequence, our docks will always be less efficient
: than the more modern ones, unless the rate of investment in new
: technology increases.
Yes and no. Efficiency depends on how you measure it. In terms of
man hours per unit cost by all means. But we are not that far
behind Singapore. Nine years if I remember right on average (
which sort of implies there are newer facilities out there). And
I doubt that we are that much farther behind other ports which do
much much better than us. New Zealand for instance. Or Adelaide's
Sealand dock. One thing that holds up new investment is the risk
of union action ruining the investment. Strikes make investment
risky and so all over Australia investment tends to flow on average
out of highly unionised sectors and has been doing so for years.
Break the Union and people will invest once more.
: 2) The way in which "efficiency" of a dock in Australia has been
: different to the method used in those supposedly more efficient docks.
Has it? Which countries don't use the normal standard measures?
: In Australia, the time taken to unload a ship is considered to be from
: the moment it ties up to the wharf to the moment it unties from the
: wharf. Overseas, the measurement is more usually from the moment when
: actual unloading commences to when it ceases. As the actual
: unloading/loading time for a ship is only a fraction of the total time
: spent tied to the wharf, the measurements between Australian docks and
: other docks has been wildly inflated in comparison.
And you read this where exactly? If this was true, which it isn't,
why aren't the Unions shouting it from roof tops?
: 3) The measurement of "efficiency" should be dependent on more than just
: time taken to move containers. Some overseas docks, which are held up as
: paragons of virtue, due the speed at which they can load/unload a ship,
: do so without consideration as to the requirements at the other end of
: the ships journey for unloading. In otherwords, containers are packed,
: willy-nilly onboard and when a ship arrives in the first Australian port
: of call, the *_ENTIRE_* ship has to be unloaded, the load re-arranged and
: reloaded so that the containers to be unloaded at the next port of call
: are those at the top of the pile, rather than mixed in with all other
: containers.
This is complete bollocks too. Australian workers are notoriously
incompetent and slap dash. As are other countries. Some other
countries. Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and Singapore are
all very good on quality and on the speed, efficiency and rational
nature of their operations. This does not happen in any ship from
any First World country I've heard of. Containers *can't* be packed
willy nilly or the ship rolls over.
: This obviously has an effect on whether or not a particular
: wharf and hence a port is to be considered "efficient" but is not
: considered in the way the government considers its stats. Obviously the
: "more efficient" overseas port is gaining that rating at the expense of
: the Australian ports.
Actually a container lift per hour is a container lift per hour.
Whether containers are put back or not.
: 4) The government holds that this method, of destroying the union is the
: only way to bring efficiency to Australian wharves. Adelaide Port's
: experience of being able to become the *_MOST_* efficient port in
: Australia, through negotiated change to work-place practices between the
: container dock operators (Sea/Land) and the Union, indicates that there
: was an alternative method available but the idealogical bent of the
: government, in its desire to destroy the union movement, as a whole,
: prevented it from even attempting to explore that avenue.
It is true that negotiation can work. But the cost of the Sealand
operation is outrageous. So much so that companies send cargo to
*Eastern* ports and no one sends it to Adelaide. The government is
right as far as its means go.
: Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
: at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
: important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
: freedom of association.
I see no attack on the right to free association. Indeed I think
the government is upholding that right. Patricks doesn't want to
associate with workers who are trying to send it broke. They do
not have to anymore. Who can be fairer than that?
: The refusal of the NFF funded container company and Patricks
: Stevedoring to employ people who are *_LEGALLY_* allowed to be members of
: a union flies in the face of this right IMO.
They have not refused. As yet.
Joseph
--
Zenith
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:08:50 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
[snip the lengthy bit]
> I rather think I will leave that there and not bother to answer
>it. Dear fellow readers/lurkers/participants, what I have always found
>interesting in the 10 years I've been posting to the 'net is the way in
>which people who are losing an argument seem to think lapsing into
>childish shoolyard insults will further their cause and not make them
>look even more like pillocks.
>
> I'll let you be the judge.
That's pretty rich "Brian". Read back through the thread. You're the
one that got personal with quote
" Not in the slightest "Zenith", go right ahead. I'll let
anybody
make a fool of themselves at their own expense..."
No need to say more. You obviously couldn't handle the fact that I
called you a hypocrite (which you are) and you have just demonstrated
your hypocrisy yet again your above post.
My shot at your email address was followed with a smilie :)
And I still say you have no experience of militant unions, now do you?
And you're talking out your arse.
Zenith
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:19:54 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
wrote:
[snip]
> I must admit I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm more than
>willing to take the word of Mark. Will you dispute his word, "Zenith"?
