I am going to get my fingers burnt here, but the claim harms the union movement all of it.
Do not get me wrong, every inch a unionist for life never to change, that is the very reason I make my claim.
Its a recruiting tool, to make some feel the union is looking after them.
No worker fails to understand the claim is ambient , a claim made to shock bosses into a higher but not double figure rise.
if granted one in 3 jobs could go, never the intent but tell non unionists that.
the movement needs such headlines like we need another ten points fall on the share market.
Most union members look for leadership from unions , the official standing in front of them is the union.
Some standing in that spot, big noting them selves are doing great harm, unrealistic expectations never to be delivered are as near lies as I can find.
Unions need to sell our product not individuals, honesty not dead ideas , uniformity, knowing a union is the same town to town city to city state to state.
Nothing hurts more than to see some fail the movement, picking up the bits is a constant heart acre.

Dear Belly..... HOOORAY.. of course you are absolutely right.

This claim comes as:

-World econominc down turn.
-Aluminium prices plummeting.

This is just a classic 'we must remain relevant at all costs' grasping at straws by the CFMEU. How does a Union remain relevant? well.. most pleasinly relevant that is.. "GIMME MORE MONEYYYYY"

So..I support your wise criticism of this call and hopefuly we all will.

Belly “No worker fails to understand the claim is ambient , a claim made to shock bosses into a higher but not double figure rise.”

You might call it “Ambit claim”

I would call it a feeble attempt at stand-over tactics and intimidation.

It reminds me of that Margaret Thatcher quote

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.”

Obviously the unions are feeling less powerful by the day as their irrelevance,, incompetence and corruption has been revealed and their popularity wanes

To be honest, if unions were really concerned with their members employment prospects, they might consider the negative impact that such grandstanding demands make on investors development plans and decisions.

But since a lot of the union strength is now focused around the soft-centre of government employment, I wonder if the prospect of 15% drop in hourly rates is anticipated in response to dwindling tax revenues?

Workers should attend their union meetings,and speak out about what they think is wrong about union leaders and how they go about what the members want,then there will be no justification to say that there is corruption in the unions.Corruption is well known? that it exists in high places,Government Church and big Corporations,so hands off the unions

While I agree that this seems very poor timing for such an ambitious ambit claim, the "33%" is itself an alarmist headline designed to incite outrage:

<< ACTU president Sharan Burrow defended the union saying the claim amounted to annual pay rises of between five and 10 per cent over several years >>

I think that 5-10% p.a. is excessive in the current economic climate, but it is an ambit claim after all, which will be reduced via negotiation. But that reality doesn't make as good a headline, does it?

Thank goodness for CJ Morgan who knows about ambit claims - and the difference between 'ambient' and 'ambit'. Why are the usual suspects so poorly educated? And so ready to condemn what they don't properly understand?

Dear Belly,

I wouldn't worry to much about the claim
'harming' the union movement
in this case.

Most workers in the mining industry are on
lucrative individual contracts and union
membership is only marginal.

Besides, Alcoa has announced plans to axe 13,500
jobs worldwide and reduce smelting output by 18%,
while freezing salaries and hiring. So why wouldn't
workers try to get something while they still can,
when they have nothing to lose anyway?

They have great role models in company CEOs, who
still manage to get million dollar payouts, when
their companies go bankrupt.

"Think about jobs first," says Julia Gillard.

Is that what company CEOs do?

Very interesting Belly that you as an ardent unionist should express such a view.

You’ve certainly got my full agreement.

Spikey “Thank goodness for CJ Morgan who knows about ambit claims – “

“Ambient”: definition per dictionary.com –

1.of the surrounding area or environment: The tape recorder picked up too many ambient noises. The temperature in the display case was 20° lower than the ambient temperature.

2. completely surrounding; encompassing: the ambient air.

3. "surrounding, encircling," from L. ambientem (nom. ambiens), prp. of ambire "to go around," from amb- "around" (see ambi-) + ire "go." The ground sense of "revolving" led to "encircling, lying all around." Ambiance as a term in art, meaning "atmospheric effect of an arrangement," is an 1889 borrowing from Fr.
Synonyms “completely enveloping”

"Ambit” definition per dictionary.com –

1. circumference; circuit.
2. boundary; limit.
3. a sphere of operation or influence; range; scope: the ambit of such an action.

4. an area in which something acts or operates or has power or control: "the range of a supersonic jet"; "a piano has a greater range than the human voice"; "the ambit of municipal legislation"; "within the compass of this article"; "within the scope of an investigation"; "outside the reach of the law"; "in the political orbit of a world power" [syn: scope]
Synonyms : boundary, bounds, compass, extension, extent, range, scope, space, sphere.

Regarding “and the difference between 'ambient' and 'ambit'. Why are the usual suspects so poorly educated? And so ready to condemn what they don't properly understand?”

I wonder who that usual suspect might be - looking at the listed posters, Oh, it must be me.

So, in the context of what I wrote

and looking up “ambit claim” in Wikipedia

“In negotiation, an ambit claim is an extravagant initial demand made in expectation of an eventual counter-offer and compromise.”

(noting “Ambient claim” is not listed)

“Ambit claim” is the correctly understood and comprehended expression,

whereas “ambient claim” would be all a bit of a nonsense.

Regardless of Spikey's pontificating, pointless and high-handed attempts at admonishment.

Not that I am making the point, Spikey was.

Our malignant troll-in-residence, Spikey, not only illustrates but even illuminates her pig ignorance, once again.

game, set and match

Spikey give it a miss miss, in this case I am proudly very well educated.
A lifetime of front line defense of the union movement, fact is my proud movement one day must stand bravely and remind the world there is a difference union to union.
This rat bag headline damages all who are unionists.
Remember wage justice is not under review here, its never ever going to be, no boss is being stood over ,no boss would be weak kneed enough to give such a rise.
My whole point in starting the thread is to highlight some truths.
People who think as Col R does are armed by idiots who think they serve a union with such claims.
Unions must take on board criticism from non unionists and our own, yes we find some leave the movement after such childlike headlines.
recruiting is looking for non unionists to come on board not frightening them away.
Unions may not know it but the future calls us, changes are here, never ever again can some run riot, threaten or intimidate, there indeed is a difference.
Yesterday I acted for members of another union, failure to pay superannuation for 8 months!
Maybe some time spent in looking after what they have rather than, well leave it there only a fool damages the reason they exist.
Oh yes I do honestly think much of the anti union rubbish we see and hear is wrong but proof we need to better sell our product.
Solidarity forever, but not if it means blind support for stupidity.

