Houellebecq “Unions (And their sock puppet political parties) are no more democratic than corporations.”

In fact they are less democratic because there is less statute to regulate their processes and procedures.

Whilst I will be first to admit corporations are not free of the actions of the wrongly motivated, I am certain the "Australian Cartel of Trade Unions" and as you say, its political sock puppets, is even more corrupt and less accountable to ethical standards.

Actually “union ethical standards” is an oxymoron

Slasher “Col, never more blind are the arrogant and ignorant”

Doubtless, that very statement speaks of you, slasher.

For presuming my basis of experience and knowledge is drawn solely from what I have written here.

“In this case the corporation was not answerable to the shareholders”

Then why would they have ever bought the shares?

Share holders rights are, by law, prescribed in the enshrining and permanent records of every company.

mikk “Corporations are nothing more than mini dictatorships”

Another “firing from the hip” comment

It sounds like you also need some education in corporations law, commerce and trade practices.

“There is no democracy where it comes to business.”

Of course there is no “democracy”, in the political sense.

“Business” comprises a multiplicity of private transactions negotiated between interested participants.

Those transactions, being “private”, are not up for scrutiny by any democratically nominated forum or supervisory body. If they were nothing would actually happen because it would all take too long.

I repeat, this article is merely repetition of the union movements attempt to run roughshod over the processes of company ownership for its own greedy and illicit purposes.

It is a demand for jobs for union thugs, without buying proper shareholding, like anyone else would have to do.

In short it is a crude attempt at corporate piracy and should not only be resisted but outlawed by act of parliament.

I am not sure who Desmond is firing at but he sounds as if he is three fairies short of a pixie ring.

Your haughty indifference is still alive and well, eh Col? The problem is not with capitalism or entrepreneurship per se, it is with the way it dominates people when they are stuck in a place where they neither desire it nor can escape it. In other words, a form of slavery or pain/stress generator. Now what do you say to the idea that unions are like a sea wall that break the waves from crashing in on the people who can least deal with it? Too bad, perhaps? Give them the flick like the swill they are?

>>Actually “union ethical standards” is an oxymoron.<<

Actually, that's rubbish. Union ethical standards are as good as the people in the union at the time the assessment is made. Sometimes the individuals are ethical, sometimes not. One can also make an overall assessment as to whether a particular union is operating ethically or not. It's true that unions are exposing their underbelly more and more which in a way is a good thing. But, this has only happened because many good people that gave the unions their credibility or silver lining have been systematically elbowed in the head by people - sometimes in the union, sometimes in the corporate world - who would take the space for themselves. This is where you should be directly your venom I'd suggest. How about surprising us all and doing that equally on both sides of the divide?

You need to stop consistently breaking everything down and comparing it with your own particular narrow standards.

col,

you are opposed to the workers of the corporation electing representatives to the board, and yet you support the notion that shareholder proxies can be traded and purchased by another entity to exercise voting power.

Individual workers can be sued for damages if taking unprotected industrial action, should not the system be that individual shareholders should be liable for the damages of the corporation if breaking the law. Should not each individual shareholder of Visy have been civilly liable for the damages to their customers from their price fixing. Especially as the gauging of their customers led to increased dividends and share market price. Individual shareholders have profitted from illegal activity should not individual shareholders be liable for the damages.
Or is it only labor that actions can be broken down to individual liability not capital

RobP “Your haughty indifference is still alive and well, eh Col?”

Not indifference at all RobP.

What can I say.. .should I “dumb it down” to make it understandable for you?

“You need to stop consistently breaking everything down and comparing it with your own particular narrow standards.”

And you need to address the debate, rather than whining on, like a demented pixie, about my analysis of what is really going on…

This is a blatant power grab, an opportunity for union thugs to get paid for board seats without investing in the corporations they seek to run.

slasher, I support the due processes, as enshrined in law.

I see no need for additional legislation giving the undeserving “union mates” special representation and fees income on corporate boards of directors

You need to understand the nature of “joint stock companies” before you presume to support changes to the very nature of what is known as “limited liability”, how it works and is applied in a corporate context.

I would further note, directors and officers of companies (distinct from shareholders) do carry exposure to actions which a company might be found guilty of; Officers of Visy Board and the late Richard Pratt being a typical example.

It is so easy for the patently ignorant to postulate on matters which are far beyond their limited comprehension, thus making them easy targets for the lies and misrepresentations of union provocateurs

The one major point missing from this discussion is that Visy is entirely owned by the Pratt family and does not need to comply with many of provisions of the corporations act.

Board members already can be held personally legally and civilly liable for any illegal or unethical behaviour, but there is a common law requirement to show individual responsibility, which is not as easy as it sounds. I do however agree that bonuses should be linked to long term performance.

Businesses are not a democracy, and could never function as one. The model of co operatives is only successful when all participants are willing to take financial risks which unions are not.

Having a union representative on the board has had mixed success, as the decisions of the board are not always in the interests of the union, and many union board members cannot reconcile the requirement for confidentiality of board room discussions with their union activism.

"And you need to address the debate ... about my analysis of what is really going on…"

Col,

Analysis? what analysis? More like a pretty narrow/lofty perspective dressed up as analysis. There are lots of things going on, not just what your monologue would have us all believe.