Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Unions


bt50
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rumour is that JVS is on the chopping block. Will be lucky to see the week out. Let's wait and see.

From a reliable source?greek construction workerFuck the cfmeu

You wouldn't want to say that in front of the cfmeu secretary Mr Setka. He will get Mick Gatto onto you in a heartbeat. Hail the CFMEU!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

 

 

 

Agree with that.  Currently working for a large multi-national corporation, its obvious that managers are simply serving themselves, re-inventing the wheel with things that haven't worked before, just to say they did something at their performance review.   And the pointless meetings, the endless emails that go something like "Your KPI x is under budget, tell me what you intend do about it by tomorrow", instead of actually showing leadership and coming up with strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

 

 

 

Agree with that.  Currently working for a large multi-national corporation, its obvious that managers are simply serving themselves, re-inventing the wheel with things that haven't worked before, just to say they did something at their performance review.   And the pointless meetings, the endless emails that go something like "Your KPI x is under budget, tell me what you intend do about it by tomorrow", instead of actually showing leadership and coming up with strategies.

 

My experience would suggest that this is a feature of any organization once it reaches what I would call its "critical size." As it grows beyond that all levels in the organization tend to become self-serving and you start to have absurd layers of procedures that you have to go through to achieve anything. In fact you end up with sections in the organization that really have no outputs at all that are directed at furthering the primary purpose of the organization. Any of you in such an organization will know what I mean - indeed, these sections often concern themselves with telling you what you cannot do rather than what you can. Such organizations find it very difficult to respond quickly enough to a change in circumstances.

 

I don't think this is confined to "management." I'd suggest that history shows that large unions are just as vulnerable to exceeding their "critical size."

 

Just bringing the discussion closer to home, I sometimes wonder whether CFG is exceeding its "critical size" and whether that is why we are underperforming at Melbourne City...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

 

 

Agree with that.  Currently working for a large multi-national corporation, its obvious that managers are simply serving themselves, re-inventing the wheel with things that haven't worked before, just to say they did something at their performance review.   And the pointless meetings, the endless emails that go something like "Your KPI x is under budget, tell me what you intend do about it by tomorrow", instead of actually showing leadership and coming up with strategies.

My experience would suggest that this is a feature of any organization once it reaches what I would call its "critical size." As it grows beyond that all levels in the organization tend to become self-serving and you start to have absurd layers of procedures that you have to go through to achieve anything. In fact you end up with sections in the organization that really have no outputs at all that are directed at furthering the primary purpose of the organization. Any of you in such an organization will know what I mean - indeed, these sections often concern themselves with telling you what you cannot do rather than what you can. Such organizations find it very difficult to respond quickly enough to a change in circumstances.

 

I don't think this is confined to "management." I'd suggest that history shows that large unions are just as vulnerable to exceeding their "critical size."

 

Just bringing the discussion closer to home, I sometimes wonder whether CFG is exceeding its "critical size" and whether that is why we are underperforming at Melbourne City...

I wouldn't think so jw. We're most likely failing becuase of the reasons here.....http://forum.melbournefootball.com/forum/12-melbourne-city/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

You do realise the high cost of construction in this country, due to the highly unionised nature of that industry, is a key factor when it comes to the cost of real estate?

You do also realise that at the average business the cost of rent is probably not even 10% the cost of labour?

Edited by Tesla
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was an apprentice sparky, standard first year wages were $250 a week. We had a guy who was working on a union site (Swan Brewery), and he was getting exactly double what we were on because he'd get loading for everything imaginable, plus days off for bullshit things like being above 22 degrees or below 21 degrees. 
 
They without a doubt have a place in society and I won't say sweeping statements like 'fuck unions', but I think theres enough examples of them having way too much power in the construction industry (WA especially)
Edited by hedaik
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

 

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

 

You do realise the high cost of construction in this country, due to the highly unionised nature of that industry, is a key factor when it comes to the cost of real estate?

