Governments, both current and former, have been able to fudge the unemployment figures for too long now and I recon it's about time we had a shake up, so the real numbers can be publicized.

There are literally tens of thousands of workers who have lost their jobs in recent months, yet, our government keeps telling us our numbers are great.

Try telling this to one of the many, who have lost their jobs, yet can't find another one, despite the fact that we have sectors that are apparently screaming for staff.

Go ahead and kick me if you like, but It's a joke, and it's about time for a change.

I couldn't agree more rehctub.

What is needed is for this to be taken to the paliment and delt with, by both parties, so as to avoid any political point scoring.

The last thing we need is for the opp of the day, capitalizing on the higher unemployment figures that would result from publicizing the 'real' numbers.

apparently
2 houres work= full employment
govt beuro-rock-ratery..is just too damm clever..by half

lets get another issue clear here
we get income taxed on our wage
but we dont got wages tax

see income is money made
by no further value adding[like govt revenue..
or share or other forms of speculation/gambling/theft

wage isnt income
its wage..till you bank it..and get intrest[income][..on it]
so many little white deceptions..whats a few more..?

[treason!]
official malfeasance
tax by stealth..revenue raising[all forms of income]

I thought I read a couple of weeks ago that the Roy Morgan unemployed poll showed about 8.5% unemployement. This was because the ABS now counts work of 1 hour per week as "employed" Can anyone confirm this?

Agreed rehctub.More lies and deception.You only have to work 1 hr a week to be not included in the stats.There us much under employment that does not get a mention.

i wunder if it works the other way too
if them 50,000 jobs 'created'..at huge expense

em-ploy[ed]..only one hour..each..
its the spin..thats the sin

us is at 25% plus
but by clever selectivity..we sit at 5
[govt dont measure cost...they just want the low blow numb-er]

Employers are only screaming out for SKILLED staff with experience.They don't want to train people its to hard.They just go to the labour government and demand skilled migrants and they get what they want no question asked.

@ spindoc

"I thought I read a couple of weeks ago that the Roy Morgan unemployed poll showed about 8.5% unemployement.

This was because the ABS now counts work of 1 hour per week as "employed" Can anyone confirm this?"

The ABS has been defining it that way since 2001, spindoc. It's not a recent thing as your comment infers.

See page 7 of the following link:

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP36.pdf

Of course, one has to ask why BOTH the Howard 'conservative' government, and the current 'progressive' government, both think 1 hour per week is a valid metric.

The research by Richard Denniss back in 2001 is somewhat dated but given the controversy now, also somewhat prophetic.

Perhaps there really is a good reason :)

50startingagain, the reason many employers are reluctant to train, is because it costs a lot to properly train a good worker and, many are only on loan from the mines, just waiting for that call up.

Consultants are out there being paid huge money, yet bosses, hands on trainers, receive pittance for their efforts, that's if they even get paid at all, as Another huge problem is that unless the trainee signs all the forms, you the employe/trainer, get so frustrated trying to get your subsidy, that you often just give up.

I personally have spent hours chasing payments for apprentices, only to be told I can't get them without the trainees signature.

Of cause, this causes distractions and takes ones focus away from their primary role, that being managing their business.

Rethctub That brings up a another major problem government RED tape.

i sem to recall mention of educating the 1700 gina migrants
does govt give them any cash..for taining the imports

indeed does govt put in infastructure
[like origen does for gas pipelines/warfs etc
as the departed qld alp govt says infastructure..is why our power has doubled abouve inflation rate..

free infastucture for windfarms/other alternate energy..
free training..free minerals]..gee someone is getting a free lunch

but i seem to recall,..docters restricting docters numbers
then when howard privatised..and all the docters went private
we now got imports..[many actually trained here lol]..but affectivly in the main plunderd from some third world..much like their other asssets

we dont need to import
but lets ask why..what govt cash cow treat's they suckle at

I believe the figure is only 1 hour but it doesn't even have to be "paid work".

Helping the old lady next door weed her garden can be determined to be "work" and is therefore not counted.

The real problem is under-employment and that's due to the deliberate casualisation of the work force that started in earnest with Reith's initial relaxation of Industrial Relations legislation.