Col Rouge

No amount of bluster or wordy citation from the dictionary will cover up the fact that you and at least one other didn't know what an ambit claim is. (Having been schooled in the bad old days when Latin was deemed to provide useful insights into the meaning of many English words, I know the difference between the Latin 'ambiens' and 'ambitus'.)

But more to the contemporary point, anyone who's been around in industrial negotiations - on either side of the bargaining table - will know that both sides posture with ambit claims as a warm-up to the hard bargaining that will come after the shouting.

The ambient temperature around the table can rise under the pressure of ambit claims.

I can always rely on you, Col, to get upset wen your errors are pointed out. You always resort to personal abuse. So if it lets you feel a bit better about yourself, I'm happy to be your 'malignant troll-in-residence' even if your mixed metaphor of 'pig ignorance' is somewhat infelicitous.

Anyone for tennis? Col's taken his racquet and balls and gone off in a huff.

Belly,

I'm with you comrade! But it's still an ambit claim and everyone knows it. That's part of the game both sides play. Let's not over-react to a newspaper headline.

Cheers

Spikey-troll “No amount of bluster or wordy citation from the dictionary will cover up the fact that you and at least one other didn't know what an ambit claim is.”

Oh, lovely, I have the happy and cherished task of correcting your pig-ignorance, once again.

I suggest you reread, from the very beginning, the thread before you post another thing, to avoid extending this exercise in your self-humiliation.

I never wrote “Ambient claim”.

I was first to write “ambit claim”.

I knew exactly what I was referring to but was disinclined to pursue the "petite bourgeois" brownie points, to be gained from what you are making a fool of yourself over now.

You, through your arrogant insistence to the contrary, are merely redemonstrating and reinforcing an example of your severe retardation.

I presented the wikipedia and dictionary.com quotes to support what I originally wrote and help improve your vocabulary, obviously the later being a complete waste of time.

“I know the difference between the Latin 'ambiens' and 'ambitus'.)”

Who cares.

I know what “gluteus maximus” means and you are being one.

“I can always rely on you, Col, to get upset wen your errors are pointed out.”

And I you :-)

When I make an error, feel free to point it out

but to be honest, you are making so many, I can no longer be bothered to enumerate them, even as I quote them back to you.

“Col's taken his racquet and balls and gone off in a huff.”

No huff here… not even working up a sweat…

Regarding your next post

“Belly,

I'm with you comrade! But it's still an ambit claim and everyone knows it.”

Grovel, Grovel,

It reads as if you are intent on acquiring a brown nose,

I suppose it will coordinate with, what must be by now a somewhat embarrassing, set of brownie points you tried to pick up earlier.

Now, consider me a giver of gifts and yourself the proud owner of a nice new culus.

Ahh... that feels like my name on a trophy.

See you at the Grand Slam ?

80% of our union power is in the public service.If you cannot be sacked and have really good conditions compared to the rest of society,why this ambit claim of 33%?They know that they will get at least half now,because in few months when the wheels really fall off,they will get nothing.Rob Peter to pay Paul.This is an example of an elitist Govt union movement copying the avarice of the US Federal Res system.

I was hoping against hope that the US would get it's act together.All they are doing is repeating the 1930's scenario of just printing more money and futhering the depreciation of assets,businesses and money.You can buy a good house in the US for $70,000.00.This will not cover the cost of building let alone the value of the land.

As more businesses go to the wall,we will see will begin to see serious shortages.So stock up on the basics such as food and fuel

Ah Col,

I see you are a man of sensitivity, but just lacking any subtlety. As for the ball game, I'm sure you will enjoy playing with yourself as usual.

belly quote<<This rat bag headline damages all who are unionists.>>

gee yabby how come they didnt realise that?

mate blind freddy can see it
cant you see this is designed to kill off unions as well as distract the media from reporting about the wholsale murder in gaza

>>Remember wage justice is not under review here, its never ever going to be, no boss is being stood over ,no boss would be weak kneed enough to give such a rise.<<

what makes you think union's give a damm

they been working hand and glove with the bosses forever

with patrics did the unions get together and shut everything down?

no they weakly laid down[pathetic]

mate i thought by now you would realise there is a special intrest's screwing the worker's as fast as the think tanks can think them up[prepard to sell out their own membership just to move up into the ruling class][or generate the next headline] timming is everything,brother.

but im still in shock you think ,they give a damm

mate workers are just the lubrication ,that makes the bosses listen to the union rep[being a unionist dont mean they dont got their own adgenda's too][two birds with one insane claim]

anyhow the point is mute ,the expectation is this time next year we will be hyper inflating..[its the only way they can hope to repay the gross debt that threatens to shut industry down

[besides you gotta get media attention somehow, talking about this means we dont talk about the murder's in the gaza gulag's

sometimes you are so innocent,

but the big boys and the media need red herrings ,and 33 percent has got that in spades ,can we get back to the murder in gaza now?

you heard about the 100 arabs herded into a building by israel that istrael then proceeded to bomb?

of course not we're too busy talking about 33 percent[lol]

I live daily hourly with the rubbish aimed at the union movement.
Far too much of it is given birth within the movement.
This claim is such, it is an act of an idiot, make no mistake it is just and only that.
In the coming 2 years agreements that have seen no pay rises for 3 years expire.
Some, far more than most know, see no pay rises for 5 years.
Wage justice will be asked for over the 3 years those new agreements cover, asking is not getting, bosses have to justify it.
I see no one getting 33% over those 3 years.
If the economy has not turned even half may be hard.
It is untrue that public workers are not sacked, never was true, construction is about 40% union not dead by far.
Unions? surely it is clear great differences exist?
Billions of dollars are spent each year advertising products, some in the union movement let headlines like this damage all unions.
The corruption in unions rubbish? on what evidence?
Yes some exists, but one day the headlines will scream about corruption in the building and construction industry.
No union involvement, just site supervision adding billions to contract prices by using near criminal bribe paying contractors.

Troll-Spkiey “Ah Col,

I see you are a man of sensitivity, but just lacking any subtlety. As for the ball game, I'm sure you will enjoy playing with yourself as usual.”