You do also realise that at the average business the cost of rent is probably not even 10% the cost of labour?

 

 

Actually the cost of real estate is not all about the unions. If building residential then the cost of using an architect about 50% of the time it has to do with meeting Council regulations re heritage and other residents concern. If building off the plan then the cost is lower but remains significant. Large scale construction sites are where you meet the unions. Yet even there the wages are not alone in increasing costs. What we have found is the cost of steel is truly phenomenal (not to mention the lead time if your job is small) as well as the concreting.

The second reason that the cost of real estate is high is location but this is true everywhere on the planet. What I found disturbing though was that the rent in Ginza (Tokyo exclusive shopping street where you can buy $25,000 handbags for the missus) was lower than the rent here in Melbourne's CBD. That I cannot explain.

And being an engineer I don't like terms such as average business since business is too diverse to get a good understanding. Friend works at a boutique investment bank in the CBD where the salaries are incredible yet the bank does not employ many people so their rent would be minuscule. Yet if you open a Sushi bar in the CBD I dare say that the rent would be quite significant compare to salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

 

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

 

You do realise the high cost of construction in this country, due to the highly unionised nature of that industry, is a key factor when it comes to the cost of real estate?

You do also realise that at the average business the cost of rent is probably not even 10% the cost of labour?

 

 

 

NO WAY.

 

Our retail premises chew up about 25% of revenue and labour costs are about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

You do realise the high cost of construction in this country, due to the highly unionised nature of that industry, is a key factor when it comes to the cost of real estate?

You do also realise that at the average business the cost of rent is probably not even 10% the cost of labour?

 

Actually the cost of real estate is not all about the unions. If building residential then the cost of using an architect about 50% of the time it has to do with meeting Council regulations re heritage and other residents concern. If building off the plan then the cost is lower but remains significant. Large scale construction sites are where you meet the unions. Yet even there the wages are not alone in increasing costs. What we have found is the cost of steel is truly phenomenal (not to mention the lead time if your job is small) as well as the concreting.

The second reason that the cost of real estate is high is location but this is true everywhere on the planet. What I found disturbing though was that the rent in Ginza (Tokyo exclusive shopping street where you can buy $25,000 handbags for the missus) was lower than the rent here in Melbourne's CBD. That I cannot explain.

And being an engineer I don't like terms such as average business since business is too diverse to get a good understanding. Friend works at a boutique investment bank in the CBD where the salaries are incredible yet the bank does not employ many people so their rent would be minuscule. Yet if you open a Sushi bar in the CBD I dare say that the rent would be quite significant compare to salaries.

I didn't say it's all about unions, just that it is an important factor. Things like the communists running inner city councils making life difficult for anyone trying to build something is obviously also a factor, as you highlight.

Your Tokyo example is interesting, given the Japanese construction industry is probably even worse (and one of the key factors in their economic decline) and their obviously high density making land scarce and expensive. I struggle to find an explanation for that as well, maybe partly the regulatory requirements being easier to meet there as well as maybe due to the fact commercial real estate prices are heavily linked with the economic climate, and Japan has an extraordinary record of decades of economic decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck oath I would.

The Unions are to thank for the some of the best working conditions in the world, but there is no doubt they've been trying to take more than they give for the best part of two decades to the point where business has a greater chance of failing than succeeding now.

Cancer on our economy in their current form.

Child. You did not live through real industrial actions of the 60s and 70s, otherwise you would not be making these statements. The unions these days are almost non-existent with only the CFMEU being the only one really active in private enterprise - most unions these days are in the public sector and thanks to the EBAs they are on a leash most of the time. Businesses fail because we have poor management skills and an over inflated cost of real estate. I don't normally respond to politics in a football blog but this required a response.

60s and 70s aren't now mate.

Im not saying unions are useless, in fact they play an important role. But Australians today have pretty close to the best working conditions in the world, yet these unions continue to push for their own agendas, to the detriment of the country.

 

These people push for their own benefit, and lose sight of the fact that if the business ain't making money, they aint got a job.

