The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Hardies,Beaconsfield and now Labor with Garrett

Hardies,Beaconsfield and now Labor with Garrett

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
We had the unions jumping up and down about asbestos and how Hardies knew the Dangers.

Did the unions give up, did Combet go into hiding.

We had Beaconsfield where the company knew and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems and dangers.

Did the unions give up or go into hiding, No the just made a big media circus about it and blamed the liberal government.

We now have the home insulation problem with Garrett and Labor and Garrett and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems.

Did the unions or labor give up or go into hiding.

Of course they did as it is the Labor government rolling this out.

From this you can see that the unions and labor will do anything when it is conveinient for them, but when it is not they will stick their heads in the sand.

We have the truth, or we just have the standard spin and running and off course put the blame completely on the worker and muddy the facts.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 19 February 2010 10:10:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr tapp,

From my understanding -

You told people in another thread that you
would be running for office as an "Independent,"
in the coming elections at the end of the year.
I believe that you've done that previously.

Seeing as you seem to be so anti Labor - why not
join the Liberal Party and run for office?
Or have you been rejected by them?

Have you ever been successful in your attempts
in running for office as an Independent?
How many votes did you get in your last attempt?
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 19 February 2010 1:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As we can see from Foxy that there was no effert to answer the point that was made.
Now i could have reported that as it had no meaning to the post.
It also highlights the fact how they do not like anybody saying the truth.

Now i ran at the 2007 federal election as an independent and I am very proud of that.
The reasons being;
I did it to stand and represent the people
I put my money not yours, where my mouth was
I was not for sale
I was not going to hide

How many votes did i get well that would have been about 2300, but of course foxy would already know that answer.

Did i win
Did thosw people win
Well yes they stood up for themselve to have a person in government to represent them.

Now back to the initial post.

We had the unions jumping up and down about asbestos and how Hardies knew the Dangers.

Did the unions give up, did Combet go into hiding.

We had Beaconsfield where the company knew and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems and dangers.

Did the unions give up or go into hiding, No the just made a big media circus about it and blamed the liberal government.

We now have the home insulation problem with Garrett and Labor and Garrett and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems.

Did the unions or labor give up or go into hiding.

Of course they did as it is the Labor government rolling this out.

From this you can see that the unions and labor will do anything when it is conveinient for them, but when it is not they will stick their heads in the sand.

We have the truth, or we just have the standard spin and running and off course put the blame completely on the worker and muddy the facts.

Which in fact Foxy has already done.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 19 February 2010 3:20:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
added to these deaths can be those who were encouraged by flawed lax immigration policies to risk their lives to come to Australia. This Governments incompetence has set new levels unfortunately leading to many deaths.
Posted by runner, Friday, 19 February 2010 3:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Tapp,

I actually know very little about you -
that's why I asked you the questions that
I did. I was merely trying to put things
into their proper perspective. You make
statements - but you don't discuss issues.

I think that's your problem.

Repeating things - doesn't make anything
clearer.

You seem to think that:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion."

I wish you lots of luck with that!
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 19 February 2010 5:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As you can see Foxy still doesnt know how to address the problem.

I have made the statements but you are not interested in making any points.

The point is labor is accountable for the deaths and fires in peoples homes, but this is not relevent as you cannot make a media specticle out of it.
You cannot blame the other parties as it is labors stuffup, but this you will keep dancing around.

So since you have no opinion tells me and others on what you really think of families and workers.

Now back to the first post.

We had the unions jumping up and down about asbestos and how Hardies knew the Dangers.

Did the unions give up, did Combet go into hiding.

We had Beaconsfield where the company knew and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems and dangers.

Did the unions give up or go into hiding, No the just made a big media circus about it and blamed the liberal government.

We now have the home insulation problem with Garrett and Labor and Garrett and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems.

Did the unions or labor give up or go into hiding.

Of course they did as it is the Labor government rolling this out.

From this you can see that the unions and labor will do anything when it is conveinient for them, but when it is not they will stick their heads in the sand.

We have the truth, or we just have the standard spin and running and off course put the blame completely on the worker and muddy the facts.

Which in fact Foxy has already done.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 19 February 2010 5:47:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Tapp,

A few corrections to your statements:

1) It was John Howard's Work Choices that
removed workers rights to strike if they
believed a work site to be unsafe. There were
144 deaths in the mining industry in Australia
as a result. Mines that were said to be unsafe -
were forced to continue to operate - for profits.
Unionsand workers did not have access to seismic
charts nor under the new laws could they
question the safety of their work place.
The Beaconsfield diaster was not some freak
accident, but a result of the sacrificing of
worker's safety to corporate profits.

You need to do your research on this topic Sir.
There are plenty of websites that will confirm this
information.

2) As for Hardie and Asbetos. It was thanks to the
Unions that victims and their families received any
compensation at all. Because under -
the Howard Governments New Industrial Relations
Laws and their repressive crackdowns on the
rights of workers that were to make any campaigns
for the victims and their families extremely difficult
in the future. Crippling fines, damages, and prosecutions
from the Federal Government - under the New Laws were
on the agenda. Again, do your research on the topic.