And you will not be invited to Wimbledon this year.

i know you dont read my posts..so provide my comment only to allow a gap for your next post

unions by far have done more good than bad BUT THAT WAS YESYTERDA[lol]

[much of what we have in hours worked and safty was only because the unions did represent the workers..[but like any aid the workers relied on the unions to'be there']but in the end they wernt.

but the unions/unionists went to sleep[and jonny-howhard managed to play games,..an indexed wage increase was turned into compulsory-'super'that conveniantly didnt cost[lol]the workers anything[lol] execept their pay increase,

that huge worker cash injection gave a regular income support for the stock market speculator gambeling with the workers wages..[setting up the market to appear to increase each week..[thanks be solely to the workers forced to subsidise the elites stock gambeling]

with the added bonus that the workers didnt get the advantage of holding actual stock,..but only a vague future promise of some form of pension-esq income support[if they were ever allowed/or live long enough to'retire']lol

well the elites got huge increases in both the wealth from the increase in shares-sales and the worker compulsory-supper..this allowed to be stock-investment/subsidy to be set up..[and their gross bonus,..well abouve that of the indexed wages slaves]..paying for the scam

that went so well howhard decided that the worker should be contracted into fixed wages for 5 year terms[a thing the current govt is powerless to interfere with because these are legally lawfull'volentary' con-tracts]LOL,

under law a contract is deemed by freechoice regardless of how these were forced on the workers[but the union didnt help the people..[it laid down with the howhard/coward]and as the union_member-ship dwindled,so did the minimum(REAL)wage

BUT[based on a mythical increasing AVERAGE wage figure[by factoring in the bosses wages increase..[yet the unions stayed silent[and put upon the wages-slaves a new levy to help get Krudd and co elected] and the unions still stayed silent..lol

its funny really how soundly the wage slaves sleep[even now]lol

its clever really[the fools have too much faith,in govt..[hah]..law [huh?]..in evolution[bah],and of course religion and unionists[duh]

Spikey...the only 'usual' suspect here who used the incorrect word was Belly. (no offense TumTum :)

I'm not exactly surprised that you pick on grammatical issues rather than THE issue.... (I note that a lot with you)

Even 5-10% per year...is... outrageous in the current climate.

CJ.. at LAST you understand my methods :) *grin*.... (u know... the outrageous headline bit)

Porkycrap: << CJ.. at LAST you understand my methods :) *grin*.... (u know... the outrageous headline bit) >>

Porky, I've well understood your methods ever since I joined OLO. Distortion, half-truths and outright fabrication are standard operating procedure for you in your hateful mission.

CJMoron “Distortion, half-truths and outright fabrication are standard operating procedure for you in your hateful mission“

So why do you use “Distortion, half-truths and outright fabrication”
as well as feeble attempts at sarcasm and low humour as “standard operating procedure”,

when you appear to have no mission at all?…..

no mission,, purpose or contribution to make, for that matter.

Infact

Your entire existence seems to focus on an unending demonstration of the vacuous

Maybe you are here to demonstrate your "skills" to Spikey?

She is the only one who shows the characteristics of a likely acolyte and you could build on what appears to be her well developed sense of meaninglessness.

anyone ever heard of ivan and the snake its a great story
its about the only vidio i ever made
it can be found here

http://www.youtube.com/user/ioneundergod

its a black vision[as in i cant film vidio either]
lol
[but the words are very revealing]

i cant believe i wasted a post then posting it
and now posting a link to it
but it explains these times

ok nothing to do with wages[except that greed has its reason according to its season]

anyhow
if you literate giants
are going to persist in tearing each other to shreds
im canceling my email notification

i expect to read your wisdoms

anyhow my love to you both

[i thought the belly one was funny though]
sorry belly it was [lol]

Col Rouge and Polycarp versus Spikey and CJ Morgan? What's this? I get to play doubles at Wimbledon after all. But I'm not sure whether it's mixed or straight. Can you boys sort that out, please?

If it's byo balls, count me out.

Poor old Polycarp can't see that the 'ambit claim' was the issue (or as he would say WAS the ISSUE!) so he pulls is hair out over a misleading headline.

As for dear old Col taking offence at CJ's so-called "feeble attempts at sarcasm and low humour", read on dear reader and Col will give you any number of feeble attempts at sarcasm and low humour.

Anyone for lawn bowls?

Put me on the Spikey and C J Morgan side of the net.
I will make that mistake a million more times , get the wrong word however I do understand its meaning.
Make no mistake, the claim is a recruiting tool, only fools would not know it hurts more than it helps.
We are past the days that claims like that impressed anyone, why lie? my claim is clearly always stated in exact figures what I expect, it works, both sides should be saying it like it is.
C J Morgan some bosses, this year, came to the table offering 10% for this year.
no broken arms no threats, some openly said we did well over the last 3 years so we want to keep our workers, some good ones are leaving.
Enterprise Bargaining Agreements are just that two sides trading for an outcome both can live with.
Col Rouge your posts make no more since than one under Gods.
I have no doubts some unions must get in contact with reality or die.
We have every reason to be proud of our achievements but none at all not to except the challenges change brings.
Industrial warfare is not the way of the future.
Bosses and unionists are increasingly becoming refugees from radical unionism, good unions are the future not weak just good.

Hi Belly - and a Happy New Year to you.

I knew what you meant, but I chose not to make an issue of it - partly because I respect you and your obvious efforts to improve the way you write, and also because I agree with you.

While ambit claims are an unfortunate historical legacy of the old IR laws, I've always thought that they provide unnecessary ammunition to the 'forces of darkness'.

I've been a proud unionist all my life, and also an ALP member until they lost the plot and became a 'Centre Right' party.

I think we're in total agreement on this issue.

While I want to continue working in the job I was made for I could never put some story's into print.
It hurts, truly , to have to hear constant story's of radical actions that hurt workers,even union members.
Labor has moved to the right, in my view sadly they could not win an election without doing so.
I am proud of union history, most of it, But workers no longer have to hold hat over heart when talking to the boss.
Times have changed, can anyone see a full return ever to pre workchoices IR laws?
Labors laws are not what unions wanted but they are the best we can expect, bosses wanted different laws too.
If a senate acting as an opposition passes the IR laws it will face the test of time, both party's are unlikely to find reason to change them for generations.
Unions who are able to remember the reason they exist is to look after the wages, health safety, wellbeing at work and home of members will be there for the full distance too.
My statement about IR refugees is true, bosses sick of threats, are finding ways to invite other unions into their workplace, even offering bigger wage increases.
Members are not mugs,numbers are changing and radicals actions are not going to hold the refugees much longer.

Belly “Put me on the Spikey and C J Morgan side of the net.”

You do what you want but just remember:

“lay down with dogs,
wake up with an exotic infestation”.

“Col Rouge your posts make no more since than one under Gods.”


But possibly more sense than yours, as I quote the howlers, instead of ignoring them, as I did previously.


However, regarding “I will make that mistake a million more times”


We all do that but I do consider you attitude "quixotic", when you publicly choose bedfellows who have been at pains to point out your incidental and irrelevant "mistakes", over Polycarp and I who, more graciously, ignored them.

Maybe upi have an "internal bias" at work there?


