|
Ammonsa posted:I haven't, what union should I be joining? United Voice.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Hypation posted:then employers should be able to negotiate with employees over which days they work. They did, and it was decided that people who work on Saturdays and Sundays get more money. Penalty rates are enshrined in various industry awards, they're not covered by the national award. That means that they have been bargained for between the relevant industry and union. If employers have a problem with that, they shouldn't accept penalty rates in bargaining and risk the subsequent industrial action. I think you've forgotten that the majority of our "costs of business" are not due to the imposition of minimum standards by the state but rather are simply giving legal force to the result of collective bargaining. What you're saying is that you want to see the ability of workers to bargain and strike curtailed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:I'm reading it as "weekend workers still get paid more than weekday workers, but everybody gets paid less than they do now." But see this system is great because then people who work weekends will STILL get paid more than weekday workers, which means the restaurant lobby still has something to cry poor about in the papers and whinge until the government forcibly cuts rates across the board again, when people who work weekends will still get paid more...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Hypation posted:The only substantive power a retail worker has is the ability to quit and go somewhere else. No, the substantive power a retail worker has is the collective withholding of labour. That's what underpins our industrial relations system and is, in fact, why we have penalty rates.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Hypation posted:The system works provided the penalty rate is the fair value of the choice not to work weekends and promotes the workforce flexibility needed to reduce the value of that choice to workers to near zero. It is, or it wouldn't have been bargained~ Hypation posted:No. Retail workers do not have that power. Individual workers cannot dictate when their fellow workers will strike. It is a substantive power held by retail workers, and it is what underpins the current industrial system. Stop redefining the question to suit your bullshit needs. Retail and hospitality workers have penalty rates because they are something they value and have bargained for, up to and including being willing to strike for them. That is PRECISELY THE IDEAL THEORETICAL OUTCOME OF THE SYSTEM YOU DESIRE. Penalty rates are not simply being maintained by the cackling, greedy Sunday workers lording it over their weekday kind. They are and have been maintained by collective worker action. I get the strong impression that what you are dancing around admitting here is that you do not want workers to have the right or ability to collectively bargain. When you say you want workers to bargain for penalty rates, you mean on an individual basis, going cap in hand to their boss every week and convincing them they're worth the 50% loading.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Hypation posted:They should have the right to collectively bargain which means the ability to choose whether to accept a default agreement/award/whatever for that position / industry, collectively bargain for a different deal with that one employer or individually negotiate a contract. The choice of the option should be up to the employee. Except that making it the choice of the employee will make it the choice of the employer, so your answer is "yes." The fact that there are still people who think the US system works is just mind-boggling to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
It's not the ballet funding itself that's the issue, it's the political motivation behind specifically funding it while other arts programs are being massively cut. I mean, yes, it's better than no arts funding at all, but we don't want to really encourage the government to start deciding arts funding by who the PM owes favours
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Blocking the budget measures is different to blocking supply though isn't it? Yes, but the question asked was "blocking the budget and triggering a new election." That would inherently mean blocking supply, because there's no other path that would result in a DD because there's no way in hell that Abbott's going to call one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
Gods Almighty, this Councillor. This is literally the worst speech I've ever heard about anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
A stirring defence of the repeal of 18C from professional fuckface Campbelltown mayor Clinton Mead
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Libertarian Senate Candidate (Tasmania) Clinton Mead? That's the one!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:the Aboriginal industry A thing someone actually believes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Hypation posted:No the Mode is the item that occurs the most irrespective of where it occurs: The mode occurs randomly in a random distribution. It's relatively predictable in certain important types of distribution, particularly the normal distribution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Hypation posted:And in that case it is also equal to the average. Assuming something is normally distributed is a neat trick to cut down the analytical work required but dangerous if the actual distribution is skewed or has multiple peaks. The distribution being skewed doesn't suddenly make the mode random. It changes its position relative to the mean and median, yes. That's actually one of the ways you can quantify and measure skew.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
So I've just sent an email to my convenor seeing if we can move an urgency proposal at SDC about Christine's rhetoric over supply. Right or wrong, I'm getting pretty loving tired of MPs and the "leader" deciding that the wishes of the party grassroots are an impediment to playing politics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:If Scott Morrison ever became prime minister I would stand outside the glass windows of the Sunrise set and commit seppuku on live television A reminder that at the time the idea of Health Minister and serial fuckup Anthony John Abbott ever becoming the Prime Minister was utterly absurd and would simply reflect how far Australian politics had fallen
