Waterfront dispute
snafu
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:36:08 GMT, ast...@iinet.net.au (Anthony
Shipley) wrote:
>An article on the escalating waterfront dispute in Melbourne, by Professor
>Roy Green of the Employment Studies Centre at the University of Newcastle,
>appeared in the Age newspaper on 15 April.
>
>Quote:
>
>'But this dispute is not about productivity. If it was, there would be
>some recognition of Australia's world-best practice in bulk handling, of
>the difficulties of comparing like with like between Melbourne, Antwerp
>and Singapore, of the substantial improvements in container crane rates in
>recent years, of the restructuring of the industry and of the job losses
>this has entailed.
>
>'Worldwide survey and case study evidence shows that better performance is
>achieved not by coercion but through consultation and fair treatment of
>employees. There is no more salient example of this than the Patrick
>competitor SeaLand, which has empowered its unionised workforce through
>training, new technology and work reorganisation.
>
>'Nor is this dispute about waterside competition. It is clear that the
>National Farmers Federation stevedoring company is not a real competitor,
>as was initially claimed, but a supplier of non-union labor to Patrick.
>When competitors have emerged in the past, they have been denied space for
>their operations.
Not fair Anthony....facts and learned opinion out of synch with the
blinkered views of the "they deserved it" brigade.....
I especially note the last sentence.....
snafu
ray johnstone
sna...@rocketmail.com.au (snafu) wrote:
<snip>
>>When competitors have emerged in the past, they have been denied space for
>>their operations.
>Not fair Anthony....facts and learned opinion out of synch with the
>blinkered views of the "they deserved it" brigade.....
>I especially note the last sentence.....
>snafu
But don't employers love competition? I thought that was what the row
was all about.
J.R.Johnstone (Ray Johnstone)
r...@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
PagZ
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:47:20 GMT, r...@iinet.com.au (ray johnstone)
wrote:
I think that article really does cut through the crap, and no Ray
employers (read companies) love to be monopolies.
PagZ
pag...@tempest.com.au
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:26:35 GMT, pag...@tempest.com.au (PagZ) wrote:
>employers (read companies) love to be monopolies.
No wonder the MUA is upset now. Patricks is threatening it's
monopoly......
Zac
Zaccary Charlesworth (Zac's Computers)
http://www.iinet.net.au/~zacca
"We also witness blind faith everyday: all those Mac users who think
Apple and their machines are actually useful and going places."
Billy Shields, 1998
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 20:33:19 +0800, Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
>rights of the employer to do (hire non-union labour) I fail to see how the
>MUA can get away with a closed shop.
Exactly my point. I have no problems with unions EXCEPT when they
attempt to monopolize and perform closed shop tactics. The MUA do
this, therefore I do not support them in their struggle.
Simple really. If the MUA can prove to me that they activley encourage
free choice, then I *may* reconsider.
As it stands, I couldn't care less if they go out of business. Maybe
they'll be replaced by a *fair* union.
Bilbo
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:26:35 GMT, pag...@tempest.com.au (PagZ) wrote:
>
> >employers (read companies) love to be monopolies.
>
> No wonder the MUA is upset now. Patricks is threatening it's
> monopoly......
>
and that is the core of the union stand isn't it? Unions need
members to exist, and an employer who wants to hire non-union labour
attacks the foundation of the union. Considering this is well within the
rights of the employer to do (hire non-union labour) I fail to see how the
MUA can get away with a closed shop.
Before someone mentions workplace agreements as being anti-union,
my union encourages us not to sign them, but if we are going to consider
them, then get the union to look over it with us. In other words, my union
is adapting to changes, and while it may not like it, the union is still
making itself an invaluable part of the workplace.
(quick tip from my union rep... if you are asked to sign an AWA
and it has a secrecy clause in it, you are not bound by that secrecy
clause until you sign it, so you are still within your rights to talk
about it, seek advice etc etc)
...bilbo...
---
it was you or the pot plant, and, well, the pot plant doesn't offend as
many people as you do.
---
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 03:24:07 GMT, pag...@tempest.com.au (PagZ) wrote:
>Ahh - I see it all now! Patricks is a union... I think not!
I looked back to see where I said that but I can't find it...
Patricks is trying to confront the MUA, who are the ONLY union on the
waterfront, who MAKES everyone join them. (By many means).
Thus, Patrick will destroy that monopoly by breaking the MUA.
PagZ
>On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:26:35 GMT, pag...@tempest.com.au (PagZ) wrote:
>
>>employers (read companies) love to be monopolies.
>
>No wonder the MUA is upset now. Patricks is threatening it's
>monopoly......
Ahh - I see it all now! Patricks is a union... I think not!
>
>Zac
>Zaccary Charlesworth (Zac's Computers)
>http://www.iinet.net.au/~zacca
>"We also witness blind faith everyday: all those Mac users who think
>Apple and their machines are actually useful and going places."
>Billy Shields, 1998
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:02:37 +0800, "Michel de Greef"
<m...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>I wholehartedly support the dockers!
Pah.
Go West Coast!!!
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:51:42 +0800, "Michel de Greef"
<m...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>I mean, the murderer has the right to murder but the victim camnnot defent
>itself, s/he has to go thru the courts!
Well, *you* voted for abortion did you not ? (or would)
>Corrigan/Patrick need not show any respect to the workers, just sack them
>when it suits their agenda.
They didn't sack them in the legal sense, why do you think the MUA is
using bully-boy tactics.
They terminated their contracts (as they were all contracted to
patricks).
If they want to terminate their contracts with those workers, why not
? That's why it's called a CONTRACT.
>"The truly enlightened, the human awake, is one whose mind is totally devoid
>of beliefs!"
Hmmm.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 05:22:29 GMT, sna...@rocketmail.com.au (snafu)
wrote:
>P.O and Patrick are the only stevedorers allowed (by the actions of
>P.O. and Patrick) on the waterfront...i.e. they make everyone deal
>with them....a monopoly even by your apparent definitions. So,
>morally, why aren't you advocating for an end to that particular
>closed-shop?
<speak up sonny, I can't hear you> :P
At least their are *two* (a duopoly), which gives in for competition
etc. There is only ONE union, which *is* a monopoly.
>And Patrick will continue to perpetuate the monopoly (ok, duopoly)
>that they benefit enormously from. Double-standards?
Like you said, Duopoly. While not as desirable as 3 or 4, it is much
better than just one.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:49:47 GMT, sna...@rocketmail.com.au (snafu)
wrote:
>hehehehehe
The High Court is scared of the unionists. We'll see what the outcome
of the TRIAL.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:16:22 +0800, "Michel de Greef"
<m...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>We saw, Zac! ;-))))
Are you a time traveller ? There aint been no trial yet, cobber.,
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:41:52 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
WARNING: Dr Who's post contains many biased comments.
>The dispute is over 1400 workers who where illegally sacked by
Nope, not illeagal yet.
Chas
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 09:26:03 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
>Patricks is trying to confront the MUA, who are the ONLY union on the
>waterfront, who MAKES everyone join them. (By many means).
>
>Thus, Patrick will destroy that monopoly by breaking the MUA.
>
>Zac
I'm probably missing something here, but which union do
the blokes who work for P&O belong to? I can't imagine they'd
still be working if they were MUA.
Are the MUA only involved with Patricks?
Charlie
snafu
>On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 03:24:07 GMT, pag...@tempest.com.au (PagZ) wrote:
>
>>Ahh - I see it all now! Patricks is a union... I think not!
>
>I looked back to see where I said that but I can't find it...
>
>Patricks is trying to confront the MUA, who are the ONLY union on the
>waterfront, who MAKES everyone join them. (By many means).
Zac, now, I know you have admitted to selective deafness, and you show
it fairly often, but here's a question......
P.O and Patrick are the only stevedorers allowed (by the actions of
P.O. and Patrick) on the waterfront...i.e. they make everyone deal
with them....a monopoly even by your apparent definitions. So,
morally, why aren't you advocating for an end to that particular
closed-shop?
>Thus, Patrick will destroy that monopoly by breaking the MUA.
And Patrick will continue to perpetuate the monopoly (ok, duopoly)
that they benefit enormously from. Double-standards?
snafu
Michel de Greef
Chas wrote in message <353aa74b...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
...........
>I'm probably missing something here, but which union do
>the blokes who work for P&O belong to? I can't imagine they'd
>still be working if they were MUA.
>
>Are the MUA only involved with Patricks?
Patricks is the only firm that sacked it's workers without good reasons (ie
Fremantle dockers at Patricks have not been involved with any strikes or
other industrial action, yet got the sack!
I wholehartedly support the dockers!
--
Michel de Greef
"The truly enlightened, the human awake, is one whose mind is totally devoid
of beliefs!"
http://www.electric-sardine.com
Michael O'Reilly
sna...@rocketmail.com.au (snafu) writes:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 09:26:03 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
> Charlesworth) wrote:
> >Patricks is trying to confront the MUA, who are the ONLY union on the
> >waterfront, who MAKES everyone join them. (By many means).
>
> Zac, now, I know you have admitted to selective deafness, and you show
> it fairly often, but here's a question......
>
> P.O and Patrick are the only stevedorers allowed (by the actions of
> P.O. and Patrick) on the waterfront...i.e. they make everyone deal
> with them....a monopoly even by your apparent definitions. So,
> morally, why aren't you advocating for an end to that particular
> closed-shop?
This is rubbish. There are a number of stevedores other than partricks
and P.O working on the docks, it's just that patricks/P.O are the
largest ones.
How exactly are patricks and P.O supposed to 'make everyone deal with
them'?
Michael.
Michael Malone
snafu wrote:
> P.O and Patrick are the only stevedorers allowed (by the actions of
> P.O. and Patrick) on the waterfront...
This isn't true. Western Stevedores operates in WA, and now
handles about 80% of live stock exports out of Fremantle. There
are also state based stevedores at Port Adelaide and Melbourne.
There may be others in Sydney and Brisbane, but I don't know.
There are a few smaller regional stevedores (there is one about
200km north of Adelaide, run independantly and locally, but all
staff must be MUA members).
All of them are closed shop union sites. Initially, Western
Stevedores attempted to open without a requirement for union
labour (ie: union membership was irrelevant to hiring). However,
they negotiated with the MUA.
> And Patrick will continue to perpetuate the monopoly (ok, duopoly)
> that they benefit enormously from. Double-standards?
P&O and Patrick are just the two largest. There is nothing
stopping others opening.
MM
Alison
Michel de Greef wrote:
> Chas wrote in message <353aa74b...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
> ...........
> >I'm probably missing something here, but which union do
> >the blokes who work for P&O belong to? I can't imagine they'd
> >still be working if they were MUA.
> >
> >Are the MUA only involved with Patricks?
> ............
>
> Patricks is the only firm that sacked it's workers without good
> reasons (ie
> Fremantle dockers at Patricks have not been involved with any strikes
> or
> other industrial action, yet got the sack!
>
> I wholehartedly support the dockers!