I find that strange "Brian", given the gist of some of your comments
below, such as "Perhaps you need to do a little bit of critical
thinking before swallowing the government's line?". No offence to
Mark, but I haven't a clue who he is. You are happy to take him at his
word without evidence because it supports your argument, and no one
else? It's not a case of "disputing" his word. It's a case of whether
or not to accept it as fact. Yet another demonstration of hypocrisy.
It's really very simple "Brian". Incidentally, what was that all
about? The name quoting? Anyway...as far as I understand it, you feel
that it is the choice of a potential employee to accept a job on the
waterfront or not, depending on their willingness to join the union.
As such you feel that individual is not discriminated against as they
have a choice, to accept employment or not. I'm sure many here will
agree that that agues in favour of closed shop unionism and against
freedom of association.
Brian
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Craig Welch wrote:
> Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > You seem to have forgotten, that without me and people like me,
> >you wouldn't even have a net to play with.
>
> Does "people like me" refer to their political leanings?
No.
Brian
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Craig Welch wrote:
> Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> Not at all. The bums were sacked because they wouldn't do the work
> >> they were employed to do.
>
> > If true, then why were the MUA members at Bernie in Tasmania and
> >at Townsville in Queensland sacked? They had, routinely been exceeding
> >the figure stated by the government as indicating they were "efficient"
> >(25 containers an hour). Yet, they were sacked. Why?
>
> Routinely? On those rare occasions when they were working. Too rare
> for the employer.
Funny, thats not what the other people concerned say, including
the employers.
> > Could it be because they were members of the union?
>
> Who knows? Sounds like a good enough reason for me.
Oh, well, another right-wing idealogue who's more interested in
putting the boot in and than building the nation up.
> But I doubt it, I
> would suggest it's for the same reasons as in other states.
Which were?
Wasn't it something about wanting to improve efficiency on the
waterfront? Funny, why then would they sack their most efficient workers?
Brian
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, David Moss wrote:
> Mark Addinall <addi...@vic.ozland.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Comparing the docks in Singapore to ones in Australia is similar
> >to comparing a Sparc20 to an IBM XT. Differnt levels of technology.
>
> You mean business feels confident enough to invest capital in the
> waterfront in Singapore but not Australia ? Why might that be I wonder
> ? Strangely enough Patricks have invested $300million in the last 3
> years in equipment upgrades and their equipment is now amongst the
> most modern in the world. Their MUA workers still only manage 18
> containers an hour in comparison with overseas competitors 35 an hour.
However, at the same time, you have MUA workers in other ports
who were sacked as well, who were routinely exceeding the government's
own measure of improved efficiency, David. Hardly fair on them for
trying to do thier best, now is it?
Also, this mindless comparison with overseas performance is, as I
pointed out in the post that started this thread, like comparing apples
and oranges. Each port operates differently. Some do it properly, and
load the ships in the correct order for the destination, others which
ours are routinely compared to, simply load them willy-nilly. So
obviously the comparisons are flawed.
> >And many factors keep a ship tied to a wharf, not only the dockers.
>
> >. Tide
> >. The weather
> >. Movement priorities
> >. Availability of tugs
> >. Availability of pilots
> >. late cargo (trains not arriving)
>
> Indeed they do.
> Trouble is, if the cargo is loaded, the weather and tides are right,
> you've got port authority approval for a movement, the tug is standing
> by and the pilot is aboard THEN the wharfies decide to knock off for
> a paid union meeting before untying your ship from the wharf- you have
> to wait for the next time your little list above has all ticks
> alongside its items. Time is money in the transport industry, guess
> who gets to pay for the wasted time ?
And at the same time, the attempted measurement is that this
contributes to the time required to load/unload the ship, David, whereas
that measurement is taken purely on the basis of crane time.
Brian
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:08:50 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> [snip the lengthy bit]
>
> > I rather think I will leave that there and not bother to answer
> >it. Dear fellow readers/lurkers/participants, what I have always found
> >interesting in the 10 years I've been posting to the 'net is the way in
> >which people who are losing an argument seem to think lapsing into
> >childish shoolyard insults will further their cause and not make them
> >look even more like pillocks.
> >
> > I'll let you be the judge.
>
> That's pretty rich "Brian". Read back through the thread. You're the
> one that got personal with quote
>
> " Not in the slightest "Zenith", go right ahead. I'll let
> anybody
> make a fool of themselves at their own expense..."
Ah, a person who can't the difference between a mild flame and an
insult. Oh, dear, "Zenith", you seem to have a lot to learn about the net...
> No need to say more. You obviously couldn't handle the fact that I
> called you a hypocrite (which you are) and you have just demonstrated
> your hypocrisy yet again your above post.
"Hypocrit" is perhaps the least worrisome insult that has ever
been flung my way, "Zenith". As I pointed out, there was nothing
inconsistent in what I was saying, simply because it did not conform to
your viewpoint on the subject.
