|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:15 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 09:26 |
|
BCR posted:You've got some sham contracting going on. Thanks, I appreciate it. I'll pass the info on and see what comes out of it. I'm NTEU myself, but I wasn't sure how to help out a speech pathologist.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:16 |
|
Blightie posted:There were also some intellectual property issues where the employer is claiming ownership of work done by the employee for free on their own time.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:23 |
|
Mr Chips posted:Every fucker tries to pull this poo poo. I had a professional staff job at a uni and crossed that bit out of the contract, and their HR rep signed off on it. Like gently caress they own the things I'm working on in my own time that have nothing to do with my job. I thought that clause was to stop conflicts of interest related to your job most of the time. Is that right?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:28 |
|
Mr Chips posted:Every fucker tries to pull this poo poo. I had a professional staff job at a uni and crossed that bit out of the contract, and their HR rep signed off on it. Like gently caress they own the things I'm working on in my own time that have nothing to do with my job. Yeah my old job at an engineering firm tried this on, trying to take ownership of unrelated code I had written on weekends. Ridiculous.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:29 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:An American just posted a link on facebook with this on it: Ban white people.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:48 |
|
Zenithe posted:I thought that clause was to stop conflicts of interest related to your job most of the time. Is that right? At Universities I understand it's more to stop things like this happening: http://www.claytonutz.com.au/public...lia_v_gray.page
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:51 |
|
Gough Suppressant posted:The only way you can reasonably make the claim that the liberals are not as villainish as cartoon characters at this point is if you make the claim that they possess a level of stupidity and incompetence that would never make it into a cartoon due to being far too unbelievable. The stupidity is a result of hundreds of different stakeholders pressuring them in different ways, and having a number of different political/social obligations that prevent them from having consistent and coherent political views. You can see this on a smaller scale with some professionals such as teachers, doctors and lawyers. You are able to hold personal views and incorporate them in your work, but there are circumstances where you must offer advice or take action which is not easily reconcilable with your own views (for the sake of the profession's integrity). Even if you don't work in these type of fields, I'm sure you've noticed at times when these people swallow their pride and offer 'objective, professional advice'. Ask a pharmacist about the homoeopathic supplements they sell, I don't think I've ever seen one happy about it. Now imagine a profession which draws people with very strong, opinionated views. Then throw them in a party which require members to be unified on those views, and to accept compromises for 'the greater cause'. Then you need to sell your views and empathise with voters who'd likely have quite different views. Then you have 'influencers' such as business, community groups and media who all have their own agenda's which again, will have different views to the broader community, your party and your own. So no, they are not inherently stupid. But all of the political views they are juggling make them appear stupid. It doesn't help that a few of the views being juggled are personal, and those can be incredibly stupid on their own merits. I think it's good to call personal views poo poo (when they are), and to question their support of views that conflict with the community and their own. There are situations where politicians are in a position to emphasise with an opposing view (Hockey: Palestine/immigrants, Abbott: supporting families/gay marriage). There are also situations where is it appropriate to make noise; to de-legitimise their position of authority, or to make them worried over voter sentiment and their job prospects. And finally, when people get overly hostile on forums, it does not necessarily reflect how they conduct themselves in real life. It could be a way to get something off their chest without fear of any real consequences, or they live and work in an environment that does not discuss or encourage certain views.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 03:56 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:Can you elaborate on this a bit more? It sounds like it could be the perfect thing for bludgeoning no nothing libtards with. Sure, but most of the important stuff is meaningless to 90% of people, so it's never going to win any arguments (I left out a ton of background, because it was getting way too longwinded) (I'm typing on a phone in a lecture, so its going to be riddled with typos and lovely grammar) Important takeaway: Banks run on liquidity - especially short term liquidity. In the US, the big IBs/hedge funds/private eq had heavily leveraged themselves to buy up a metric fuckton of asset backed securities (MBS) - essentially bonds secured by residential mortgages, where the collateral is the house and the coupon payments are funded by the mortgage payments made by battlers. These started off being secured by high quality borrowers, but in the low rate environment of the early 00s, those chasing yields accepted more and more risk in return for higher returns. Chart: When the underlying asset quality deteriorated sharply (this is where right wing dummies blame 'the poors not paying back their loans' but really the majority of the losses were caused by middleclass