I admit I don't truly understand all the details of this dispute but I
have to say I am totally against the wharfies for one reason only....
there disgusting display of total disrespect of the law. Now you might
come back with the "but patricks illegally sacked the workers" but I've
heard no evidence of that so far and if they have been illegally sacked
they should deal with it the right way in court, not by this digusting
show of lack of respect.....
What sort of people are their children, who have been involved in all
this, going to grow up like?? I think the community is having enough
problems with disrespectful youngens as it is without having these
wharfies make it worse by setting a bad example. And I don't just mean
lack of respect for the law, but also lack of respect for other peoples
property and other people's right to work.
I believe there is a right and a wrong way to deal with every issue and
what the wharfies are doing is definantly wrong.
If no one respects the law what do you have? Anarchy.
Alison.
Michel de Greef
Alison wrote in message <353B311E...@student.cowan.edu.au>...
.....................
>
>I admit I don't truly understand all the details of this dispute
That is obvious!
>have to say I am totally against the wharfies for one reason only....
>there disgusting display of total disrespect of the law. Now you might
>come back with the "but patricks illegally sacked the workers" but I've
>heard no evidence of that so far and if they have been illegally sacked
>they should deal with it the right way in court, not by this digusting
>show of lack of respect.....
.......................
I see that they should deal with it in the court but the sacking can be
dealt outside of the court!!
I mean, the murderer has the right to murder but the victim camnnot defent
itself, s/he has to go thru the courts!
Corrigan/Patrick need not show any respect to the workers, just sack them
when it suits their agenda.
I guess it is a view!
Bilbo
> >
> >I admit I don't truly understand all the details of this dispute
> .....................
> That is obvious!
>
nobody knows both sides. You have union mouthpieces espousing
their demands and beliefs, and you have the same from the other side.
> >have to say I am totally against the wharfies for one reason only....
> >there disgusting display of total disrespect of the law. Now you might
> >come back with the "but patricks illegally sacked the workers" but I've
> >heard no evidence of that so far and if they have been illegally sacked
> >they should deal with it the right way in court, not by this digusting
> >show of lack of respect.....
> .......................
> I see that they should deal with it in the court but the sacking can be
> dealt outside of the court!!
>
How was the sacking illegal? Do you know what went on? If it was
illegal why hasn't Patricks been forced to re-instate the workers? I see a
group of people blocking public roads and harrassing other people trying
to do their daily business. If I got a bunch of my mates and blocked
Wellington Street I would be hauled away, so why aren't the unionists?
> I mean, the murderer has the right to murder but the victim camnnot defent
> itself, s/he has to go thru the courts!
>
Murder is illegal - you still haven't shown me what Patricks did
illegally.
> Corrigan/Patrick need not show any respect to the workers, just sack them
> when it suits their agenda.
>
If Patricks want to change a working practice and the union
refuses to negotioate (which both sides says happened) then why shouldn't
they get their labour elsewhere. And remember Patricks didn't sack the
workers, they just chose to get their labout from another firm.
> I guess it is a view!
>
That's all we have, we don't have the full picture.
Alison
I don't think Micheal de Greef really has a clue what he's saying, it
didnt make much sense and in my opinion was a pathetic attempt at a
reply.
Come on you've got to do better than that.
Alison
Erryn Binning
Alison wrote in message <353C5A36...@student.cowan.edu.au>...
>I don't think Micheal de Greef really has a clue what he's saying, it
>didnt make much sense and in my opinion was a pathetic attempt at a
>reply.
It wasn't that bad. Could have been better, but it did it's job fairly
well...
I have a feeling this is a pathetic attempt at a reply...
But that's just my opinion...
Regards
Erryn
snafu
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998 09:33:46 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:51:42 +0800, "Michel de Greef"
><m...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I mean, the murderer has the right to murder but the victim camnnot defent
>>itself, s/he has to go thru the courts!
>Well, *you* voted for abortion did you not ? (or would)
We had a vote on abortion? When?
>>Corrigan/Patrick need not show any respect to the workers, just sack them
>>when it suits their agenda.
>They didn't sack them in the legal sense, why do you think the MUA is
>using bully-boy tactics.
Ok...they sacked them in the illegal sense then....and the immoral
sense...oh....I forgot, Zac is religious...perhaps "the moral sense"
doesn't count.
>They terminated their contracts (as they were all contracted to
>patricks).
>
>If they want to terminate their contracts with those workers, why not
>? That's why it's called a CONTRACT.
..with a little illegal asset-stripping and illegal conspiracy
beforehand....but hey, that's ok by Zac...self-righteous hypocrites
make me sick.
..hang on...the contract was not being broken by anyone (well, no-one
has indicated the contract was being broken...so Zac, what was the
reason for Patrick's breaking the contract again?)
snafu
snafu
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:09:13 +0800, Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
******************snip***********************
>>
> How was the sacking illegal? Do you know what went on? If it was
>illegal why hasn't Patricks been forced to re-instate the workers?
hehehehehe
snafu
Michel de Greef
Zaccary Charlesworth wrote in message
<3539c46b...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:02:37 +0800, "Michel de Greef"
><m...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I wholehartedly support the dockers!
>
>Pah.
>
>Go West Coast!!!
I'd rather go for the underdog! But then, it's a character trait of mine!
;-)
Michel de Greef
Alison wrote in message <353C5A36...@student.cowan.edu.au>...
>I don't think Micheal de Greef really has a clue what he's saying, it
>didnt make much sense and in my opinion was a pathetic attempt at a
>reply.
>
>
>
>Alison
Who? Me???
Michel de Greef
Michel de Greef
Zaccary Charlesworth wrote in message
>On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:49:47 GMT, sna...@rocketmail.com.au (snafu)
>wrote:
>
>>hehehehehe
>
>The High Court is scared of the unionists. We'll see what the outcome
>of the TRIAL.
>
>Zac
We saw, Zac! ;-))))
--
Michel de Greef
"The truly enlightened, the human awake, is one whose mind is totally devoid
of beliefs!"
DrWho
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:27:26 +0800, Alison
<aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
[snip doctor]
>I admit I don't truly understand all the details of this dispute but I
>have to say I am totally against the wharfies for one reason only....
>there disgusting display of total disrespect of the law. Now you might
>come back with the "but patricks illegally sacked the workers" but I've
>heard no evidence of that so far and if they have been illegally sacked
>they should deal with it the right way in court, not by this digusting
>show of lack of respect.....
The dispute is over 1400 workers who where illegally sacked by
Patrick's and with alot of help from a federal union bashing Liberal
government. Patrick's and the Liberal government basically want to
crush a union,which is the MUA. I also believe that once the MUA was
out of the way. The federal Liberal government would then go through
all unions in this country or at least make it hard for a union to be
able to protect a union member. That is one reason why other
unions/members got involved.
If you believe that you have been done wrong by a government or a
company. Then you should not only take court action,but you should be
able to protest. A protest/picket will never work,if one just stands
there and holds placards. For a protest to work against a company such
as Patrick's. You as a protester have to make your protest effective
and what better means than to hit them where it hurts. Make it
impossible for them to go about there daily work. This may be harsh
and does effect alot of innocent people,but this is the only effective
way a dispute can be won.
>What sort of people are their children, who have been involved in all
>this, going to grow up like?? I think the community is having enough
>problems with disrespectful youngens as it is without having these
>wharfies make it worse by setting a bad example. And I don't just mean
>lack of respect for the law, but also lack of respect for other peoples
>property and other people's right to work.
There are alot of people from all walks of life down at the picket
line. I was holding hands with a teacher and next to her was a mature
lady and mature man. I've seen all sorts of people from every part of
our community at the protest/picket. I'm sorry that the people have
come across as bad. They are not. They are just upset with the
injustice that was dealt out to 1400 sacked workers across our
country. Upset with a government that agrees with the sacking of 1400
workers.
>I believe there is a right and a wrong way to deal with every issue and
>what the wharfies are doing is definantly wrong.
The people protesting down at the wharf are doing it right. If they
done what you probley would like them to do. The people protesting
would never win.
>If no one respects the law what do you have? Anarchy.
If no one is allowed to protest effectively... What do you have? A
police state
Bye
Anthony :)
Who?... DrWho
Bilbo
> >>
> > How was the sacking illegal? Do you know what went on? If it was
> >illegal why hasn't Patricks been forced to re-instate the workers?
>
>
> snafu
There is a difference between unfair and illegal. It has yet to be
proven that Patricks acted illegally. They have been found to have acted
unfairly, and have been ordered to re-instate the workers, but they are
apealing the decision.
I still find it amusing that the MUA and their supporters demand
action on the 'illegal' activities of Patricks, while blocking roads,
abusing people, intimidating people, fail to obey police directives - all
illegal activities.
Bilbo
unfair - yes (so far)
illegal - no.
> >>illegal why hasn't Patricks been forced to re-instate the workers?
>
> They have! ;-))))
>
> >hehehehehe
> >
> >snafu
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Michel de Greef
>
> "The truly enlightened, the human awake, is one whose mind is totally devoid
> of beliefs!"
>
> http://www.electric-sardine.com
>
>
>
>
>
---
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:27:26 +0800, Alison
: <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
: [snip doctor]
:>I admit I don't truly understand all the details of this dispute but I
:>have to say I am totally against the wharfies for one reason only....
:>there disgusting display of total disrespect of the law. Now you might
:>come back with the "but patricks illegally sacked the workers" but I've
:>heard no evidence of that so far and if they have been illegally sacked
:>they should deal with it the right way in court, not by this digusting
:>show of lack of respect.....
: The dispute is over 1400 workers who where illegally sacked by
Allegedly illegally sacked.
: Patrick's and with alot of help from a federal union bashing Liberal
: government. Patrick's and the Liberal government basically want to
: crush a union,which is the MUA. I also believe that once the MUA was
: out of the way. The federal Liberal government would then go through
: all unions in this country or at least make it hard for a union to be
: able to protect a union member. That is one reason why other
: unions/members got involved.
I prefer the term "featherbedding".
: If you believe that you have been done wrong by a government or a
: company. Then you should not only take court action,but you should be
: able to protest. A protest/picket will never work,if one just stands
: there and holds placards. For a protest to work against a company such
: as Patrick's. You as a protester have to make your protest effective
: and what better means than to hit them where it hurts. Make it
: impossible for them to go about there daily work. This may be harsh
: and does effect alot of innocent people,but this is the only effective
: way a dispute can be won.
Its not only harsh, its illegal. To quote the injunction granted to
Patricks against the MUA in the Victorian Supreme Court yesterday
the union was guilty of "serious criminal behaviour" and "interfering
with the contractual relations betwee Patricks and its clients" is
plainly illegal.
I find it interesting that the union is heralding this decision in
the courts while blatantly ignoring any court action that doesn't
go their way. Thats what you call "hypocrisy".
:>What sort of people are their children, who have been involved in all
:>this, going to grow up like?? I think the community is having enough
:>problems with disrespectful youngens as it is without having these
:>wharfies make it worse by setting a bad example. And I don't just mean
:>lack of respect for the law, but also lack of respect for other peoples
:>property and other people's right to work.
