Domestic Politics

[Tommykins]

Don't really understand the argument that we need a plebiscite when it was changed by Howard without one in the first place, no? (Not fully across the original amendment by Howard, tbh, so anyone who wants to correct me please do).

[thisphantomfortress]

20'years ago she told us it was an Asian invasion now she's telling us were soon to be under shariah law  

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/one-nation-leader-pauline-hanson-delivers-incendiary-maiden-speech-to-senate-20160914-grg60g.html

[NewConvert]

11 hours ago, Tesla said:

Look I don't wish that kind of stuff on anyone but freedom of speech can't be dictated by what gets someone "triggered".

Just as gay people should have the right to be married etc the same as everyone else, those against gay marriage have a right to their opinion.

This has been troubling me for years and I don't have an answer or for that matter a leaning. The background is the right to express an opinion and the way that opinion is expressed. Outside of politics it began with the good ol' family doctor - who mum still sees although she is now semi-retired. The family doctor is a good doctor but with the sensitivity expressed on this forum regarding JVS and she doesn't explain things. Mum really likes her because you get no BS from her - the rest of us have moved on (we are all fine about the no BS bit, just the way that it is delivered). This is an example of how opinions are expressed but one that has been bothering since early teenage years.

The second factor that has influenced me is of course the German Weimar Republic. There were no limits to free speech then and it only took one charismatic demagogue who could really deliver a speech to turn Western History into a murderous pile of shit.

So the question then becomes are there limits to freedom of speech or just how things are expressed? Ideally, in Utopia there wouldn't be but here on planet earth...

[jw1739]

5 hours ago, NewConvert said:

The second factor that has influenced me is of course the German Weimar Republic. There were no limits to free speech then and it only took one charismatic demagogue who could really deliver a speech to turn Western History into a murderous pile of shit.

So the question then becomes are there limits to freedom of speech or just how things are expressed? Ideally, in Utopia there wouldn't be but here on planet earth...

I don't think you can pin that on the concept of "free speech." At least not solely on "free speech." I think there have been plenty of murderous regimes where there was no free speech at all, or if there was it was rapidly suppressed by imprisonment, torture and murder.

Then when you become overly-concerned about how things are expressed you end up with political correctness and all that goes with that, such as changing the meaning of words (my pet hate on that being the use of "gender" instead of "sex").

Overall IMO we have to have free speech. I think abuse of that "right" will be handled by those who will give their opinion on whether the right has been abused or not.

For example, I regard the naming and shaming of individuals under "Parliamentary privilege" as an abuse of the right to free speech. However, if someone wishes to discuss something in terms of facts and figures and their personal concerns about those facts and figures, then they must be allowed to do so. Sweeping under the carpet solves nothing.

[Deeming]

On 14 September 2016 at 9:47 AM, bt50 said:

Perhaps, but a plebiscite has to be done in the name of democracy given the magnitude of the issue. This crap the lefties are sprouting about the plebiscite being a bad thing is not only a load of shit, its insulting to the Australian public. Have a vote, then we can be done with the issue for good.

Won't be done if it fails. My guess is the real numbers at this stage are something are only like 55-60% pro-SSM.

The left are opposing it because they know the real figures of support are no where near the published polls. And so far with all the media and corporations united they have had the vast majority of the positive coverage.

[thisphantomfortress]

19 minutes ago, Deeming said:

Won't be done if it fails. My guess is the real numbers at this stage are something are only like 55-60% pro-SSM.

The left are opposing it because they know the real figures of support are no where near the published polls. And so far with all the media and corporations united they have had the vast majority of the positive coverage.

I'd love to see what happened if the "no" vote got up.

[Embee]

10 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

I'd love to see what happened if the "no" vote got up.

"Australia world's most oppressive country"

[thisphantomfortress]

4 minutes ago, Embee said:

"Australia world's most oppressive country"

I expect a lot of "I'm moving to New Zealand" facebook statuses

[Jimmy]

Decided that I'm going to do what Tes mentioned and protest vote against the left wing fascists. 

It's a Win-Win situation really, if the yes vote gets up then the morally correct decision will have been reached and gays will be granted a long overdue human right. But if the no vote gets up then I can gets some 10/10 schadenfreude from watching the SJWs pull the shit out of their undies.

[GreenSeater]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Decided that I'm going to do what Tes mentioned and protest vote against the left wing fascists. 