“Industrial warfare is not the way of the future.”

Agree

However, it was never an effective way in the past, only the chosen dogma of those who put their version of the "union entitlements" and an obsessive misconception / miss belief in an inherently immoral claim to dominate contractual negotiations, above the rights of those they pretended to represent.

Arjay: << 80% of our union power is in the public service.If you cannot be sacked and have really good conditions compared to the rest of society,why this ambit claim of 33%? >>

Arjay seems unaware that the claim under discussion is being made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). I doubt that too many of that union's members are public servants.

Ambit claims by unions in any industry would be unnecessary if employer groups and governments didn't routinely oppose any and all wage claims, and instead came to the negotiating table in good faith. As for unions "dominating contractual negotiations", no doubt the forces of industrial darkness would much prefer it if individual workers were once again deprived of collective bargaining, but fortunately the Rudd ALP government hasn't abandoned its roots completely.

Speaking of howlers:

Troll Scrooge: << miss belief >>

Priceless. What a goose.

Noted Col Rouge but ignored.
I if you read my post history am unlikely to support my side at any price.
While no youth I strongly believe in constant improvement and change.
Long before my conversion to computers, I held the view unions had to change, some of them much more than others.
The idea that unions stand over bosses while once true, of some unions, is no longer true.
Workchoices is still in power, we will see if the opposition remembers why it lost the election within months.
Will they pass the reformed IR laws or divide Australia again.
Rather than the lies about unions find fault with my work last week, Monday major plant hire firm paid no superannuation from June 2008, fixed back payments and warning.
members wife sacked told she will not get $4.000 owing , quote you are not in a union go your hardest, we will fight her case because its wrong free.
Under payment of wages deed of release signed thousands paid.
Visits to 12 lunch sheds to say gday over 1.600 klm traveled.
hardly a crime no blood spilled no trees chopped down, no threats made.

Belly “Noted Col Rouge but ignored.”

Strange to claim to note something, yet simultaneously ignore it!

Maybe, read and noted the content, ignored the message,

you are a “unionist”, that would explain, if not excuse it.

Same way a waiter might suggest rib-eye is best server rare and you choose “super well done”.

“if you read my post history am unlikely to support my side at any price.”

Well since we were talking about the correct use of English words, may I suggest a prozac before your next post?

“Long before my conversion to computers”

I never knew people could be “converted” to a machine. I often felt I had adopted their use, but was never “converted”.

My personal ‘adoption’ came from observation that computers extend the range and ease of many tasks, which would have been impractical before their availability.

In practical terms it is called “improving productivity” and is one of the hallmarks of the industrialization process, improving human productivity, in the same ways the spinning jenny did for generations past, such “productivity improvements” which have been repeatedly black-balled, attacked, criminally damaged and resisted at all costs by the vested interests of unions.

“The idea that unions stand over bosses while once true, of some unions, is no longer true.”

A “standover” which was not surrendered peacefully by the thugs and was only achieved because the previous federal government broke the unions immoral hold in many areas, recalling the builders laborers and different wharfies confrontations.

Incidents which reflected events in my youth in UK with communist coal miners deciding they were the sole arbiters for electing governments and doing their best to break the resolve of the conservatives – but finding more than their match in a petite and meticulously coiffured lady who stood the course and was not for turning,

Regarding the detritus of you working week, not sure if you are big-noting yourself or simply trying to bore us into submission….

Anyway I see our resident Moron is dribbling on about something, not sure what it is, as usual, all too obtuse.

Col Rouge I was trying to show the day to day life of a unionist is not industrial warfare.
I have a secrete I want to share with you, I have nothing in common with you.
While you carry on trying to show how much better than most of us you are I really do not care.
I do not like snobs.
I measure my self by what those I work for think of me, ordinary workers.
As I said up the thread acts like this wage demand give people like you ammo to throw at the whole movement.
For that reason alone it is wrong.
Future unionists, after I am dust, will understand you do not have to be extreme, that uniformity state to state city to city is a must.
And that workplace justice need not be warfare.
We can not bank on a return to near full employment soon, it may get much worse but we can Bank on a return to fairness under Rudd's reforms
Looking forward to his next two election victory's.

Belly “I have a secrete I want to share with you, I have nothing in common with you.
While you carry on trying to show how much better than most of us you are I really do not care.”

I do not consider myself better than anyone else, that is just your insecurities showing and we are all “uncommon” individuals.
“I do not like snobs.”
Nor do I,

something else we do not have in common

I do not presume to sit in judgment over others.

“I measure my self by what those I work for think of me, ordinary workers.”

I measure myself by who pay for my services and friends who love me..

“that uniformity state to state city to city is a must.”

I am one for individuality.

“Uniformity” (like ‘equality’) is a pointless goal which consumes the limited thinking resources of the wooly minded.

“And that workplace justice need not be warfare.”

It was the unions who made it warfare

“We can not bank on a return to near full employment soon, it may get much worse”

That is a certainty

“but we can Bank on a return to fairness under Rudd's reforms”

And pigs might fly

“Looking forward to his next two election victory's.”

Whilst, I that is always a possibility I do not think it is a probability,

To be honest, it depends on how far KRudd & Co drives the economy into the dust.

Australia’s present resilience to international problems is the product of the previous coalition government wisdom and not a product of current labor’s ineptitude and if the dipsticks carry on and introduce a carbon tax, well it will be the kiss of death.

People vote for home and family first. It is only in times of plenty do they think beyond their front door and the coalition brought forth the plenty (which Labor have always been too thick and too obsessed with “social justice” to produce).

And that is what will drive the next election.

Col Rouge I wonder why I bother, but I want you to consider this.
Can you truly believe all the bad in IR is on the union side?
That no boss is ever wrong?
Tell me again how in the middle of the now past mad profits in shares , land housing, why so very many signed deals that gave no wage increases for five years.
Or justify imported workers paid so very little and charged so very much for such very bad accommodation.
You lay blame on Rudd, apparently for the world economic crisis? surely you are aware the polls do not agree?
Can it have escaped you that I from the trade union movement have highlighted my belief again and again radicalism is wrong?
I am not one who thinks capitalism is dead, some form of it appears the only future for the world economy, but you again and again highlight those who pay you for your services.
Can you truly think workers have less rights to fair wages than you?
Do you not see unions, like you, provide a service to people who need it?
Col my view of you is unlikely to be of concern to you , years of reading your squabbles with posters seem to point to a self centered person.

