Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
This was all over the 7.30 Report tonight.
God I love this country.
As for the company playing delay on the redundancy, that happens a lot of the time with Vets Affairs.
I have an uncle who did two tours in Vietnam with the Navy currently in seriously ill health with asbestosis and a whole raft of other problems, and he managed to get compo from the Dept.
He and my aunt received many congratulations from the VA doctors for managing to get a payout before he died.
They still have to fight for assistance - some specialists have refused to see him because he's a smoker, for example. FFS! The bloke's on oxygen, half deaf and got cataracts and his lungs are ready to cark it. Why on earth would you be nagging him to give up smoking? It's not like he'll be hanging around another 40 years.
But back to the topic, yay for the Beavens, and well done to Joe Hockey and The Eeeeevil John Winston HoWARd.
I'd love to see Gough or the Swat Womble take action like this.
John Howard is the opposite of John Kerry.
Terrific story!
This is a wonderful story.
Best wishes to Mr. Beaven & his family.
You can add another one to Bastards Inc. Australia's largest (according to them) Superannuation Group. It took three months to process a TPI claim for my husband who was diagnosed with two types of terminal cancer. After what can only be described as stonewalling, (long story) to progress this claim I contacted my local federal senator (Nats), who referred the situation to the Federal Treasury Department. If not for their facilitation, we would probably still be fighting for payout. And who sits on the board of this Super Company. Cameron, Shorten and Combet. The same Greg Combet who authorises a website called 'Workers Rights' or some such hypocritical crap.
It was a long and stressful period.
I'll join with you in thinking of Mr Beaven.
While it may be true PM Howard had no legal standing to force their hand, nor should he, it's wonderful that he stepped in and did something anyway. Too bad it had to go that far - it speaks volumes about the people who run Bastards Inc.
My thoughts too are with the family.
To Anabel,
I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's the last thing anyone needs in that situation. Glad it's all sorted out. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your husband as well.
I'll second the congratulations to JWH for intervening to stop this injustce. Whilst intervention of government is not always a good thing, it certainly has been in this case.
How do the people who run these companies and make these decisions sleep at night?!?
But I noticed that you've left out another act of bastadry that forms part of the story. The other 29 workers at Tristar Steering, who will shortly be let go due to the company being effectively bankrupt, negotiated termination pay of four weeks for every year of service. However Bastards Inc tossed that agreement out the window when the new workplace laws came in and now all employees get 12 weeks pay regardless of tenure.
A pretty crap result given that some of them have been there for 44 years.
44x4 = 176 weeks. Ridiculous.
Even 12 weeks is very, very generous.
Exactly what is this payment for?
Mondo, the following was also in that article -
"Mr Hockey said he expected Tristar to go back to the negotiating table with other employees who are also waiting for redundancy payouts."
In other words, get back to the table and start talking to the other workers too, otherwise it's likely there will be another boot print on Mr. Bastards backside.
"Mr Hockey said he expected Tristar to go back to the negotiating table with other employees who are also waiting for redundancy payouts."
You're right, I hadn't noticed that bit. Well bugger me - more good work from the Howard government!!
And Brett - someone who has devoted their entire adult life to working for one company, and is now in their sixties, is very unlikely to be able to get another job after being let go. Termination pay is an attempt to compensate them for the impact that losing their job will have on their future financial position.
In the case of the 44 year veterans - that's it for them. They'll never get another job again. Three years pay seems like fair compensation to me for a lifetime of service.
Mondo, firstly I am not sure I agree with the argument I will state but...there is an argument which says the pay you recive each week is just reward for the efforts you put in...thus why should you recieve a payout for your service be it one year or 44 years, you have been compensated weekly for your efforts and thus the 'contract' is fulfilled...
I will have to think through my personal stance on this but there is some validity to the argument...I am also not well enough aware of the circumstances here to make a valued judgement on this case.
Isnt it interesting that you have to mainly come to right wing blogs to find the positives of the federal governments work...not directed at you Mondo, just speaking generally...