It's a Win-Win situation really, if the yes vote gets up then the morally correct decision will have been reached and gays will be granted a long overdue human right. But if the no vote gets up then I can gets some 10/10 schadenfreude from watching the SJWs pull the shit out of their undies.

In all honesty I think there's going to be enough people voting no for this reason to actually make a difference

[NewConvert]

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I don't think you can pin that on the concept of "free speech." At least not solely on "free speech." I think there have been plenty of murderous regimes where there was no free speech at all, or if there was it was rapidly suppressed by imprisonment, torture and murder.

Then when you become overly-concerned about how things are expressed you end up with political correctness and all that goes with that, such as changing the meaning of words (my pet hate on that being the use of "gender" instead of "sex").

Overall IMO we have to have free speech. I think abuse of that "right" will be handled by those who will give their opinion on whether the right has been abused or not.

For example, I regard the naming and shaming of individuals under "Parliamentary privilege" as an abuse of the right to free speech. However, if someone wishes to discuss something in terms of facts and figures and their personal concerns about those facts and figures, then they must be allowed to do so. Sweeping under the carpet solves nothing.

Well given that in the Weimar republic speech was not limited it meant that AH could say and publish what ever he wanted. If "hate speech" laws had been in place back then it could well have turned out to be a different history. Genuinely democratic regimes (as opposed to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) are not murderous and usually have quite relaxed laws regarding speech (there may be some taboo subjects but these tend to be societal norms).

Had to look up the Oxford dictionary to find out what the difference between "sex" and "gender" is because I use them interchangeably. It turns out that since the 14th century there is no difference although gender tends to be used for grammatical descriptions, specially when referring to languages that have masculine/feminine/neuter words. Whereas "sex" is used for biological description. But these differences are relatively new and tend to be more of a custom rather than the definition.

I didn't say we shouldn't have free speech - or perhaps the freedom to express our opinions and thoughts because making a threat to kill is a criminal offence and rightly so. But this was precisely my point, to me the question becomes are there limits that history suggests we should have because the consequences in the real world can be devastating; and maybe the price is "political correctness" no matter how much people hate it. And maybe "political correctness" is salient because we are trying to work out what can be acceptable and not acceptable. Another example comes from 1998 when Time magazine published a collection of reader's letters across its 75 year history - and I was quite shocked at the beliefs that the upper echelon of society had then.

And I fully agree with you regarding the ability to discuss facts/figures and not shoving things under the carpet.

[jw1739]

Let me correct any impression that I gave that I thought you were against free speech. I certainly didn't mean to imply that. I was stating my own firm support for the principle of free speech. I do believe that in most cases free speech itself will provide the necessary checks and balances, but I concede that there is a need for certain legal restrictions - for example the case that you mention - but overall IMO legislation and regulation is a very blunt instrument that should be avoided where possible. I guess my fundamental position is that once you curtail free speech you cannot be sure that you can ever find out the truth.

I guess that the fundamental weakness in my position is that for it to work as I would like everyone has to be clear thinking, level headed and endeavouring to live in a peaceful, productive and non-destructive society.

[cadete]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/chastened-angela-merkel-takes-blame-for-migrant-crisis/news-story/2448663030a6c7d4d2e855d760ee0dff

Interesting how this time last year many an Australian's FB status said "We should be like Germany".

I am not saying I know the right or wrong way to deal with "Mass Migration" but its def not as clear cut as some PPL try to make it out to be on either side.

[Tesla]

1 hour ago, cadete said:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/chastened-angela-merkel-takes-blame-for-migrant-crisis/news-story/2448663030a6c7d4d2e855d760ee0dff

Interesting how this time last year many an Australian's FB status said "We should be like Germany".

I am not saying I know the right or wrong way to deal with "Mass Migration" but its def not as clear cut as some PPL try to make it out to be on either side.

I had to watch so many cunts and every media outlet talking shit about Macedonia, when in the end I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say they single-handedly saved Europe.

I really hope there was at least some dodgy shit going on in the background where EU cunts were in on it but needed someone else to be the bad guy.

[cadete]

6 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I had to watch so many cunts and every media outlet talking shit about Macedonia, when in the end I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say they single-handedly saved Europe.

I really hope there was at least some dodgy shit going on in the background where EU cunts were in on it but needed someone else to be the bad guy.

TBH I went to Berlin at the same time this year as as did this time last year and there was a noticeable amount of more New Migrants... so I am sure its something PPL who lived there have had to become accustomed too whether it be in a positive or negative way.

[Tesla]

Fwiw, I'm not against migration and multicultrulisim. in fact I'm for both those things.