: There are alot of people from all walks of life down at the picket
: line. I was holding hands with a teacher and next to her was a mature
: lady and mature man. I've seen all sorts of people from every part of
: our community at the protest/picket. I'm sorry that the people have
: come across as bad. They are not. They are just upset with the
: injustice that was dealt out to 1400 sacked workers across our
: country. Upset with a government that agrees with the sacking of 1400
: workers.
:>I believe there is a right and a wrong way to deal with every issue and
:>what the wharfies are doing is definantly wrong.
: The people protesting down at the wharf are doing it right. If they
: done what you probley would like them to do. The people protesting
: would never win.
I think you'll find that the Supreme Court justice who handed down
yesterday's injunction disagrees with you: there is a very distinct
difference between protesting and the criminal obstruction of a
company's ability to do business. Peaceful or not (and its not
actually peaceful anyway), its still criminal obstruction.
:>If no one respects the law what do you have? Anarchy.
: If no one is allowed to protest effectively... What do you have? A
: police state
No I agree with Alison: you can't just abide by the umpire's decision
when things go you way. Thats the difference between order and
chaos.
I agree that the method used by Patricks is, in the very least,
questionable but the actions of the picketers I find to be utterly
disgraceful. I hope the picketers in Melbourne get charged with
contempt of court. I hope that anyone blocking access to the
wharves gets sued. I hope anyone throwing bricks (or whatever
large projectiles) or otherwise intimidating those going about
their lawful business gets chaerged with the relevant charges
(eg assault).
I'll be interested to see how the full bench of the federal court
rules tomorrow. I would not be at all surprised if a stay is granted
pending an appeal.
Curiously the injunction handed down today (remember it is only an
injunction pending a full hearing) didn't extinguish the contracts
with the new workforce. So if the union goes back to work it'll be
interesting to see if they're forced to work alongside the union
labour. I hope so.
I just heard on the news that Patricks shares have been suspended
from trading. They had a snippet of Corrigan saying that they
don't think they are able to support two workforces. The Weekend
Australian said Patricks claimed it would quit certain ports if
they're forced to employ the MUA workers. I wouldn't rule out that
possibility.
Its about time we put an end to closed shops and shoddy work
practises in this country. Issues about container movements and
pay are secondary in my mind. Whats more important (to me) is the
right NOT to associate, restrictive labour allocation (manning)
practises, etc.
Billy
Billy Shields
:>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:09:13 +0800, Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
:>
:>******************snip***********************
:>> How was the sacking illegal? Do you know what went on? If it was
:>>illegal why hasn't Patricks been forced to re-instate the workers?
: They have! ;-))))
No, they haven't. An injunction has been granted pending a full
hearing of the matter.
Billy
Alison
Billy Shields wrote:
> No I agree with Alison: you can't just abide by the umpire's decision
> when things go you way. Thats the difference between order and
> chaos.
WOOHOO! Someone actually agrees with me for a change!!!! :)
And isn't it great I dont even have to reply cause Billy has already
said everything I was going to say :)
One other thing I'd like to add though, isn't the MUA the only union
that FORCES everyone to join??? From what I know most unions don't
FORCE membership. IMHO I think the government has every right to try
and rid the country of an organisation which is stopping people from
working just because they won't join. If people are willing to work
without the support of a union then that's their right and no company
should be forced to employ people who they feel will not get the job
done the way they want it done.
I do respect Dr Who's response (it was a hell of a lot more constructive
than Micheal de greef's) I still have to say that there is no excuse
for disrespect of the law and if people feel that they can push aside
the law when they feel like it that this world is going no where but
down.
Alison.
Peter F Bradshaw
In article <353E88FF...@student.cowan.edu.au>,
Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> writes:
> One other thing I'd like to add though, isn't the MUA the only union
> that FORCES everyone to join??? From what I know most unions don't
> FORCE membership. IMHO I think the government has every right to try
> and rid the country of an organisation which is stopping people from
> working just because they won't join. If people are willing to work
> without the support of a union then that's their right and no company
> should be forced to employ people who they feel will not get the job
> done the way they want it done.
It is my understanding that the ACCC is able to receive complaints from
workers who feel that they are being forced to join a union in order to
get or keep a job. It is also my understanding that they have, over time,
received a number of complaints regarding a number of unions but none
regarding the MUA. The problem with people saying that it is a closed shop
is that they offer no basis for this claim other than noting that all
(of Patrick's previous) dock workers are MUA members. Note that, under
the present Federal law, the choice of union membership is the worker's
alone. Companies are explicitly disallowed from having any say in this at
all.
Strictly speaking goverments have no rights at all. A "mandate" is confered
on Parliment which is transfered to the Executive via the Reps'. party
memberships.
> I do respect Dr Who's response (it was a hell of a lot more constructive
> than Micheal de greef's) I still have to say that there is no excuse
> for disrespect of the law and if people feel that they can push aside
> the law when they feel like it that this world is going no where but
> down.
I noted the Prime Minister's annoyance with the the lack of action by the
States police. Possibly he should think about getting the Federal Government
into the area of law enforcement. He could contract this function out.
Maybe a quick side trip up to the PRC on the return leg from Thailand for
contract negotiations with the PLA. They really know about law enforcement!
Cheers
--
Peter F Bradshaw | http://www.nautronix.com.au/, p...@nautronix.com.au
Nautronix Ltd. | PGP public key at
108 Marine Terrace | http://www.iinet.net.au/~pfb/public_key.html
Fremantle, WA, 6160 | "Needs more salt" - Archimedes
John Blahusiak
Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
: than Micheal de greef's) I still have to say that there is no excuse
: for disrespect of the law and if people feel that they can push aside
: the law when they feel like it that this world is going no where but
: down.
Disrespect of the law? Like speeding for example?
John.
DrWho
On 21 Apr 1998 15:06:46 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
[snip doctor]
>No I agree with Alison: you can't just abide by the umpire's decision
>when things go you way. Thats the difference between order and
>chaos.
So if the government brings in a law that limits your right to free
speech... Would you obey that law?
>I agree that the method used by Patricks is, in the very least,
>questionable but the actions of the picketers I find to be utterly
>disgraceful. I hope the picketers in Melbourne get charged with
>contempt of court. I hope that anyone blocking access to the
>wharves gets sued. I hope anyone throwing bricks (or whatever
>large projectiles) or otherwise intimidating those going about
>their lawful business gets chaerged with the relevant charges
>(eg assault).
questionable? I told you this from day one!
My example on people protesting was the Fremantle warf. I've been
there and seen no violence. Have you been down there?
I personaly do not agree with abusing police or throwing stuff at
anyone,but I agree that a protester should have the right to protest
effectively. If this means hurting the company by standing in the
road. Then so be it.
[snip doctor]
>Its about time we put an end to closed shops and shoddy work
>practises in this country. Issues about container movements and
>pay are secondary in my mind. Whats more important (to me) is the
>right NOT to associate, restrictive labour allocation (manning)
>practises, etc
Yet over and over again you have used the wharfies pay and there
container movement to debate me. Now all of a sudden you say it's
secondary. You have done so many twist and turns in this debate. Now
your big issue is closed shops. I have given you my examples of closed
shops that go on through out this community and yet you where never
able to come up with a good reply IMHO. We shall again have to agree
to disagree on closed shops on the wharf.
DrWho
On 20 Apr 1998 13:49:20 +0800, Michael O'Reilly
<mic...@metal.iinet.net.au> wrote:
[snip doctor]
>This is rubbish. There are a number of stevedores other than partricks
>and P.O working on the docks, it's just that patricks/P.O are the
>largest ones.
How many of these other steverdores load and unload containers from
ships in Fremantle?
I have only seen P.O and Patricks crains on the docks in Fremantle.
Though Patrick's crains look that old,it be not funny.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On 23 Apr 1998 07:26:52 GMT, p...@nautronix.com.au (Peter F Bradshaw)
wrote:
<snip>
Worker 1: "I don't want to join the union"
Worker 2-199 "You better or we'll get you"
Worker 1:"I'll complain to the ACCC"
Worker 2-199 "And we'll beat the living bejingers outta you when you
get back"
Worker 1: "Ok, I'll join the MUA. I need a job, and don't want to be
hassled by everyone else."
Zac
Zaccary Charlesworth (Zac's Computers)
http://www.iinet.net.au/~zacca
"We also witness blind faith everyday: all those Mac users who think
Apple and their machines are actually useful and going places."
Billy Shields, 1998
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On 21 Apr 1998 15:06:46 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
: [snip doctor]
:>No I agree with Alison: you can't just abide by the umpire's decision
:>when things go you way. Thats the difference between order and
:>chaos.
: So if the government brings in a law that limits your right to free
: speech... Would you obey that law?
And what MPs and Senators in their right minds would pass such a
law? Even if madness reigned supreme and itw as passed you could
probably count the days it would last on one hand before the High
Court overruled it.
You should be in the media. :-) Thats the typical kind of question
that can only be answered one way but doesn't properly address the
problem.
:>I agree that the method used by Patricks is, in the very least,
:>questionable but the actions of the picketers I find to be utterly
:>disgraceful. I hope the picketers in Melbourne get charged with
:>contempt of court. I hope that anyone blocking access to the
:>wharves gets sued. I hope anyone throwing bricks (or whatever
:>large projectiles) or otherwise intimidating those going about
:>their lawful business gets chaerged with the relevant charges
:>(eg assault).
: questionable? I told you this from day one!
Yes but I, unlike the MUA and their bedfellows, was waiting for the
courts to decide on the issue.
: My example on people protesting was the Fremantle warf. I've been
: there and seen no violence. Have you been down there?
Whats violence got to do with anything? A lack of violence doesn't
stop an act being criminal.
Most people would call a charge of assault "violence". According
to the law you don't need to hit someone to commit assault. If
an act makes someone afraid for their personal safety then thats
assault. I'm pretty sure grounds for assault charges could be
made when it comes to picketer actions against truck drivers, etc.
So whether or not the picket was violent, even though irrelevant,
is highly arguable.
: I personaly do not agree with abusing police or throwing stuff at
: anyone,but I agree that a protester should have the right to protest
: effectively. If this means hurting the company by standing in the
: road. Then so be it.
Thats not protesting, thats holding a company to ransom. Its known
as interfering with contractual relations between the company and
its clients.
: [snip doctor]
:>Its about time we put an end to closed shops and shoddy work
:>practises in this country. Issues about container movements and
:>pay are secondary in my mind. Whats more important (to me) is the
:>right NOT to associate, restrictive labour allocation (manning)
:>practises, etc
: Yet over and over again you have used the wharfies pay and there
: container movement to debate me. Now all of a sudden you say it's
: secondary. You have done so many twist and turns in this debate. Now
Pay is secondary. Value for money is primary. If someone is idle
for a lot of the time (or not even at work for a lot of the time
they're getting paid) then thats a problem.