Wow - that's a really great story, too bad all it takes for companies to feel socially responsible is for a ntaionwide campaign and the intervention of the PM to do the decent thing!
Congrats and kudos to the Howard govt... 
One company, PKD. One, single company.
Of course, companies are run by people - not faceless (capitalist) automatons.
Got a gripe?
Take it up with your fellow man.
I would like it on the public record that neither I nor any of the directors of the real Bastards Inc. would do anything so fucking low as to wait for a man to die to rid the company of it's fiscal responsibilities. There's going to be a few shocked faces when Australians start Googling that and find me instead.
James,
No, I dont have a gripe - but hey I'm sure you're right, this is one-off incident of corporate greed against an employee - no other company would ever shirk its social responsabilities...and I'm sure no other company has likewise taken advantage of the workplace reforms to reduce conditions for its employees...
Well, that's enough of the fairy tales!
Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes - this example was typical of a company trying to get awau with making a smaller pay-out, becuase it thought it could get away with it. Nothing unusual about that I'm afraid...
Best Rgrds,
PKD
.
I find your generalisations very tedious, PKD. Vacuuous lefty bullshit, in fact.
Oh wow James, I am so impressed by your reasoning and logic!
To quote the right-whingers favourite polemist (Bolt) 'and the reasons I am wrong are...?'
The fact that your meaningless insults (despite the fact I wasnt even having a go at you personally) were all you can manage shows that, if anything is vacuuous, it's the space between your ears!
If this is what happens when I come on to PRAISE the actions of the right (see my original post) little wonder the left (which, being central, I am not a member of) thinks righties are all such arrogant assholes....
PKD
.
Oh, spare me the self-righteous indignation, PKD. You don't want a rap, then don't write sarcastic pap like: "but hey I'm sure you're right, this is one-off incident of corporate greed against an employee. . ."
James,
So are you claiming that no other company around would ever treat it's employees in the shoddy manner that Tristar did?
Cos if thats the part of my post that got you so upset, then by all means, correct me! I more than happy to admit an error, if you can prove I made it.
Sracastic pap? No - I think silly insults like 'vacuuous left bullshit' is much closer sarcasm / pap, don't you think?
PKD
.
". . .don't you think?"
No.
Wow, so you're admitting that you don't think!
Explains a lot I guess... 
More to the point: are you claiming that there aren't organisations out there that treat their employees like gold?
This statement - "Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes" - answers for you.
Once again, don't want a slap, don't say dumb things.
James,
So you think there are companies prioritise worker conditions over shareholder profits?
Name me one! (If I have any shares in it, I'll be selling them quickly!)
'Once again, don't want a slap, don't say dumb things.'
Good grief you really do like trying to turn any debate into something personal. Why don't you try sticking to the facts, you might have more fun that way! It's what I've been trying to do, but boy, you're not making it easy for me!
Rgrds,
"Why don't you try sticking to the facts. . .It's what I've been trying to do. . ."
What? What facts? Show me a single fact you have cited anywhere in this thread?
The fact I am claiming above is that companies put shareholders profits before employee conditions / welfare. I'll be nice and assume you just missed it!
Rgrds,
PKD - would you like to buy some shares in my compnay? I fit your criteria, all employees are paid above award, recieve incentive bonuses and when profit is up get a profit bonus. They also get days in liue for extra hours and to be honest we dont really have sick leave policy, of your sick your sick...a number of our clinets are companies too and some have similar employment ethics, would like details of them to for your investment portfolio!!
People like you make me sick as you auotmatically disparage someone like myself, an employer, with blithe generalisations, get stuffed!! Yes there are arshole employers just like there are good ones, likewise there are shit employees as well as good ones.
Simo,
auotmatically disparage someone like myself, an employer, with blithe generalisations, get stuffed!
I did not say ALL companies treat its employees badly. I simply said that the most important thing for a company with shares is it's profit margin. Any company that puts employees before profits (very left wing of you, I'm sure your union relations are great!) and shareholders is a VERY rare breed, but if you say you are then I respect that.