re[importing]of labour[is this because of low wages or special/lacking skills

[in israel they import arabs/jews from other nations to do thier'work'..that low wages appear to be paid to those from the mid east[semites]while the bosses are mostly from the far north[talmudic'settler'jews]

the semite worker jews are kept in their seger-gated settler communities[ko-butzes]#and the ruling israelites run govt,we have much the same them/us divisions here

the thing is god made to rise one dust from the waters of the deep[god didnt make those names of different countries/peoples..[we did]

[see that all people/land is holy..[all gods/people are semite,hating anyone based on their belief/station[skill/racial origen is antisemitism]

god didnt make..'blue collor'or any other colar'nation'we did,i understand there is division based on our education/skill levels[is]something,we are'blue-collar'[but not if our father is blue/blood]..a totally illogical sepperation dividing us into sheep or goat..[when god only gave life-skills]ooops new-topic

telling a goat from a sheep is simple,..but as for the specialised naming of the types of goat or sheep or semites from the israelite[or any of the 12 tribes that wandered in the desert..[of which israel was only one][do not the other 11 tribes deserve their own homeland too?[does god really say only israel here and you 11 arnt my people?

wernt the levites the priest class[how did the israel-ites become the priest'class'?these settlers seem to be racists,racis-ites wernt mentioned in the bible as i recall[but im getting old forgetting soo much[thanks to the poisens in our food air and water]

[i dont recall the settler-ites?in the bible,but then the issue is so confusing,god had one people right..[made up of 12 tribes?israel was one of them 12 right?..how come one claims the whole holy..[unholy ground?[one upper-class]

how come one war class that does the fighting has claimed the WHOLE holy land?dont israel fight for the rest of god people[the other 11?

how did 12 tribes come to unite under one trible name?[or bosses deserve govt service and the worker none].....blue-blood/workers god wants each to have a fair go

Belly “Do you not see unions, like you, provide a service to people who need it?”

I have no problem with people freely subscribing any form of association of their choice. One of the hallmarks of a democratic society is the free right of association.

I currently belong to two associations. I freely choose to continue my memberships. Other organisations I have joined and left as it suited me.

So I have no problem with people joining unions, as they see fit.

I do have a very serious problem when people are forced by a third party or statute (eg student unions) to join a particular union or membership organization against their will or personal preference.

“Col my view of you is unlikely to be of concern to you, years of reading your squabbles with posters seem to point to a self centered person.”

You are right, your personal view of me is a matter of complete irrelevance to me, as I am sure, my opinion of you is a matter of your personal indifference and so it likely should be

However, I am not so self-centred as to feel any need to express my personal opinion or assessment to any character shortcomings I might feel you display.

We agree at last! I too think no one should be forced to join any union, any union.
However fair go here please I do not think its fair for me to work for non unionists.
Workchoices said I could not do so, fair enough, but wages rises we won go to them, is that fair?
Why should they not have to fight for their own wage wins?
Why load my members down with non members problems?

thought I would come back and have one last look.
Every time a question of fairness like in my last post is asked the answer never comes.
I see the claim the thread is about no differently now than the day it was posted.
Evidence to me at least my lifetime claims there is a difference union to union is true.
One day, I hope to live to see it, we the union movement will not load our boat with rocks, we will face our differences, each take their own path.

“Every time a question of fairness like in my last post is asked the answer never comes.”

You pose difficult questions in your pervious post Belly. Maybe everyone has left them alone because they don’t have answers.

I’ll give it a go….although I don’t think I’m fully awake yet! ( ; ~}

Yes unions want to win pay rises and better conditions for themselves, and can rightly feel a bit peeved if non-unionists get the same improvements.

But everyone in the same sort of job should be under the same set of basic conditions, shouldn’t they? If non-unionists worked under worse conditions, then everyone would feel the need to be a unionist, regardless of the fees or whether or not they agreed with the broader agenda or other parts of it.

That would effectively take away a worker’s right to choose whether to be a member or not. And it could give a false indication of support for the whole agenda of a given union, if half its members are only there in order to gain the same basic working conditions as other members of the union.

All considered, I’d say that any wins that a union achieves must be distributed evenly across that sector regardless of union membership. There would still be the essential difference between union and non-union members in the amount of support they received regarding all sorts of work issues.

I can’t see that unions would get loaded down with non-members’ problems.

Ludwig,

Brave attempt but logically flawed.

"If non-unionists worked under worse conditions, then everyone would feel the need to be a unionist, regardless of the fees or whether or not they agreed with the broader agenda or other parts of it."

To join or not to join are not the only options. Consider the following alternatives:

(a) Non-unionists could employ professional negotiators to improve their position too. That would also undermine the claim that non-unionists are spongers free-wheeling on union gains without opening their own wallets to pay fees for benefits they didn't help earn.

(b) Non-unionists could make a donation to charity equivalent to the amount they might have paid in union membership fees when they gain benefits brought about by union effort. They would get equal pay and conditions, maintain their freedom not to associate and provide a much-needed benefit to worthy causes.

(c) Non-unionists could pay a pro-rata fee to the union at the time of gaining the union-generated benefit. They would not be required to join the union but a pro-rata fee would recognise that they are deriving a benefit they did nothing to create.

(d) Non-unionists could agree to forgo the union-generated benefits and/or enter into individual contracts with the employer. Unions after all are merely a collective form of workplace bargaining. There is no reason why non-unionists couldn't get off their backsides and bargain with the boss too.

I'd be interested in your response to these alternatives to your one-size-must-fit-all scenario.

With more space, I'd also tackle your other premiss: "...everyone in the same sort of job should be under the same set of basic conditions...any wins that a union achieves must be distributed evenly across that sector regardless of union membership". There are many precedents for and contemporary examples of differential pay and conditions for similar work.

Ludwig Spikey, both of you have interesting points, remember the task will not be easy.
But in time it will happen, every single week a sacked or deeply in trouble worker rings me.
quote I have meant to join the union, will do now can you help me?
Sometimes they have been in that job for years but not paid union fees.
operating on Ludwig's basis, every worker must be paid and treated fairly , I once helped every time for free.
Workchoices made it law, I can not act for non union members, still nothing has changed.
Look sorry but I have even lied and said some poor beggar was a cash paying member, saved the job, but seen union dues stopped after.
Some bosses are good blokes, they pay every cent every week, yet other are the reverse.
most, for no other reason than to freeze unions out will pay both groups the same.
until no union is on site then?
how many of us think without unions wages will stay at present levels?
I am proud that my young delegates in construction are not seeking 33% wages rises, are often leading hands on the way higher and are all elected by a workforce who are more than happy with them,in no way bad because they are union.

Spikey, I’ve got no problem with any of your suggestions.

Your main principle that non-unionists should pay something for gains they benefit from that are union-generated has merit. That would certainly even up the playing field and help reduce tension between union and non-union workers.