Decreasing the minimum working hours per shift means more jobs could be "created" but also results in more "working poor" as more people share the same jobs.

bonmot, many thanks for your link. Unfortunately, as is often the case, your link talks about how unemployment “should” be measured, rather than how it “is” measured.

My question was not about “how we measure” unemployment, or even who measures unemployment? It was all about why we have a difference between government figures, ABS and some polling figures?

Howard, shmHoward is not material. What is the real unemployment figure? Is it Roy Morgan’s 8.5% or is it the governments 4.9%?

The public is not really interested in your spin, just an explanation of the difference? I don’t have an answer, that’s why I was asking the question.

If you have the answer, please share it, if not, rack off.

spindoc,

"...if not, rack off."

Who empowered you as arbiter of what is or isn't of value in this discussion? .

Rache, I have been an employer sine 1988 and I can assure you, being self employed has lost it's appeal.

However, as for the casualization of the work force, it was forced upon us by the introduction of unfair dismissal laws, introduced by labor in the early 90,s.

Also, if you employ permernant staff, often, you can't afford the payout when they leave, or, if you make them redundant.

I have a mate with a butcher shop and his staff have been with him for years. He wishes they had been casual, as he is up for more than 50 grand, in staff entitlements, (not holiday pay) if he sells his shop.

Another reason for under employment, is due to the fact that employers have been sued for having workers on casual rates, but working regular 38 hour weeks.

This is despite having paid all the loadings.

Unfortunately, you have to get used to it, as casual, or contract work is here to stay

Spindoc either works for the ABS ie Aust Bureau of Spintistics or the ALP.

They have to start releasing figures of under employment.The whole system is corrupt and dysfunctional.We need a revolution.

http://www.secretofoz.com/ The Secret Of Oz is the story behind the Wizard of Oz by L Frank Baum.L Frank Baum knew in the 1890's the reasons behind our oppression and the solutions.They were secretly embedded in his fairytale.Have you discovered what they are?

I really can't see any reason you would want the Aus Bureau of Statistics involved at all. Doing a 1200 people survey is a pretty poor idea, when centrelink have the accurate figures of who they are paying unemployment benefits, & other benefits, such as invalid/disabled etc. I suppose it keeps some useless bureaucrats off the dole que

I have always reckoned none of our governments were ever game to open the can of worms, & admit just how many were either genuinely out of work, or bludging on the rest. I'm sure they fear the explosion that would come from taxpayers if we had the true figures.

*The real problem is under-employment and that's due to the deliberate casualisation of the work force that started in earnest with Reith's initial relaxation of Industrial Relations legislation.*

Rache, you don't seem to understand the law of unintended consequences.

In Europe, some of the most difficult places to dismiss employees are
Spain and people under 25 in France. All well intended laws. The
net result, employers choose not to give them a job, for creating
jobs and employing people is of course voluntary.

Casualisation of the workforce makes perfect sense, if you want an
efficient and productive economy, for employees standing around
picking their noses, etc, make goods and services far more expensive
for consumers and makes Australia an even less competitive place.
The consumer ultimately pays for all that wasted time.

Casual work makes perfect sense, if there are employers who don't
need full time workers. There is no reason why workers cannot hold
down a number of casual jobs, if they want more hours.

Without a flexible economy, you will never have an efficient or
competitive economy. Fact is, many employees only ever want part
time work

Due to the lack of integrity in our society we've arrived at a situation where far too many get paid far too much for doing far too little & vice versa.
The most blatant culprits being bureaucrats sanctioned by incompetent Government.

Another reason for casualization is productivity.

It's been touched on here.

You see, our pay system pay a person for the time it takes to do the job, not for the amount they get done in a day.

When I was a hid, working after school, I picked veggies.

We got paid X per bucket and my brother used to earn what worked out to be 75c per hour, whereas I earned 50c per hour.

What was the problem with that, he did more than I did. Those days are all but gone.

Now, the pace is set by the likes of myself, not my brother.

So employers like casuals because if you work like my brother did each day, you are welcome back tomorrow, but if you work like I did, at best, you are welcome back until another brother comes along.

The removal of piecemeal work has been a huge contributor as well.

Another problem is that so many employers have huge fluctuations in their work loads, with contracts etc.