But the facts are:

1. Refugees come at an economic cost, they are generally low skill or even if they are skilled they may lack the documentation etc to work in their area in their new country. They also need financial and other assistance starting their new life up.

2. There are plenty of cunts who are not refugees posing as refugees to migrate to richer countries.

3. There are many countries who take in none or fuck all refugees.

4. Every nation has a right to determine their own immigration policy and to protect their borders, especially from people entering illegally.

 

So I found the whole thing pretty ridiculous when every media outlet was posting propaganda videos of the Macedonian military defending their border. Let's be honest, even before Syria became fucked, when it was a relatively stable country, if I rocked up to the Syrian border and tried to forcibly and illegally enter it I would expect to be shot dead on the spot. That's not just Syria either, but most countries in the world. And if me and a bunch of other blokes charged at a soldier from any country, again I would expect them to probably get their gun out and shoot us dead. Yet a big deal was made of a few refugees out of thousands coping a minor beating and some tear gas as they basically attacked armed soldiers. I have seen a more significant use of force from Victorian Police officers at a derby game ffs. Not to mention that even though the refugees were just trying to pass through (which is a bit dodgy tbh, legit refugees should be applying for asylum wherever they can) you have to be retarded to not see that a country with a small population can't allow marauding gangs of thousands of refugees to just run riot (as they had been through every country they went through).

Anyway, point is the Abbott government was right to stop the business model of scum people smugglers, Australia takes more than their fair share of refugees already, Macedonia was right to close their border and really should have shot a few people dead to put an end to the whole thing earlier, Europe should have grown some balls and took control of the situation themselves (as Merkel herself admits in the above artical), if the EU wants to take a fuckload of refugees in that's their business but I will say it seems unfair, and lastly there really should be some sort of serious global agreement on refugees where every country that can takes in closer to their fair share of refugees (ideally with some sort of centralised system of quickly assessing legitimacy and randomly assigning refugees to new countries, but obviously that might not be possible). 

I don't necessarily have an issue with the absolute number of refugees Australia takes in, rather what really shits me is when a country like the US takes in fuck all despite having at least some responsibility in the whole situation, and even worse other Middle Eastern countries (Saudia Arabia & co) with a fuckload of money and a level of responsibility in the whole thing as well who take in pretty much no refugees and would certainly not take in refugees from Syria who would mostly be Christian or Shia muslim.

Those are my thoughts at least, I do agree that it's far from a simple situation that has an answer as simple as "let them all in" or "don't let any in".

Edited September 20, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

3 hours ago, Tesla said:

Fwiw, I'm not against migration and multicultrulisim. in fact I'm for both those things.

But the facts are:

1. Refugees come at an economic cost, they are generally low skill or even if they are skilled they may lack the documentation etc to work in their area in their new country. They also need financial and other assistance starting their new life up.

2. There are plenty of cunts who are not refugees posing as refugees to migrate to richer countries.

3. There are many countries who take in none or fuck all refugees.

4. Every nation has a right to determine their own immigration policy and to protect their borders, especially from people entering illegally.

 

So I found the whole thing pretty ridiculous when every media outlet was posting propaganda videos of the Macedonian military defending their border. Let's be honest, even before Syria became fucked, when it was a relatively stable country, if I rocked up to the Syrian border and tried to forcibly and illegally enter it I would expect to be shot dead on the spot. That's not just Syria either, but most countries in the world. And if me and a bunch of other blokes charged at a soldier from any country, again I would expect them to probably get their gun out and shoot us dead. Yet a big deal was made of a few refugees out of thousands coping a minor beating and some tear gas as they basically attacked armed soldiers. I have seen a more significant use of force from Victorian Police officers at a derby game ffs. Not to mention that even though the refugees were just trying to pass through (which is a bit dodgy tbh, legit refugees should be applying for asylum wherever they can) you have to be retarded to not see that a country with a small population can't allow marauding gangs of thousands of refugees to just run riot (as they had been through every country they went through).

Anyway, point is the Abbott government was right to stop the business model of scum people smugglers, Australia takes more than their fair share of refugees already, Macedonia was right to close their border and really should have shot a few people dead to put an end to the whole thing earlier, Europe should have grown some balls and took control of the situation themselves (as Merkel herself admits in the above artical), if the EU wants to take a fuckload of refugees in that's their business but I will say it seems unfair, and lastly there really should be some sort of serious global agreement on refugees where every country that can takes in closer to their fair share of refugees (ideally with some sort of centralised system of quickly assessing legitimacy and randomly assigning refugees to new countries, but obviously that might not be possible). 

