Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Howard breaks his silence: Work Choices should've stayed

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Howard breaks his silence: Work Choices should've stayed

Old 16th May 2009, 19:04
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chimbu mentioned
The $900 checks mailed out to most people was grotesque waste. Same with the pink batts/schools and, if it actually goes ahead, so will the internet broadband plan.
I think Chimbu's phrase "if it actually goes ahead" will apply to quite a few of the Rudd Government's plans, (and in particular, some of their rather fanciful, huge money plans in the Defence sector in their recent White Paper).

Re the broadband scheme: an acquaintance who is pretty senior with the #2 telcom in Oz tells me that the money Kev is committing to high speed fibre optic cables would be far better spent on putting in another undersea cable connecting Australia with the WWW.

His reasoning? Much if not the vast majority of Australian internet users are for much of their time online attempting to gain information from sources outside Australia, so the bottleneck will be in gaining access to the rest of the world. Even if the average user has the (very expensive ) fastest fibre optic connection to his home or office from his ISP, he's going to be limited in his download speed by the cable linking him to the world unless he only requires information from within Australia.
Wiley is offline  
Old 16th May 2009, 22:11
  #22 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey PAF.....You're back and you were away for such a long time....

What happened??????

Anyway..this is more about which side of the political fence you are on and nothing to do with reality...You could argue for both cases but Work No Choices was the critical point.If you are an employer you wanted Howard and if you were not then you wanted him out.

This is also about another politician who is bitter and bruised about losing an election......when he was doing so much for Australian employers...

Or are you upset about the rules changing about the tax rules on earning money offshore PAF???

Remember Mr Honesty who would never bring a GST in

Not to mention something called the Tampa...
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 16th May 2009, 23:47
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hey Pass

You say " The new IR legislation will result in higher unemployment " (sorry I dont know how to do that blue box quote thing ) please explain how! (exactly)
Arnold E is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 00:23
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remember Mr Honesty who would never bring a GST in
Well, as I recall JH went to the electorate on that and returned with a greater majority, so I can't see your point.

Not to mention something called the Tampa...
Hmmm! the recent debacle about denying the fact that the boat was deliberately set on fire (fact as it turned out) doesn't seem that different to me.

I can't add much more than was aptly stated by Chimbu but I have to wonder about individuals who think that their job is so sacrosanct that it must be rewarded EVEN if it has little or no value.
Work choices at least allowed those that had something to bargain with (ie their capabilities) to achieve a better outcome than someone who, for various reasons, wasn't worth as much.
Make no mistake, anyone who was valuable to an organisation should have been treated well because they had something to contribute.
If an employer didn't recognise that and provide appropriate remuneration then they were in turn, not going to be competitive because they didn't have the right people.
Having a job is desirable and even necessary for most, but it is not a right.
The current soft communist government (no, they haven't gone away) will slowly steer us back to egalitarian principles even though we are not as a people equal.

(standing by for the usual socialist drivel)
ZEEBEE is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
How do you do that quote in the blue box thing?
Maybe someone could PM me
Tar

Last edited by Arnold E; 17th May 2009 at 02:20.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:19
  #26 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I find it amazing and very funny to watch Liberal supporters explaining away examples of BS
Well, as I recall JH went to the electorate on that and returned with a greater majority, so I can't see your point.
Well,ZEEBEE...
If you think not being able to believe a politician is not problem then I can understand why you voted for Honest John.

He said a GST would not be be introduced by his government.....and yet it was....
standing by for the usual socialist drivel
And we have to read this McCarthyistic rubbish from anyone who did not vote for Honest John
But in reality is that different from a capitalist autocratic who you can't believe?

Last edited by lowerlobe; 17th May 2009 at 01:56.
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:22
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think this statement sums up your unbridled hatred of Labour.
And I think this statement proves that you're so ignorant that you can't even spell Labor.

Point0Five is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:23
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mascot
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've seen Joe Hockey interviewed about the budget deficit.

After bleating on for about 5 mins about the government being on an irresponsible spending spree, he was asked the following questions:

1. If the coalition was in power, would their budget be in deficit ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

2. How would the Coalition budget differ and in what areas would you cut spending to reduce the deficit (and would the deficit be reduced to zero) ... he said "the Labor government are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

3. Surely SOME money being spent on infrastructure to keep people in jobs is a good long term investment in Australia's future ... he said "the Labor goverment are on a spending spree, when will it stop?"

Socked's interpretation of Joe Hockey:
"We don't really have any answers to any of the hard questions and can't say we'd be doing anything different. But it gives me a good chance to sit here on my fat arse and complain."