Sseeing as you are keen to hang me on generalisations I haven't made ...
Any companies general behaviour - whether it's worker conditions, advertising and sponsorship, work in the community etc etc, is ultimately geared towards making money. Companies who treat employees well do so because they have found in the long run that the company performs better and that they can make more profits that way.
But don't tell me for a minute if the same company could make more money but reducing the workers conditions, it wouldn't do it! I don't suppose you've noticed the outsourcing of large numbers of IT jobs to India lately have you?
Rgrds,
PKD
.
Sad news readers, John Beaven passed away today. Hopefully his children still recieve the payout, may he rest in peace.
PKD - you made a statement. That you did so does not make it fact. As it is, you are entirely wrong.
"I did not say ALL companies treat its employees badly"
You implied it, as you intended to do, when you said: 'Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes'.
Massive generalisation. And wrong.
Then you say:
"Any companies general behaviour - is ultimately geared towards making money"
A company is a legal entity. Nothing more, nothing less. And there are plenty of not-for-profit companies who do indeed put their employees' (and others') interests first - I do work for several of them.
"Sseeing as you are keen to hang me on generalisations I haven't made ..."
Dear oh dear.
PKD - you're the one who started in with the boring lefty generalisations about 'corporate greed'. I'm pinging you for it because I'm sick to death of hearing it.
Sad news indeed, Mat.
PKD - you made a statement. That you did so does not make it fact. As it is, you are entirely wrong.
Sigh - how can I be wrong unless I made a fact that is INCORRECT! The point that you spent the rest of the post arguing my error shows I must have tried to make a fact in the first place.
You implied it, as you intended to do, when you said: 'Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes'.
No I didnt, you imagined the implication. As I previously stated, a company may indeed treat its employees well, but only if it thinks its in its best interests to do so. It's ultimate best interest is its profit line. Strange how you managed to ignore this entire part of my argument - probably becuase it invalidates you and Simos imagining that I said ALL compaines treat its employees badly. Pinged right back at you!
there are plenty of not-for-profit companies
I wasn't talking about not-for-profit compaines ,I was referring to
So you think there are companies prioritise worker conditions over shareholder profits?
Name me one! (If I have any shares in it, I'll be selling them quickly!)
Sounds pretty clear to me. Here's the one part of my post you could've correctly implied. I am talking about publicly owned and listed companies responsible to shareholders.
And I stand by my comment, generalisation or not. Tell you want I'll give you and Simo a chance to prove your point worthy of Bolt.
Name 10, just 10 publicly listed companies that report to the stock market that have publicly stated they put employees before profits.
Shouldn't be too hard to disprove my wide-ranging generalisation - should it?
Do so and I'll happily admit my error...otherwise go fish!
And my condolences also to Mr Beaven's family.
PKD, what's with you guys and Andrew Bolt?
PKD - give me a break. You shifted your position after your initial comments so as to narrow your original generalisation, which left you open - and you know it. It's why you subsequently qualified your original comments.
"And I stand by my comment, generalisation or not."
And that's the problem with you lefties. That attitude all too easily translates to: 'companies = enemy'. And that general consensus, in terms of the bloody-minded intransigence of the left's approach to industrial relations, for example, speaks more to the wrong headedness of that attitude than anything else - just look where it's got us, if you want to really understand what I'm talking about.
"Name 10, just 10 publicly listed companies that report to the stock market that have publicly stated they put employees before profits."
Apart from the fact that you didn't say anything about 'publicly listed companies' in the first instance, your 'test' proves absolutely nothing (and as much for the nebulous nature of the question), so I shan't be bothered with it.
That said, you'll find a great deal of information about employee conditions and treatment, in the form of human resource policies - it's actually a requirement, as I understand. Bottom line is, how religiously they adhere to them is entirely down to the transient personalities involved in their administration, which was my point in the first instance: companies don't screw people - people screw people - and it very much cuts both ways.