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Hypation posted:the centre of this thread is out in Water-mellon land.  Hypation posted:Gillard was another one ... Oh that's just a slightly different shade of red. Well it's no wonder you believe the Greens are socialists that if you think Gillard's government was in any way red and not milquetoast social democracy Hypation posted:The Liberal Party's watermelon rhetoric was about calling out the Greens for using their environmental credentials to gain votes for a much wider and more profound socialist agenda that they were not spruiking to the general electorate. The only way you could possibly see the Federal Green platform as being a "socialist agenda" is if the word socialist has lost literally all meaning. The Australian Greens are at best a social-democratic party, and frankly if it weren't for the influence of the NSW Greens it would barely even be that. You're of course welcome to point out what Green policies involve collective ownership of productive resources and not simply just regulation of capitalism? Or I guess not, because last time you tried to systematically analyse the Green platform you seemed to be dipping into the Socialist Alliance platform for half of it. I WISH the Federal platform was more socialist. It's not, and it's something we in NSW are fighting hard. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Didn't you guys know literally all politics is on a spectrum of Capitalism and Socialism, diametrically opposed monolithic Proper Nouns, and hence anything that is not a move towards more pure Capitalism is, by definition, Socialism? That's why Keynesianism and regulation are Socialism. Welfare, too, that's also Socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:Communism is a socialist economic system where the state owns the means of production, and everyone "owns" the state through voting in a representational democracy or another democratic system. Communism is also centrally planned, the state makes almost all economic decisions. Not really correct. Communism is supposed to be stateless. You're right that the major manifestation of "Communist" nations has been centrally-planned state capitalist systems, but that's not what Communism is supposed to be. Technically the USSR never went past the "transition" period of Marxist-Leninist Communism - the move to Communism was first supposed to be activated by a vanguard party introducing a "dictatorship of the proletariat." However, instead of the transition continuing, we saw the growth of a political class to replace the capital class. Rob Filter posted:I dislike communism as a economic system because I think decentralized planning (an example of which is free markets) is really useful for some parts of the economy and communist countries don't have decentralized planning. I also dislike it because historically countries that try to become communist actually turn totalitarian. Decentralised economics and markets are not actually as efficient as they're held up to be. It's very telling that modern capitalist firms act as miniature (or not-so-miniature) command economies. The primary issue with Soviet firms was not their productivity or efficiency, it was political issues around what to do with failing firms and the redistribution of surplus capital. Honestly the major economic issue with the Soviet Union was that it industrialised in less than a generation. You had people who up until the Bolsheviks had been feudal serfs who were expected to cope socially and emotionally with competing with an advanced nation like the United States, which at that point had been industrialised for over a hundred years. The USSR advanced, in some ways, beyond its own ability to cope with advancement. Capitalist market economies cannot, nearly by definition, industrialise beyond the aggregate ability of their populace to cope, since the process is slow and gradual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Also your definition of communism depends on adopting the Marxian hypothetical rather than the dystopian reality of the socialist state that communism really delivered. Something capitalists are more than happy to do when it comes to singing the praises of liberal market democracy and ignoring environmental, economic and financial disasters propagated by unregulated capitalism. Seriously, liberals will descend into "no true capitalism" at least as if not more readily than socialists do. Hypation posted:For this reason moderates and the right are happy to call socialists communists. Moderates and the right are frequently happy to be wrong about all sorts of things so yeah I can't see why they'd stop when attempting to discuss systems about which they know almost literally nothing, kind of like you are.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
quote:The Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the green paper could be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. The party of democratic socialism ladies and gentlemen
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Hypation posted:...and the first day of the new Millennium was when? Also how do you pronounce the word controversy? Is it in line with controvert or controversial? English is a living language and when sufficient people 'get it wrong' for long enough it does indeed become right. Which would be a great argument if these words weren't still used in an academic and official context to actually mean things, and you can cry about "but it's what all my friends think it means" all you want and it won't make you any less pig-ignorant. "Theory" meaning "idea" to the average layperson does not mean that you're not going to be laughed out of any scientific discussion for saying "evolution is only a theory." Do you want to have an actual discussion about these terms as they apply in a political economy context or are you writing an article for the Australian? Hypation posted:Also if you can frame the debate so as to make socialism = communism = dystopian realities of Soviet Union then you will likely win more than if you didn't. That's why anyone would do it. You against a $0.05c GP co-payment? Well that must mean you want a Soviet-Style healthcare system. You favour a $0.05c GP co-payment, well that must mean you want a US-Style healthcare system or an extreme form of capitalism. And, again, are you having an actual discussion here or are you just making GBS threads out NewsCorp-level analysis and running, you intellectual degenerate? Because if you just want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and are merely valiantly attempting to combat the rising socialist menace using an understanding of complex ideas you may as well cobbled together out of pieces from a Kinder Surprise, then fine, simply admit that now and people on the sidelines can accept sooner rather than later that you aren't worth listening to. Seriously, you've already proven that you're willing to criticise the Greens policy platform without actually knowing or understanding it on the basis of it being "socialist," just admit it and save us all the trouble. Hypation posted:More extreme forms of capitalism were tried in the beginnings of the industrial revolution as well as post civil war pre Sherman Act USA. It worked from the perspective of building the infrastructure upon which the USA emerged as a superpower but had very negative social consequences. Such