The fact of the matter is, nearly every government in the world is in the same situation. And the Coalition would be in it too if they were in power.

I am a swinging voter. I vote for who I think is the right government for me at the time. I think both major parties have the positives and negatives and over the years, have voted for both several times.

But while the Liberals have Joe Hockey the whinging, fence-sitting sook, they won't get my vote.
sockedunnecessarily is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He said a GST would be be introduced by his government.....and yet it was....
You're right Lowerlobe, how can we trust a man that says he's going to do something, and then actually does it!
Point0Five is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 01:59
  #30 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahh...yes typo error thanks for that.
how can we trust a man that says he's going to do something, and then actually does it!
That would be novel for a politician but in honest Johns case it was not....

I voted for Rudd and voted Labor for the first time in my life because I wanted to get rid of Howard and Work No Choice.

I believed at the time that a defeat would help the Libs wake up and I thought that with MT it would be different but he is dithering back and forwards like some teenager.

If the Libs get back in Work No Choice will be back but in a different name only...

Howard is like a lot of other leaders who's ego won't allow them to accept defeat and move on with their lives....
lowerlobe is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 02:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good to see you back PAF. As much as I disagree with your views sometimes, it still makes for an interesting read.

Now for a Howard bash. In the biggest boom known in this country, with money flowing down streets like water in rivers JWH did fckall to improve infrastructure, indeed it got worse whilst he was at the helm. Privatising everything he could get his grubby little hands on, he gradually edged us closer and closer to the standard of that mighty sh!thole: the US of A. Year in year out he'd tell us all of the mighty surplus he and cut-throat-costello had achieved for this country. Well done, my grandma (who’s been dead for several years) could have done the same or better. Selling off silverware and being given money by the Chinese during a mining boom is not economic management ol' mate! Then he chimed in with Work With No Choices and people finally got the sh!ts. Now there was one thing he could have done that would have impressed me. That would have been telling the long term unemployed to get a job or starve but he didn't. So you've got to wonder WTF did JWH stand for? I think basically he wanted to make the working person suffer whilst the big boys enjoyed their millions and the unemployed carried on in their merry way.

In comes Rudd. Now I did vote for him but let face it people would vote for Charles Manson to get rid of JWH! Whilst I do like him to a degree I must admit there are a few things that he's done that are starting to make me think twice about voting for him again. Starting with that summit thing where Cate Blanchet's baby seemed to be the focus. Celebrities - who cares about their ideas really! There seems to be a lot of talk about ideas and it all sounds promising. But 2 years on we've still got all the doubling up of politicians with state and federal junkets continuing and we've still also got endless red tape (see the bushfires for example). In comes the GFC and the cash hand outs start (Mr. Hat thinks to himself: are you kidding Rudd?). Stimulus to build what Howard neglected? Fine, great idea. Could we have just one airport that’s at least a standard of a second world country for once? Then the idea about cutting the 50k in super to 25k. At this point I've got to say I started to wonder if Mr. Hockey would do a better job. I actually think that the 50k hurts the everyday Australian who is trying to set up a retirement. You might for example have a person that has a second job and salary sacrifices it all into super therefore avoiding the extra tax. Not anymore under that scheme!

So 15 years later - crap infrastructure, heaps of people on the dole and handouts long term, crap medical system, crap airports, fees everywhere you turn, a worsening crime rate and deficit for years to come. JWH did the main damage and Rudd, well he seems like he's going to finish it off. Might vote for some unkown little party next time.

Last edited by Mr. Hat; 17th May 2009 at 05:23.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 03:25
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe we could get Aircraft back. He'd be loving life right now - pilots on the back foot no jobs..
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 03:48
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Zeebee

and is that distinct from the conservative drivel?
Arnold E is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 06:59
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Chimbu,

Rudd and Swan are a joke.
You may be right, but if I may be allowed to suggest something:

Lib/Nat are generally the better managers; but, just like any management, they run out of ideas after a while and need to either move on, or be 'moved on'. Certain recent changes in commuters to an address on Coward St., Mascot come to mind...

Anyhoo, Little Johnny came in with good ideas. Along the way, he had a few stuff-ups, told a few egregious, outright lies and did a few embarrassing things, but was generally not too bad, especially when measured against his peers.

But, success went to his head and when he ran out of good ideas, he turned ideological; then it was time to go. But he became a gripper (ie. a w@nker who won't let go) and started giving the Conservative side a bad name.