: your big issue is closed shops. I have given you my examples of closed
: shops that go on through out this community and yet you where never
: able to come up with a good reply IMHO. We shall again have to agree
: to disagree on closed shops on the wharf.
The most unfortunate thing about this saga is that it may have put
back the cause of getting rid of these kind of restrictive labour
practises and closed shops by 5-10 years. It will happen though.
Its just a matter of when. The sooner the better.
Ironically its the Workplace Relations Act and the Coalition government
that ultimately provided the protection to the workers (or at least
enough protection to justify an injunction). One could then argue
that its a reasonable piece of legislation. But of course the
government are nothing but right-wing fascists conspiring to topple
the entire union movement right? :)
Billy
Peter F Bradshaw
In article <353f57ce...@news.m.iinet.net.au>,
za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary Charlesworth) writes:
> Worker 1: "I don't want to join the union"
> Worker 2-199 "You better or we'll get you"
> Worker 1:"I'll complain to the ACCC"
> Worker 2-199 "And we'll beat the living bejingers outta you when you
> get back"
> Worker 1: "Ok, I'll join the MUA. I need a job, and don't want to be
> hassled by everyone else."
Is the above fragment from
a) a conversation between you and others?
b) a conversation between a third party and others and about which you have
knowledge?
c) your imagination?
Alison
DrWho wrote:
> My example on people protesting was the Fremantle warf. I've been
> there and seen no violence. Have you been down there?
>
> I personaly do not agree with abusing police or throwing stuff at
> anyone,but I agree that a protester should have the right to protest
> effectively. If this means hurting the company by standing in the
> road. Then so be it.
That is so selfish. When you stand on that road and stop that company
from providing it's service you also stop alot of other people who have
nothing to do with the dispute from being able to do there job. E.g.
Toyota workers, the farmers and any other company who relies on goods
that come from the shipments.
I know that the media doesn't usually present things exactly how they
are but no one can deny that that film showing protesters refusing to
leave when told to do so by police or having to be dragged away by
police is direct disrespect for the law and those shots are splashed
across every TV all over the country and at a time when children and
young people can view it.
The picket lines are illegal and any disrespect for the law (including
speeding ;P ) should not be tolerated.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On 24 Apr 1998 00:45:17 GMT, p...@nautronix.com.au (Peter F Bradshaw)
wrote:
> a) a conversation between you and others?
> b) a conversation between a third party and others and about which you have
> knowledge?
> c) your imagination?
d) My Uncle.
It most likely wasn't as frank as that, but the general gist was the
same. (Ie Join the Union or Experience pain). This was about 20 years
ago though I think..... (a while ago anyway)
Bilbo
> > a) a conversation between you and others?
> > b) a conversation between a third party and others and about which you have
> > knowledge?
> > c) your imagination?
>
> d) My Uncle.
>
> It most likely wasn't as frank as that, but the general gist was the
> same. (Ie Join the Union or Experience pain). This was about 20 years
> ago though I think..... (a while ago anyway)
>
guess that's still happening too is it?
Can you spell relevance?
Colin
Snip>
Why can't the government start there own docks up
for unloading ships. It would be far cheaper than paying
MUA workers 250 million dollars for retiring.
What really annoys me is the poor farmers can't get
there containers off the docks. These guys are the
backbone of Australia. This is the last thing these
farmers need. Plus a number of chemists had drugs
on the containers for patients. This is nothing short of
disgraceful by the union thugs blocking the docks.
All I can say is thank goodness there are no unions
in the computer industry to stuff things up.
Poll after poll is saying 70% of the population is behind
Patricks and the government. Since there is going to be a federal
election this year why not have a referendum on the issue.
Colin
Erryn Binning
Alison wrote in message <35403A6A...@student.cowan.edu.au>...
>That is so selfish. When you stand on that road and stop that company
>from providing it's service you also stop alot of other people who have
>nothing to do with the dispute from being able to do there job. E.g.
>Toyota workers, the farmers and any other company who relies on goods
>that come from the shipments.
Awwwww, the poor little corporations. Their itty bitty wittle pwoffits will
be wittled away to a measly $100million. My heart aches. Oh the humanity! Mr
Company Executive can only afford 4 Luxury cars this year. How sad.
Farmers? They would have to be the most outspoken whingers. They're
subsidised to the hilt, they own luxury cars and send their kids to the top
private schools, and yet it's so tough, they don't even know if they can eat
the next night.
Also bear in mind that the Toyota workers thang is just a temporary thing.
No workers have/will be layed off. They'll just be made to take leave.
>I know that the media doesn't usually present things exactly how they
>are but no one can deny that that film showing protesters refusing to
>leave when told to do so by police or having to be dragged away by
>police is direct disrespect for the law and those shots are splashed
>across every TV all over the country and at a time when children and
>young people can view it.
It shows people standing for a cause, for what they believe in. It was all
non-violent. If they were punching up some police or simmilar, then I could
understand. A much more disgraceful sight is the regular dog fight that goes
on in parliament. Showing the leaders of our country engaged in petty
battles.
>The picket lines are illegal and any disrespect for the law (including
>speeding ;P ) should not be tolerated.
The picket lines are not illegal. What's this disrespect for the law thing?
The law isn't always right. The world is not black or white, it is grey.
I would much rather tax dollars be put into catching murderers, committers
of violent crimes, thieves etc. etc.
You're clutching at straws with this disrespect for the law thing. It has
been a very peaceful protest, with only enough action to convey their point.
I mean if the protest affects no one, it is a failure.
Think, the wharfies could have been as disrespectful as the students in the
Tianamen Square massacre.
Regards
Erryn
Erryn Binning
Colin wrote in message <35404d6...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>What really annoys me is the poor farmers can't get
>there containers off the docks. These guys are the
>backbone of Australia. This is the last thing these
>farmers need. Plus a number of chemists had drugs
>on the containers for patients. This is nothing short of
>disgraceful by the union thugs blocking the docks.
Oh, the poor farmers. The poor souls. My heart aches...
At all the tax dollars going into subsidising these whinging gits. The only
reason the mining and farming industry is the backbone of Australia is
because the government let it become that way. We'll probably lose the Intel
deal as well. Farmers are no more or less important than any other industry
in this country. And they cost us billions. They've degraded the land to a
point where it's almost unusable, they've overfarmed the land, they've
killed off various species of native flora and fauna. But no, they're still
complaining about everyone else, and how poor they are.
>All I can say is thank goodness there are no unions
>in the computer industry to stuff things up.
Because the computer industry is essentially run by the workers. And all the
CEO's actually earn their keep. Unions aren't needed there, yet.
>Poll after poll is saying 70% of the population is behind
>Patricks and the government. Since there is going to be a federal
>election this year why not have a referendum on the issue.
Great, let's divide the country even more. Yeah, split everything up,
categorise it.
You know, if hostile aliens came to this planet, they'd obliterate us, even
if they were armed with pistols, because we'd be too busy bickering between
ourselves.
Why can't we find common ground and work for a common good? If everyone was
pulling in the same direction, we could have cured all know diseases, and
have colonised space by now. But no, we're all pulling in a different
direction.
Two sides don't have to be the exact opposite. They can occupy the same grey
ground....
Regards
Erryn
Zaccary Charlesworth
>The picket lines are not illegal. What's this disrespect for the law thing?
Yes, they are illegal now.
>You're clutching at straws with this disrespect for the law thing. It has
>been a very peaceful protest, with only enough action to convey their point.
It is not clutching at straws. It is quite clearly illegal for the
unions to now continue their picketing. This is one thing that *is*
black and white.
No matter how strong the cause, you *must* obey the laws of the land.
If you do not, you lose the respect of many and your cause is
weakened.
>Think, the wharfies could have been as disrespectful as the students in the
>Tianamen Square massacre.
Utterly unrelated. Has John Howard rolled some tanks of the MUA
protesters yet ? I think not.. :)
DrWho
On 23 Apr 1998 23:33:21 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
[snip doctor]
>And what MPs and Senators in their right minds would pass such a
>law? Even if madness reigned supreme and itw as passed you could
>probably count the days it would last on one hand before the High
>Court overruled it.
The simple way for a government to bring in a law to limit your right
to free speech,is to do it slowly and before you know it. OOppSS you
cannot say anything. This example is over the top,but it could happen
and it could be happening right now.
>You should be in the media. :-) Thats the typical kind of question
>that can only be answered one way but doesn't properly address the
>problem.
Where are you getting your facts about this dispute on the docks from?
You are getting your facts from the media,be that by electronic or
published media.
>Yes but I, unlike the MUA and their bedfellows, was waiting for the
>courts to decide on the issue.
So if you new that someone was going to kill you,but you had no proof.
Would you then take that person to court and not do anything to
protect yourself until your suspicion was proved in court? You have a
strange view on life or maybe this view only comes about when unions
are involved :) Do you agree that immoral actions against workers who
are in a union is justified. Even if a court legally can not prove
that no immoral actions where involved?
>Whats violence got to do with anything? A lack of violence doesn't
>stop an act being criminal.
So I take it you have not been down at the wharf.
A lack of violence has alot to do with a successful protest. The
public would be against the MUA,if violence by the protesters was
shown in the media. I dare say people such as yourself would use this
to debate me. I disagree a effective protest is a criminal offence.
>Most people would call a charge of assault "violence". According
>to the law you don't need to hit someone to commit assault. If
>an act makes someone afraid for their personal safety then thats
>assault. I'm pretty sure grounds for assault charges could be
>made when it comes to picketer actions against truck drivers, etc.
Also truck drivers against protesters. We both know that a protest
would never be effective,if a protester can not protest effectively.
So what better way for a company and government to stop a effective
protest. Than to make it against the law for a protester from being
able to stop the company from going about its daily business. I bet
countries that have dictators running them would also agree with you.
>Thats not protesting, thats holding a company to ransom. Its known
>as interfering with contractual relations between the company and
>its clients.
That is protesting. It is known as protesting effectively.
>Pay is secondary. Value for money is primary. If someone is idle
>for a lot of the time (or not even at work for a lot of the time
>they're getting paid) then thats a problem.
Yet you and some politicians love to bring up how much money the
wharfies earn. You and the politicians use the pay to get the
community on your side. You also brand all wharfies as bluggers. Which
is so narrow minded. Maybe time for you to post another train worker
story again.
>The most unfortunate thing about this saga is that it may have put
>back the cause of getting rid of these kind of restrictive labour
>practises and closed shops by 5-10 years. It will happen though.
>Its just a matter of when. The sooner the better.
I suppose it will come,but hopefully done in a better way or did you
have no problem with the way this company and government went about
this? I only ask because you seem upset. Then again your dream of
waterfront reform at any costs may still come true. As long as it is
legal.. Who cares how it is done. Is this not right billy?
>Ironically its the Workplace Relations Act and the Coalition government
>that ultimately provided the protection to the workers (or at least
>enough protection to justify an injunction). One could then argue
>that its a reasonable piece of legislation. But of course the
>government are nothing but right-wing fascists conspiring to topple
>the entire union movement right? :)
I think the government have a secret agenda to make the union movement
a toothless tiger. I suppose only time will tell.