Im not saying minimum wage should be reduced, but who is on minimum wage these days anyway. The unions just force the cost of hiring people up. Higher costs = less money to employ people = less jobs.

 

The fact you can't just sack a worker who is a piece of shit these days without going through all sorts of legal bullshit is ridiculous. Any employer who is any good at running a business knows that a good employee is your best asset.

 

I just had a look at the ABS regarding union membership and that is now at about 18% of the total workforce and is predominantly found in the public sector. Hence for the 82% of the workforce that do not belong to the union movement they must be protected by common or statutory law. Given the repudiation of Workchoices in 2007, I would say that most people are comfortable with the current arrangements.

Now regarding the higher costs means less money, I'll give you an example. George Columbaris of the Press Group complained prior to the previous election about the high cost of labour (given that restaurants are labour intensive) but what he did not mention was the high cost of rent that the business group was paying; it turns out that the Press Group's business model was to own the buildings and then charge the restaurants above market rates for the lease (I can't recall the precise figure but it was quite exorbitant) hence the reason for the lack of profits. If you are familiar with the restaurant/cafe industry you will also be familiar that it is the least unionised and where breaches of employment law occur frequently.

I will grant you two things: the living standards of the average Australian is really a consequence of the Union movement pushing for it; and that sacking people is hard. On the latter I am unsure as to where to draw the line.

You do realise the high cost of construction in this country, due to the highly unionised nature of that industry, is a key factor when it comes to the cost of real estate?You do also realise that at the average business the cost of rent is probably not even 10% the cost of labour?

 

 

NO WAY.

 

Our retail premises chew up about 25% of revenue and labour costs are about the same.

Sure, in retail. But in an office? In a factory?

Like new convert mentions, it obviously varies hugely, but I reckon on average my estimate it for off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan is a case study of what happens in a deflationary trap. This makes investment decision really tricky. The real problem was how in the 1980s real estate pricing became totally delusional which peaked when the Tokyo CBD was valued higher than the entire USA continental land mass. They still haven't worked that through the system with banks refusing to re-evaluate when the crash happened. As an aside it was funny to watch how western countries forced international regulations so that banks had to value their portfolios at market value and then the financial crisis hit the west and their own banks were refusing to do this because it would have led to a systemic financial collapse of all the banks.

I am of the understanding that as building get older then government increase taxes so that eventually it becomes cheaper to demolish and rebuild. Visiting two years apart is quite interesting to see how everything changes. Obviously heritage buildings are non-existent other than some really old shrines. Earthquakes assist as well. Then there is the local understanding that retailers need to survive and so landlords can be quite accommodating.

The construction sector is quite well protected by governments and corporations as this industry more than most mops up the unskilled labour market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a joke. 

LOL - I tend to agree...

 

Unions are clearly not as necessary for most Workers as they once were, however that they are still relevant and needed in Modern Day Australia. I was in a Union for my University Job and I had nothing but a positive experience in how they assisted me over the years with that job. 

 

In fact I have never been ashamed to admit I was a member of a Union and I know for fact that everyday Unions see PPL just above the poverty line being prevented from unfairly losing their jobs and having their lives destroyed. The hard work of rank and file Union Employees really does not get the credit they deserve anymore because of the Union Corruption you see on television from the bigger players in the movement.

 

NOTE: And yes the Union I was a member of was the SDA... I would mention it before someone else made the Pseudo Catholic Connection.

Edited by cadete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a joke.

LOL - I tend to agree...

 

Unions are clearly not as necessary, however that they are still relevant and needed in Modern Day Australia.

I was in a Union for my University Job and I had nothing but a positive experience in how they assisted me over the years with that job. 

 

In fact I have never been ashamed to admit I was a member of a Union.

 

NOTE: And yes the Union was the SDA... I would mention it before someone else made the Catholic Connection.