PKD, James is dead right, you started whith broad brush implications and generalisations, you've been called on it and now your wriggling!! If you cant see it thats, well perhaps that your sefl defence mechanism?
"But don't tell me for a minute if the same company could make more money but reducing the workers conditions, it wouldn't do it!"
Sorry PKD but companies do!! Companies are run by people so in the end it comes down to people making the decision for the company (directors). If that is their ideal then it WILL happen and does. I will admit from my point of view there is a level of selfishmness, I enjoy staff being happier, living better etc. as it gives me less HR issues!!
"I don't suppose you've noticed the outsourcing of large numbers of IT jobs to India lately have you?"
Picked a bad example since my brother is in IT which outsources to India!! And it isnt a question of cost it is, sadly a question of skill...
Simo,
Picked a bad example since my brother is in IT which outsources to India!! And it isnt a question of cost it is, sadly a question of skill...
LMAO, sadly for you I also work in IT, and have seen it happen all over the place. Sadly, every time, it is recevied as a question of COST savings. What, you think call centre staff in India are more skilful than Aussie ones? Good to see your lack of faith in your Aussie colleagues!
Your lack of knowledge of why why IT companiies outsource to India, shows you're the one who's wriggling.
Tell me, where did I say ALL companies treat employees badly, huh? Yet that's what you accused me of.
Sorry PKD but companies do!!
Name some - just 10, that's all you have to do. 10 public companies who've put profit after employees and stated it publicly. That easy - but you probably can't even name one, can you?
PKD
.
James,
your 'test' proves absolutely nothing
The test will prove me wrong in my statement / fact that companies, put profit before employees.
Now I reiterate for you the original statement I made...
So you think there are companies prioritise worker conditions over shareholder profits?
Name me one! (If I have any shares in it, I'll be selling them quickly!)
...pretty obviously precludes non-for-profit organistions, and by my description above pretty clearly means I mean profit-based companies who give share earning to shareholders. Get it?
If you can't even name 10 such companies, then I will stand by my statement.
Prove it or shut about waffling about it!
PKD
.
That should be 'shut up waffling about it...'!
Nah, sorry PKD, show's over, and judging from your latest replies, you're getting a little wild-eyed.
At risk of repeating myself, you shifted your position after your initial comments so as to narrow your original generalisation. That's called moving the goal posts.
As for the rest of it, it's a waste of time, and for reasons I've already given you. For example, name me 10 publicly listed companies that have publicly stated they put profit before their employees.
Just silly.
As it is, public companies come under a good deal more scrutiny than private ones. Breaches under any OH&S legislation, for example, would see them prosecuted, with directors copping it personally. It would be an unbelievably stupid board of directors who knowingly stuck their necks out for that one, given it's they who are in the firing line, not the share holders.
PS: "Now I reiterate for you the original statement I made...So you think there are companies prioritise worker conditions over shareholder profits?"
That was not your original statement - you said that at comment six - and the answer is yes, I do.
And public listing didn't come up until comment nine. Keep digging.
PKD, LMAO too, when did call centre staff become workers in the IT industry? I thought we were talking programmers etc., genuine IT employees?
But on call centre employees, I have lots of faith in my fellow Aussie however he has been priced out of the market by cheaper overseas labour, and seriously outpriced which is the problem. So while a company can be 'noble' to an extent, your right, profit (or survival) can change things, I have and would never deny that...but then lets look out why they are being priced out, care to comment about that, if you work in IT you should know!!
So no wriggling here matey, I dont say companies are saints, some are arseholes, and some happen to be much better than the broad brush generalisations you have applied...
Oh, as for unions loving my company as an employer, sorry bout that but no one is a member and no one wants to be, in fact they have all actively decided they dont want them meddling as it may ruin the employer/employee relationship!!
PKD said "Tell me, where did I say ALL companies treat employees badly, huh? Yet that's what you accused me of."
this would sure intimate that fact...
PKD - "Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes"
Now, why are we on about naming ten 'public' companies? Since small business employess the vast majority of the Australian workforce wouldnt you rather hear about them?