Just as long as we don’t end up with a significant difference in wages or conditions for union and non-union workers who are doing the same jobs side by side. That would be a recipe for strife.

I await your tackling of my “other premises” with interest.

Cheers.

I can see your point too Ludwig, after all unions only formed in far different times to get fairness and balance for all.
Two differing levels would in fact be a way of forcing some to join unions, few would not pay dues for better wages.
The problem is complex.
Yet my claims about unpaid union work are for me true.
Few are aware the annual wage case run by the ACTU for minimum wage earners was largely to benefit non unionists.
Fewer low income earners are unionists, they just can not afford to be in one, spending less on say Christmas food presents and all than asked to pay union dues.
Close to a weeks pay for some lower paid.
I can report almost ever time a non unionist finds need for help they are not helped and not signed up, you can not smash your car then insure it.
However one step would be to reduce fees, yes if it was enough new members would outweigh the money lost by far, first union to try it will prosper.
Not a solution to the problem but I will look at other ideas with interest.

Ludwig“Your main principle that non-unionists should pay something for gains they benefit from that are union-generated has merit.”

Disagree.

Why should a person be forced to pay for services they never requested or contracted for, albeit they might receive a benefit?

Such a practice undermines one of the foundations of contract law, that
‘silence does not imply acceptance”.

It is no different to being are stopped at traffic lights, someone comes and cleans your windscreen and then expects you to pay.
they did not ask if you wanted your windscreen cleaned.
You have no agreement / contract with them.
You are under no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay.

“Why should a person be forced to pay for services they never requested or contracted for, albeit they might receive a benefit?”

Col, they shouldn’t be forced. They should have the right to say; ‘no, I don’t want the increase in wages that the union has just won thankyou’.

But if non-unionists accept union-won gains, then some form of payment should be appropriate.

Simple.

Col Rouge,

Spot on Col: "You have no agreement / contract with them. You are under no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay."

And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the boss to offer you the non-unionist the pay increases granted to union members?

And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the non-unionists to accept the pay increases granted to union members?

As one who has regularly advocated the self-help model on OLO you would agree, I take it, that you wouldn't want workers to get anything they hadn't worked for. We wouldn't want the hand-out mentality to creep back into the work-force would we Col?

Spikey “And no obligation, either legal or moral, for the non-unionists to accept the pay increases granted to union members?”

payments for service is made by the employer to the employee, regardless of the unions role in the matter.

If there is no contractual agreement between the employee and the union, then there is no obligation (legal or moral) for the employee to reward the union for any efforts the union deploys.

As I said recently on the “Value of a Kidney” thread:

“the historic supply of a kidney would be deemed "past performance" and ineligible for present "consideration" (payment), regardless he wants to have it "enforced" / considered now.”

So your question is meaningless and lacks the necessary elements to be validly applied to any employee / employer agreement.

“I take it, that you wouldn't want workers to get anything they hadn't worked for.”

I would presume the employer agrees with his employees, either collectively or individually, their individual worth and the employer awards a differential or greater amount to the more meritorious emploees, regardless of their union affiliation.

Your perspective of “a worker getting anything they had not worked for” is a pointless and irrelevant caveat.

Realistically a worker will be paid what they can “negotiate” (which nominally becomes what they are worth), regardless of the amount of “effort” or “Work” involved.

“We wouldn't want the hand-out mentality to creep back into the work-force would we Col?”

Those who seek merely to benefit from a ‘handout’ usually get what they are worth.

Those who understand the concept of reward for effort and “value based remuneration” usually find they are more greatly valued by their employer and consequently discover they are better rewarded.

I am talking from personal experience, rather than hypothetically and it is what has worked well for me, mind you my negotiated rate tends to be on the high side (I always emphasise the ‘added-value’ an employer gains from my effort).

It’s not rocket science

A principle exists here, I am unlikely to impress Col Rouge, in truth a great number will not agree with me.
But as evidence I truly believe what I say find the federal governments page for the ABBC.
I am involved in a campaign to get rid of it, but that page shows fines and case history's of workers being forced to join unions, not mine.
I find that ugly, but while the Cols of the world can look after themselves, so too can workers, many of them.
Who looks after the under skilled?
The fearful ones who never ask for fair wages?
Are we happy to have no equity for them?
In my view dumb actions of some unions, sometimes most unions, have damaged the whole movement.
But not forever, I see a future for moderates, those who talk first and second fight only as a last resort
Bosses do you know, bring such unions to their workplace.
Better outcomes come as a result, unions do not have the power to demand outcomes.
bargaining is about both sides being up front.
I grin, well laugh watching a bloke hand out news papers telling of problems in the Cuban country side.
And laugh again on following them into the lunch rooms to see the rubbish bins full and be invited to sit down and have a cuppa bloke.
Unions are not dead some are lost in a time warp but others are benefiting by picking up the refugees.

Col Rouge,

You're right, "It’s not rocket science." But boy, it seems to be beyond you.

"[P]ayments for service is [sic] made by the employer to the employee, regardless of the unions role in the matter." You don't say? I'm sure everyone on OLO though the unions were the paymasters.

"If there is no contractual agreement between the employee and the union, then there is no obligation (legal or moral) for the employee to reward the union for any efforts the union deploys." You're not kidding?

Or should that be 'kidneying'? After all, you seem to think this thread is about the supply and price of kidneys.

"I would presume the employer agrees with his employees, either collectively or individually, their individual worth and the employer awards a differential or greater amount to the more meritorious emploees, regardless of their union affiliation." I know that in your 'real world' unions never succeed in gaining pay increases for their members because in your 'real world' "... a worker will be paid what they [who?] can “negotiate”... regardless of the amount of “effort” or “Work” involved".

Employers are always so fair and reasonable in your 'real' world.

We're all so pleased you're "talking from personal experience". And so awed to learn that your negotiated rate "tends to be on the high side (I always emphasise the ‘added-value’ an employer gains from my effort)".

Never one to sell yourself short, Col. Now in the real, real world...you'd have to think more logically and express yourself more clearly to earn good money. Unless you're merely breaking rocks or watching others do so.