I don't necessarily have an issue with the absolute number of refugees Australia takes in, rather what really shits me is when a country like the US takes in fuck all despite having at least some responsibility in the whole situation, and even worse other Middle Eastern countries (Saudia Arabia & co) with a fuckload of money and a level of responsibility in the whole thing as well who take in pretty much no refugees and would certainly not take in refugees from Syria who would mostly be Christian or Shia muslim.

Those are my thoughts at least, I do agree that it's far from a simple situation that has an answer as simple as "let them all in" or "don't let any in".

A masso friend of the family when we were young was backpacking through the universe and went to Israel with his Australian passport and suitably assigned visa. The military police at the border decided he was a spy and dropped him in Syria. The Syrian soldiers picked him up, too him to customs desk and gave him a visa, so he stayed for three months in Syria. Also when the South American coups happened in the early 70s people were fleeing to neighbouring countries in large quantities and nobody was shot by the military. Things changed once all the SA countries became fascist. An Australian friend of mine, blonde and blue eye, during the late 80s backpacking through Central America went into Guatemala without a visa by canoeing into the middle of the country. At that time the near genocidal policies of the military government could have led to his disappearance when he was discovered by the military police without a visa and when he told them how he got into the country. He was taken to the police station and given a proper visa. So I don't agree with your proposition that people would get shot.

Les Murray and a whole lot of Jews would disagree with you on this.

I agree that a global policy needs to be in place. Unfortunately, the whole thing blew up during the GFC meaning that people are worried a lot more about their own future, understandably, rather than refugees. Also we no longer are in a Cold War period but international politics are at the heart and the general public does not get a look in. As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, whom I believe are conducting an imperial war through the Islamic world, the Somali/Dutch/USA author Ayaan Hirsi Ali was not too complementary. Indeed, other Arabs would certainly like for the Saudis to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

[Jestr]

There are distinctive differences between multi-national and multi-cultural aspects of immigration.

I have just returned from Europe and parts of it have changed not for the better due to high influx of migrants (mostly illegal)

The examples of lucky stories from the past of tourists treated well by the local law enforcement are far few in between comparing to what fate you will suffer under the current climate.

Germany, France, Sweden, U.K. etc have given the rest of the Europe a taste of what will happen to them if they follow EU large corporations sponsored policies of immigration.

macedonia, Poland, Hungary are refusing to bow to the corrupt EU push to fall in line. 1 reason is they have ample supplies of cheap labour (by European standards) 

2 they had centuries of ottomans empire oppression and their stance on patriotism will simply not align with views of the west, not until bribes get significantly larger and their politicians crumble.

 

[Tesla]

So it turns out the CUB strike is because their pay is going down to $120k before overtime.

But yeah lets support the union by boycotting CUB products and have a banking royal commission instead ffs  

Edited September 24, 2016 by Tesla

[hedaik]

49 minutes ago, Tesla said:

So it turns out the CUB strike is because their pay is going down to $120k before overtime.

But yeah lets support the union by boycotting CUB products and have a banking royal commission instead ffs  

Im thinking there must be a percentage of workers who want to accept the offer but are simply scared to break away from the unions demands. 

[Tesla]

28 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Im thinking there must be a percentage of workers who want to accept the offer but are simply scared to break away from the unions demands. 

I'm sure that's the case too, can't blame them for being scared either given one of the replacement workers was assaulted by the union criminals.

I honestly can't believe across the country we've seen oppressive laws introduced, the likes of which you probably wouldn't even see in China, to try smash the bikie gangs, but these bigger organised crime syndicates continue to get a free pass.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

1 hour ago, Tesla said:

So it turns out the CUB strike is because their pay is going down to $120k before overtime.

But yeah lets support the union by boycotting CUB products and have a banking royal commission instead ffs  

Where did that info come from? Haven't seen it.

In any case many workers would have financial commitments based on their current salary so a substantial pay cut could send them to the wall.

2 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I'm sure that's the case too, can't blame them for being scared either given one of the replacement workers was assaulted by the union criminals.

I honestly can't believe across the country we've seen oppressive laws introduced, the likes of which you probably wouldn't even see in China, to try smash the bikie gangs, but these bigger organised crime syndicates continue to get a free pass.