> My shot at your email address was followed with a smilie :)
Was it? Gee, so then if I called you a complete wanker and a
fuckwit, and then added a smiley at the end, it would be OK?
> And I still say you have no experience of militant unions, now do you?
> And you're talking out your arse.
Mmmm, paid up member of the Metal Trade Workers' Union, 1981,
mean anything to you, "Zenith"?
"Projecting" again, "Zenith"?
Brian
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Zenith wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 13:19:54 +1000, Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > I must admit I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm more than
> >willing to take the word of Mark. Will you dispute his word, "Zenith"?
>
> I find that strange "Brian", given the gist of some of your comments
> below, such as "Perhaps you need to do a little bit of critical
> thinking before swallowing the government's line?". No offence to
> Mark, but I haven't a clue who he is. You are happy to take him at his
> word without evidence because it supports your argument, and no one
> else? It's not a case of "disputing" his word. It's a case of whether
> or not to accept it as fact. Yet another demonstration of hypocrisy.
"Zenith", Mark is more than able to speak for himself. I've
known him now for quite a few years, off and on and I have no reason to
doubt what he says in his CV. Perhaps you should consult it?
> It's really very simple "Brian". Incidentally, what was that all
> about? The name quoting?
Those that choose to hide behind nom de'plumes are treated
accordingly, "Zenith". Brian is my real name. The normal MO of
aus.politics is that those who are willing to back their opinions with
their real names, of course get believed far more than those who choose
to hide behind a pseudonym.
> Anyway...as far as I understand it, you feel
> that it is the choice of a potential employee to accept a job on the
> waterfront or not, depending on their willingness to join the union.
> As such you feel that individual is not discriminated against as they
> have a choice, to accept employment or not. I'm sure many here will
> agree that that agues in favour of closed shop unionism and against
> freedom of association.
IYO. IMO it does not. Indeed, throughout this exchange I've
pointed out the fallacy of your stance that I must explicitly state I'm
against A to show that I'm in favour of B. Whereas an explicity
statement in favour of B indicates that I'm in favour of B, not
necessarily _against_ A as well.
minder@feedme
> On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 17:03:11 -0600, smc...@shoal.net.au wrote words
> of wisdom thus:
>
> So why is the NFF fucking around playing at being stevedores when
> there are much greater problems on farms to be sorted out?
>
> David Brindley
It was the Farmers who got the warfs going before. Remember the live sheep
exports?
It seems it takes the NFF to get things done on the warf.
Seppo
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
bi...@collective.com.au
In article <3530968f...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
geo...@melbpc.org.au (George Dragicevic) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:21:17 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 18:15:24 GMT, st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au (Stan
> >Rosenthal) wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 01:01:58 GMT, r...@iinet.com.au (Da Borg) wrote:
> >>
> >>:>Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >>:>
> >>:>SNIP
> >>:>>
> >>:>>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
> >>:>>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
> >>:>>freedom of association.
> >>:>
> >>:>What about the freedom to invest money where it actually makes a
> >>:>profit rather than be used as a piggy bank for extortionist
> >>:>organisations like the MUA.
> >>
> >>Profit at what cost to those by whose labour it is made?
> >
> >Profit accrues to enterprise, nothing else, and that communist
> >bullshit about workers owning the means of production is just that.
> >
> >Since when was labour a contribution to profit?
>
> Always....to see it as a cost is a strange way of looking at it.
> Without labour there is no profit. Downsizing (seeing labour as a
> cost to be diminished) is a shortsighted measure which places the onus
> of production levels back on those who are left and is possibly
> deleterious to the long term expansion of any enterprise. If you don't
> value your workers your business is doomed to failure.
> regards,
>
enterprise which employs any more than the bare minimum of people is doomed.
For most businesses labour is their biggest single cost, a cost which goes
well beyond actual wages paid. When business makes a large investment in
equipment to improve efficiency, there is only one way to recover that cost,
ie to reduce the labour force.
There has been much said about outdated equipment on our wharves. Why would a
stevedoring company spend millions of dollars on upgrading equipment to state
of the art when the labour force refuse to properly utilise the equipment they
already have? Business does not spend hard earned capital on labour saving
devices to make your work load lighter, they do it to reduce costs by reducing
the labour force. The sooner people like you wake up to this simple fact of
life, the better off we will all be.
co...@ozramp.net.au
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 15:05:16 -0600, bi...@collective.com.au wrote:
>In article <3530968f...@news.melbpc.org.au>,
> geo...@melbpc.org.au (George Dragicevic) wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:21:17 GMT, lo...@my.sig (Geoff) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 18:15:24 GMT, st...@nomail.melbpc.org.au (Stan
>> >Rosenthal) wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 01:01:58 GMT, r...@iinet.com.au (Da Borg) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>:>Brian <br...@coombs.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >>:>
>> >>:>SNIP
>> >>:>>
>> >>:>> Finally, and perhaps more importantly, I'm just utterly astounded
>> >>:>>at people who sit back and applaud this attack on one of the most
>> >>:>>important and basic political freedoms in this country - the right to
>> >>:>>freedom of association.