I don't think a single person in this thread has said that unions are not at all necessary. I think there is definitely a place for unions to provide information to employees and to advocate on their behalf when there is an issue. Especially something like SDA, where the industry is one where the employees are generally at an even greater power disadvantage than the average employee (young and/or uneducated and/or unskilled and/or lower socioeconomic standing) and the managers are usually retarded and/or young, uneducated, etc., themselves and both parties have very little idea of the relevant workplaces laws and agreements.

But the fact is suppliers of any other resource or product can't legally form cartels or collude together, so I certainly think there is room for the power of unions to be further eroded.

Lets also not forget that some of the larger 'unions' are basically just criminal organisations and the only reason they haven't been brought to account for their crimes is that they have a strong political arm (Australian Labor Party).

Japan is a case study of what happens in a deflationary trap. This makes investment decision really tricky. The real problem was how in the 1980s real estate pricing became totally delusional which peaked when the Tokyo CBD was valued higher than the entire USA continental land mass. They still haven't worked that through the system with banks refusing to re-evaluate when the crash happened. As an aside it was funny to watch how western countries forced international regulations so that banks had to value their portfolios at market value and then the financial crisis hit the west and their own banks were refusing to do this because it would have led to a systemic financial collapse of all the banks.

I am of the understanding that as building get older then government increase taxes so that eventually it becomes cheaper to demolish and rebuild. Visiting two years apart is quite interesting to see how everything changes. Obviously heritage buildings are non-existent other than some really old shrines. Earthquakes assist as well. Then there is the local understanding that retailers need to survive and so landlords can be quite accommodating.

The construction sector is quite well protected by governments and corporations as this industry more than most mops up the unskilled labour market.

There is also the fact that the construction industry is infamously controlled by a cartel of companys, who also generally have influence with the government (you do mention the protection the industry receives from the government), which is what I meant about their construction industry being worse than even ours.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japan is a case study of what happens in a deflationary trap. This makes investment decision really tricky. The real problem was how in the 1980s real estate pricing became totally delusional which peaked when the Tokyo CBD was valued higher than the entire USA continental land mass. They still haven't worked that through the system with banks refusing to re-evaluate when the crash happened. As an aside it was funny to watch how western countries forced international regulations so that banks had to value their portfolios at market value and then the financial crisis hit the west and their own banks were refusing to do this because it would have led to a systemic financial collapse of all the banks.

I am of the understanding that as building get older then government increase taxes so that eventually it becomes cheaper to demolish and rebuild. Visiting two years apart is quite interesting to see how everything changes. Obviously heritage buildings are non-existent other than some really old shrines. Earthquakes assist as well. Then there is the local understanding that retailers need to survive and so landlords can be quite accommodating.

The construction sector is quite well protected by governments and corporations as this industry more than most mops up the unskilled labour market.

There is also the fact that the construction industry is infamously controlled by a cartel of companys, who also generally have influence with the government (you do mention the protection the industry receives from the government), which is what I meant about their construction industry being worse than even ours.

 

 

The domestic japanese industry is a cartel. There are lots of supermarket/banks/retail outlets that only operate in certain geographic areas, they compete on the boundaries but never go into someone else's turf. Japanese value tranquillity and loyalty, so open slather competition does not easily happen - except perhaps with the very small stores. By not openly competing their society has very low unemployment (I think that at its worst it nudged 4%) and people can walk safely at night. Tokyo is the only city in the world where I will walk down a dark alley without a care in the world.

 

Our construction industry has other problems but it is not the unions nor the regulations. Maybe management and cultural. In Japan the construction unions are quite strong and the remuneration are quite high as well. I don't know what it is but for five years I have been wondering what the problem is with the construction industry and what can be done about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also not forget that some of the larger 'unions' are basically just criminal organisations and the only reason they haven't been brought to account for their crimes is that they have a strong political arm (Australian Labor Party).

I am obviously aware of the Grocon stuff and its fucked up ATM.

 

But the above comment on Unions is just a one huge massive generalisation which I have to say that I am surprised that someone like you would actually make... in fact if you made in the media you would probably be sued.