As an Independent candidate - I find your ignorance
quite astounding. Frankly, I don't believe that you could
possibly be capable of winning votes - if this thread is
any indication of your capabilities. They're extremely
limited - to say the least.

Anyway, I shall not be responding to you any further.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 19 February 2010 6:45:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If i am correct but safety was an issue that worker could go out on strike for.
This was disregarded by the unions and since when did the unions stand by watching unsafe work practices.
Thats right they did that with labors,garrettt insulation bungle which you still didnt address.

See i am not scared to have my say or stand up for the people, as i do not have to bend over for any of you lot.

We have had billions of tax payers money wasted and more to come.
We have taxpayers money wasted on the broadband bungle.

This is not the labor parties money but the peoples.

And where are your so called leaders , holed up until the dust clears.

Well garrettt wont last and labor has no credentials for financial stability except spend. spend , spend and as such we have to pay, and our children.

now back to the initial post.

We had the unions jumping up and down about asbestos and how Hardies knew the Dangers.

Did the unions give up, did Combet go into hiding.

We had Beaconsfield where the company knew and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems and dangers.

Did the unions give up or go into hiding, No the just made a big media circus about it and blamed the liberal government.

We now have the home insulation problem with Garrett and Labor and Garrett and the unions knew of the OHS safety problems.

Did the unions or labor give up or go into hiding.

Of course they did as it is the Labor government rolling this out.

From this you can see that the unions and labor will do anything when it is conveinient for them, but when it is not they will stick their heads in the sand.

We have the truth, or we just have the standard spin and running and off course put the blame completely on the worker and muddy the facts.

Which in fact Foxy has already done.
Posted by tapp, Friday, 19 February 2010 7:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mate, who invited these nutters?.

You got my back up when you wrote:

"As we can see from Foxy that there was no effert to answer the point that was made."

As opposed to you not conversing with her, Captain Soapbox?.

But Runner gets the Golden Gong:

"added to these deaths can be those who were encouraged by flawed lax immigration policies to risk their lives to come to Australia."

You mean, "boat people", eh?. Do a little research beyond "Today Tonight" there, my friend. Australia barely gets a blip in the ocean - so to speak - compared to other nations, but one thing they ALL have in common is fluctuating trends.
Posted by StG, Friday, 19 February 2010 11:20:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The insulation scheme may have been rushed, and Garrett may be incompetent, but the bottom line is, Garrett didn't invent foil insulation. I installed it in the home I built myself more than 20 years ago.
According to legislation, it is the employer's responsibility to ensure a healthy and safe workplace. If a 16 year old boy dies on the job, he clearly wasn't sufficiently well trained or supervised. That is the whole and sole responsibility of his boss.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 20 February 2010 9:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim

The insulation scheme wasnt rushed.

It had so much force behind it you couldnt see what was really comming.

Garret was responsible.
If a boss sends a worker out and has been warned of a serious safety problem and you ignore it are you responsible.

No garrett ignore safety issues so he is responsible.
He could have fixed this at the start and as people were unawhere of the problem then responsibility goes to garrett and labor.

Sgt
you will notice you wally i did respond to fxy's questions even though she ingnored the point.
standard labor policy, ignore quest create spin.

now back to the issue

where are the unions why are they not jumping up and down.

why because it is a labor government.
Posted by tapp, Saturday, 20 February 2010 10:31:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is legislators and the applicable enforcement agencies that are charged with creating an environment that is either “permissive”, one that allows non-compliance, or “inhibitive”, one that does not allow non-compliance. This environment must have all elements in place or it will itself be non-compliant. Since this rollout has now been terminated, the questions about its completeness must be asked and answered in full. Let the inquisition begin by all those authorized.

Grim, I know that foil is popular for new homes, but is it appropriate for existing homes or are there special or different regulations to cover this?

We have yet to hear from home insurance companies? If there is any element of commercial or regulatory non-compliance, might we see claims invalidated? Might we see insurance companies requiring certification before policies are renewed? If so will we see compensation claims against both contractors and regulators? Seems this saga might have some way to run yet.

How will the replacement “rebate scheme” fix the problem of non-compliance? Does this just transfer responsibility to the householder?

tapp, StG has a point, you might consider putting a conclusion or proposition to the forum with some backup. If you think for instance, there should be say an inquiry, then offer that with some discussion points
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 20 February 2010 10:38:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder what states you are talking about. In Victoria if you don't have the correct work card you don't get the job.
If people have been working in ceilings without the right work card, the employer is the one at fault. It is up to the householder to check that these persons have the card. There is a list of approved insulators to choose from.
Some states may not have the laws in place.
Posted by Desmond, Saturday, 20 February 2010 3:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As i have already posted this i will thus place it now in the right place.

The workers at beaconsfied where put in a position of a unsafe workplace not due liberal party incompetence but due to political barstardiation of the unions and labor.

I am not one to have an allegience to any political party as being an independent and when i see an issue i will call a spade a spade.