fuckheads buying up 'investment properties' expecting to make easy money 'doin a reno and flipping for mad profit' - sound familiar?), MBSs started defaulting on their repayments and even taking capital losses, which triggered a wave of downgrades, which triggered a bunch of loan covenants, which meant that the entire sector was trying to sell the same instruments into a rapidly falling market where no one was really sure if the underlying was worth. So, when you don't know what kind of bullshit someone is hiding on their balance sheet, it became more and more realistic that if you lend some institution money, they could collapse and you would lose your capital. And so the entire market just stopped lending. Which, taking into account the whole 'banks live or die on liquidity', is the *actual* cause of the shitstorm. Credit markets close down -> banks stop lending to businesses -> businesses can't fund their day to day operations -> businesses default on payments to creditors, workers, landlords -> etc -> banks stop lending to people -> housing market shuts down -> builders faced with dropping prices and zero demand start closing down -> workers laid off, builders default on payments to creditors, workers, landlords -> etc Which is where you get the widespread economic effects that people now call 'the GFC' - high unemployment, recession, etc. poo poo then repeated itself in the Euro zone, but entire countries started defaulting. ------------ Important takeaway, revisited: Banks run on liquidity - especially short term liquidity. Despite what the average Tele reader thinks, banks don't fund their loan book by rolling up to the RBA with a dump truck. They do it with a mix of retail (savings accounts/tds/etc), wholesale onshore and wholesale offshore and securitised instruments (mainly the nonbank lenders). Anyways, of the four funding sources: wholesale offshore- pre-crisis, local banks funded a big chunk of their balance sheets with cheap wholesale offshore money, which was no longer available. Even when the market thawed a little, it was only available in small amounts and at steep premiums MBS - the non-bank lenders that popped up in the property bubble didn't have the deposit books to fund their lending, so they relied almost entirely on the MBS market, which was no longer available. Obviously, it also wasn't available for the banks trying to refinance either Which left two main sources of funding: retail - people will only lend you money if they think they are getting it back. if we started to see the kind of bank collapses that happened overseas, people (which includes both people and small businesses) are going to hide their money under their mattress rather than risk losing it on a TD. wholesale domestic - as above, if businesses/banks/credit union/super funds/etc are worried about counterparty risk in the way that we saw overseas, they are just going to stop lending. And those that would risk lending would demand huge premiums for it, given the massive supply/demand imbalance So, what did we do to avoid the kind of epic fuckup the US went through? Retail - Expanded the Government bank guarantee limit up to $1m, avoiding a 'run' on banks by retail customers and small-medium businesses. For the vast majority of people, putting their money in a savings account or a term deposit was the same as giving it to the Government, entirely riskfree. Domestic wholesale (background: the way the RBA actually controls the cash rate is by buying/selling overnight money, known as the Exchange Settlement (ES) program. This is money that the RBA makes ADIs hold in an account for settling transactions between each other. Because it's held by the RBA, it's riskfree. it's paid at OCR-25bps, so under normal circumstances, banks have a big incentive to minimise the balances held. Banks can also borrow against these balances through a convoluted scheme known as repos, which allow banks to turn trading instruments into cash.) - they expanded the ES program from ~1bn to ~10bn. Without this, the demand for cash balances would have driven up the cash rate, consequently driving down borrowing and leading to the kind of economic slowdown seen overseas. It also meant that banks could invest excess cash in a riskfree asset, rather than just hording it and removing liquidity from the system. - they introduced a (very) short term TD facility, which allowed banks to move cash out of overnight ES accounts and into 1-2 week terms, at higher rates, allowing the RBA to expand their lending in term markets and banks to invest short term cash riskfree. - they also expanded the range of repo-eligible securities, which helped avoid the problem overseas where banks would be stuck with assets on their balance sheet which they couldn't sell. Chart: - To reduce counterparty risk, particularly for smaller institutions, they introduced The Australian Government Guarantee Scheme for Large Deposits and Wholesale Funding, under which the Government acted as a guarantor for any eligible ADI-issued instruments. In return for a premium (from 70bps to 150bps, depending on issuer rating), any eligible ADI could issue bonds/notes/etc with a AAA credit rating. Essentially, it's a bigger version of the deposit guarantee for regular savings accounts. At it's peak, there was around $170bn guaranteed under the scheme. Offshore wholesale - As above, the Guarantee Scheme decreased (perceived) counterparty risk, allowing domestic banks to issue offshore with a sovereign AAA backing. MBS - The crisis essentially killed the MBS market (locally, rmbs). Similar to the TARP program in the US, the RBA (and, by direction, the AOFM - up to ~$8bn) started buying up securities in the RMBS market which added both stability and liquidity to it, allowing other participants to return. Slowly. Chart: - When the RBA expanded the list of repo-eligible instruments, it included RMBSs. This ensures that they never went through the 'wtf is this thing worth, if anything?' phase that the US encountered, and