So I'm glad he got rolled, so the next Lib/Nat administration (hopefully 2010) will be refreshed, renewed & invigorated with new ideas. And hopefully will take good advice as to when to give the next lot of up-and-comers a go.
Taildragger67 is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 08:44
  #35 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I would agree with all that....I was hoping they would get returned with a much reduced majority...I wanted the Libs/nats to get a fright and a lessen in humility rather than see the socialists back in the driver's seat.

For those still whinging that Howard never achieved much in the way of infrastructure while in power I would again point out that infrastructure is mostly a State Govt matter...he tried to take water off them because he could see the State Labor Govts, particularly Vic, stuffing it up on a grand scale...he ran out of time on that one. The blame for the sad state of infrastructure in Australia lies squarely with Labor. One would assume the state Labor Govts would be much more amenable to co-operating with a Federal Labor Govt in this regard but I see no sign of it.

Howard was no more intrinsically dishonest than any other politician...politicians lie, all of them.. and I would argue at least Howard truly believed what he was doing was in Australia's best interest - I don't believe for one minute that the same claim will EVER be made of Rudd.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 09:39
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You speak a lot of sense, Chuck. There are some points I would differ in my opinion on, but hey, it'd be boring otherwise. I especially like your water ideas. A grand scheme of the scope you talk about- bringing water from north to south- would, indeed, be a sensible, popular and stimulating endeavor.

I take issue with your ideas about Workchoices, and a worker's 'rights'. IMHO, workers do have rights. Rights that were fought for and gained over many years becoming enshrined in conditions (such as penalty rates) enforced on employers via 'awards' etc. That they needed enforcement reflected the power-relationship between an employer and employee. It is an unequal relationship. To have those conditions, built up/refined/diluted over many years, swept away in 1 piece of legislation shifted the power most unequally. I had the opportunity to be both an employer and an employee during Workchoices. My time as an employer demonstrated the flexibility that was available to me - and the opportunity for the unscrupulous. Heaven- from an employers p.o.v. My time as an employee demonstrated that there were any number of employers willing to use Workchoices in an extremely negative way. Not a happy time. I just don't have any faith in human nature to allow people the opportunity to 'do the right thing'- or not! It may be ok for highly skilled and sought after workers to negotiate on an individual basis with their employer (and they always will anyway), but not across the spectrum.

As far as dismantling the Howard health scheme- go for it. I cannot, for the life of me, understand anyone wanting to move closer to the US health system. The oz system (medicare) may not be perfect (and I have plenty of simple ideas how it could be improved), but it is a quantum leap better than the yank's. Some things just need to be socialized. Getting the balance right is the trick. And is usually where the 'pendulum swings' occur.
ferris is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 09:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld Aust
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What a useless debate. Fascists on one side that would make the worst dictator proud and the other view which is totally rejected by above. Each side can say what they like and they will never convince anyone but themselves what they are rambling on about. What has this to do with aviation apart from extremists being able to see their names on the screen. Like the 89 debate no matter how many words are poured onto the screen nothing will ever convince the opposing view of changing.
Pole Vaulter is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 10:22
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For those still whinging that Howard never achieved much in the way of infrastructure while in power I would again point out that infrastructure is mostly a State Govt matter
Excellent, so because a state government is in charge of something then "we can't do anything about it". Unless of course we are approaching an election at which point we may take over a hospital in a marginal seat for a few political points. Come on, he was the PM its up to him to take the lead and do something if the state governments are doing nothing.

Rudd is no Angel but at least he's saying that he'll take responsibility for it.

The long term solution is get rid of this state and territory double up crap.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 10:28
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Chimbu

You say " If the car industry disappears from our shores that is NOT the end of the world " From this I can take it that you believe, that IF all aircraft maintenance and pilot hiring went offshore, you would have no problem with this and that this would not be the end of the world? Whilst advocating the demise of industries that dont concern us, should we or should we not consider where we sit? I dont know, just asking.

Last edited by Arnold E; 17th May 2009 at 11:41.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 17th May 2009, 11:57
  #40 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,583
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I agree, it would be a very boring, and unjust, world if everyone was of the same ilk.

I think we need to define 'rights' and having done so I would be a little surprised if we don't agree on a great deal.

The very word 'right' has been co-opted by various segments of politics and has come to be misused in my view. It gets used, for instance, when politicians and sundry groups with an agenda should really be using 'aspirations'...maybe 'societal aspirations'...better yet 'priviledges'. If they used words appropriately then society would be a very much better place...we all know politicians twist the meaning of words and have been doing so more and more in modern times...particularly since the 1960s. Look up the meaning of the word 'Government', 'Leader' or 'Minister' and see the disparity between the true meaning and common usage/practice let alone comparing the meaning to the behaviour of people in those positions.