DrWho
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:39:51 GMT, NOS...@iiNet.Net.Au (Colin) wrote:
>Why can't the government start there own docks up
>for unloading ships. It would be far cheaper than paying
>MUA workers 250 million dollars for retiring.
Retiring? That's right Colin. The 1400 hundred Australian workers have
all reached the age of 65 and are now forced to retire ;)
Me thinks you need to do some research on this subject.
>What really annoys me is the poor farmers can't get
>there containers off the docks. These guys are the
>backbone of Australia. This is the last thing these
>farmers need. Plus a number of chemists had drugs
>on the containers for patients. This is nothing short of
>disgraceful by the union thugs blocking the docks.
My heart bleeds for the poor old farmer. Not!
The protesters have alowed drugs to be removed. So everyone that is
protesting is a thug. Just like every one of the 1400 Australian
workers who where sacked where all bluggers. Nice to see
generalization is alive and well *sigh*.
>All I can say is thank goodness there are no unions
>in the computer industry to stuff things up.
Your Industry is all ready stuffed. Your Industry has about as much
credibility as a car salesperson.
>Poll after poll is saying 70% of the population is behind
>Patricks and the government. Since there is going to be a federal
>election this year why not have a referendum on the issue.
If they are all like you. Then I'm not suprised that 70% of the
population is behind Patrick's and the government :)
DrWho
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:08:26 +0800, Alison
<aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
[snip doctor]
>That is so selfish. When you stand on that road and stop that company
>from providing it's service you also stop alot of other people who have
>nothing to do with the dispute from being able to do there job. E.g.
>Toyota workers, the farmers and any other company who relies on goods
>that come from the shipments.
I suppose someone looking from the outside in. Would think it's
selfish,but sometimes that is the only way a protester can bring the
other party to see its point of view. If a protester did what you
would like them to do. Protesters would never get there point of view
across,as no one would care about the protest. This includes a company
such as Patrick's. Patrick's would still go about there daily work and
would not care if what they had done was immoral. As Patrick's are
still bringing in the dosh. You probley would not have all the facts
as the media coverage would not be as good. The community takes notice
of a effective protest as others such as farmers and the toyota
company get involved. The community then wants a end to the protest
and thus the two parties come together to air there grievances.
A good government would try and bring the two parties together,but the
federal government is not doing this,as they are in bed with the
company. So infact you could say that the government and Patrick's are
the ones holding this country to ransom,as they started it and are the
ones that keep appealing to the courts ruling. Thus holding this
country to ransom.
>I know that the media doesn't usually present things exactly how they
>are but no one can deny that that film showing protesters refusing to
>leave when told to do so by police or having to be dragged away by
>police is direct disrespect for the law and those shots are splashed
>across every TV all over the country and at a time when children and
>young people can view it.
I know where you are coming from,but that is called a effective
protest. When going up against a government and company that has no
morals,this is then forced open a protester.
>The picket lines are illegal and any disrespect for the law (including
>speeding ;P ) should not be tolerated.
Just because something is legal does not always make it right. Smoking
is legal,but is it right? The french where legally allowed to test
nuclear bombs,but was this right? I suppose I could go on and on.
Bye
Anthony :)
Who?... DrWho
Was it not Mr Howard that said "No worker would be worse off under the
federal Liberal government ". Tell that to the 1400 hundred Australian
workers who where sacked with the full blessing of the Federal Liberal
Party.
Mic Cullen
p...@nautronix.com.au (Peter F Bradshaw), far, far away from here, appears
to have written:
>In article <353f57ce...@news.m.iinet.net.au>,
> za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary Charlesworth) writes:
>> Worker 1: "I don't want to join the union"
>> Worker 2-199 "You better or we'll get you"
>> Worker 1:"I'll complain to the ACCC"
>> Worker 2-199 "And we'll beat the living bejingers outta you when you
>> get back"
>> Worker 1: "Ok, I'll join the MUA. I need a job, and don't want to be
>> hassled by everyone else."
>
>Is the above fragment from
>
> a) a conversation between you and others?
>
> b) a conversation between a third party and others and about which you have
> knowledge?
>
> c) your imagination?
The gist is the same as one that I had with co-workers who were members of
the TWU when I was working airfreight about 10 years ago. "Join, or we
punch your head in. Repeatedly, until you do.". I joined......
cheers,
Mic. (www.cross.com.au) The return address *will* work as is...
Cross Purposes Studios - Web & Graphic Design
A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.
Michael Malone
Mic Cullen wrote:
> The gist is the same as one that I had with co-workers who were members of
> the TWU when I was working airfreight about 10 years ago. "Join, or we
> punch your head in. Repeatedly, until you do.". I joined......
Before people say that this doesn't happen any more, similar tactics
were used by the TWU less than six months ago to force my brother
to join the union. His truck was stopped at the airport for a "safety
check" by the TWU safety officer. He was ordered out of the truck,
and told it was unsafe. He called his boss, and the boss paid for my
brother's union membership. Only then was he allowed to continue.
Personally, I'd like to believe I would have refused the safety check,
or taken the matter to court. But the reality is that its cheaper
for the small businesses to just buckle into the union and do what
they want.
MM
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:20:40 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>Your Industry is all ready stuffed. Your Industry has about as much
>credibility as a car salesperson.
Bastard :)
I'd say we have the same credability rating as, oh, the MUA.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:36:15 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>Just because something is legal does not always make it right. Smoking
>is legal,but is it right? The french where legally allowed to test
>nuclear bombs,but was this right? I suppose I could go on and on.
Yes, but the picket lines *are* illegal. Not legal. That makes them
wrong.
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On 23 Apr 1998 23:33:21 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
[snip]
:>You should be in the media. :-) Thats the typical kind of question
:>that can only be answered one way but doesn't properly address the
:>problem.
: Where are you getting your facts about this dispute on the docks from?
: You are getting your facts from the media,be that by electronic or
: published media.
"The media" is not an amorphous homongenous entity. It has its good
and its bad. There is a difference between, say, the New York Times
and the National Enquirer, the SBS World News and the Channel 10 News,
Lateline and A Current Affair, etc.
:>Yes but I, unlike the MUA and their bedfellows, was waiting for the
:>courts to decide on the issue.
: So if you new that someone was going to kill you,but you had no proof.
: Would you then take that person to court and not do anything to
: protect yourself until your suspicion was proved in court? You have a
Bad analogy. Would I seek to protect myself? Of course. I might
choose to defend myself. I might choose to simply go into hiding.
But if I decided to kill that person before they got me and then tell
the police that I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was going
to kill me they'd laugh at me as they threw me in jail and charged
me with wilful murder. And rightly so.
The wharfies aren't protecting themselves. They are (and always
have been) pre-emptively trying to destroy a company on the
justification that they knew it was doing something wrong, immoral,
illegal or whatever. Thats not how the justice system works.
: strange view on life or maybe this view only comes about when unions
: are involved :) Do you agree that immoral actions against workers who
: are in a union is justified. Even if a court legally can not prove
: that no immoral actions where involved?
The court deals in legalities not moralities. Frankly, I find that
anyone who brings the word "immoral" into a discussion is doing so
because they can't argue what they're doing is lawful.
:>Whats violence got to do with anything? A lack of violence doesn't
:>stop an act being criminal.
: So I take it you have not been down at the wharf.
Quite correct.
: A lack of violence has alot to do with a successful protest. The
: public would be against the MUA,if violence by the protesters was
: shown in the media. I dare say people such as yourself would use this
: to debate me. I disagree a effective protest is a criminal offence.
Actually violence was shown in the media. Where have you been hiding?
:>Most people would call a charge of assault "violence". According
:>to the law you don't need to hit someone to commit assault. If
:>an act makes someone afraid for their personal safety then thats
:>assault. I'm pretty sure grounds for assault charges could be
:>made when it comes to picketer actions against truck drivers, etc.
: Also truck drivers against protesters. We both know that a protest
: would never be effective,if a protester can not protest effectively.
So what you're saying is that doing these illegal blockades is
justified because obeying the law wouldn't have worked? And that in
turn is justified because you consider the actions to be immoral
and not even yet proven to be illegal?
Two wrong make a right eh?
Paint it however you like but the simple facts of the matter are that
the wharfies and their supporters willingly chose to break the law
and destroy the company without any regard for the legalities of the
matter.
: So what better way for a company and government to stop a effective
: protest. Than to make it against the law for a protester from being
: able to stop the company from going about its daily business. I bet
: countries that have dictators running them would also agree with you.
Lets stop calling it protest shall we? Looking at my dictionary I see:
protest n. 1. declaration or demonstration of objection --vi. 2. object
--vt. 3. make declaration (against) 4. assert formally
and
obstruct vt. 1. block up 2. hinder impede
That might have been protestors but they're also guilty of criminal
obstruction.
:>Thats not protesting, thats holding a company to ransom. Its known
:>as interfering with contractual relations between the company and
:>its clients.
: That is protesting. It is known as protesting effectively.
Its known as obstructing illegally.
So if the wharfies have no respect for the law, why should the
company? Or the government for that matter?
:>Pay is secondary. Value for money is primary. If someone is idle
:>for a lot of the time (or not even at work for a lot of the time
:>they're getting paid) then thats a problem.
: Yet you and some politicians love to bring up how much money the
: wharfies earn. You and the politicians use the pay to get the
: community on your side. You also brand all wharfies as bluggers. Which
: is so narrow minded. Maybe time for you to post another train worker
: story again.
Maybe its because the salaries are a strong indicator of one of the
serious work practise problems. Noone argue that the base salary of
a wharfie (according to the award) is $25-35K. Conservative (ie union)
estimates put the average salary in the order of $70,000. Others
claim as high as $100,000. Now assuming that overtime is double time
some quick math would show you that they would have to work 70-90
hours a week to get that level of pay. Clearly they don't. Could
it possibly be that they're not physically at work for soem of
this time? No, never...
This is what Corrigan referred to as the "overtime culture of the
MUA". The company can't decide who to employ, who not to employ
and how to utilise its labour force. Thats a big big problem.
:
:>The most unfortunate thing about this saga is that it may have put
:>back the cause of getting rid of these kind of restrictive labour
:>practises and closed shops by 5-10 years. It will happen though.
:>Its just a matter of when. The sooner the better.
: I suppose it will come,but hopefully done in a better way or did you
: have no problem with the way this company and government went about
: this? I only ask because you seem upset. Then again your dream of
If the union comes out of this with its same closed shop environment
and restrictive work practises then I for one will be disappointed
at this victory of archaic work practises.
Maybe I should protest. I'll start by kneecapping the wharfies.
Whats that you're saying? Thats illegal? Ah well thats the
difference between a protest and an effective protest. :-) If I
just demonstrated then noone would listen to me and nothing would
happen. I think I'll cut the brakelines in their cars while I'm
at it.
You may think its justified to have such blatant disregard for the
law but I can pretty much assure you that every criminal thinks
the same way.