meant that - at worst - if the market did refuse to buy the RMBSs held by local banks, they could still convert them to short term funding under the repo program in order to service their obligations. - On top of that, it allowed banks to grab a bunch of mortgages, securitise them and sell them to themselves. This self-securitisation sounds retarded, since they essentially end up holding the mortgages anyways, but it means that if they needed to, they could repo the self-securitised mortgages and turn them into liquidity. ---------------- The takeaway from all these is that, through injecting liquidity, supporting credit markets and negating counterparty risk, we never had a real liquidity crisis, which meant that funds were always available to businesses/individuals. Combine this with the drastic drop in the cash rate (which some people think was too sharp, too far and went on for too long - and I probably wouldn't disagree), it meant that we never really saw the kind of economic slowdown and recession that the rest of the world went through. Fallout: 1. Without the above, Gina wouldn't have been able to 'save the entire country' as she claims, because no one would have had the money to finance the bigass holes in WA and QLD or the bigass machines that she uses digs her rocks out of to hock off to China. Losing that would have also had heavy implications for trade flows, and thereby fx rates. The cheap, ample funding also meant that projects could be dragged forward, which pulled in future infrastructure/capital projects. Gina's self-labelled brilliance was actually just being fortunate enough to have inherited a business which gets really profitable with high demand, cheap financing and strong exchange rates. She was responsible for none of these factors, and the Government she constantly rails against was responsible for two of the three. (actually, as below, probably more like two and a half out of three) Mining is also a tiny proportion of employment, even when you take into account secondaries, and even if she managed to keep selling all the rocks to China through an actual crisis, it would have meant gently caress all in economic terms. We would have had a recession regardless. 2. Without the above, dumbass boomers wouldn't have been able to borrow fucktons of cheap cash against Equity, Mate in order to trade houses with each other for higher and higher amounts, using the 'profit' to lavish cash on Harvey Norman, caravan makers. Without the glibness, the growth in residential property prices has been one of the main underpinnings of the last ~10y of retail sales, which are a massive part of the economy. The part of the stimulus package that rightwing dickheads whine about as 'the $900 bogan bonus' and 'the pensioner pokie bonus' were actually designed to help stimulate retail turnover in order to support retail employment, which feeds back into retail turnover and so on. Retail is a heavily seasonal employer where casualisation has given them a highly elastic workforce - demand for retail drops and there is a near instant response in employment. Which is A Bad Thing© in a global crisis. Whether it was really needed or effective or not, it's easy to slam in hindsight but at the (very scary time), it was a sensible idea. 2. Without the above, dumbass battlers wouldn't have had a rising, liquid property market and the available funds to buy up every affordable house within 20kms of the CBD and 'do a reno, mate', keeping legions of overcharging tradies and building material suppliers in business. Without the above, the big homebuilders wouldn't have had the funds or the market support to throw up hundreds of cookie cutter, dogbox developments to flog to the Chinese for ridiculous prices, which is what actually kept the manufacturers and sellers of building supplies in business. Again, without the glibness, homebuilders/renovations, their suppliers and all the direct and indirect employment they provide are a massive chunk of the economy. The part of the stimulus package that rightwing dickheads whine about as 'teh gold plated school halls' and 'killer batts' was actually designed to support construction/trades/materials turnover, and thereby construction/trades/materials employment. It wasn't even 'throwing out money' to be honest, it was just dragging forward demand (ie, we would have had to upgrade lovely old school facilities anyways), so again - a loving sensible idea. TL,DR; The RBA kept us out of the GFC, the stimulus packages supported demand which avoided economic slowdown and possible recession. Anyone who thinks otherwise because 'mines' or 'teh China' is at best myopic, at worst an uninformed Young Liberal fuckhead. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jun 13, 2014 |
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:02 |
|
Blightie posted:To the resident union experts, a speech pathologist friend of mine was describing her working conditions and they sounded terrible. Is this in South Australia, or is speech pathology just one of those things that attracts horrible bosses?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:08 |
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:Sure, but most of the important stuff is meaningless to 90% of people, so it's never going to win any arguments Do you teach this stuff? Because you explain it a fuckload better than posters ITT who've claimed to teach it.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:17 |
|
Senor Tron posted:Is this in South Australia, or is speech pathology just one of those things that attracts horrible bosses? NSW. Horrible bosses I guess
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:19 |
|
Blightie posted:NSW. Horrible bosses I guess http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Resources/fact-sheets/workplace-rights/Pages/independent-contractors-and-emplyees-fact-sheet Hey can you have a look at the list of factors here, and see if it describes your situation.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:21 |