There is an allegation that a scab was assaulted but as yet there are no charges, When the police lay them and the courts find the accused guilty I will believe it. Oh you must have missed the Fairwork Commission's ruling that the scabs cannot be called scabs, dogs, cunts or any derogatory names under the threat of court imposed fines and/or jail. I would have assumed that by now the free speech brigade would have been up in arms about that - after all calling a scab a dog is not racially nor religiously inflammatory.

[Tesla]

8 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Where did that info come from? Haven't seen it.

" The fitters and electricians said the wages being offered – between $70,000 and $120,000 before overtime – were significantly less than the generous pay and conditions under which they had previously been employed. "

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/im-not-drinking-it-now-vb-on-the-nose-as-pubs-join-fight-for-brewery-jobs-20160923-grmovo.html

 

 

8 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

In any case many workers would have financial commitments based on their current salary so a substantial pay cut could send them to the wall.

That's why insurance exists for that sort of thing.

Anyway, their own fault for making financial decisions based on how much money they were able to previously extort and steal, pretty stupid to think the market won't catch up with you eventually (see the Taxi industry).

Edited September 25, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

27 minutes ago, Tesla said:

" The fitters and electricians said the wages being offered – between $70,000 and $120,000 before overtime – were significantly less than the generous pay and conditions under which they had previously been employed. "

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/im-not-drinking-it-now-vb-on-the-nose-as-pubs-join-fight-for-brewery-jobs-20160923-grmovo.html

 

 

That's why insurance exists for that sort of thing.

Anyway, their own fault for making financial decisions based on how much money they were able to previously extort and steal, pretty stupid to think the market won't catch up with you eventually (see the Taxi industry).

I'll ignore the judgemental bit of the article (the "journalist" did not provide a comparison for the industry) but I will note that the article stated a range of salary with presumably the more senior roles earning the higher income. In other words the article did not claim that all of those on strike were earning the $120k.

Salary insurance is for events where you lose income for a defined period of time not for taking a salary cut.

As for the market, well for whatever reason, it does not seem to have caught up with the finance market. I wonder why.

As an aside, last week I was talking to a sparkie that works for one of the two largest mining companies in Oz. He said that the company that won the contract to feed the staff at the mines substantially undercut the incumbent and the way they did this was to provide crap food - it is so crap that every week there are people being taken for medical examinations due to dysentary. But that is OK because the staff wear the cost - not the employer who apparently saved about $5M.

[Tesla]

53 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I'll ignore the judgemental bit of the article (the "journalist" did not provide a comparison for the industry) but I will note that the article stated a range of salary with presumably the more senior roles earning the higher income. In other words the article did not claim that all of those on strike were earning the $120k.

No, they weren't earning $70k-$120k, that's what they've been offered. According to the union, their being offered a 66% pay cut, so that means they've been earning $210k-$360k before overtime based on the union's own claims (which doesn't surprise me, the ETU seems to be the worst/best union).

It's likely that the lower salary range is for the fitters, with the higher salary range for the electricians, because fitters don't have as good an extortion racket as electricians whom also have managed to get significant legislation enacted to protect their racket (presumably by a Labor government).

 

53 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Salary insurance is for events where you lose income for a defined period of time not for taking a salary cut.

 

Yeah, so this exact situation. Their employment was terminated and they were offered jobs at these new pay rates.

 

53 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

As for the market, well for whatever reason, it does not seem to have caught up with the finance market. I wonder why.

How so? It's actually an area with an exceptionally weak cartel. The term 'finance' is pretty broad, so not sure exactly what particular area you're referring to, but the only decent cartel that comes to mind is is the CFAI, and I don't think there are any laws enforcing that cartel like there are for accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc when comparing to white collar professions. So even for a white collar profession their cartel isn't achieving much, let alone compared to the far stronger blue collar cartels (unions). Of course there is the cartel created by 'licencing' requirements, but most those licences/qualifications are bullshit that can easily be acquired in weeks/months, off the top of my head the only one that requires any sort of time and effort is for financial planning, and I imagine even that is less of a barrier to entry than an electrician's licence for example. Even then, it's not the people employed in the industry pushing for greater protection to their incomes, it's from the general public and politicians, unlike electricians for example where no one (apart from the electricians looking to protect their pay) is sitting there thinking "it really should be illegal for me to install my own ethernet cabling".

So overall, I'd say it's an industry with a particularly low level of market manipulation aimed at increasing incomes. In other words, whatever income is derived is more deserved (or closer to the free market rate they'd be paid) than plenty of other fields ranging from doctors to electricians.

