Obviously geoffreykelly we seek the same outcomes.

I'm not suggesting that all, or the majority of business people seek to exploit their employee's, in fact the majority do understand the value of their staff and as you say this is self evident.

But I am saying the majority of business people don't need confrontational politics as part of their relationships with staff either. When extremism is generated by Govt's or Union officials we all lose. WC is, and was driven by faulty doctrine alone and is a classic case of bad creating worse. Regardless of you seeing yourself outside of the system, people are still affected by business operators who are not capable of providing the leadership that you can yourself geoffrey, and these people do seek to exploit and were encouraged by WC.

When you mention the Liberal team you omit Phillip Ruddick, Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop, Julie Bishop, Hunt and Morrison. Do these people represent your views as well geoffrey?.

A classic case of exploitation by big business was recently defended by Greg Hunt when a corporation was threatening to move operations to China based upon an impending E.T.S.

Hunt said it was self defeating to allow them to go to China where they could continue to pollute more.This is based on the insulting assumption that the Chinese would be happy to receive polluters rejected by Australia. It is self defeating to acquiesce to the behaviour of this corporation as is failing to deal with the environment now.

Exploitation does exist geoffrey. It is an effluent born of self interest. History is riddled with instances of exploitation by business and therefore, I question the wisdom of allowing businesses to continue making decisions for us until I see our leaders providing some leadership.

Future survival far outweighs the need for the sanctity of business today geoffrey

cheers T

As you see i have done some homework so the facts tell the story so foxy why is it again the unions didnt take the workers out on strike.

See one should only need to believe the truth and not stories told by labor or the unions.

Quote

h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety

end quote

WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 - SCHEDULE 1
Division 4 -- Industrial action
503 Additional effect of Act-- industrial action
Without affecting its operation apart from this section, Part VC also has the effect it would have if:

(1) For the purposes of this Act (other than Part XA ) , industrial action means any action of the following kind:
(a) the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work by an employee, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work;
but does not include the following:
(e) action that is not agreement related (as defined by subsection (3));
(f) action by employees that is authorised or agreed to by the employer of the employees;
(g) action by an employer that is authorised or agreed to by or on behalf of employees of the employer;
h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety

Dear Mr Tapp,

If you want to stand as an Independent candidate
in the next election - as you say you do
then Sir - you are supposed to at
least appear to be non-biased - and present
an alternative to voters from the established
major parties. That was my assumption of what an
Independent candidate did.

Your constant attacks on Labor - indicates - that
you are anything but objective in your views.

Having said that however, I have already explained
the Beaconsfield Mining Disaster to you on your own
thread - but as you insist on wanting further
clarification - here are a few websites that may
enlighten you:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/667/6702

http://news.smh.com.au/national/mine-put-money-before-safety-20080725-3kni.html

And you may also be interested in this one on Peter Garrett:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/19/peter-garrett-and-the-perpetual-present-of-politics/

As a political candidate - you should be open to a variety of
opinions - and you should look at not only both sides of the
coin so to speak - but around the edges as well, in order to
glean an informed opinion - and not simply push the one-eyed
narrow agenda that you're doing.

You lose credibility by your current behaviour - every time
you express your biased opinion.

You do have the right to remain silent!

Foxy, the Beaconsfield Mining disaster is a good example of the sort of mess unions can orchestrate if they are recalcitrant. The union must accept as much blame as the mine operators as they were a part of the problem. I don’t know where you got your data from, but can you validate your claim that there had only been 144 deaths in the mining industry in Australia?
I am 64 years old and studied first year physics at the Univ. of Melbourne in 1964. The old SEC had land on French Island ear-marked for a nuclear power plant but it was abandoned due to public pressure not wanting a nuclear power plant, but more importantly, because nuclear energy was more expensive than brown coal. We were taught that about 260 deaths a year were attributed to the burning of coal in Australia and that nuclear energy was clean and safe. The socialist and the ALP have steadfastly opposed the use of nuclear energy. That means that we have supervised the deaths of over 10,000 Australians because you lefties don’t like nuclear energy! Don’t tell me that,” A person's life - is not worth corporate profits!” You and your ilk have killed thousands of Australians because you can’t comprehend the nature of the nuclear debate.

T2, the unions must accept part of the blame. You cannot blame it all on bad employers. You asked, “When you mention the Liberal team you omit Phillip Ruddick, Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop, Julie Bishop, Hunt and Morrison. Do these people represent your views as well geoffrey?”

With the exception of Morrison who does not come to mind, I welcome all of the above, especially Phil Ruddock. The ALP and in particular Sens Cook and Faulkner crucified him over the children overboard incident when he was in fact blameless. And I suppose Krudd is doing a great job? A boat a day?

Tapp is on the money! What else can I add to his argument! But I know I will never make any headway with you rusted-on socialist lefties and your ALP machine.

Geoffrey Kelley

foxy Gday, you will get no place with GK the thought you are a lefty is about as childish as you can get.
Well except the nothing short of stupid claim unions killed miners by refusing to go nuclear.
My support, a true left of center person for nuclear power is shared by many, how does GK handle that.
No intention to get involved but you waste your time with another contributor too.
Look at the post history of that person.
Understand some posters sadly, are not in command of their thoughts.
History and some understanding, has firmly told me involvement with some is unwise.
GK in all the years I have contributed to these pages I have seen many come and go much like you.
Look at my post history and you may find ,for an ALP activist, true admiration for some past conservatives.
You will find too truly held concerns at the blindness that folk like you have to recent events, beginning in Howard second term, that defame and cripple your party.
In time ,having been retaken by true Liberals, your party will return to power, surely even you know it may take two more terms of the ALP, and without change on your side? 4 at least.

Well said geoffrey

Now foxy i came here to have a look but since you brought up beaconsfield i thus had to respond.

So labor and the unions lied to the workers
Lied to the people
lied to the media
that it was liberals fault that these workers where in the mine.

Well as i have proven it was labor and the unions and i should point out the workers pay the unions to represent them so why were these workers not on strike and i quote again,

Quote

h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety

end quote

WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 - SCHEDULE 1
Division 4 -- Industrial action
503 Additional effect of Act-- industrial action
Without affecting its operation apart from this section, Part VC also has the effect it would have if:

(1) For the purposes of this Act (other than Part XA ) , industrial action means any action of the following kind:
(a) the performance of work by an employee in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work by an employee, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work;
but does not include the following:
(e) action that is not agreement related (as defined by subsection (3));
(f) action by employees that is authorised or agreed to by the employer of the employees;
(g) action by an employer that is authorised or agreed to by or on behalf of employees of the employer;
h) action by an employee if:
(i) the action was based on a reasonable concern by the employee about an imminent risk to his or her health or safetyPosted by tapp, Saturday, 20 February 2010 12:25:07 PM

The workers should not have been in that mine.