|
Here's a frustrating thing: https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange A group of Indigenous people trying to get Constitutional recognition blocked because they've bought into Sovereign Citizen bullshit quote:We The People Oppose Constitutional Recognition Amendment Ughhh. The Facebook page is full of references to Black's Legal Dictionary, and although I haven't found a reference to admiralty law yet I'm sure I could if I had the time.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:28 |
|
quote:Peter Do you know what Recognise Means in legal terms. The Commonwealth Constitution Act UK & Crown. Only Applys to British Subjects We Are Not British Subjects What A Fucken Insult!! We Are Sovereign. The post just explained what recognise means. What we are unworthy until we are recognised by anglos gently caress off. We don't trust Anglos nor do we trust those who support them. Recognise that we are the highest incarcerated in the world recognise the high suicide rate caused by this societal abuse. The Constitution is invalid and the Commonwealth of Australia is a corporation address Massachusetts Avenue Washington DC. We don't want to be recognised as commodity we are human. The Government is a foreign power under their own legislation. We don't have to wait we know the truth This is our land and we will never cede our sovereignty It's extra irritating because yeah, sure, there are valid reasons to be opposed to constitutional recognition. Pick one of them! Not "oh governments aren't real" or "laws only mean things if you agree with them".
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:33 |
BrosephofArimathea posted:GFC stuff 5 star posting, would and will read again.
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:33 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Resources/fact-sheets/workplace-rights/Pages/independent-contractors-and-emplyees-fact-sheet Thanks. I'll pass this on. I'm not sure of the exact details as this is for a friend who was describing her scenario to me over coffee, but glancing at that (and thanks to my pro lurking skills) I'm aware of sham contracting and this whole thing set off alarm bells for me. That said IANAL, just a science guy, so interpreting the finer points of this stuff is difficult. To partially answer, yes, the document does seem to describe what was said to me. I'll send it to my friend and see what she thinks. I haven't seen her contract or anything like that though. E: phone posting typos Blightie fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jun 13, 2014 |
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:37 |
|
BrosephofArimathea I just wanted to say that was a loving excellent post.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:43 |
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:A Good Post©
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:48 |
|
BrosephofArimathea posted:Sure, but most of the important stuff is meaningless to 90% of people, so it's never going to win any arguments Wow, thanks. I'm not going to pretend to totally understand how those things you mention actually affect liquidity but I can see how making sure there was plenty of money on hand to loan out would help. The biggest developer in the country wouldn't have millions in cash just waiting around in case the banks couldn't finance their latest contribution to urban sprawl.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:52 |
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-1226952970709 POTUS agrees Tone has a mandate to repeal 'Carbon tax', Tone considers himself a Conservationalist. quote:BARACK Obama has offered an olive branch to Tony Abbott on climate change, conceding the Prime Minister won a mandate in 2013 to get rid of the carbon tax.
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 04:55 |
|
Kommando posted:
Of course he does. quote:"When I look out tonight at an audience of people who work with timber, who work in forests, I don't see people who are environmental vandals; I see people who are the ultimate conservationists People who like cutting down trees for profit are conservationists, so he must be too.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:01 |
|
On a scale of 1 to 10 how angry is Tone that he finally gets to be the big prime minister he always wanted to be, only to discover he has to talk about climate change all the time?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:10 |
|
Am I the only one noticing the lack of a direct quote from Obama anywhere there on tones man dates?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:29 |
|
quote:“I regard myself as a conservationist. Frankly we should rest lightly on the planet, and I’m determined to ensure we do our duty by the future here,” Mr Abbott told ABC Radio after the meeting.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:32 |
You Am I posted:I guess that's in the same way how Phil Ruddock is a humanitarian Amnesty sending Ruddock a letter asking him to stop wearing their badge because he is a reprehensible monster is one of my favourite Howard-era anecdotes
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:34 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:On a scale of 1 to 10 how angry is Tone that he finally gets to be the big prime minister he always wanted to be, only to discover he has to talk about climate change all the time? Well, his election campaign was pretty much: stop the boats, axe the tax, and strengthen the economy. I don't know how you make it one of your key election issues, and expect people to forget about it. He knows its a losing proposition, so he must have some personal stake in defending his policy against strong, and scientifically backed criticism.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:35 |
