Antiseptic are you trying to display rudeness or lack of understanding?
I have spoken before about taking responsibility for our statements here.
You defame Rudd for appointing Garrett then lightly skip over the fact you got it wrong.
Forgiving your self for,,,, not being right.
How much more is wrong.
Are you so unaware you think A Queenslander had any control or looked for it in a NSW federal seat?
Are you not aware every trade union in Australia saw and heard Latham.
That I , wrongly believing he has the man he claimed to be for a time followed his road trip.
And for the same reasons as unions those who represent this industry did not want the shonky contractors to do the get the work.
How do you think it is any different if bosses unions act like workers unions.
You are fishing in a dry dam, if you cared that much about Garrett you would look at is real problems not try to flog a very dead horse.
Australia votes soon, sooner than most think, your blindness to reality will be shown in the results.

Belly:"You defame Rudd for appointing Garrett then lightly skip over the fact you got it wrong."

Oh dear, belly...

There is no defamation, old chap, but you confirm with every post how right I am. Who cares whether it was Latham or Rudd, neither of those blokes were Union picks either, were they? Which good "Union man" missed out on a nice little earner in Kingsford-Smith?

Do I think a Qlder had any control over the selection in NSW? Well, let's face it, matey, Rudd insisted on executive control, didn't he? He got caucus to endorse his right to pick his own team, didn't he?

Have a look at the career of Joe "couldn't run a chook raffle" Ludwig for some idea of why the AWU let him do that...

Belly:"How do you think it is any different if bosses unions act like workers unions."

So now you're admitting that the unions dropped the ball and the employers had to pick it up.

About bloody time.

In considering the failure of the insulation intervention, I suggest that Garrett's first mistake was;

assuming all private business would conduct itself ethically and responsibly...

and

not listening to union representatives when many of the new businesses (created as a result of the money incentive) failed to act responsibly.

What do you think Belly?

Severin:"not listening to union representatives when many of the new businesses (created as a result of the money incentive) failed to act responsibly. "

There were no "Union representatives", there were representatives from the NECA and the Master Electricians, which are employer groups.

The CFMEU was a key member of the steering committee that approved the scheme, including the training and the fact that it was going to rely on small contractors.

The AWU was nowhere to be seen until it was obvious that Garrett was already in trouble, while the ETU/CEPU has still had bugger all to say.

I agree sevin and highlight the post from Hasbeen above, no Labor man but quite right.
Antiseptic is getting quite animated, usually he reserves that for his anti Woman threads.
Now lets get down to it, in print here I have long ago questioned Garrett's appointment, and his foot in mouth attitude.
He was appointed by mad mark Latham, and would have entered the house in time to be part of that mudslide.
He was forced on his branch, any true Labor person would be sickened by that, I was.
Unions had no power to stop public servants being as useless as the proverbial, its in their D and A to fail, under any government.
Who do we blame for road deaths, truck driver deaths on their factory floor, why are no work cover investigations taking place.
Law, not union, says EVERY EMPLOYER HAS A DUTY OF CARE TO HIS WORKERS.
16 years old? climbing under a roof?
antiseptic we you I every one gets it wrong.
It is human nature to try to hide that we did so, but it Is a manly and a tool to grow to say yep maybe I am wrong.
you got it wrong bloke and are now trying to blame me for it.

Belly as you say:

<<<< EVERY EMPLOYER HAS A DUTY OF CARE TO HIS WORKERS >>>>

Dare I say, more government regulation to ensure worker safety as opposed to that preferred by laissez-faire capitalism of no regulation?

Probably not. But I've gone and said it anyway. And for me that has been the crux of this entire mess; that Garrett implemented the scheme too quickly, WITHOUT DUE CARE, is true, but what is not being discussed is the onus on the employer.