Governments and unions simply can't keep pushing for better pay and conditions and not expect a reaction.

It really is that simple.

The ALP is doing a terrific job of reducing unemployment. With these new jobs they will crow about, the workers will be receiving fantastic pay and conditions, according to them. Unfortunately this reduction in unemployment will be all taking place in other countries as guest workers flood Australia from here, there and everywhere. The Gina Rhinoceros deal is just the tip of the iceberg, wait until the Mad Monk gets his hands on EMA's there will be a 'shortage' of labour everywhere. A bit like 457's but a bulk version. have a look at the pay and conditions many of these guest workers are willing to accept, supposedly Australian standards but nobody (except the unions where they can) police them.

Poirot, OLO’s very own spindoctor needed confirmation – I merely gave it to him ;)

Indeed, he inferred that using 1 hour per week (to define employment) was somehow a recent policy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and by extension – the current evil and bad Labor Government.

OLO's own spindoctor is just wetting his pants (again) because I did confirm that the ABS (and by extension – the previous Liberal/National Coalition) also use the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of employment (and unemployment) … since 2001 no less.

Ok, we all know spindoc is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it is gobsmackingly sad that not even he can see the advantages of changing the way the ABS (and by extension – ANY Australian government) measures employment/unemployment in a way that Denniss proffered back in 2001.

Sheesh, this was the subject matter of butcher’s thread … “The way we calculate employment is overdue for an overhaul.”

If you missed it, here it is again (lengthy but worth the read):

http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP36.pdf

.

Spindoc is your tag Barry, not mine … and Grim and Bugsy are right about desperate dills.

Oh, and just because you don’t like my contribution/s does not give you the unalienable right to tell me or anyone else to rack off - that is you being typically churlish, if not childish.

It is ti e to throw the baby out, with the bath water and start again.

It must be recognized by all political parties that the new system, when configured, can not be usespd as a cheap political tool to talk up unemployment numbers.

It is a rought that both sides have used to fudge their numbers for decades and should not be used for as a tool for some sought of a blame game.

bonmot,

I well remember when the Howard government first introduced the "new" definition of gainful employment. Just as I remember when they ramped up "middle-class" welfare - and when they moved in and took possession of Hanson's "battlers" (with an inducement of mild xenophobia).

On these issues, Labor has merely continued the modern tradition of pork-barrelling and smoke-and-mirror's politics.

It's an art, you know.

Have to agree with you there:

"It's an art, you know"

Although more like 'performance art' ... juggling, dance, comedy, theatre and dare I say ... spin doctoring ;)

Example? Abbott's 'performance' in trying to get out of the chamber like some kind of doofus.

Have to agree with Yabbs.

There was a time when I wouldn't have, but the GFC was instructive in this area.

During the GFC, many many companies reduced the hours of workers, and kept them on. It saved a LOT of jobs.

Then when things picked up, they could just increase the hours back again.

Sure it caused pain for those workers, but would you rather those employees be sacked, and have the housing market totally crash, and have a recession, or do you want flexibility in the labour market for a softer adjustment, with the bonus of employers retaining the skill and knowledge to aid in staying afloat and getting back on their feet.

It's a simple case of better granularity in worker units. It helps employers and workers.

'The most blatant culprits being bureaucrats sanctioned by incompetent Government.'

I find the private consultants more problematic. The government could retain more employees and pay them less, keep the knowledge rather than paying all these pricey consultants who are supposedly 'independent'. Laugh and a half that is. If you were in government would you go back to a consultant that didn't recommend what you wanted recommended?

'THE Rudd Government spent $454 million on consultants in 2008-09, an annual increase of 5.6 per cent during a time of supposed public sector austerity, as a new administration increasingly turned to outside experts for policy advice, market research and data.'

So the trade off is...

Increase the public service spend, attempt to retain knowledge and pay more in pensions and have lazier workers (Let's be honest)

Increase consultants under the guise of 'independent' advise, and pay through the nose for private consultancy firms who charge like a wounded bull to tell you what you want to hear.

We're screwed over either way I suppose. Oh for a frank and fearless public service...

Abbott's 'performance' ?

What so he's supposed to just accept those shennanigans. Takes two to tango man, or are you biassed or naive enough to think Thompson just crossed based on policy?