Worth noting, there really aren't that many people earning $360k+ (even with significant overtime) in the finance industry, and if anything a lot of those would be in areas with no cartel at all.

Also worth noting, I don't have an opinion on how much anyone should be paid apart from that the market with as little restrictions and manipulations as possible is best able to determine how much they should be paid. If it determined that an electrician, or any other occupation, is to be paid $1m a year, I have no problem with that.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

25 minutes ago, Tesla said:

No, they weren't earning $70k-$120k, that's what they've been offered. According to the union, their being offered a 66% pay cut, so that means they've been earning $210k-$360k before overtime based on the union's own claims (which doesn't surprise me, the ETU seems to be the worst/best union).

It's likely that the lower salary range is for the fitters, with the higher salary range for the electricians, because fitters don't have as good an extortion racket as electricians whom also have managed to get significant legislation enacted to protect their racket (presumably by a Labor government).

 

Yeah, so this exact situation. Their employment was terminated and they were offered jobs at these new pay rates.

 

How so? It's actually an area with an exceptionally weak cartel. The term 'finance' is pretty broad, so not sure exactly what you're talking about, but the only decent cartel that comes to mind is is the CFAI, and I don't think there are any laws enforcing that cartel like there are for accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc when comparing to white collar professions. So even for a white collar profession their cartel isn't achieving much, let alone compared to the far stronger blue collar cartels (unions). Of course there is the cartel created by 'licencing' requirements, but most those licences/qualifications are bullshit that can easily be acquired in weeks/months, off the top of my head the only one that requires any sort of time and effort is for financial planning, and I imagine even that is less of a barrier to entry than an electrician's licence for example. Even then, it's not the people employed in the industry pushing for greater protection to their incomes, it's from the general public and politicians, unlike electricians for example where no one (apart from the electricians looking to protect their pay) is sitting there thinking "it really should be illegal for me to install my own ethernet cabling".

So overall, I'd say it's an industry with a particularly low level of market manipulation aimed at increasing incomes. In other words, whatever income is derived is more deserved (or closer to the free market rate they'd be paid) than plenty of other fields ranging from doctors to electricians.

Worth noting, there really aren't that many people earning $360k+ (even with significant overtime) in the finance industry, and if anything a lot of those would be in areas with no cartel at all.

The article also says that these are specialist positions, so I can presume that the higher pay would be precisely for these positions. The range of salaries being offered is comparable to the range of salaries for the domestic construction industry, that is those electricians that come to your house to change the light bulb. Industrial electricians are a range above them and HV electricians are a range above them again. Then there are those that do PLC as well.

Strangely enough this last week I have been in training courses and I can definitely tell you that a lot of the legislation regarding the electrical industry has come about because of the large number of deaths in the 18th and 20th centuries. These changes were driven by Royal Commissions and Parliamentary inquiries. And some of the early shit was just gobsmacking - a bit like seeing posters for teeth whiteners made from uranium.

I can only presume that CUB have been able to do this because they used a Perth Company to bring in the scabs. This is because the mining companies are reducing their workforce so there will be a lot of tradies looking for work. So far this year I have met about 20 people from WA who have moved to Melbourne looking for work.

Electricians have never had a monopoly for Ethernet cabling - that was telecom technicians and that was a requirement of Telecom Australia (now Telstra) and that was because there was little for protecting the rest of the network. Yep - when I started I learnt how you could take down an entire Telecom Australia equipment room. Then in the 80s new technology enabled greater protection and the law was changed to that the onus of responsibility will be with the end user and they are wholly liable. Yep - that means you. However I have never heard of any instance where this has happened. Electricians have the monopoly in changing the light bulbs in your home but that is an insurance issue, and AFAIK this has never been tested in court.

What do you mean a weak cartel? The Banking industry is a cartel by law. Ditto the Insurance industry. but I will agree that tellers do have a weak cartel.

[Tesla]

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

The article also says that these are specialist positions, so I can presume that the higher pay would be precisely for these positions. The range of salaries being offered is comparable to the range of salaries for the domestic construction industry, that is those electricians that come to your house to change the light bulb. Industrial electricians are a range above them and HV electricians are a range above them again. Then there are those that do PLC as well.

Honestly it's irrelevant to what I was talking about.

 

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Strangely enough this last week I have been in training courses and I can definitely tell you that a lot of the legislation regarding the electrical industry has come about because of the large number of deaths in the 18th and 20th centuries. These changes were driven by Royal Commissions and Parliamentary inquiries. And some of the early shit was just gobsmacking - a bit like seeing posters for teeth whiteners made from uranium.

