Well Frank, for someone who said they were going to leave this discussion, your contined posting makes me increasingly sceptical of your statements. But I'll still let you have the last say if you need to.

There is now only one of your original claims that you persist in arguing about. All the others are being ignored and rightly so as they were rubbish.

One of your recent quotes; "4. The issue was never the vagueness of what was said. From the start, it has been that anti-union people would not accept that (a) the data existed and (b) that it could be trusted because it was re-cycled on a union website."

No, that's not correct. My initial question to you was for evidence to back up your claim of $118 extra for union members. You wouldn't do so and accused me of asking you to do my resaerch for me. And yet in another recent post you suggetsed a member make a phone call to check another of your claims. No big deal making a phone call but that's not the point. You just wouldn't offer evidence and that was what myself and others objected to.

The usual procedure is Frank, for the maker of the claim to offer the evidence. The reader has the right to be offered relevant evidence for claims that are presented as facts. You just don't get it do you. There is no anti union sentiment in asking for evidence. None whatsoever. But for you the request represented a challenge to your beliefs, and that was too much for you to handle in a calm and measured manner. You immediately went on the defensive and couldn't make a post without attempting a lame snide remark at anyone with the affront to not swallow your story in full.

It took me about 5 minutes to locate the actual ABS source for the ACTU $118 claim when I decided to look for myself:

"The actual data on which the $118 claim is based are located on p. 48 of ABS Statistics Release 6310.0 - Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, Aug 2005.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf"

If you go to the table on page 39 of Release 6310.0 and subtract the average earnings of non-union employees from those of employees who are members of unions - Bingo! Exactly $118. Whether or not this figure was and is valid, that's certainly where it came from.

I think that some people are being a little precious here. There was never really any doubt about the veracity of the $118 figure was there - rather it was Frank's interpretation of it?

Surely you can make an argument against Frank without being unnecessarily pedantic about generally accepted sources.

Oops. I meant to say "If you go to the table on page 48 of Release 6310.0", obviously.

Bugger!

I click your link CJ and this is what I am getting.

"A General Error has occurred on the system. You are attempting to locate a document or link which no longer exists or is unable to be found at the moment.

Please press the back button to go to your previous screen."

Not attempting to be precious, just cannot make the link.

CJ said, "There was never really any doubt about the veracity of the $118 figure was there - rather it was Frank's interpretation of it?"

I certainly didn't share your faith in the claim without some evidence CJ. I'll try the link again later.

Ditch,

JP Morgan's link has a redundant symbol at the end which invalidates the link. Try:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D0C52615006E2F2FCA25713E001838D7/$File/63100_aug%202005.pdf

With all the other benefits unionists earn above non-unionists, you should not be surprised that Howard's Government introduced WorkChoices to try to undermine union membership. It's very sad that Government propaganda is so readily swallowed by Australian voters.

It's annoying that OLO posters refuse to believe any fact that might have 'union' associated with it. Worse, so many OLO posters won't make an effort to research the facts but demand to be spoon-fed.

Another classy post Frank, well done. You're keeping up the quality level of this forum with gay abandon. I'm proud of you mate.