Its human nature, the I am all right mate syndrome.
It human nature too to blame the victim.
Also to think my side, me have got it right the other is wrong.
Its wrong but its human nature.
My passion for my union is because I understand how much our present day lifestyle is due to yesterdays unionists.
This country has always been partly socialist, even under John Howard.
Our welfare system, medical, schools, once post and telephones are paid for as a safety, an essential services for all thing.
My passion for change in unions is fueled by daily issues like this 33% wage claim.
Never have I hidden from the fact some unions are stuck in the past, must evolve or die.
But every day, unions do unseen unheard of things that never get credited to them.
Like the ACTU wage case for mostly non unionists.
Like spearheading the children over board case or being a big part of the uncovering of the AWB scandal, giving bribes to Saddam to buy guns to kill his people, tell me of a union crime that matches that?
In no way different than any group that is formed to represent its members but much more likely to suffer in the Medea money protects money.
With respect some will never hear good about unions those type do not concern me, they are the reason we exist, they devalue workers and undermine the Aussie fair go.
Unions bosses and workers are here to stay, why do we not hear more about the so many bosses unions and their interference in IR?

Belly “Who looks after the under skilled . . . The fearful ones?”
Sheltered workshops?

How underskilled / fearful is underskilled / fearful?

Unions have never existed solely for the benefit of the “under-skilled” or the fearful and some might reasonably suggest, not even for the benefit of workers at any skill level.

Pretences to unions being run with some altruistic “white-knight” profile is at odds with what unions have been seen to do in terms of blackmail, corruption and in the case of some painters and dockers, even murder.

Too often, unions have existed for the benefit of union shop stewards and officials, the organizing committee and entryists working their own covert agenda.,

“Are we happy to have no equity for them”

If you are talking commercial equity, they get paid, that’s their “share” and entitlement.

If you are talking about “social equity”, that is a myth, a couple of words strung together to describe some nebulous emotional experience, which puts neither food on a table not a roof over someones head.

It is just another way of expressing faux-altruism, emotional hysteria and muddy thinking which invariably accompanies the pseudo-babble of the egalitarianisticly fixated.

“I see a future for moderates, those who talk first and second fight only as a last resort”

Like the second coming of Jesus, I will welcome that day too but will wait until it actually arrives, rather than assume I can see it anywhere on the horizon.

“bargaining is about both sides being up front.”

Always has been and always will be.

“laugh watching a bloke hand out news papers telling of problems in the Cuban country side.”

And Union member fees being used to promote some of the entryist agendas, I mentioned earlier in this thread.

“Unions . . . benefiting by picking up the refugees.”

Lets start with :
Negotiation before strike
standover tactics becoming criminally illegal
Secret ballots
Non-compulsory membership, ie: members only from selling the value benefits of membership.
Respect for employers property.
Civil and criminal liability for all union invoked actions
And laws to regulate against procedural abuses,

Spikey “But boy, it seems to be beyond you.”

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

And even at that low height, it still seems to be beyond your grasp.

A contract of employment involves an employee and an employer. No legal role for a union, except as some form of ‘agent’ but then only by un-coerced appointment of the employee or employer.

“After all, you seem to think this thread is about the supply and price of kidneys.”

I guess it was too big an ask for you to separate a legal/contractual principle from the examples which illustrate its applicaton… (I hate to think what you will do with the tort of negligence and “Donoghue v Stephenson” :- ) )

“Employers are always so fair and reasonable in your 'real' world.”

Not at all, I always think I am worth more than I am paid and my clients invariably horse-trade rates and payment terms, although I have often kicked myself when they cave too soon and I realize I could have got say an additional $400 a day.

We're all so pleased you're "talking from personal experience".

And I am pleased you are pleased.

Does my pleasure at your pleasure enhance the pleasure you are enjoying?

“Never one to sell yourself short, Col.”

No one else sells me like I sell me. Don’t hide your light under a bushell

“Now in the real, real world...you'd have to think more logically and express yourself more clearly to earn good money.”

The skill is to project ones worth without over-selling it and I guess when I charge 50% more than a lot of folk who claim to do the same as I and still get the job, I must be getting it pretty right or at least right enough to survive in that real world you mention .

“Unless you're merely breaking rocks or watching others do so.”

Frederick Winslow Taylor pioneered the book on that and I also studied his writings…

But that would take a whole new thread..

Maybe we could swap views on Peter Drucker too?

No heat Col no attempt to insult you, you do not however have a clew.
You speak of unions actions decades old, refuse to see things have changed.
Are you aware the only time a union can strike, only time Col is during wage negotiations if they have totally broken down.
Can you not see the laughter in my thread? that Cuban handout from the comrades is constantly bringing me to laugh.
You refresh me, give me renewed energy, so out of touch, so unconcerned about those worse of.
So convinced of your gangster union bosses you can not for a second understand it is very old news, older than most who post here.
in Australia's construction industry the crime, the theft, truly scandalous stuff is servants of prime contractors and shonky contractors, watch as it is uncovered, no union involvement.
Why do we hear nothing about that?
I challenge you to find one single member of my union I ever forced to join, find one who can say that and I will leave and go on the dole.
I here in this thread, highlighted my contempt for those who forced people to join, follow My advice go to that site and read of plenty but not my union not most unions.
Col in your posts, every one of them, I find reason to be proud I am me and not you
regards
union forever proud and strong honest but never weak.

Dear old Col Rouge,

Belly has sussed you out. You're so out of touch.

As for Taylorism, it's 30 years since any management team worth their keep used his theories. I doubt you can find a copy of his book except in an antiquarian bookshop. (It's so old it's available online free of copyright.)

As for Peter Drucker, well at least he acknowledged the importance of managers having respect for workers. He roundly condemned the undue escalation of managers' pay packages often enhanced as a reward for the number of the workers they laid off. Short-term solutions for bottom-line cosmetics but usually leaving the company short of valuable accumulated expertise.

But Drucker was blind to the shortcomings of his management theories which often, for example, led to control becoming an end in itself while creativity was frowned upon.

But you know Col, Belly is spot on. The world has moved on and you've been left behind. Come on down to the contemporary world. It's not all doom and gloom for conservatives. Not when Kevin Rudd is PM.

Belly “you do not however have a clew.”

And

“You speak of unions actions decades old, “

Not having a clue
Now the last time I saw wharfies drag their children onto the picket line was 1998,
Just a decade ago.

Not the “Decades “ ago which you talk about.

“refuse to see things have changed.”

Oh I guess understanding the pretense is one thing, realizing that underneath the veneer of change the old arrogance and desire to dictate is still there is another, just like the ETU in Victoria.

especially when you admit “case history's of workers being forced to join unions, “
And I bet they are not all “decades ago”

Then you comment “I see a future for moderates, those who talk first and second fight”

But the future dreams are not fact, only the past is that and I can cite any number of union abuses of workers and employers initiated to suit the immoral demands of unions.

So as far as “union performance” is concerned,
when what you see in the future can been seen as actually having occurred,

I would rather go with the clues I have than with the fantasies you spin here.