And how many people died running ethernet cables in their own home?

 

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I can only presume that CUB have been able to do this because they used a Perth Company to bring in the scabs. This is because the mining companies are reducing their workforce so there will be a lot of tradies looking for work. So far this year I have met about 20 people from WA who have moved to Melbourne looking for work.

Again, pretty irrelevant, apart from perhaps enforcing my point that it's only a matter of time before the free market catches up.

 

4 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Electricians have never had a monopoly for Ethernet cabling - that was telecom technicians and that was a requirement of Telecom Australia (now Telstra) and that was because there was little for protecting the rest of the network. Yep - when I started I learnt how you could take down an entire Telecom Australia equipment room. Then in the 80s new technology enabled greater protection and the law was changed to that the onus of responsibility will be with the end user and they are wholly liable. Yep - that means you. However I have never heard of any instance where this has happened. Electricians have the monopoly in changing the light bulbs in your home but that is an insurance issue, and AFAIK this has never been tested in court.

I believe that is actually the argument still used today, that you're somehow going to cause issues to the outside network if you do something retarded. I'm far from an expert on networking, but I don't see how ethernet cabling, which isn't directly connected to the outside network, is realistically going to affect the network outside of my house (in b4 @hedaik actually does know and wrecks me).

 

13 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

What do you mean a weak cartel? The Banking industry is a cartel by law. Ditto the Insurance industry. but I will agree that tellers do have a weak cartel.

Well I was talking about people working in those industries as I thought that was what the discussion was about. But if you want to go there, I don't necessarily agree the banking industry is a cartel, and I believe the level of competition is understated. Regardless, the difference is that it's illegal for suppliers of any good or service (including banks) to engage in cartel behaviour, as well as pretty much any other anti-competitive behaviour, except for the suppliers of labor of course.

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

Honestly it's irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Greater training/experience/education means higher salary compensation. IIRC you were complaining that a uni degree means little these days because it does not lead to higher salaries like it once did. Also, if you talk to senior engineers whether they would hire a sparkie that has only ever worked in running cables for houses in an industrial capacity and they will tell you no. Way too dangerous.

And how many people died running ethernet cables in their own home?

Low voltage stuff and as stated there never was a monopoly unless it connected to the main backbone network.

Again, pretty irrelevant, apart from perhaps enforcing my point that it's only a matter of time before the free market catches up.

Actually its more like a market disruptor. When the mining boom began (disruptor 1), it sucked up a lot of people offering much higher pay. This lead to companies wishing to keep their employees being offered higher pay to stay. Now that the mining boom construction is over (disruptor 2), those same people are now returning pushing the salaries down. So the free market never really left. It was and is part of the ebb and flow. Of course, the never stated is the downside of moving surplus labour. Unfortunately, lower wages does not mean lower costs of real estate.

 

I believe that is actually the argument still used today, that you're somehow going to cause issues to the outside network if you do something retarded. I'm far from an expert on networking, but I don't see how ethernet cabling, which isn't directly connected to the outside network, is realistically going to affect the network outside of my house (in b4 @hedaik actually does know and wrecks me).

As I stated, these days it is virtually impossible for a domestic user to cause problem back in the equipment room. Lightning could but it has been a while since I heard of that in the metro area.

 

Well I was talking about people working in those industries as I thought that was what the discussion was about. But if you want to go there, I don't necessarily agree the banking industry is a cartel, and I believe the level of competition is understated. Regardless, the difference is that it's illegal for suppliers of any good or service (including banks) to engage in cartel behaviour, as well as pretty much any other anti-competitive behaviour, except for the suppliers of labor of course.

Trade Unions are not labour suppliers but closer to labour/salary brokers these days.

 

[Tesla]

Honestly its pretty fucked and even scary that these Kim Jong Baird types are what the Liberal party is becoming.

Though it is ammusing watching the amount of political turmoil some dogs are causing. Only in Australia.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Tesla

[cadete]

7 hours ago, Tesla said:

Honestly its pretty fucked and even scary that these Kim Jong Baird types are what the Liberal party is becoming.

Though it is ammusing watching the amount of political turmoil some dogs are causing. Only in Australia.

On major positive to come out of his banning of the Dogs is that now 100% Racehorses in NSW even if they dont ever get put into training will now be rehomed after racing. 

Even though the rate of rehousing currently is at just under 80% the sport really needed to come out with new policy as its not as popular as it was in the past due to changing of attitudes in society.