: waterfront reform at any costs may still come true. As long as it is
: legal.. Who cares how it is done. Is this not right billy?
If it was legal they'd be one up on the protestors at least.
:>Ironically its the Workplace Relations Act and the Coalition government
:>that ultimately provided the protection to the workers (or at least
:>enough protection to justify an injunction). One could then argue
:>that its a reasonable piece of legislation. But of course the
:>government are nothing but right-wing fascists conspiring to topple
:>the entire union movement right? :)
: I think the government have a secret agenda to make the union movement
: a toothless tiger. I suppose only time will tell.
Thats what I thought: no credit to the quite real safeguards put in
place in the Workplace Relations Act. I can see why. That might
threaten the black-and-white view of union-hating Liberals.
Billy
Peter F Bradshaw
In article <35402e89....@news.m.iinet.net.au>,
za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary Charlesworth) writes:
> d) My Uncle.
>
> It most likely wasn't as frank as that, but the general gist was the
> same. (Ie Join the Union or Experience pain). This was about 20 years
> ago though I think..... (a while ago anyway)
I was not aware that the ACCC had juristriction regarding freedom of
association before 1996.
Michael O'Reilly
ast...@iinet.net.au (Anthony Shipley) writes:
> "Erryn Binning" <mre...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Because the computer industry is essentially run by the workers.
>
> >And all the CEO's actually earn their keep.
>
> ROTFLOL
Well, unlike the wharfies, the CEOs actually have to justify their
salary, and they don't have a union making sure they stay employeed
when they're totally useless.
Michael.
snafu
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:36:15 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>
>>Just because something is legal does not always make it right. Smoking
>>is legal,but is it right? The french where legally allowed to test
>>nuclear bombs,but was this right? I suppose I could go on and on.
>
>Yes, but the picket lines *are* illegal. Not legal. That makes them
>wrong.
Shit Zac....it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Illegal = wrong.
Therefore, legal = right.
So, according to your own "logic", when abortion becomes legal, you
will, in the interests of consistency, say it is "right"....
I'd like to see that.
snafu
Mic Cullen
mma...@creole.iinet.net.au (Michael Malone), far, far away from here,
appears to have written:
[snips]
>Personally, I'd like to believe I would have refused the safety check,
>or taken the matter to court. But the reality is that its cheaper
>for the small businesses to just buckle into the union and do what
>they want.
And for the person being victimised, having people say things like "we know
where you live, so we can get you anytime if you complain to anyone" ain't
much fun, either. Hard to stand up to that.
cheers,
Mic. (www.cross.com.au) The return address *will* work as is...
Cross Purposes Studios - Web & Graphic Design
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."
Dan Quayle, Former US Vice President
Peter F Bradshaw
In article <3541c9da...@news.iinet.net.au>,
sna...@rocketmail.com (snafu) writes:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:05:52 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
> Charlesworth) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:36:15 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>>>Just because something is legal does not always make it right. Smoking
>>>is legal,but is it right? The french where legally allowed to test
>>>nuclear bombs,but was this right? I suppose I could go on and on.
>
> Illegal = wrong.
>
> Therefore, legal = right.
No, this is a logical error. Revue your Predicate Calc. 101 texts for the
reason why.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:35:10 GMT, sna...@rocketmail.com (snafu) wrote:
>So, according to your own "logic", when abortion becomes legal, you
>will, in the interests of consistency, say it is "right"....
>I'd like to see that.
Right by the laws of the country, right legally. That's unfortuneatly
all that matter in this country.
Naturally I would try and change the law, but it wouldn't be through
illegal means. Petitions, legal protests etc are better.
You are quite welcome to petition the government to change the law to
make your picketing legal.
DrWho
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:04:19 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>Bastard :)
OOppSS sorry <g>.
snafu
On 26 Apr 1998 04:59:20 GMT, p...@nautronix.com.au (Peter F Bradshaw)
wrote:
>In article <3541c9da...@news.iinet.net.au>,
> sna...@rocketmail.com (snafu) writes:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 02:05:52 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
>> Charlesworth) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 22:36:15 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>>>>Just because something is legal does not always make it right. Smoking
>>>>is legal,but is it right? The french where legally allowed to test
>>>>nuclear bombs,but was this right? I suppose I could go on and on.
>> Shit Zac....it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>
>> Illegal = wrong.
>>
>> Therefore, legal = right.
>
>No, this is a logical error. Revue your Predicate Calc. 101 texts for the
>reason why.
F'fugsake Peter, this is Zac I'm talking to...horses for courses and
all that ;) .....gimme a break :)
Oh....and I'll revue (sic) my Predicate texts if you agree to review
your English 1 texts :) ....
Usenet protocol 23/1a : "spelling flames are acceptable, and exempt
from follow-up flames, if and when they (the spelling flame) are of an
indirect nature, and are in direct response to a logic-flame"....I
claim exemption from follow-up flames under this protocol :)
snafu
snafu
>On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:35:10 GMT, sna...@rocketmail.com (snafu) wrote:
>
>>So, according to your own "logic", when abortion becomes legal, you
>>will, in the interests of consistency, say it is "right"....
>>I'd like to see that.
>
>Right by the laws of the country, right legally. That's unfortuneatly
>all that matter in this country.
Legal and right are not, imo, the same thing. I can think of lots of
laws that are not right, despite they are legal.
Come on Zac, let loose.....legal doesn't make anything "right"....just
legal. And conversely, imo, illegal doesn't make anything "wrong".
However, I would agree it may be considered "wrong" to _break_ the
law, or "right" to always abide by the law, but that is different to
the issue of a law being wrong or right....imo.
>
>Naturally I would try and change the law, but it wouldn't be through
>illegal means. Petitions, legal protests etc are better.
When you say better, do you mean "more effective"?
Unfortunately, the way our "representative democracy" works, petitions
and legal protests are almost totally ineffective. I would hazard a
guess that the most effective way of getting action on law-changes is
the old leaked document and whistle-blowing.....the former is
definitely considered illegal, and whistle-blowers often so too (by
way of secrecy-clauses common in state-govt employment conditions at
least).
In some cases, I would consider both of these illegal acts to be
"right".
>
>You are quite welcome to petition the government to change the law to
>make your picketing legal.
I am also able to picket and take the consequences....a course of
action many have obviously decided upon.
Zac, I am not totally opposed to some of your views...I have manned a
picket, and have also crossed a picket-line of my own union (of which
I am still a voluntary member). In both situations, I did what I
considered was right. Legality or otherwise was not a factor in my
decisions...and I believe I did "right" both times.
snafu
Alison
snafu wrote:
> Legal and right are not, imo, the same thing. I can think of lots of
> laws that are not right, despite they are legal.
Regardless of whether or not a law is right in the eyes of people it is
still a law and it was made for a reason and therefore it should be
respected until such a time that the law is changed through the right
means....
The best example if this is the abortion laws. Some people think the
current law is right and some people disagree but you don't see all
pro-abortion (or pro-choice or whatever they are called) making picket
lines or breaking laws or stealing stuff to try and force the law to be
changed. They have legal and peaceful marches and they go through the
right channels to try and get the law changed.... well atleast to try
and get the law changed. If the law is not changed I'm sure that they
will continue to try and get the law changed but the point is that they
are doing it in a "right" AND "legal" way.
And from where I'm standing it looks like we are going to get legal
abortions.
I think the wharfies should take a look at the pro-abortionists......
Alison.
Billy Shields
Anthony Shipley
Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
>Regardless of whether or not a law is right in the eyes of people it is
>still a law and it was made for a reason and therefore it should be
>respected until such a time that the law is changed through the right
>means....
Yes and no.
<generalisations>
Some laws are incontovertably immoral* and as such deserver no respect.
Rather, it is the duty of citizens to oppose them by suitable means until
they are changed. Suitable means must reflect the 'wrongness' of the laws
themselves and must not introduce greater wrongs.
Thus passive resistance is at times quite acceptable even though it might
disrupt other citizens and even 'normal commerce'. In a near ideal
situation, good thinking people would effectively storm (by being arrested
in great numbers for such passive resistance) and bring the system to its
knees by making the system unworkable.
Obviously this is not the automatic reaction to a GST, for example.
*You know it is when, at great personal cost/risk, you are not protesting
for your own interests but for that of others. It is seldom when you have
something to gain.
</generalisations>
anthony shipley
xpct th nxpctd
Alison
Anthony Shipley wrote:
> Some laws are incontovertably immoral* and as such deserve no respect.
No, all laws should be respected but if it is believed to be
wrong/immoral etc then it should be opposed in a lawful way.
> Rather, it is the duty of citizens to oppose them by suitable means
> until
> they are changed. Suitable means must reflect the 'wrongness' of the
> laws
> themselves and must not introduce greater wrongs.
Your just repeating what I was saying and contradicting your first
statment.
Alison.
Billy Shields
Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
: Anthony Shipley wrote:
I find myself saying this quite frequently lately: I agree with
Alison. :-)
Billy
DrWho
>No, all laws should be respected but if it is believed to be
>wrong/immoral etc then it should be opposed in a lawful way.
Like if the people of a foreign country had a dictator? Not that i'm
saying we in Australia have a dictatorship <g>,but you left yourself
wide open with that statement :)
Do you think the green movement should also not protest effectively?
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:10:51 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>Like if the people of a foreign country had a dictator? Not that i'm
Yes. It is an ideal, and while not always seemingly practical, it
should be followed as much as humanly possible. How can you argue
against an immoral act if you commit immoral acts to acomplish you
nds? <whew!:P>
The ends do not always justify the means I'm afraid
.
>saying we in Australia have a dictatorship <g>,but you left yourself
No, but we will if we don't get to directly elect the head of state!:P
>wide open with that statement :)
Not really. The law is the law is the law is the law. We have the good
fortune of being in a democracy, where we elect the people who make
the policy. Dictatorships on the other hand, are NOT elected my the
people.
>Do you think the green movement should also not protest effectively?
Carn the greenies! :P
I think they are welcome to do whatever they want, as long as it's
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On Sat, 02 May 1998 16:43:41 +0800, Alison
: <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
:>No, all laws should be respected but if it is believed to be
:>wrong/immoral etc then it should be opposed in a lawful way.
: Like if the people of a foreign country had a dictator? Not that i'm
: saying we in Australia have a dictatorship <g>,but you left yourself
: wide open with that statement :)
It usually comes down to freedoms and rights. In the case of the
MUA they're trying to protect their right to a monopoly so they can
go to hell (basically) as far as I'm concerned.
: Do you think the green movement should also not protest effectively?
Environmental concerns are one area where you can certainly pick
faults at both sides. Environment "hysteria" has reached at times
reached a point where reason has gone completely out the window.
Take the Exxon-Valdeez disaster. Billions of dollars were spent
cleaning up after that. Funny thing is that Mother Nature is pretty
robust and capable of cleaning herself up. I was reading some
PJ O'Rourke a few years ago and he pointed out that when you
compared the areas that were cleaned up by people and those that
were pretty much left alone it could be shown that those directly
cleaned up rehabilitated in 7 years while those largely untouched
did the same in a period of 5 years (I forget the soure he was
quoting but he was writing in his book "All the Trouble in the World").
