Axe swings at Toyota's Altona plant

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

So who pays your wages? People forget that small thing that allows us to live our lives the way we want to.

toooooo true . . . and when they do wrong by me, i leave and find someone who wants me

[Nikked]

Was there a further 100 odd sacked today?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

toooooo true . . . and when they do wrong by me, i leave and find someone who wants me

That I don't agree with because it just lets the employer screw over the next average joe who won't stand up for himself.

If something isn't right, stand up for yourself. Worst case scenario you leave and find another workplace afterwards.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

Not all, but some indeed get drunk on membership fees at least, despite parts of the internal membership trying to pursue positive change. There are business groups +/- the odd mining magnate which could be tarred with the same brush, they just operate on the other side of politics.

both the unions/members and the bosses they are protecting us from are the same. they look after themselves and pretend they care about us

there is good and bad in everyone, but it is frustrating when the guys that sit on their buts and read papers all day are the most protected

it is also frustrating when someone's job can be on the line because high ranked union members don't like them . . . not much different to someone getting the sack because the boss doesn't like them - but we never hear about it when the union discriminates against non union members because they don't like each other

[nstg8a]

unions have their place, no doubt about it.

try working in nz, where in one single law change they introduced the employment contracts act, which in one move took 95% of the power away from unions.

now look at working conditions in nz.

australians have it pretty damned good i reckon, and some perhaps need to work in an environment of open hostility to really see how good it is here.

no its not perfect, but its far far from onerous.

and for whats its worth, my first full time job as a 17 year old, was breaking the picket line at nz longest running industrial dispute.
in a small town with high unemployment you took your chances when they came up, cos if you didnt someone else would.

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

So who pays your wages? People forget that small thing that allows us to live our lives the way we want to.

I'm not entirely sure what your response has to do with my comment, and I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I'm paid for the work I do (and not paid for the extra work I do). My comment relates to the fact that management could just as easily be deemed as stupid in many cases, regardless of whether they pay my salary or not.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

That I don't agree with because it just lets the employer screw over the next average joe who won't stand up for himself.

If something isn't right, stand up for yourself. Worst case scenario you leave and find another workplace afterwards.

why, they were not going to change. why should they. they had their views, i had mine. i moved on within weeks of our problem and years later, i am still happy

the problem with standing up for yourself is you need to pick the right times and not just do it because you can. one person can make a difference, but most of the time they probably shouldn't

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

both the unions/members and the bosses they are protecting us from are the same. they look after themselves and pretend they care about us

there is good and bad in everyone, but it is frustrating when the guys that sit on their buts and read papers all day are the most protected

it is also frustrating when someone's job can be on the line because high ranked union members don't like them . . . not much different to someone getting the sack because the boss doesn't like them - but we never hear about it when the union discriminates against non union members because they don't like each other

With the non union members, the reason that happens is that when a union negotiates an EBA, everyone comes under it and will be recieving the possible benefits in there, so they get all the benefits of the union without handing out the $$$ for it and thats where you get fights starting. Its on a few peoples minds in my workshop as we're in the process of getting a union involved and some people just don't want to hand over the cash.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

why, they were not going to change. why should they. they had their views, i had mine. i moved on within weeks of our problem and years later, i am still happy

the problem with standing up for yourself is you need to pick the right times and not just do it because you can. one person can make a difference, but most of the time they probably shouldn't

They won't change because they know they can get away with what they where doing, because people will just move on rather than defending themselves.

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

both the unions/members and the bosses they are protecting us from are the same. they look after themselves and pretend they care about us

there is good and bad in everyone, but it is frustrating when the guys that sit on their buts and read papers all day are the most protected

it is also frustrating when someone's job can be on the line because high ranked union members don't like them . . . not much different to someone getting the sack because the boss doesn't like them - but we never hear about it when the union discriminates against non union members because they don't like each other

Agreed.