"What, you think call centre staff in India are more skilful than Aussie ones?"
I recently watched a program about outsourcing call centre staff overseas. Apparently call centre people here in Aus view their jobs as merely a stepping stone to another job. While indian workers viewed it as an actual career. So who would you have, a dedicated worker or someone just there till they get something better?
As for outsourcing, yes it is sad that many are losing their jobs to overseas workers, but is anyone prepared to take a pay-cut as opposed to getting a nice zero every month.
without corporations, PKD wouldn't have a job...it's somebody having the guts to innovate and create companies, ideas and industries that's made the western world as prosperous as it is today...if you have an education, drive a car, use a computer, you can thank capitalism, PKD, though something tells me you aren't thanking anybody...all lefties know how to do is tear down...funny how, when socialism/communism, the babyhood of modern left ideology was in its heyday, none of the idiots handing out leaflets on george st or in university lunch rooms were in any hurry to migrate over to communist USSR and line up in long queues at drab government run grocery shops for food or to join thousands of poker faced factory workers on their way to their daily grinds along streets in ugly, grey moscow...but something tells me you like the 'cool', 'oh-so-politically-correct', pseudo-intellectual, sheep-like thinking and the identity you believe it gives you to spout it off...well, go right ahead...you're so comical with your comments you're harmless
Simo,
this would sure intimate that fact...
PKD - "Bottom line is the only thing company cares about is how much money it makes"
No it doesn't, see
As I previously stated, a company may indeed treat its employees well, but only if it thinks its in its best interests to do so. It's ultimate best interest is its profit line.
I've already said it twice, this is the third time! If a private company thinks it can make more profit by treating its employees well, it will. If it thinks it can make more by treating its employees badly, it will.
I have first hand experience in working at both types of companies - ergo I never said OR implied that ALL compaines treat its employees badly. Got it now??? So yes, some companies are 'saints' to their employees, some are arseholes, but my point is I doubt the ones who are saints are being altruistic in the actions...
but then lets look out why they are being priced out, care to comment about that, if you work in IT you should know!!
Happy to. IT consultancy rates for Indian based resources from the likes of InfoSys et al are typically 20% - 40% of the Australian market rate, and even less of the UK / US market rates (which are higher than AUS rates). Therefore Aussie companies can move large parts of their IT (typically 'low risk' support roles, you know the type of roles you call call centres for - "shit I forgot my password etc")
and save heaps of money in the process in turn giving more profitability.
But you're right - more and more project / programmer development roles are going across to India, and for exactly the same reason as above. Nothing to do with them being better - some of best IT developers I have met are in fact Aussie...
Rgrds,
Dee, what a rant, I feel so enlightened now by it.
Something tells me you're the sort of person one should sit next to at the back of the bus.... :|
Thought you guys might enjoy this, Janet Albrectsen lamenting the lack of conservative cartoonists in the Australian media -
"Left-wing politics is essentially an emotional, instinctive utopian kind of world peopled by romantics and dreamers. Conservatism is, on the other hand, more rational, analytical and pragmatic. That is why creative types tend to come from the Left. Right-wingers, by contrast, have real jobs."
Err, James,
I've just checked - comment six was by Len; comment nine by MK. You're right - why should I bother digging when you're using a JCB?
Especially given your OH&S nonsense - you must be getting desperate. WTH does health and safety have to do with treating employess higher than profits? Answer - nothing! They're just a bunch of safety standards EVERYONE has to adhere to EQUALLY regardless of being public or private.
As for a 10 companies that put profits before employees - how stupid can you get? Any company that has outsourced to India is putting profits before employees - and there are a damn sight more that 10 of them. Would you like a list!?!
Fact is James - you are unable to name 1 (let alone 10) company that has publicly stated it puts employees before profits - sad isn't it?
I'm not going anywhere - this is too much fun!
Rgrds,
"I've already said it twice, this is the third time! If a private company thinks it can make more profit by treating its employees well, it will. If it thinks it can make more by treating its employees badly, it will."