I saw an article recently that claimed the cost of cleaning up the
seals from that disaster averaged at $US80,000 per seal. They had
a big ceremony to re-release two of them into the wild. Within a
minute they were eaten by a killer whale which is supremely ironic.
I'm not saying that this level of negligence and environment disaster
should be tolerated but surely wouldn't it be better to take those
billions of dollars, scoop up the oil out of the ocean (or burn it
off) and spend the rest on something like health or education?
Environmentalism seems to be an exercise in finger-pointing.
In the last 20-30 years a big concern has been overpopulation and
famine. Several controversial books and papers were written on
the subject (like "The Population Bomb"; I can't recall the author).
They often had fundamental flaws in their reasoning. Like assuming
growth rates would continue at current rates. A lot of people are
happy to point the finger at third world countries with their high
birth rates. Thats all fine and dandy until you determine that
someone in the developed world uses ten times the resources of
someone in the third world.
A big concern with overpopulation is famine. O'Rourke pointed out
(quite rightly) that famine is a political rather than environmental
phenomona. People were starving in Ethiopa because their existed
two political factions in Ethiopia (the Eretrians and the Ethiopians
if I recall correctly) who were quite happy to starve each other
(as well as themselves in the interests of military spending).
Even now the world produces more than 20% more food than it
actually needs (aka the proverbial EEC "butter mountain").
The somewhat cliched view of the "greenie" is that of a protestor
chaining themselves to a tree. Logging is a prime example of an
industry where you can point the finger of blame at both sides.
Paper and woodchip production should be a crop industry. Those
wishing to do it should use huge tracts of land for the growth
of forests explicitly for that purpose rather than regrowing fast
growing Eucalyptus (and similar) trees over cut down old growth
forests. Unfortunately thats too long term a decision to be
viable in terms of political mileage. Already 87% (source: PJ
O'Rourke's book) of the world's paper supply is provided in a
crop basis.
People are quite happy to point the finger and those nasty
Brazilians for chopping down the Amazon. Unfortunately they don't
have much of a choice since their crippled by foreign aid repayments
(mainly interest) and have to get the money somehow. It could almost
be called "economic slavery".
Anyway this is a somewhat longwinded answer to a fairly succinct
question to which I shall reply: thats not a question that can be
answered in a fair manner easily. :-)
Billy
DrWho
On 2 May 1998 15:34:04 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
[snip doctor]
>It usually comes down to freedoms and rights. In the case of the
>MUA they're trying to protect their right to a monopoly so they can
>go to hell (basically) as far as I'm concerned.
You still do not get it Billy. The MUA are protesting because they and
quite a few other people in our community think the 1400 Australian
workers where unfairly sacked. The 1400 Australian workers are trying
to get there jobs back.
>: Do you think the green movement should also not protest effectively?
[snip doctor]
>Anyway this is a somewhat longwinded answer to a fairly succinct
>question to which I shall reply: thats not a question that can be
>answered in a fair manner easily. :-)
So I see.
DrWho
On Sat, 02 May 1998 15:08:36 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>Yes. It is an ideal, and while not always seemingly practical, it
>should be followed as much as humanly possible. How can you argue
>against an immoral act if you commit immoral acts to acomplish you
>nds? <whew!:P>
I would say no. How are the people supposed to get rid of a dictator
if the dictator has put laws in, that stop the people from ever
getting rid of the dictator?
You yourself have said that Saddam Hussan [sp?]
should or should have been nuked. Is this not also a immoral act?
>The ends do not always justify the means I'm afraid
Maybe not always,but sometimes they do.
>No, but we will if we don't get to directly elect the head of state!:P
You have lost me here?
>Not really. The law is the law is the law is the law. We have the good
>fortune of being in a democracy, where we elect the people who make
>the policy. Dictatorships on the other hand, are NOT elected my the
>people.
Yes really. As My reply to the said person was based on her
generalisation. I pointed out with my question,that her "we must obey
the law" has flaws. The same as your view of we must obey the law at
all costs has flaws.
Example: The Vietnam war.
>I think they are welcome to do whatever they want, as long as it's
>legal.
Yet sometimes it is not legal. Yet the green movement do alot of good
when they protest effectively and this means breaking some laws. The
French nuclear tests and the killing of whales.
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On 2 May 1998 15:34:04 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
: [snip doctor]
:>It usually comes down to freedoms and rights. In the case of the
:>MUA they're trying to protect their right to a monopoly so they can
:>go to hell (basically) as far as I'm concerned.
: You still do not get it Billy. The MUA are protesting because they and
: quite a few other people in our community think the 1400 Australian
: workers where unfairly sacked. The 1400 Australian workers are trying
: to get there jobs back.
No actually I do get it. Your argument would hold water if it wasn't
for the fact that the MUA hadn't been orchestrating a campaign of
industrial action to cripple the company in the weeks prior to the
sacking. The company's crime? Leasing dock space to another company
that used non-union labour.
They acted with complete impunity of the consequences thinking the
company had no legal recourse for getting rid of them so they had
nothing to lose. Now that lack of foresight has come and bitten
them in the ass.
The MUA leadership has brought this on themselves and their members.
Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
their members.
Billy
Anthony Shipley
dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 15:08:36 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
>Charlesworth) wrote:
>
>[snip doctor]
>
>>Yes. It is an ideal, and while not always seemingly practical, it
>>should be followed as much as humanly possible. How can you argue
>>against an immoral act if you commit immoral acts to acomplish you
>>nds? <whew!:P>
Zac, you seem to be suggesting that working to overthrow/change a law, or
breaking it, is an immoral act. It is, in the last case, illegal but is not
necessarily, in any of those above, immoral.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sat, 02 May 1998 17:36:39 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>You yourself have said that Saddam Hussan [sp?]
>should or should have been nuked. Is this not also a immoral act?
Extremly immoral, as you not only kill him but millions of people in
the surrounding cities. But very effective. :P
Zaccary Charlesworth
On 2 May 1998 23:40:47 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
wrote:
>Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
>their members.
That's why Peter Coombes is scared sh**less. If he can't get those
jobs back he's out of a very well paying job.
DrWho
[snip doctor]
>No actually I do get it. Your argument would hold water if it wasn't
>for the fact that the MUA hadn't been orchestrating a campaign of
>industrial action to cripple the company in the weeks prior to the
>sacking. The company's crime? Leasing dock space to another company
>that used non-union labour.
The company's crime? Joining the government to break the MUA. The MUA
where only ever looking after there members as they could see what
Patrick's was up to. Thus the industrial action against this union
bashing comapny.
>They acted with complete impunity of the consequences thinking the
>company had no legal recourse for getting rid of them so they had
>nothing to lose. Now that lack of foresight has come and bitten
>them in the ass.
Patrick's could be the one that ends up getting kicked in the rear.
The actions of the Federal coalition Government in this whole affair
could come back and haunt them at the next election.
>The MUA leadership has brought this on themselves and their members.
>Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
>their members.
The MUA has not brought this on themselves. Patrick's with some help
from the Federal coalition government have brought about the sacking
of 1400 Australian workers.
DrWho
On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:07:53 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>Extremly immoral, as you not only kill him but millions of people in
>the surrounding cities. But very effective. :P
I did use Nuked,as in kill him. Not nuclear bombs. Though this has
given you a way out of answering my question.
So me shall try again...
You yourself have said that Saddam Hussan should or should have been
killed. Is this not also a immoral act?
Billy Shields
Zaccary Charlesworth <za...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
: On 2 May 1998 23:40:47 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
:>Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
:>their members.
: That's why Peter Coombes is scared sh**less. If he can't get those
: jobs back he's out of a very well paying job.
Well since the MUA will still have 1500 or so workers at P&O I
don't think he'd be out of a career quite that soon...
Billy
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
: On 2 May 1998 23:40:47 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
: [snip doctor]
:>No actually I do get it. Your argument would hold water if it wasn't
:>for the fact that the MUA hadn't been orchestrating a campaign of
:>industrial action to cripple the company in the weeks prior to the
:>sacking. The company's crime? Leasing dock space to another company
:>that used non-union labour.
: The company's crime? Joining the government to break the MUA. The MUA
: where only ever looking after there members as they could see what
: Patrick's was up to. Thus the industrial action against this union
: bashing comapny.
A campaign of industrial action to destroy the company just gave them
one more good reason to get rid of them.
:>They acted with complete impunity of the consequences thinking the
:>company had no legal recourse for getting rid of them so they had
:>nothing to lose. Now that lack of foresight has come and bitten
:>them in the ass.
: Patrick's could be the one that ends up getting kicked in the rear.
: The actions of the Federal coalition Government in this whole affair
: could come back and haunt them at the next election.
Even if the High Court denies Patrick leave to appeal or it turns
down that appeal I don't think it'll end there. I wouldn't be
surprised if Patrick then sold all their assets and dock leases
to someone else (eg P&C Stevedoring) who were under no such
employment contractual obligation. And thats assuming the labour
hire companies actually get off the ground, which is still debatable.
As for the electorate, if this does hurt the government (as it
might) I'd be surprised if it was still an issue come election
time. The general populace has a short memory. By then the big
issues will be tax reform, the Budget, etc.
Interestingly I heard on the news this morning that the ACTU will
oppose any tax reform package by the government if it contains a
GST. How thoughtful of them to dismiss something they haven't
even seen yet.
:>The MUA leadership has brought this on themselves and their members.
:>Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
:>their members.
: The MUA has not brought this on themselves. Patrick's with some help
: from the Federal coalition government have brought about the sacking
: of 1400 Australian workers.
Yes but there were several reasons why they were sacked. Amongst
them being the unreliability of the workforce due to industrial
disputation which was evidenced prior to the sackings.
Billy
Peter
Billy Shields wrote:
>
> Zaccary Charlesworth <za...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> : On 2 May 1998 23:40:47 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
> : wrote:
>
> :>Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
> :>their members.
>
> : jobs back he's out of a very well paying job.
>
> Well since the MUA will still have 1500 or so workers at P&O I
> don't think he'd be out of a career quite that soon...
But if Patricks do succeed in this action, (which I hope they dont),
then surely they will be much more competitive than P&O, winning some of
their contracts. P&O will have to become more efficient and they also
will have to shed labour, by how much who knows?, but it's on the cards
that they will.
Peter
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:51:23 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>The company's crime? Joining the government to break the MUA. The MUA
>where only ever looking after there members as they could see what
>Patrick's was up to. Thus the industrial action against this union
>bashing comapny.
>The MUA has not brought this on themselves. Patrick's with some help
>from the Federal coalition government have brought about the sacking
>of 1400 Australian workers.
Dr., you left out the word 'alleged' in there quite a few times.
