Col, you do not understand my point. Workers form unions to enable them to advance the interests of labor. Unions are provided with a legal identity represent the collective group of workers, yet if collective action of the workers are deemed to be outside of the law the individual worker can be liable for damages. The same principle should apply for corporations.Corporations are creations of the state that enable individuals to pool their capital and create a separate legal identity. Just as individual workers can be liable for tort damages for acting outside of the law so should individual shareholders. Should not the customers of QANTAS be allowed to sue individual shareholders for damages from price fixing, afterall those same shareholders have benefited financially from the illegal activity. Please do not quote limited liability laws they are creation of the state. I am arguing that we need to encourage lawful activity by automatically lifting the corporate veil to enable shareholders who have benefitted from illegal activity of the corporation to be held liable for the damages the illegal activities of the corporation.

RobP “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.”

When you offer some basis for debate I will challenge it with analysis, history, prediction and fact.

In the mean time you simply sound like the small, angry and ineffectual voice of the non-achiever, jealous of those who did whilst you pondered and were rewarded whilst you were ignored.

I suggest you look at yourself first, before you try and hurl criticism at me.

Slasher your point re workers:unions and shareholders:companies.

The problem is your analogy is false, under the concept of limited liability, a shareholder is, by law, excluded from being held liable for the tortes of the company they invest in. if they were liable they would be investing in a company of unlimited liability. Many different examples of forms of company incorporation exist, limited by shares, limited by guarantee, unlimited liability etc.


Your suggestion, that shareholders be exposed to unlimited liability would shift the entire basis of financial dealings, cause an economic slump in corporate borrowing / fund raising capacity and likely cause an economic depression which would eclipse that following the 1929 share market collapse.

To strikes and workers, collective action carries collective responsibility. Employees are not forced to strike, they take it as a conscious decision. Shareholders invest and the decisions are taken by directors, who, as shadow minister and I have both pointed out, directors and officers of a company can be and are held personally responsible for the unlawful actions of the companies they direct / manage.

As to “shareholders who have benefitted”. The shareholders who benefitted might well not be the current shareholders of record.

So would you track back to find someone who might be already dead and then make a claim against the beneficiaries of the deceased estate?

To “Please do not quote limited liability laws they are creation of the state.”

You cannot consider “shareholder liability” and ignore the corporate statutes which define “shareholder liability”.

"When you offer some basis for debate I will challenge it with analysis, history, prediction and fact."

Col,

So there it is then. You've already made your mind up. As well as no analysis, you won't provide any real debate either, just a recital as you whistle like a birdie from the top of your cherrypicker.

"I suggest you look at yourself first, before you try and hurl criticism at me."

redneck, oh great one,

FYI, I know exactly what I can and can't do. And will do what I can when I get the chance. Don't need to look at myself and don't need your free character assessment either. In fact, I'm completely neutral on it.

"In the mean time you simply sound like the small, angry and ineffectual voice of the non-achiever, jealous of those who did whilst you pondered and were rewarded whilst you were ignored."

Well, yeah, in the overall scheme of things my voice is small. Angry? Sometimes, particularly when I can see things are not being done well and people with good ideas are being marginalised and/or blocked. Ineffectual? Only when I get marginalised and/or blocked. Jealous? Nope. Non-achiever? I don't think so - I worked as part of a 12-team, 14-year project that delivered a sizeable diplomatic/scientific outcome to the Government. Ponder? Only when there's nothing else to do. Rewarded? Not as much as I would like, but that's got more to do with internal politics than anything else - as a lot of people know, how well you do has got more to do with how you come across than what you actually do.

Any other questions I can help you with?

col, you again miss the point i am arguing that when a corporation breaks the law that the shareholders should be liable they chose to invest in the company and either consented to behaviour that was illegal or acquiesed. I am arguing that collective labour and collective capital should have the same basis of treatment under law, if shareholders are to be shielded when unlawful activities occur then individual workers deserve the same protection and the damages should be restricted to the directors(union official) not flow to individual workers.
Under Workchoices we had a situation where workers on a construction site were provided with flea ridden accomodation. Because accomodation standards were put outside the scope of the award system there was no mechanism to deal with the issue. The workers took strike action which was regarded as illegal. Individual prosecutions were initiated against the employees (latter dropped) that the individuals could be held liable for collective action is morally repugnant. the prosecutions were dropped not because the strike was lawful but the sheer repugnant situation the workers were put in, even the Howard Govt saw the light and dropped the prosecution, but the strike was unlawful. one rule should exist for collective capital and labor either individual workers and individual shareholders should be liable for the collective actions or only the collective legal identities should be liable.

Withdrawing ones labour (strike) is the only power a worker has against a boss and it is unbelievable that any government thinks they could take that away. If a worker cannot down tools any time they care to then then isnt that slavery. They are being forced to work against their will in such circumstances. This IS slavery by definition.