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Am I the only one noticing the lack of a direct quote from Obama anywhere there on tones man dates? Actual journalists posted:At their media conference after their meeting, neither Mr Abbott or Mr Obama raised the issue of climate change in their statements and did not take questions from the media. Actual journalists posted:While Mr Abbott's meeting with Mr Obama dealt with security and foreign policy issues, it is also understood that climate change was raised in the context of energy efficiency being discussed at the upcoming G20 meeting. So no direct quote will ever be forthcoming. It's heresay at best. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0613-3a192.html
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:42 |
|
Try to read this interview with Ruddock without breaking your brain: http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ruddock&f=false I think the genuinely thinks he is some sort of humanitarian. Not the Darth Vader character we all thought he was. He even created harmony day ffs.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:43 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:The biggest developer in the country wouldn't have millions in cash just waiting around in case the banks couldn't finance their latest contribution to urban sprawl. Precisely. Building poo poo is really expensive. That new stupidly named Central Park complex on Broadway topped $2bn. Westfield Pitt St was $1.2bn. Even behemoths like Frasers and WDC can't afford to build it with their own cash, and it would be retarded if they did. So they (optionally) lay off some of the risk to other investors, then fund their future cash outflows with a mix of short term liquidity facilities, medium term notes and longterm bonds. That lets you match your current cash outflows (ie, the cost of building poo poo) to your future cash inflows (rent, future part-sales, etc) over time. If those markets close down, the guy in fluro raging about 'bloody bankers who broke the economy and now us workin mans had to fix it' is going to find himself sitting around doing a whole lot of nothin pretty soon. Same deal for the * Ponds/Lakes/Mews/Meadows sprawl on the urban fringe. You try and sell as much as you can upfront (which relies on either banks writing mortgages on houses that dont yet exist, or mezzanine finance), then you use debt markets to fund the rest, repaying the principal through the proceeds when you sell your overpriced lovely mcmansions. Ditto on mining, except the uncertainty in future cashflows makes them even more reliant on financial markets. Mr Chips posted:That's a good explanation. Sadly, I don't think anyone would pay to have me ramble financial economics and swearing at them. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jun 13, 2014 |
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:49 |
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Am I the only one noticing the lack of a direct quote from Obama anywhere there on tones man dates? quote:Mr Obama mentioned the carbon tax, acknowledging that the Abbott government had a clear electoral mandate for a different approach. Acknowledged as in: Abbott: The voters of Australia don't want a Carbon Tax Obama: *clears throat* (mistaken for affirmative grunt) efb; Australian full of poo poo again already confirmed.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:54 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Try to read this interview with Ruddock without breaking your brain: Watch Go Back to Where You Came From when he was on. There was an episode where they were in Afghanistan speaking to someone who was part of a group Ruddock personally sent back and what happened to them. He stared at his feet the whole time then tried to justify it afterwards. Edit: oops, that was Peter Reith
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:02 |
|
Nibbles141 posted:Watch Go Back to Where You Came From when he was on. There was an episode where they were in Afghanistan speaking to someone who was part of a group Ruddock personally sent back and what happened to them. He stared at his feet the whole time then tried to justify it afterwards.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:08 |
|
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=765594646807983 Does Malcolm have a soul? Cause it looks like it just up and left him.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:10 |
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=765594646807983 He looks ready to lean on someone's shoulder and have a good, solid cry. That's astounding. I'm not sure I've seen Turnbull ever wear an expression like that, could it be that he's worn out and ready to give up?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:25 |
|
Jesus, I almost feel sorry for the fucker.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:27 |
|
thatbastardken posted:Jesus, I almost feel sorry for the fucker. Don't. That is not the face of someone going "drat this man is so right, my party is terrible and I am a terrible person for being on side with them, I have no response." It is the face of someone going "This opponent is using very effective rhetoric and I am displeased at having to think of a counter argument. What talking points might be effective here? Oh goddamn, did the host just end this before I get to respond? poo poo."
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:42 |
|
Some more fall out from the budget that fell through the cracks and has only been noticed.quote:Chef loses dough as grant turns into a loan
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:49 |
|
Lid posted:Some more fall out from the budget that fell through the cracks and has only been noticed. It was noticed, there was just an overwhelming amount of bullshit that this was the least of people's concerns.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 06:58 |
|
|
# ? Jun 7, 2024 09:26 |
|
Yeah, don't worry. It was noticed by all the apprentices when they got letters saying the payments were being discontinued.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 07:08 |