Zaccary Charlesworth
On Sun, 03 May 1998 05:10:18 GMT, dr...@whonet.net.au (DrWho) wrote:
>I did use Nuked,as in kill him. Not nuclear bombs. Though this has
>given you a way out of answering my question.
Oh, I'm sorry. I've always associated nuked with nuclear bombs! :)
>So me shall try again...
Seek and ye might find...
>You yourself have said that Saddam Hussan should or should have been
>killed. Is this not also a immoral act?
Yes, very immoral. Also illegal. And lastly not very nice.
Let me pose this question to you:
Suppose you were whisked away to the past, at the same time Hitler was
6. Would you kill this innocent 6 year old child, who has yet to
commit any wrongdoing in cold blood to preven the holocost ?
Remeber, at this point in time Hitler is an innocent Babe.
And no, you can't go foward in time. You have exactly 3 mins to kill
him before you are whisked back to 1998. 3 mins to change history.
This is your only chance. The knife is poised to strike.... Will you
attack ?
Billy Shields
Peter <pe...@iinet.net.oz> wrote:
Ok, so you're saying (in your own words) that replacement of the MUA
workforce will make Patrick more competitive. This is a fairly good
indicator that the waterfront workers are getting more money than
they're worth, is it not?
What they need is a bit of healthy competition.
Billy
Bilbo
> >Regardless of whether or not a law is right in the eyes of people it is
> >still a law and it was made for a reason and therefore it should be
> >respected until such a time that the law is changed through the right
> >means....
> Yes and no.
>
> <generalisations>
> Rather, it is the duty of citizens to oppose them by suitable means until
> they are changed. Suitable means must reflect the 'wrongness' of the laws
> themselves and must not introduce greater wrongs.
>
the contented majority. You say incontrovertably immoral, but who decides
that? (As an example I believe the no closed shop law is a just law, but I
am in opposition to unionists)
> Thus passive resistance is at times quite acceptable even though it might
> disrupt other citizens and even 'normal commerce'. In a near ideal
> situation, good thinking people would effectively storm (by being arrested
> in great numbers for such passive resistance) and bring the system to its
> knees by making the system unworkable.
>
Picket lines are not passive resistance. They cause harm to the
business they are aimed at, and in this case the other businesses who rely
on the delivery of goods to survive.
> Obviously this is not the automatic reaction to a GST, for example.
>
I agree with you, an aexample would be poll tax in Britian.
> *You know it is when, at great personal cost/risk, you are not protesting
> for your own interests but for that of others. It is seldom when you have
> something to gain.
>
You would be hard pressed to find a person today, who would risk
themselves or their livelyhood for something that didn't directly threaten
either their way of life, their financial security or both.
...bilbo...
---
it was you or the pot plant, and, well, the pot plant doesn't offend as
many people as you do.
---
Bilbo
> [snip doctor]
>
> >It usually comes down to freedoms and rights. In the case of the
> >MUA they're trying to protect their right to a monopoly so they can
> >go to hell (basically) as far as I'm concerned.
>
> You still do not get it Billy. The MUA are protesting because they and
> quite a few other people in our community think the 1400 Australian
> workers where unfairly sacked. The 1400 Australian workers are trying
> to get there jobs back.
>
been dismissed at all if they hadn't used stand over tactics and
industrial blackmail to control the hiring and firing policies of the
waterfront.
Anthony Shipley
Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
> You would be hard pressed to find a person today, who would risk
>themselves or their livelyhood for something that didn't directly threaten
>either their way of life, their financial security or both.
Quite true but there are some. We certainly won't _find_ them by looking
here (in this ng).
Not to be taken personally - many people will deny their existance merely
to justify their own apathy.
Bilbo
> >industrial action to cripple the company in the weeks prior to the
> >sacking. The company's crime? Leasing dock space to another company
> >that used non-union labour.
>
> where only ever looking after there members as they could see what
> Patrick's was up to. Thus the industrial action against this union
> bashing comapny.
>
to break the MUA, who had a stranglehold on the docks because they ignored
the no closed shop rules and used every trick in the book to keep control.
Yes Patricks should be shot for the way they got rid of the
workers, but the union should be hauled over the coals for flaunting their
disregard for the no compulsory unionism laws, and while we are at it, the
MUA ignored a court order telling them not to block access roads in
Melbourne, so why should Patricks feel like they should honour any court
decision handed down? Does the MUA want to choose which court orders it
wants to follow?
> >They acted with complete impunity of the consequences thinking the
> >company had no legal recourse for getting rid of them so they had
> >nothing to lose. Now that lack of foresight has come and bitten
> >them in the ass.
>
> Patrick's could be the one that ends up getting kicked in the rear.
> The actions of the Federal coalition Government in this whole affair
> could come back and haunt them at the next election.
>
they have to pay two workforces, so who wants to put money on how long
before Patricks declares bankruptcy and the MUA are stiffed for good? No
redundancy deals then...
> >The MUA leadership has brought this on themselves and their members.
> >Oh wait, they still have jobs. I guess they've only brought it on
> >their members.
>
> The MUA has not brought this on themselves. Patrick's with some help
> from the Federal coalition government have brought about the sacking
> of 1400 Australian workers.
>
The MUA members have all been offered jobs, if they sign workplace
agreements - and the bit of info the MUA won't tell you is that the AWA
does not preclude membership of a union.
DrWho
On Sun, 03 May 1998 08:55:22 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>Yes, very immoral. Also illegal. And lastly not very nice.
Yet you had no problem with doing this in one of your posts. Thus you
do not mind breaking immoral views and the law. At least try and be
consistent with your views. I mean do not throw up the law is the law
as you have been caught out :)
>Suppose you were whisked away to the past, at the same time Hitler was
>6. Would you kill this innocent 6 year old child, who has yet to
>commit any wrongdoing in cold blood to preven the holocost ?
>Remeber, at this point in time Hitler is an innocent Babe.
You have been playing too much Red Alert... Hitler is out of the
picture <g>.
I have never killed anyone. Yet I suppose if I could kill Hitler. I
would.
DrWho
On Sun, 03 May 1998 08:50:39 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>Dr., you left out the word 'alleged' in there quite a few times.
No because it is fact. You just got to look at the 1400 Australian
sacked workers. You just got to look at the role the government played
in the sacking of the 1400 Australian workers. Has the government
tried to bring both parties together?... No! The government have just
been on the side of Patrick's. Patrick's and the government are
holding this country to ransom.
DrWho
On Sun, 3 May 1998 18:04:36 +0800, Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
[snip doctor]
> Hmmm, so the government and Patricks are evil for 'joining forces'
>to break the MUA, who had a stranglehold on the docks because they ignored
>the no closed shop rules and used every trick in the book to keep control.
> Yes Patricks should be shot for the way they got rid of the
>workers, but the union should be hauled over the coals for flaunting their
>disregard for the no compulsory unionism laws, and while we are at it, the
>MUA ignored a court order telling them not to block access roads in
>Melbourne, so why should Patricks feel like they should honour any court
>decision handed down? Does the MUA want to choose which court orders it
>wants to follow?
The government is supposed to bring the two parties together. If Labor
was in power and done what this government was doing.as in taking just
the union side. Labor would really be in hot water. Patrick's and the
government are just union bashers. Adelaide,Hobart and Townsville
where all competative. So why sack all the workers... Why? Because
Patrick's do not like the union.
That is Melbourne. This is Perth. Do not generalize. You are
generalizing like Patrick's did,when they sacked there whole work
force.
> Ummm, just a thought, but if the decision goes against Patricks,
>they have to pay two workforces, so who wants to put money on how long
>before Patricks declares bankruptcy and the MUA are stiffed for good? No
>redundancy deals then...
Patrick's where told not to employ any new workers. They have been
warned by the judge. I've heard that the scabs are on a three month
contract. Anyway who cares what happens to the scabs.
> The MUA members have all been offered jobs, if they sign workplace
>agreements - and the bit of info the MUA won't tell you is that the AWA
>does not preclude membership of a union.
You should not be forced into a workplace agreement. I thought that
was against the law?. You should have a freedom of choice on you
wanting the union to negotiate your pay. Sounds like a closed shop
deal to me.
DrWho
On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:27 GMT, za...@iinet.net.au (Zaccary
Charlesworth) wrote:
[snip doctor]
>That's why Peter Coombes is scared sh**less. If he can't get those
>jobs back he's out of a very well paying job.
That's also why Mr Reith is scared. If the workers get there jobs back
and so they should. Mr Reith political career is over.
Billy Shields
DrWho <dr...@whonet.net.au> wrote:
[snip]
: I have never killed anyone. Yet I suppose if I could kill Hitler. I
: would.
I'm reminded of the saying "be careful what you wish for". I think
that would apply to killing Hitler. What evils would fill that
vacuum? Bear in mind Hitler wasn't solely responsible for the
atrocities of WWII. He was symptomatic of the deeply nationalistic
and supremacist views of the (then) German culture.
Sometimes its best not to open Pandora's box. :-)
Billy
Peter
Billy Shields wrote:
>
> Ok, so you're saying (in your own words) that replacement of the MUA
> workforce will make Patrick more competitive. This is a fairly good
> indicator that the waterfront workers are getting more money than
> they're worth, is it not?
>
> What they need is a bit of healthy competition.
Good point I suppose it is, I dont like closed shops and other
monopolies, standover tactics etc. and it looks like the MUA has to
shoulder some of the blame for this. My main concern about this is that
it is setting a very dangerous precedance if Patricks are allowed to do
what they have done to the workers because it was in the 'too hard
basket'.
I personally do not believe it is a general union bashing exercise, just
the MUA, but it does give other employers to follow suit, i.e. create a
subsidary, allegedly drain that company of it's assets, put it into
liquidation, terminate its labour hire contract, effectively sacking the
workforce, then employ another workforce on lower wages, poorer
conditions, and maybe even subject them to unsafe work places.
I dont remember Patricks going to the MUA and saying, "look guys we are
losing money hand over fist here, we need to shed some staff, and we
need to change some work practices, if we dont we are going to go under.
By the way, If the guys who have been here for 30 odd years agree to
voluntary redundancy they will walk away with a package of $lots"
Maybe they did, but I know that if I was offered that kind of severence
and I was in my 50's or 60's I couldn't turn it down.
Peter
DrWho
On Sun, 3 May 1998 17:56:30 +0800, Bilbo <bi...@tempest.com.au> wrote:
[snip doctor]
> umm yes they believe they were unfairly sacked. They wouldn't have
>been dismissed at all if they hadn't used stand over tactics and
>industrial blackmail to control the hiring and firing policies of the
>waterfront.
When it comes to hiring a person. I do agree the company should be the
only ones involved. Though I do feel the said worker should be in the
union. When it comes to firing a worker. I think the union should play
a part. At least to make sure nothing unjust was done by the company.
In the construction Industry we have this rule. First on,last off. Now
in away I disagree with this,but if one was a union delegate he or she
would never keep there job. As most union delegates speak up for the
workers and this may cost the company money. Thus without the first on
last off rule. There would be no protection for the union delegate. It
is hard to say the said rule is right or wrong.