If you read into what happens in the industry regarding treatment to horses at its worst its pretty hard going even for myself who has loved the sport from when I was in Primary School. So NSW Racing now being able to say the words "100%" should really help the sport.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by cadete

[GreenSeater]

13 minutes ago, cadete said:

On major positive to come out of his banning of the Dogs is that now 100% Racehorses in NSW even if they dont ever get put into training will now be rehomed after racing. 

Even though the rate of rehousing currently is at just under 80% the sport really needed to come out with new policy as its not as popular as it was in the past due to changing of attitudes in society.

If you read into what happens in the industry regarding treatment to horses at its worst its pretty hard going even for myself who has loved the sport from when I was in Primary School. So NSW Racing now being able to say the words "100%" should really help the sport.

 

How does banning greyhound racing make 100% of racehorses get rehomed? Genuinely curious

[cadete]

1 minute ago, GreenSeater said:

How does banning greyhound racing make 100% of racehorses get rehomed? Genuinely curious

It's been a flow on effect by the Industry to implement the policy... hence it happened in NSW first but will surely eventually followed by the other states.

You know how Lefties work, once the get one thing they wanted change the move straight on to the next similar bugbear... 

[Deeming]

No power in South Australia in - shows jut how unreliable renewables are yet Dan Andrews is wanting to shut down our coal power stations.

[thisphantomfortress]

18 minutes ago, Deeming said:

No power in South Australia in - shows jut how unreliable renewables are yet Dan Andrews is wanting to shut down our coal power stations.

Nothing to do with renewables, it's to do with something else that confused me.

source; my mate is a linesman and I asked him

[GreenSeater]

4 hours ago, Deeming said:

No power in South Australia in - shows jut how unreliable renewables are yet Dan Andrews is wanting to shut down our coal power stations.

Transmission tower was damaged by the storm so it shut down the power grid to prevent further damage. Was a safety mechanism that was triggered by excess infrastructure damage and would have happened no matter what the energy source was. Had absolutely nothing to do with renewable energy.

[hedaik]

I believe that @Deemingis actually partially correct. It appears that SA's reliance on wind power, lack of generation for base load (usually coal generation) and the interconnector to Victoria was their issue last night. The wind turbines were forced to shut down due to the turbines spinning too fast, and combined with some transmission towers falling the high load going through the interconnector from Victoria caused a frequency drop in the network which meant they were disconnected to protect equipment. (If the load becomes too high for a generator then it slows down trying to catch up). Im not a full bottle on transmission/generation so I'm sure theres also a lot more to it than that. 

Coal generation is still important to provide the stable base load that a state needs as renewables are too up and down in their output. However batteries can also achieve this once they become cheap enough so its not a bad thing or out of the realms of possibility to aim for 100% renewables in 50 years or whatever (just as long as its after my career has finished in electricity)

Edited September 28, 2016 by hedaik

[Deeming]

The transmission lines between Victoria and SA were taken out leaving SA to use only its own power. However the winds were too strong for them to use their wind power (irony bonus) which usually makes up 40% of their power generation.

[hedaik]

Done a bit more reading about the incident and it seems that the same result would have occurred even if SA was 100% coal. 

Because of the loss of one of the transmission lines due to fallen pylons, network frequency sharply went up because of the drop of load, which would then initiate protection to halt generation to protect equipment, which in turn would also cause the interconnector to disconnect. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by hedaik

[Tesla]

4 hours ago, hedaik said:

Done a bit more reading about the incident and it seems that the same result would have occurred even if SA was 100% coal. 

Because of the loss of one of the transmission lines due to fallen pylons, network frequency sharply went up because of the drop of load, which would then initiate protection to halt generation to protect equipment, which in turn would also cause the interconnector to disconnect. 

But that doesn't mean what you said in your previous post is not also an issue? That they don't have much of a base load and are opening themselves up to the risk of issues like this?

Also, if they're basically relying on Victoria for stability, what would happen if Victoria went down the same path of renewables?

[thisphantomfortress]

25 minutes ago, Tesla said:

But that doesn't mean what you said in your previous post is not also an issue? That they don't have much of a base load and are opening themselves up to the risk of issues like this?

Also, if they're basically relying on Victoria for stability, what would happen if Victoria went down the same path of renewables?

SA piggyback on us for a bunch of other stuff e.g. water.

Victoria has far better infrastructure in place to deal with situations like this because we aren't a back water in the middle of the desert.