If you've been following the issues with the Health Services Union of late, you'd be interested to know that there have been calls for financial restraint from within the membership for years. There have been small groups of members essentially banished and/or excommunicated from the membership for trying to change things for the better. The unnecessary extravagance was normally at the expense of the 'Mum and Dad' membership. I won't be shedding any tears if Michael Williamson goes down.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

With the non union members, the reason that happens is that when a union negotiates an EBA, everyone comes under it and will be recieving the possible benefits in there, so they get all the benefits of the union without handing out the $$$ for it and thats where you get fights starting. Its on a few peoples minds in my workshop as we're in the process of getting a union involved and some people just don't want to hand over the cash.



They won't change because they know they can get away with what they where doing, because people will just move on rather than defending themselves.

it had nothing to do with that. it was about personal differences and when they complained to the bosses, i was warned about how high in the union they were, and i would not win a fight with them. make of that what you will, but to me that is bullying tactics. you know, the thing they are hell bent on protrecting us from





they won't change because they won't change. and besides i don't want to work for someone, that i have to force to like me. if i don't like them I find someone i do like. maybe i am weird, but i would rather be happy with my lot in life, than complaining about things i can move on from

[csv8]

If Abbott wins the next election, Work Choices will be back

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by csv8

If Abbott wins the next election, Work Choices will be back

if the ranga wins the next election, we will end up like greece..

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by csv8

If Abbott wins the next election, Work Choices will be back

it will not be back - why would he want to go out as quick as the one he replaced

it is unfortunate though - work choices gave me more money

[Nikked]

Un-employment is ment to be at the lowest since WWII...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Un-employment is ment to be at the lowest since WWII...

Not quite correct, the definition of un employed has changed over the years. Julia her self has stated that Australia has a large number of people under employed I am trying to find a figure but a research firm suggested we have over 1 million under employed.

[SB076]

The concern I have is I attended a conference recently and a CPA stated that for every person manufacturing employees that one job creates four addtional jobs (indirect) I cant find the paper he referenced but have found an article where an US CPA has stated the same thing

http://savingusmanufacturing.com/blog/ The article is obviously pro US manufacturing but they are stating the same figure (1 job creates 4) Currently manufacturing in Australia provides 1 million jobs (direct)

[kaniSS]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

I live in WA and work in the Mining Industry.
What will the country do when nobody in Victoria or NSW has a job anymore because everything is imported?

lol We all get those so called "Green jobs" Dillard has been boasting about.
I can't wait to clean wind turbine blades for a living, or maybe even become a sandal cleaner. I hear those sandals get pretty muddy after being walked in, hugging trees all day.

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by Nikked

Un-employment is ment to be at the lowest since WWII...

Remember anyone that has taken a pay out in the last 12-18 months will not be "unemployed".

If you cant register (missus works, work a few hrs aday, payout etc) then you will not show up in the stats.

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by atec77

If that were true middle management would be gone

The middle holds it all together. The top needs info fed to them and the bottom usually need spoon feeding.

[In Focus]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I've just attended a work-related conference at the Melbourne Convention Centre, and Toyota was doing some big launch at the Hilton South Wharf (I presume of the Aurion, since there was one parked in the foyer). This was on the evening after they laid off the staff.

One of my colleagues remarked in a lift that it was a bit tacky doing something like this at such a time, and a suit in the lift with us did a sharp sideways glance, then decided to keep quiet. Guilty Toyota executive perhaps?

[buickman]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

damo, contrary to what the union will tell you, the 8 hour working day was the brain child of henry ford
he had 2 ten hour shifts with a 4 hour break. he then figured with 3 eight hour shifts, production would continue right through the day. henry also brought in the 5 day week (for the same money as 6). no doubt his reasons were to help him, but he brought these in, not unions

no one denies that unions can be good - however they get drunk on their own power and end up doing more damage

A bit of the subject but Henry Ford was no saint to his workers on the Ford Hunger march.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Hunger_March

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by buickman

A bit of the subject but Henry Ford was no saint to his workers on the Ford Hunger march.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Hunger_March

it seems he was a complex character. he could be both a saint and sinner. he cared for people and put himself in danger trying to help them. he also seemed quite cold at times

he gave ethnic minorities and disabled people jobs long before others would employ them

but like most (almost all) people - he made sure he looked after himself