Right...so all company owners are bastards as the only thing that counts is the highest level of profit i.e. they will take whatever action they need (treat employees well or poorly) to achive highest profit, correct? And thus by this staement you are applying this too all companies...to which i say bollocks as I know ones who sacruifce profit for other reasons, including employee's benefit and welfare.
Dead right with IT, Australians have priced themselves out of the market and not even our IR laws now where bosses can be 'bastards' can save that...corrective action years earlier might have though. My brother would agree that IT skill in higher end roles is damn good, but then the work ethic and desire to put in isnt, once again why jobs flow elsewhere...
However we are on two different arguments...one being the initial one which raised my ire and now the flow of human capitla due to pricing itself out of a global market...on this basis I am assuming you support the new IR laws as they will help solve this happening in future?
That is why creative types tend to come from the Left. Right-wingers, by contrast, have real jobs.
Lol, that is pretty damn funny!
This is just tedious.
Okay, PKD - OH&S was cited as an example of the obligations companies face. Your failure to read properly, or understand the implications of that, simply puts your blinding ignorance up in neon lights. Jesus - don't you people know when to shut up? But if you can't or won't take the point, I really can't be bothered. You're just wasting my time.
You fucked up with a stupid comment. You have failed to justify it, rather choosing to shift your ground. Bravo: a tremendous student of the MrLefty school of argument. Duck and weave.
But if you've not the conviction (or courage) to retract a foolish generalisation, then that's more than enough said about you.
What's truly sad is that I'm sure you actually think you're ahead.
PS: Try counting from your first comment.
Simo,
And thus by this staement you are applying this too all companies
Ok ok, let me clarify.
If I offended you by portraying that every company in the Western world operates identically in this manner, I apologise. It's certainly not the point I have been trying to make in my head and subsequently try to clarify.
I do believe that companies, particularly those run by a board, rather than individually owned, who are responsible specifically to shareholders (and this precludes nearly all small limited companies) prioritise profits over workers. I have never personally heard of one such company that didn't, and have worked in too many such places to be inclined otherwise.
Hence my challenge for 10 such companies that do - but frankly I would be amazed, AND pleasantly surprised if someone here could name me just one. I guess I am getting too cynical in my old age...!
Someone please surprise me pleasantly!
As for IT, I don't see the new IR laws changing the IT scence much, outsourcing was in full swing beforehand anyway. As they don't really affect me I don't have a strong view on it - the thing that will slow outsourcing down is when firms realise it's not guaranteed to succeed - there are plenty of failed outsourcing stories emerging that will help make CIO's and boards think twice about how much and how far to outsource. Indeed some companies are now pushing NOT having outsourced call centres as a marketing strategy!
Rgrds,
PKD
.
James,
See my previous post, re: profits over workers.
You're still talking nonsense about OH&S - it has nothing to do with whether a company puts employees or profits first. Of course, if you would like to clarify what it does have to do with it, I'll be happy to consider it.
PS: Try counting from your first comment.
Oh, so you mean my sixth comment, rather than comment six - now who's moving the gola posts?
"That is why creative types tend to come from the Left. Right-wingers, by contrast, have real jobs.
Lol, that is pretty damn funny!"
I'm glad you find it funny PKD, now say something else so we can push this over to a half-century, you dissappointed me the last time by choking at the very end.
I'm glad you find it funny PKD, now say something else so we can push this over to a half-century, you dissappointed me the last time by choking at the very end.
Lol, yeah sorry about that, with one thing and another, I had no access the whole of last week to put anything further on. Pick it up again next time if you like....
Whoo hooo, it's over 50, thanks everybody..
"That was not your original statement - you said that at comment six. . ."
I think that's more than clear - sorry you didn't get it.
Yeh, well, 'at the sixth comment' sure is a lot clearer that 'at comment six' which can be taken as 'comment number six on this topic' - but whatever!
The above should read 'Yeah well, at your sixth comment'...lol
A bit of advice PKD, no offence meant, but you said your in IT right, I am too so I know what it's like, posting in the heat of the moment, emotions running high etc Please open up a Word session and spell check on the side. With all this damn outsourcing, we IT folks can’t afford to make any mistakes.
Yeah well spotted, I was in a rush and typed it straight into the page - gets me every time!
I'll admit I'm a little out of my league here as we are discussing large publicly traded corporations while I run a tiny business. I employ approx 20 people. Nevertheless, I take exception to the generalization that all companies put profit before employee welfare.
From my standpoint, I'd like to re-phrase that. Companies put finances (not profit) before employee welfare. There's a big difference. I do it. And what I mean by that is running a business is much similar to running a household in that you must live within your means. If you start making purchases you can't afford you soon find yourself in a pickle. The same goes for running a business. If you don't make finances your top priority it won't be long before you have NO business and employee welfare will no longer be a concern because they won't have jobs. Finances HAVE to be your top priority. I didn't invest all of this time and money so that I could go tits up. That said, it's a balancing act. While finances are the priority, you try to treat your employees as decently as possible within your current means. At least I do.
In fact, my guys turned down an opportunity to join a union. Know why? They feel being unionized would jeopardize the good thing they now have. I don't run my business in a confrontational manner - Employer vs Employee. We are a close and tight-knit bunch. I treat my guys the best I can WITHIN my current means and they know it. And they respect that.
Because I can't give them large raises or pay them on par with other large companies does that make me a bad employer? I don't think so. My guys are free to move on when ever they wish - most do not. So I think there is a big difference between PROFIT and FINANCES.
I'm not naive enough to suggest there aren't cold uncaring companies out there just as there are cold uncaring employees. We're all people. But I think the vast majority of people are good people. Am I living in a dream world?
Looks like I am a little late for this thread, but I just wanted to throw in a mention of the fact that Tristar workers went to Canberra in November 2006 to speak with the Prime Minister about this issue. He turned them away. To a cynic like me it seems that Howard only acted when Alan Jones got his ear. In other words, he'll listen to a conservative shock-jock but not to the people themselves.
You are definitely not living in dreamland Len and good on you for the way you treat your employees.
LVD, yes apparently this was raised in the parliament last year, apart from the fact that the PM doesn’t sit around all day doing nothing, we have to be careful about being cynical all the time, at the end of the day did you want the PM to help or not?
I’ve had a bit of a think about this and I have the feeling, the govt. didn’t come down hard on Bastards Inc. because it might look like the govt. is dictating to business, it’s about perceptions. Also John Beaven’s family was pursuing legal avenues until now, it was only after that didn’t work did they go to AJ. If the govt. had intervened in between, it may be construed the wrong way, as what Bastards Inc. was doing was perfectly legal, the outrage was over the morality of it all.
Also the federal opposition knew about it, they could have screamed from the roof-tops and let their state counter-parts know about it. Since it’s an election year in NSW, Morris Iemma could have raised a stink and also looked-good in the process.
Besides Alan Jones is listening to the people, and if the people believed that the PM doesn't listen to them why do they keep voting for him.
Dee, what a rant, I feel so enlightened now by it.
Something tells me you're the sort of person one should sit next to at the back of the bus.... :|
PKD | 01.27.07 - 6:03 pm | #
and something tells me that you're the sort that should be avoided at the back of the bus if at all possible
@MK: I’ve had a bit of a think about this and I have the feeling, the govt. didn’t come down hard on Bastards Inc. because it might look like the govt. is dictating to business, it’s about perceptions.
Let's try the govt. didn’t come down hard on Bastards Inc. because it was Anthony Albanese who took the issue to JWH, not Alan Jones. JWH projects himself as a man of principle, but this is pure politics and damage-control.
Hockey gets 1/4 of one dying man's entitlements, and the gov pats itself on the back. Meanwhile, 35 people who've given their blood and sweat to this company for up to 40 years are left to rot in a windowless shed for nigh on a year, with another year to look forward to...
Commenting by HaloScan