“I find reason to be proud I am me and not you”

Actually I am proud of what I do and have done,
As to you, I am indifferent. In my life, you just don’t matter at all.

“union forever proud and strong honest but never weak.”

Maybe one day, when leopard changes from spots to stripes.

In short, pretending you are the acceptable and moral face of an organization steeped in graft and corruption is as believable as John Gotti pretending to being made of Teflon.

Spikey so, you know everything. To denigrate the past is the arrogance of the ignorant.

Keep up with being a clueless dolt, it really does suit you.

Drucker and Taylor, you might have read enough to Google them but that does not mean you understand anything about what they wrote.

Same old pig-ignorance as has been mentioned before

Col Rouge,

"Same old pig-ignorance as has been mentioned before." Col, self-deprecation does you no good.

I can always tell when you are being bested in an argument (which is often). You get heavily into personal abuse and childish name-calling. An unhappy childhood, perhaps?

Yep got it right Spikey Col is out of touch, but also sprouting the conservative line, the John Howard radical lines.
ETU Victorian branch, not going to waste my time here comrades make me laugh, but also truly cry.
My movement suffers great harm by actions of such idiots.
Water side workers strike, two sides to that story, both had much wrong on their side.
Kids do not need dragging to follow dad Col.
Gutless behind the scenes crimes saw some crimes committed by members of government ,who can tell me some in private enterprise did not benefit from government spending and actions there?
MODERN unionism, could have increased productivity and in turn wages , should have been given the chance , will in the future thats what true bargaining is about.
Col who started the thread?
Who highlighted the stupidity of that claim?
Who laughs at the comrades and highlights the damage they do to the movement?
How much evidence do you need that there is a difference?
Col is it too much to ask that you consider some bosses many more than you wish to know, invite unions on site and its two way fault fixing?
Again you refresh me, your sad view of the world is blind to faults on one side and I am constantly reminded why your side lost the last and next two elections

Belly “but also sprouting the conservative line, the John Howard radical lines.”

I see, simultaneously conservative and radical.

And I am the one who is supposedly without a clue and out of touch?

“not going to waste my time here comrades make me laugh, but also truly cry.
My movement suffers great harm by actions of such idiots.”

But the Victorian ETU is a publicly perceived part of the union movement… you are simply in “denial”.

“Water side workers strike, two sides to that story, both had much wrong on their side.
Kids do not need dragging to follow dad”

Some were too young to walk, no choice, but to come with dad or mum.

Contemptible action by grossly irresponsible and abusive parents.

“MODERN unionism, could have increased productivity and in turn wages”

Most productivity gains have come from owners reorganization, or capital investment and some economies of scale and a lot from the free trade agreement process which means we do not focus on trying to make everything but those things we produce efficiently.

“Col is it too much to ask that you consider some bosses many more than you wish to know, invite unions on site and its two way fault fixing?”

You are doing the tit-for-tat thing Belly, typical union posturing, “I put this on table” now you put something on table too”

Try Growing up.

“Again you refresh me, your sad view of the world is blind to faults on one side and I am constantly reminded why your side lost the last and next two elections”

The labor party is only able to survive the present financial crisis because of their inheritance, from the Howard government.

If they had inherited the Keating budget shortfall, they would be running around now with their backsides showing through their frayed trousers, just like their policy mistakes are starting to show through their frayed thinking.

Spikey “You get heavily into personal abuse and childish name-calling. An unhappy childhood, perhaps?”

Hypocritical Provocateur

You lost several posts ago.

I am simply responding in kind to you attempts at sarcasm.

Col you have my sympathy but not my respect, you live in a world that does not in truth exist.
You revel in union bashing yet use yesterdays evidence to do it.
Union movement? even you must understand some unions have few Friends even in the movement.
I would no more defend the Victorian ETU than many other rat bag elements in the union movement, those within my movement who disagree need to remember very few of our members are radical.
even less communists.
Col you invite slagging matches in threads then complain about it.
Still you do again and again remind me some bosses are like you, evidence we will always need unions.

Belly,

"Col you invite slagging matches in threads then complain about it." Spot on.

Belly and Spikey “"Col you invite slagging matches in threads then complain about it."”

Show me where I have complained

If I were to go back over the “slagging off” which has gone on in this thread, we would see most of it originates with Spikey and to be honest Belly, I have been reasonably respectful toward your posts, acknowledging we disagree but deliberately avoiding “playing the man” until you started making comments like suggesting I do not have a “clew”.

I have the same right to express a heart felt opinion as both of you.

I suggest it is arrogant , hypocritical and plain pompous of either of you to pretend you are entitled to hurl abuse at me without me responding in kind.

Further, Belly insists I “live in a world that does not in truth exist”

Well Belly you, In a couple of words are a deluded liar

I quote fact from recent history but you claim it no longer exists whilst denying my reference to the currently recorded practices of Victorian ETU .

And simultaneously criticizing the union movement for its failings.

Instead of historic fact, your analysis relies on your personal aspirations for some glorious future for unions.

When it comes to “world that does not in truth exist”

The truth which is recorded in the world I write about

Is far more substantial than the fantasy and fairy-floss of your imagined future.

Spikey, you are a malignant troll and provocateur
Belly, you are just full of crap.

But you are entitled to post your opinions, just as surely as I am entitled to hold and post mine.

I know the union movement considers itself above the law but they are worng. They might be above the labor party, pulling the strings of government from behind closed doors but the union movements lying mouthpiece puppets, here on OLO, will never shut me up

And that is not me complaining, it is me stating fact.

Col Rouge,

I apologise for saying to you: "I can always tell when you are being bested in an argument (which is often). You get heavily into personal abuse and childish name-calling. An unhappy childhood, perhaps?"

For all I know you had a happy childhood.

Well Col you will never agree I will never except your views, but lets get this right.
I claim no halo for unions, any of them, many sometimes all of them, forget the reason we exist.
It is not to blindly support my ALP no matter what.
It is not to make some union bosses stronger.
It is not to bring socialism or communism to the workplace.
It is to constantly find new ways to help our members, to be the NRMA of the workplace.
Once that meant we often had to go to war, respect for workers was very bad, workchoices got us well on the way back to those dark days.
You find it hard to believe my union is well on the way to the future, you do not want to believe that I find radical extremist unions far more dangerous than some employers.
You would be most upset by being with me at work, workers are my mates, bosses even CEOs ask me to visit offices, we do not need yesterdays tactics, most bosses know a happy workforce is an asset.
Col above all, my work life may not be much longer but my views will never change I lay the blame for views like yours about unionism at the feet of half wits like those who made this claim.
As a result I am targeted daily at work by wallys from the extreme left, and loving it!after all winners are grinner's.