 

We live in Australia in 2015, not in New York in the 1970's or even in Port Melbourne in the 1970's for that matter... or bloody Japan.

Edited by cadete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also not forget that some of the larger 'unions' are basically just criminal organisations and the only reason they haven't been brought to account for their crimes is that they have a strong political arm (Australian Labor Party).

I am obviously aware of the Grocon stuff and its fucked up ATM.

 

But the above comment on Unions is just a one huge massive generalisation which I have to say that I am surprised that someone like you would actually make... in fact if you made in the media you would probably be sued.

 

We live in Australia in 2015, not in New York in the 1970's or even in Port Melbourne in the 1970's for that matter... or bloody Japan.

Well I really don't see how making statements about "some of the larger 'unions'" is going to get me sued. Or if you mean by the ALP, I more than welcome them to sue me, but for some reason I don't see it happening :hmm:. Though I suppose you never know with our current Premier.

But I do think the interim report by the royal commission would make interesting reading for you cadete if you are unaware of the culture of criminality that exists in certain 'unions'.

TBH, it would also make very interesting reading for the low level members of these unions (if they can read).

Edited by Tesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the history of the Unions and corruption I do recall that in the 80s when the BLF was deregistered that only Norm Gallagher went to jail. The five allegedly corrupt businessmen were not prosecuted. Of those five eventually all of them ended up in the courts and the only one to survive was Grollo. Grollo senior claimed in court that he was just a simpleton that liked playing with mortar. And before that there was the Royal Commission into the Painters & Dockers that lo and behold found that the union had been infiltrated by organised crime but the bigger issue was the massive corruption and illegality of the business community.

So when I hear that the Unions are criminal organisations I just think about some industry group that is raking it in. On that topic I was at a business luncheon (sponsored by a major corporate business - one the biggies of the stock exchange) where the then Premier Napthine was a guest. What attracted my attention were the number of 'colourful' business people in attendance. Rushed home to have a shower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also not forget that some of the larger 'unions' are basically just criminal organisations and the only reason they haven't been brought to account for their crimes is that they have a strong political arm (Australian Labor Party).

I am obviously aware of the Grocon stuff and its fucked up ATM. But the above comment on Unions is just a one huge massive generalisation which I have to say that I am surprised that someone like you would actually make... in fact if you made in the media you would probably be sued. We live in Australia in 2015, not in New York in the 1970's or even in Port Melbourne in the 1970's for that matter... or bloody Japan.Well I really don't see how making statements about "some of the larger 'unions'" is going to get me sued. Or if you mean by the ALP, I more than welcome them to sue me, but for some reason I don't see it happening :hmm:. Though I suppose you never know with our current Premier.But I do think the interim report by the royal commission would make interesting reading for you cadete if you are unaware of the culture of criminality that exists in certain 'unions'.TBH, it would also make very interesting reading for the low level members of these unions (if they can read).I know all about the Royal Commission it's fucked up - But it's a fact is that you are still generalising on a major scale... Edited by cadete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I think this will blow over but if it plays out as badly as possible, we could the most Left Slanted ALP Federal Party at election time and since basically the 70's.

Edited by cadete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this will blow over but if it plays out as badly as possible, we could the most Left Slanted ALP Federal Party at election time and since basically the 70's.

It's bound to be a non-issue. Neither side can play up the political donations angle because they're both as bad as each other. It's a shame really because that's what the commission should be investigating but there's no way a government will do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bound to be a non-issue. Neither side can play up the political donations angle because they're both as bad as each other. It's a shame really because that's what the commission should be investigating but there's no way a government will do anything about it.

You mean like how when Fairfax caught Joe Hockey red handed??? :droy:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like how when Fairfax caught Joe Hockey red handed??? :droy:

Amanda Vanstone and the mafia is the funniest.

Need to investigate expenses too. That "pollie peddle"? These wankers pretend their doing it for charity then charge the tax-payer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...