Houellie,

Shenanigans are the name of the game in parliamentary behaviour. Rarely, however, do they become quite as animated and comical as they did during yesterday's farce.

Let none of us be so biased or naive as to believe that most of those presently sitting in parliament, and supposedly representing the best interests of their electorates, aren't caught up in various power plays - better known as "shenanigans".

>> Takes two to tango man, or are you biassed or naive enough to think Thompson just crossed based on policy? <<

Um, er, duh ... Houellie - not as 'bi-assed' (hehehe) as you perceive, nor naive (as in 'artless' Poirot :) In fact (drum roll) ... I agree with you.

Tell ya-what - let's all meet up at the local, you (and others) might find some of us (at least) congenial enough to share a squaff, or two.

.

Mon amie, you have nailed it (I have come to expect nothing less - but maybe I am biased).

The distortions in the way the figures are defined, collected and calculated have basically made statements about levels of employment or unemployment at the least unhelpful and, more usually, dishonest.

A more useful national measure would be to decide what monthly income constitutes the poverty line (and politicical salaries should be a tied percentage multiplication of this).

This way the figures would show what percentage of the population for the last month, months or year were living below the poverty line regardless of whether their work was none, minimal, casual, full-time, paid or unpaid.

It would also allow direct comparison with government welfare figures.

Any and all political claims for improvement would require that fewer people were living below the poverty line and that fewer were receiving welfare payments.

As for political shenanigans – since that topic has been raised…

Whichever way you cut it, it's not a good look for a political leader to make a run for the exit at the first sign of trouble and then not have the wit to reach it in time…

Mon ami,

"...let's all meet up at the local..."

Wouldn't that be a hoot!

I wonder how we'd all handle each other being suddenly embodied?

I don't s'pose you'd all care to fly to WA to meet up at my local? : )

WmTrevor,

Good point about the run for the exit - how embarrassing!

Fly in/Fly out - embodiment would be a tax deduction!

While the metrics used to determine unemployment can be improved I think it would be detrimental to change them mid horse so to speak.
- Although compared to other western nations I don't think that our
definition is similar to best practice (for whatever that is worth).

After all the metric the current government employed is the same as previous governments, thus allowing us to compare across regimes.

The last thing we'd want is for governments to change the metric whenever they feel the need to make themselves look good.

Doesn't centrelink count the unemployment figures by how many are collecting dole.

I remember hearing a joke about employment and immigrants a while ago.
It ended with "Come to Australia. There are plenty of jobs here - I have three myself".

Seriously, how many people really want part-time jobs in this economy.

I can see how it may suit some people but if you want a mortgage or to be able to raise a a family, some degree of security would be preferable.

I work with people who were made redundant and then were returned as skilled labor hire. They have been working like this for several years and are being paid less for doing exactly the same work as their permanent equivalents.

The other side of the coin that employers can no longer rely on loyalty from their staff.

'Um, er, duh ... Houellie'

My apologies, I must have thought you were Foxy. I do suspect though that if the roles were reversed and Abbott had crossed and someone from the ALP had done a runner, it would still be considered all the fault of Mr Rabbit.

*The other side of the coin that employers can no longer rely on loyalty from their staff.*

They can't do that anyhow, Wobbles. It is one of the problems which
the mining industry constantly faces. They will train up people,
spend a fortune on that training and the moment staff are offered
a few cents more, they are off.

If I open a small business, I have no guarantee that customers will
keep buying from me. If circumstances change, my business can fold
in a few months. Under those circumstances, why should employees
be mollycoddled with termination payments and all the rest, while
the small business owner loses his house. I've seen plenty cash
in on their termination payments, only to find another job the
following week. Its a bit like winning lotto for them.