>> >>:>>
>> >>:>
>> >>:>What about the freedom to invest money where it actually makes a
>> >>:>profit rather than be used as a piggy bank for extortionist
>> >>:>organisations like the MUA.
>> >>
>> >>Profit at what cost to those by whose labour it is made?
>> >
>> >Profit accrues to enterprise, nothing else, and that communist
>> >bullshit about workers owning the means of production is just that.
>> >
>> >Since when was labour a contribution to profit?
what a fuckwit....try making a profit without labour..you sir are
pathetic now go away and come back with some reasoned argument
The Wog
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>
> In article <6getv9$71l$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
> >tj...@eisa.net.au wrote:
>
> >: If Patrick is successful in dismissing the wharfies will this set a
> >: precedent for employers to demand their workers accept lower wages,
> >: increase productivity to levels set by them or face dismissal?
>
> >Who said that the wharf workers would be getting less money than
> >the sacked lot? They might be forced to increase productivity or
> >face the sack but that precedent has been set already. A long time
> >ago in fact. And it leads directly to increased wages for everyone.
>
>
> Patricks intention is to employ HALF the number of their previous work force.
Incredible, isn't it? And you say that like it's a BAD thing...
>
> I assume the pay would be the same with less incentive for overtime,
Actually I hear it's more like $50,000 p.a. per head compared to the
current average of $75,000; more in line with the moderate level of
skill required to do the job.
> but I
> have grave doubts over the liability that may arise if one of these new
> workers is injured or worse, killed on the job.
Hello? Ever heard of Workers' Comp? It's compulsory, you know...
> Since the new workforce is on
> contract, the liability would surely shift to the NFF who are their employers.
Actually to their WC insurers.
>
> The NFF of course will cry drought relief and no doubt the Australian public
> will be responsible for picking up the pieces.
No, they'll fill in a WC claim form.
>
> Nice work if you can get it!
What, getting killed or injured in the hope of a tax-payer funded
recuperation? What's good about that?
>
> Also if you have to pay HALF the cost of wages you paid in the year before due
> to the fact that you are only employing 700 people, then surely the profits
> look good and a big big bonus comes the CEO's way.
I think that's very likely. And quite deserved it would be if he found a
way to remove the 50% of his labour costs that represented unproductive
workers. I'd say the CEO in question would be in high demand after that.
>
> I wonder if the CEO has a family trust.
Very likely. He's quite a wealthy man. Does this have any relevance to
his management capability? So far you've accused him of producing the
same result at half the cost, and being in line for a bonus from the
resulting extra profits made by his employer. All this does is make the
same condemnation of MUA overstaffing that the conservative members of
the group have done for months.
>
> Ashraf
>
The Wog
The Wog
Ashraf Ghebranious wrote:
>
> In article <352c4171....@news.globec.com.au> ow...@globec.com.au (Owen Dare) writes:
>
> No. What i am suggesting is the shifting of heavy containers is not necessary
> a piece of cake. Familiarity with equipment and experience can be the
> difference between being spot on and being a few feet out.
They've been training for 3 months. I think they've got the hang of it
by now, and their first day productivity figures suggest that they are
not finding any great difficulty adjusting.
>
> Everytime they are a few feet out, the chance someone will be under it as it
> comes down increases.
Do you make a habit of standing under 20t containers? I don't - I
wouldn't get within 20m of one coming down. It's just common sense.
> I dont think any of the staff will be experienced beyond
> their training courses. I hope they will be using experienced supervisors or
> the chance of a problem increases greatly.
Patrick's management has been doing this for quite a while now.
>
> That and given the antiquity of the equipment at the Patricks wharves
ROTFL!! The MUA always drags this lie out to justify their pathetic
productivity at Patrick operations (which were really caused by an
ongoing "go-slow" as punishment for Patrick being less tolerant of
feather-bedding than the other operators). Patrick has invested $300m in
the last few years in state of the art, brand new equipment. They have
the newest and best facilities available in Australia.
It just amazes me that there are people pretending to make serious
commentary on this issue who are incapable of making any sort of
independent thought.
> leads me to believe that over confidence and an attempt to try and show up
> the MUA will get people killed.
We'll watch the body count. To date, it seems that the most dangerous
part of the work is driving the bus through the front gate.
>
> Ashraf
>
The Wog