as an all time high disparity between worker incomes and their bosses. The US has up until roughly the 1980s been a heavily protectionist economy that worked overtime to shield its nascent businesses and industry from competition from outside trade. It would not have been possible to perform any greater legislative protection of an economy than that of the industrialising US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Vahtooch posted:So I couldn't really find a decent answer for this, but a few pages ago the GFC came up with the standard Australian's response to why we survived it being "Howard left us a surplus" to which someone said was wrong. I get the whole thing with Labor's stimulus package and how good all that was, but what can I use in an argument against someone for saying Howard didn't really help? 3 major points: a) The Howard government saw record terms of trade, which are not created by any government intervention. b) The Howard government used both the corporate tax revenues from the record ToT and the proceeds from the mining boom to finance major tax cuts, in particular a tax cut on upper income earners and a cut to the capital gains tax rate on property. c) The Howard government sold 90 billion dollars worth of assets, which by this point would have generated another 90 bn worth of revenue. The cumulative surplus the Howard government produced was roughly 30 billion overall. That's not what was left after paying off debt, mind you, that was simply the total of what was left over each year. There wasn't any "money in the bank," not least of all because that's a stupid phrase to use about government finances. We still had a significant sovereign debt (roughly 5% of GDP). So, essentially, in the midst of economic circumstances unheard of by this country and over ninety billion dollars in sold assets, Howard managed to squeeze out about thirty billion in total savings because he pissed the rest away on upper-class welfare. When Labor got in, the ToT were cooling, the tax cuts were still in place, the assets were no longer generating revenue, and then there was that whole GFC thing. Howard set Labor up to fail. Those tax cuts alone would have covered the entirety of Labor's 2010-2013 deficits.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Link? Last time I read something approaching a rigorous analysis, total asset sales from the Howard govt were a smidge under 72 billion, and net govt debt had decreased by 56 billion from 1996-2007. I might have been wrong on the asset sales number (I've seen 90 bn before but can't remember where), but net debt reduction isn't the same as cumulative surplus - a perfectly balanced budget will still see an overall reduction in net debt from interest payments.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Things Quantum Mechanic Should Not Do At Greens SDCs: Audibly mutter "Oh shut the gently caress up, Byron" as Byron Greens again attempt to stonewall anything resembling a principled stand against anything but fluoride by abusing raising points of process. Fortunately the only person who heard me nearly peed themselves laughing. I also made a spirited speech that's in part led to a proposal going out by the Quick Decision-Making Process for NSW to request that the party room block supply 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Christine Milne is advertising a loving unpaid internship.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
WebDog posted:First DD trigger pulled.The senate rejected the CEFC. Rejected the CEFC repeal, it's probably important to note. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Labor "should" be against the changes especially since a few are reversals of legislation they brought in while in office last time. It'd then depend on if there's enough support from the minor parties and independents. Leyonhjelm will be for them. Day will also be for them, because FF are simply led by the nose by the Liberals on economic issues. Xenophon will oppose them, because he's not a loving idiot, and Madigan will likely oppose as well, despite mostly being a loving idiot. Like most things, it'll come down to Palmer, and I'm not really sure I see him getting behind deregulation of the financial industry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Pay what you feel comfortable with. They aren't going to check up on you and the tiers are there because they recognise that people have different circumstances and are better able to judge their own ability to contribute than the party. This. They really aren't strict about checking, it's generally up to the local group to police it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Aaronicon posted:All I've gotten is that email. Nothing else. Is there supposed to be anything else? All I've gotten back from them from my previous attempts to communicate is emails stating that they're moving offices and they'll be back up and running by 4 days ago. Are you in NSW? Because yeah, there've been some teething troubles with getting everything set up. What suburb are you in? I can try and find your local group convenor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Oh okay yeah, you're in Orange or thereabouts, so definitely Central West. David's your Convenor, and he's normally on the ball, so it's entirely possible the office have just dropped the ball while they're trying to get everything set up in Glebe. I'd either call HQ again or just call David Mallard directly - http://nsw.greens.org.au/local-groups scroll down to Central West for his details.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
NSW Greens have just voted to block supply 8D
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Yeah just a reminder to everyone that Clive Palmer is a dickhead and has promised to AXE THE TAX and that promise is not reliant on the Abbott government accepting an ETS and even if it were Palmers proposed ETS would place a zero price on carbon "until the rest of the world came along" whatever the gently caress that means. It's not quite that bad - changing the price in a proposed ETS would be far easier than re-introducing a whole scheme. We also don't know how Palmer will go on the carbon tax repeal bill if he doesn't get what he wants re: ETS. We're also keeping ARENA, the CEFC and the RET, which are honestly a huge part of what's been driving renewable investment. Losing the carbon price is bad, but I'd honestly take it over losing the CEFC and the RET.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Why the gently caress are we treating what a mining company owner says about childhood welfare with anything but derision? This is beyond even the "rich people know how to economics" wealth-worship you normally see and straight up into "rich people are polymath ubermenschen."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
QLD LNP behind Labor for the first time since the election in a recent Newspoll.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:36
|
|