only gabby could say that loosing ya job/ya holiday
ya long service/sic*pay/pension
is like winning lotto

lol

govt should bailout workers entitlements
thats what they are there for...not to make taxes offset with grants gifts infastructure tarining for what in 40 years will be yet another poluted ghost town...[once the fixed incomne yabby fartmers cant afford to pay the rent]

its funny
its allmost like he never heard of boom/bust
the same thing..banko wins

bailout the private bank
by a central bank monetising..a govt bond
[that deefaltes the value/inflates the price..but adds no real value]
till the colluders steal enough..via hyper inflating their debt for pennies in the dollar

no death duties..by the wealthy elites
tax minimising via their corperate or family trust

while the rest get new taxes
only 1000 will pay?
ok juliar..are you one..who too will refuse to pay?
there are far worse poluters than thee or me..but they get diesal subsidy..free acces [or unsused rights to hoard our wealth in shelf companies]

bah on the lot of em
hope you dont hide ya wealth in a bank mate

of course you dont
so the boom of the bust..wont hurt you

good for you
you too will know that great feeling
getting nothing for something..feels
JUST LIKE WINNING LOTTO

get blotto
having your cake plus the too nig to fail bailout too

'why should employees
be mollycoddled with termination payments and all the rest, while
the small business owner loses his house.'

Well why should employees pay tax, while business owners claim everything as a business expense and buy all assets they use for personal use in the name of the business, and effectively receive nominal income. Then when they are about to go bust, transfer to the wife's name I suppose.

Business owners get a bit more warning they are in trouble, hell they've been fudging the books for years, the employee gets about 1 month notice.

'the moment staff are offered
a few cents more, they are off. '

Anyway Yabbs, in your capitalist utopia, why doesn't the mining company protect their investment by keeping up with market rates?

*Well why should employees pay tax, while business owners claim everything as a business expense and buy all assets they use for personal use in the name of the business*

You have clearly never bought a business, Houllie. Depending on
the business, a great deal will come straight from your bank account,
with no deductions at all, other deductions over many years.
Yes, some business owners fudge the books, which welcomes a visit
by the tax office.

* why doesn't the mining company protect their investment by keeping up with market rates?*

Well they do, Houllie. Rather then spending all that money on
training, they use the savings to steal workers from other companies.

GM to buy out white-collar pensions
http://www.suntimes.com/business/12911177-420/gm-to-buy-out-white-collar-pensions.html



General Motors Co. will change the way..lol
it makes pension payments to white-collar retirees,
cutting its underfunded U.S. pension obligation by $26 billion.
[sounds a good move..they should do the same for public servants]

but wait
theres more
Jim Rogers Govt Makes Up the Numbers on Unemployment, Inflation
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=19019

america's Transition To A Part-Time Worker
Society Accelerates As Part-Time Jobs Hit Record

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/americas-transition-part-time-worker-society-accelerates-part-time-jobs-hit-record


Finally, yesterday, the BLS' latest jobs report confirmed that our concerns have been valid all along: as of May, part-time jobs just as disclosed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics hit an all time high, over 28 million!

These are people who traditionally have zero job benefits, including healthcare and retirement, and which according to the BLS "work less than 35 hours per week."

In other words, as little as one hour per week of "work"
is enough to classify one a part-time worker.

lest we forget the nips
http://enenews.com/japan-lawmaker-tepco-govt-telling-lies-people-officials-hidden-real-numbers-given-wrong-video

you cant eat the food
but you will 'live' here
http://enenews.com/local-official-5000000-bqkg-and-no-decontamination-we-cant-eat-food-grown-here-but-we-are-forced-to-live-here

but im more intrested in the 3 nuke natzi subs heading for a stealth premtion somewhere in your news any day now
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20120603-42917.html

lest we forget
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311

or how about the greece prisoners on starvation rations
or the 65 billion bailout while every eye is on hrh
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

but well we got workers to spare
just not trained in the skills we need

so how is business..helping
import em..[let the poor eat cake]

water recycling[drink sewrage]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

'You have clearly never bought a business, Houllie. '

Of course not Yabs, I'm working class.

I would never take the risk for those rewards. Afraid of hard work too I am, and happy enough being a sh1t kicker with no responsibility. But incidentally, I was under the impression the risk involved going bust and losing some money.

You seem to see this as unfair, and that the employee should just have to walk away with no notice if the business fails, perhaps not even getting their earned leave entitlements payed out.

Where did the employee sign up for that risk, and what are the rewards again? What responsibility does the employee have for the management decisions that made the company go bust? I have zero responsibility. I don't get paid for that.

It also seems to me it's the employer's personal money when it suits, but not for tax purposes.