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 Posted by tapp, Saturday, 20 February 2010 12:25:07 PM

So like certain others can attack me that is ok as that is how they are brought up instead of the issue.
Posted by tapp, Saturday, 20 February 2010 4:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I return to this thread for the last time.
I will avoid one contributor no matter what.
My post history ,and his, are worth a read.
Unions, mine and the one serving other forms of mining, have fought for safe workplaces forever.
Deaths in mining AND construction, and believe me road transport is and always has been out of control.
Tasmania's tragic mine story took place while John Howard was in office.
Two union men, both make me proud, went and stood with those family's.
Australia applauded them for their actions.
Some people screaming abuse at unions for not acting PROTEST ABOUT UNION POWER?
Some read those posts history's, have no idea, need help, but the insults are barbs in my flesh.
Till the day I die, it will get me in trouble time and again, I will search for better unionism, be proud to be part of our very best.
And be happy to know workers and a great number of bosses share my views.
We here in OLO are quite lucky, we in truth are not closely controlled, free speech is held in high regard.
And I see no reason to change, but never forget some are unable to look at issues in an honest way.
I spell it wrong but Roth berry, the miners riot memorial, not my union but it still brings shivers down my spine to stand and think of how awful workers got treated that day, unions are Representatives of workers not fat cats without them?
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 21 February 2010 6:45:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Belly

Yes liberals were in government when beaconsfield happened.

The workers didnt go on strike

Was it the unions told them they couldnt due to workchoices, i have already proved that to be a lie if the case.

The unions blamed liberals

So we have the insulation scheme labor/rudd is in power so we must as per laber and the unions blamed liberal for beaconsfield and the single death we must place the blame wholy on labor/rudd for the 4 deaths 86 home fires and more to come..

As you said belly some cannot see the issues in a honest way.

As we know the workers at beaconsfield did have the right to go on strike, so why didnt they really.
Posted by tapp, Sunday, 21 February 2010 9:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Tapp,

They didn't go on strike because they were told
in no uncertain terms that they would lose
their jobs if they did. The unions were told to
back off - all they could do is warn the company
of the safety risks - which they did numerous times.
The workers did not want to lose their jobs - and
these were under threat. Corporate profits were
more important to the owners than work safety.

But you already know this - as I have given you
several websites that confirm this information.
You may be also interested to know that the Company
Director who was responsible for issuing the orders
to the workers prior to the accident - resigned from
the company after the accident. The Company had the
full support of the Government in their legal battle
after the incident.

You do the maths - a rich large Corporation - versus
workers - with the Liberals in power - what do you
think were the workers chances of success?
As the legal battles between the two that followed the
incident proved.

Get real!

You said you call a spade a spade?
Well, you actually don't - you merely know
how to shovel!
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 21 February 2010 10:17:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Foxy

so many excuses from you we can start a new story book, you should speak to kevvy as he has the time to write stories.

So the union was in fact incompetent as they would have read workchoices and as i have posted the workers where in fact protected for industrial action for ohs, safety issues.

The unions were told to back off, yeah right, shorten, combet back off, well now they are in government their heads are burried in sand hiding.

A spade is a spade

It is plain to see blatant incompetence from the unions, deliberate lies.
Posted by tapp, Sunday, 21 February 2010 10:35:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Tapp,

I can see that we are going to have to
agree to disagree on so many issues.

I don't see the point of further discussion
with you - nothing constructive is going to
be achieved - that's becoming fairly obvious.

As my father once warned me - "Don't discuss
religion, politics, and in Australia, - football."

However, I too have been trained (part of my profession)
to correct errors when I see them - so I often stumble
into situations - that I should have with hindsight
avoided.

What either of us think won't make the slightest bit
of difference in the end anyway - the voters will decide
who they want to run this country.

The rest of the year should prove interesting.

See you on another thread!
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 21 February 2010 3:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With all the media that surrounded beaconsfield, the question still has not been answered.

Why were these men in the mine.

The ACTU, CFMEU Combet, Shorten do not want to answer this question.

It was made quite clear that there was safety concerns.

So what does it take for a union to get the men out on strike.

An ingrown toenail.

Come on Belly you should have the balls to answer this question but it is doubttful that you can say the unions were incompetent in their duties to the workers.
Posted by tapp, Saturday, 27 February 2010 3:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TAPP you are a renovators dream, every thing could be changed every thing can be made better.
I as you know have great pity for you but no respect.
Over and again I said it is better for the forum,,,for me to ignore you.
Your rants are not related to reality, nothing in your life is, your latest thread has bought followers, but wanders far from truth honesty and balance.
Other posters making the statements you make, could justly be called lier's.
I however know you have problems.
Others in time will see this, your posts are not debate, but slander and no better than the graffiti on the walls in the city you come from.
Have I got the balls?
Maybe not, I failed again to ignore your bait.
But some facts.
The CFMEU had nothing to do with beacons field.
It had not been a union mine for very long, but was an AWU mine.
Yes safety issues, just like those on almost every site, every mine had been made.
Can this forums readers look past your lost uninformed slanders?
YOU say strikes can/could have taken place?
Are you aware unions can not/should not order wild cat strikes?
That workers only can make that choice.
Safety is every ones business but you here and other threads again and again say strike action could have prevented deaths?
continued.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 28 February 2010 5:27:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy