Thread: Our latest scheme for getting casual Workers

Originally Posted by incisor

you pair really need to get over each other

one personal slight after another from both sides of the fence

Not a problem. I actually said several times that I did not want to debate with him but when someone is going out of their way to make continual inaccurate statements, I would not think it is unreasonable to correct them.

Originally Posted by incisor

both sides are victims, to some degree, by how industrial relations are handled in australia.

the whole bargaining system is adversarial by nature and little will change till that does.

i have only been in the workforce for a little over 45 years and my major observation has been that the one big difference between the workplace then and what is the landscape now, is the growth in the % of returns paid to management.

i have been bagged numerous times for bringing it up but one of the major factors that firms have trouble continuing to be profitable in australia is the % of returns that is now consumed by management.

a quick look at the stats is an eye opener....

there is a lot of $35000 a year jobs in a 1 million $ bonus....

the recent pacific brands saga being the perfect example of how the game is played imho

only now are we starting to see some action, miniscule as it is, in this department.

bag away...

I have constantly said that I disagree with huge management pays and bonus's but I think there is a real consistency issue for many on here.

It has been argued many times and even in this thread, that employees are selling their labour/experience/expertise and as such can sell it to whoever pays the most.

So why are management any different. We are increasingly living in a world market so if a fitter and turner or a truck driver can go to another company, another state, the mines or where ever , then why can't the exec do exactly the same.

If a company/directors/sharehoders believe they are getting value or if they have to pay the high rate to entice or keep the fitter and turner then why should the exec be expected to under sell himself if he can get more at a different company or in a different state or overseas.

Originally Posted by nugge t

I have constantly said that I disagree with huge management pays and bonus's but I think there is a real consistency issue for many on here.

It has been argued many times and even in this thread, that employees are selling their labour/experience/expertise and as such can sell it to whoever pays the most.

So why are management any different. We are increasingly living in a world market so if a fitter and turner or a truck driver can go to another company, another state, the mines or where ever , then why can't the exec do exactly the same.

If a company/directors/sharehoders believe they are getting value or if they have to pay the high rate to entice or keep the fitter and turner then why should the exec be expected to under sell himself if he can get more at a different company or in a different state or overseas.

the consistency issue is not just on here....

the problem has been there is no real way for shareholders or others for that matter, to get a handle on the disproportionate spiral.....

the 3 strikes rule in place now is having some little effect but there should be action on a much broader scale...

what form that action should take is where the real debate should be, in the national interest.

Originally Posted by incisor

the consistency issue is not just on here....

the problem has been there is no real way for shareholders or others for that matter, to get a handle on the disproportionate spiral.....

the 3 strikes rule in place now is having some little effect but there should be action on a much broader scale...

what form that action should take is where the real debate should be, in the national interest.

I agree in part but if he can negotiate a higher income then isn't that his right. The company can say no and employ someone else, just as they can say no to the shop floor guy who wants more.

It may be seen as disproportionate to many but he may well be able to earn even more off shore.

I actually get angrier at those who continue to take or are given increases at ALL levels, when a company is losing money and shareholders are not getting a return.

Originally Posted by nugge t

.................................................. .................
I actually get angrier at those who continue to take or are given increases at ALL levels, when a company is losing money and shareholders are not getting a return.

It would be nice if all the employers have part ownership of the company so they cannot shoot their own foot, but then again human nature works in funny ways and someone will be greedy for control.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

It would be nice if all the employers have part ownership of the company so they cannot shoot their own foot, but then again human nature works in funny ways and someone will be greedy for control.

Greed affects ALL levels as can an inflated opinion of ones worth within a company. Amazing how often you hear of someone being "indispensable" but life goes on once they have left, again, at all levels of a company.

Someone one described to me the hole left as being equal to the hole left when you take your hand out of a bucket of water. And yes, I have always applied that to myself as well as it is a great leveller if one is getting ahead of themselves.

Originally Posted by nugge t

It may be seen as disproportionate to many but he may well be able to earn even more off shore.

no doubt

but somewhere, there has to be a national interest clause....

for example, as a nation we should be exporting as an absolute minimum, metal ingots, not ore and coal.

Originally Posted by incisor

no doubt

but somewhere, there has to be a national interest clause....

for example, as a nation we should be exporting as an absolute minimum, metal ingots, not ore and coal.

Socialist!, Hugo Chavez would be proud of you