That said the avoidance of tax I see as the main advantage of starting a business, and the prime motivator for people doing so.

I accept this and congratulate such spirit, but object to the crying poor and bitching about employee awards and conditions. It would be like me saying that I deserve a larger piece of the pie, without taking on the risk.

Houllie, you are not working class. You are "really smart but just
could not be bothered" class.

I have no problem with holiday pay entitlements. But I have a problem
with sick pay entitlements. If you weren't sick, you don't need them.
I have a problem with pro rata long service leave entitlements and
termination payment entitlements of so many weeks pay for every
year employed. Why should you be paid for work that you have
not yet done? they have already paid you your salary, after all.

Sometimes businesses close down through no fault of their own.
Markets change, Govts change laws and all the rest.

I see no good reason why employees should be featherbedded in luxury
whilst employers risk everything, including their house, to pay
for it.

' I have a problem
with sick pay entitlements.'

I have to agree. I find the original proposition that you may be ill for 6 days per year preposterous to begin with.

Sick? Stay Home.
Well? Go to work.

Not so hard is it? What if you have pneumonia one year and you only have 6 days. Why do you get 6 days when you're not even sick? Makes no sense at all.

'I have a problem with pro rata long service leave entitlements and
termination payment entitlements of so many weeks pay for every
year employed'

Not sure how it works. If it's part of your yearly salary, then I guess it is owed to you. It's to stop companies laying off people the day before Long Service leave accrues. But what is that anyway man, long service leave it's ridiculous.

The thing is Yabbs, long service leave is used by many couples with children, to allow them to account for the 12 weeks school holidays. 4 weeks for him and 4 weeks for her leaves couples 4 weeks short, and also no time for a holiday together.

There needs to be some mechanism, I don't even care if it's unpaid, to deal with this. It should be protected like maternity leave, that employees can take up to 4 weeks unpaid leave a year. Then do away with long service leave.

What I always struggle with is companies seem to think they need all employees there all the time in my industry, there is no such thing as part time work, and asking for leave without pay is treated like you're some kind of a pikey.

Why do companies think they need to organise work in exact units of full time employees? Don't they ever have 25.2548 man years of work to get through in a year? It's always 25 or 26 it seems.

Maybe it's something to do with being cheaper in payroll tax I don't know

*If it's part of your yearly salary, then I guess it is owed to you*

Nope Houllie, its just another little extra in the fine print.
Robert Gottliebsen highlighted the effect, during the GFC. There
was a company making specialised materials which had two sections,
one was doing well, the other was stuffed and they had to close it.
But when they added up all the termination payments involved, their
only option was to shut the whole company down and send it broke,
rather then somehow preserve the profitable part. Crazy stuff indeed.

You are quite correct about the part time thing, but that must be
specific to your company. More and more companies are using labour
hire people, as if say they lose a contract and have to scale down,
at least they can get rid of the unrequired staff and let the rest of
the company survive. But unions are pushing for all the full time
permanent that they can get. It looks good for their members in the
short term, but it hardly creates efficient companies, as ultimately
the consumer pays for people to stand around and pick their noses or
whatever.

My business was only relatively small, but I used to tell the staff
the work that needed doing and they could work as and when they wanted,
to see it got done. They also had a major say in whom I hired, as if people get
along, its a much more pleasant and productive
workplace.

as topic now has run its course
comment is that in the ground our coal etc has no value
yabby that cash you got in ya bank...is subject to the same thinking

ditto that cash
we were forced to put into pensions
it wernt value..just sitting there..so it was speculated into nothing

and govt is still propping it up
top up ya own super [govt employment is your advantage
[your govt pension is that step too far

[one person=one pension rate[any pension by govt must be definitive and equal]..
or its biased by someone wanting to get extra..wanting to capitalise the valueless

well user pays..all the way
not just getting it but repairing the damage
if it dont make things better..your lack of values..[selective greed]

if its not used...you can steal it
fox is running the hen house

ahhhh\rgghh
how criminal minds need to make excuse
its value..has value just like the COMMON..WEALTH [hoard] it is

just you taking it ...cause you can
thats theft..unless under 'just terms'
globally...one day mate..those you took nuthing FROM

will ask for a fair share of it back
death duties and transaction taxes are fair
all other is fraud