We are all born, in western societies anyway, with individual rights which are intrinsic because they are moral. I have an intrinsic, moral right to my life, to my freedom (of speech/thought/action), to own property and to, as the Yanks say, the pursuit of happiness (however I define that)...and SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. These rights are said to be 'self evident' and 'inalianable' because they are moral.

We exist and prosper, or otherwise, based on our judgement...by viewing the world around us rationally and making sensible judgements about cause and effect...that is what the 'right' to life actually means. I have 'a right' to go about my life as I see fit, working in whatever job I can get, keeping unto myself a maximum amount of the fruits of my labour, owning property and using it as I see fit all based on my best judgement to make myself, and those for whom I am responsible 'happy'

Govts and Laws exist to protect those individual human rights because the ONLY thing that can stop me exercising my individual rights is force.

Think the raping and pillaging hordes of history and that is why Government evolved - to protect the basic individual, moral rights of it's citizens.

If someone forces me to do something against my better judgement, by threat of violence or whatever, they have stopped me exercising my intrinsic and moral rights, my judgement. individual rights can be violated only by means of physical force. The very basis of our society, or any civil society, is that using force on another individual, whether it is the Govt or an individual applying that force, is illegal and no Law could ever by bought into force that could change that because that would be immoral...to the extent that society allows it anyway...we all can point to cases of individual rights to property being forcibly removed by local/state govt...but society has 'agreed' to this...although I think its obscene.

And I am not talking about criminals...they by their actions have violated another's individual rights and this have no claim to protection of their own rights to life/liberty etc. This is just an example of where society has decided to draw a line in the sand to ensure society survives.

I don't have a right to steal, speed, drive drunk etc etc because by doing so I am infringing on another persons individual human rights. If I drug some girl to have sex with her I have removed her ability to exercise her judgement which would probably tell her not to have sex with me...I have violated her most basic human right...to live her life as she sees fit based on her judgement and rational decision not to have sex with me.

So do I have a right to a job?

No...because to exercise that 'right' someone else must be forced to provide that job...I have removed his/her basic, individual human right to live their life, utilise their property, exercise their freedom of thought/action or words based on their best judgement...thus no such right to a job can exist...I can aspire to a job, that's all.

If something I want to do has NO EFFECT on someone else's individual human rights then I have every right to do it...if it does then I cannot.

If an employer refuses me employment has he infringed on my individual human rights?

No. I am still free to exercise my judgement to look for another job, get better qualified, offer my labour at a lower rate or use my property as I see fit.

If an employer sacks me because he has found a better employee has he infringed my rights? If I have no employment contract then no...see the previous paragraph...my individual human rights are intact. That we have Laws that FORCE an employer to maintain the employment of someone their judgement deems should be sacked actually infringes on the employers individual human rights and as such is an immoral Law.

No employer is going to risk damaging his business by sacking good employees or risking them taking their skills to a rival employer...unless they are an idiot..and they do exist. But they have not infringed anyone's rights by so behaving.

Ditto 'rights' to a certain level of wages.

If an employer offers crap T&Cs to low time CPLs and 'requires' them to wash aeroplanes, drive buses etc does that infringed that pilots rights?

No, they may be guilty of breaking other laws with respect of duty time limitations but no-one has had his right to use his best judgement to rationally decide the effects of this requirement...to exercise his freedom of action/words/thought to remove himself from that situation and seek alternative employment. His rights are intact and so are those of the employer.

Does AIPA have 'a right' to take action through the courts to limit the career potential of pilots employed by QF subsidiaries? While AIPA members would without doubt say YES the in fact absolutely DO NOT. By doing so they are seeking to forcefully remove the rights of others to live their lives by rational application of their best judgement. If QF wants to offer employment to an individual on certain T&Cs and said individual agrees then NO ONE's individual rights have been infringed and thus QF and that individual have EVERY RIGHT to proceed.

Those AIPA members would suggest they are merely acting with the best interests of said individual and some/many members actually believe that in a heartfelt way..but its not reality.

Do I have a right to free health care?

No because someone else must be forced to pay for it...in this case everyone, via higher taxation. That society has deemed universal affordable/free health care as a worthy aspiration and decided to pay those extra taxes is a different thing altogether...but no 'right' exists.

Do I have a right to free education?

No...it is a privilege based on society's aspiration to provide it which is itself based on good public policy...but it isn't a right.

People believe they have all sorts of rights but only because someone with an agenda has told them these aspirations/privileges are actually rights.

When words were used more thoughtfully...or perhaps more literally...only a generation or two ago...people knew the difference between rights and privileges and responded accordingly...and society was a better place.

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 17th May 2009 at 18:58.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.