hooman posted:

Yeah for sure, fair enough, I should say what some big unions have become.

Starshark posted:

Hey, as long as we're in union chat, what's a good one for a university library assistant in NSW? Not in poo poo, just want to be covered if I get injured to/from work.

JBP posted:

I guess NTEU is the right one.

Zenithe posted:

Are we in recession yet?

Solemn Sloth posted:

Gerry Harvey has called Amazon a parasite who adds nothing to society

He also said the government should enact a ban to stop them coming in "like Donald trump with the Muslims"

The Before Times posted:

Bloody parasites creating competition in retail!

e: I will say that I'm a bit on the fence about Amazon--on the one hand, more competition and lower prices. On the other hand, will they pay any company tax in Australia?

on the other other hand, how much company tax do Harvey Norman and Gerry Harvey pay in Australia?

Solemn Sloth posted:

Gerry Harvey has called Amazon a parasite who adds nothing to society

He also said the government should enact a ban to stop them coming in "like Donald trump with the Muslims"

You Am I posted:

He's one of the last of a dying breed of big box retailers, can't wait for it to all explode in his face.

Anidav posted:

Labor must put rising inequality at the heart of its agenda for the next federal election and consider whether a “Buffett rule” should be part of the policy mix, according to the former treasurer, Wayne Swan.

Swan will use a speech on Wednesday to the national conference of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) to argue Labor needs to seriously consider the proposal – where the highest income earners in Australia would be forced to pay a mandated minimum rate of tax. The pitch puts him at odds with the shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen.

Also gently caress Bowen

Also why didn't Swan do it in the first place.

ALP

norp posted:

Pretty sure that Harvey is just a landlord at this point, its all a big franchise scam that writes off losses on departments without affecting the parent company.
Someone posted an article bout how it worked recently.

Bogan King posted:

Treasury has done nothing at all to take into account the impact of cutting the wages of 600k people and claimed that was a job for the Fair Work Commission.

The Home of Pope posted:

Canberra-based public servants are doing their work in a McDonald's fast food outlet in Armidale because there is nowhere else for them to work in the northern NSW town where they are being forced to relocate.

The national pesticides authority boss told a Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday that she and her colleagues were using the restaurant's free wi-fi to work because they had no base in Armidale and that she was having a tough time convincing its public servants to move from Canberra to northern NSW as ordered by the Coalition government.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority are now trying to recruit regulatory scientists from overseas in an effort to continue its work after the forced relocation to Armidale, in the heart of Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce's electorate.

It was also revealed on Tuesday at a Senate Estimates hearing that a new office block will have to be built in the northern NSW town to accommodate the agency with none of the town's existing buildings suitable.

Bogan King posted:

Bogan King posted:

*barnaby's idiocy*

Bogan King posted:

Cartoon posted:

Not in a recession.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-01/gdp-abs-december-quarter/8313976

1.1% in the December quarter.

Bogan King posted:

quote:

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s Use or disclosure of personal information regulations address this situation thus:

6.22 Examples of where an individual may reasonably expect their personal information to be used or disclosed for a secondary purpose include where:

the individual makes adverse comments in the media about the way an APP [Australian Privacy Principles] entity has treated them. In these circumstances, it may be reasonable to expect that the entity may respond publicly to these comments in a way that reveals personal information specifically relevant to the issues that the individual has raised[8]

The APPs and the APP guidelines apply from 12 March 2014 and cover both Australian Government agencies and organisations covered by the Privacy Act.

I would argue that it is never reasonable to expect that Centrelink will divulge your personal information to the media under any circumstances, and 6.22 needs to be scrapped. The paragraph makes no reference as to whether or not your adverse comments are justified. You only need to make comments Centrelink considers adverse for them to reveal your private information to the media.

Criticism of a government agency can see you stripped of all privacy. Think about that.

This should make anyone who entrusts Centrelink and other government agencies with private information, very nervous.

At the same time, if you need Centrelink assistance you have no choice but to give them all the private information they require. This is a lose-lose situation for citizens, and it is entirely unacceptable.

Andie Fox, the subject of Tudge’s vengeful action, is a middle class professional woman, like millions of others who claim Family Tax Benefit, and the millions of older Australians who claim part pensions. Tudge, in this instance, has not gone after his stereotypical welfare recipient. So don’t feel you are safe in your demographic, because you aren’t. Should you get Centrelink offside, your private information can be given to the media whether your complaints are justified or not, without any consultation or warning.

There is a website titled “Not my debt” where you’ll find page after page of adverse commentary on Centrelink. There are thousands of critical tweets. There are hundreds of articles in mainstream media and the blogosphere dedicated to adverse commentary on Centrelink. Yet Alan Tudge went after one woman.

If you think your privacy is safe with government agencies as long as you keep your mouth shut, think about what kind of country you’re living in, and what kind of person you’re becoming because of it.

Centrelink is an apolitical body. An individual’s private information held by the agency must not employed as a silencing tool by the government of the day.

Cartoon posted:

No. Taking something away is never a loving gift. Give/Take are loving opposites. This is where we have gotten to in the post factual world. Black is the new white.

Les Affaires posted:

If the penalty rate is 200%, and the base is 15$, then if the penalty is reduced to 150% and the base goes up to 20$, there's no reduction, correct?

Les Affaires posted:

If the penalty rate is 200%, and the base is 15$, then if the penalty is reduced to 150% and the base goes up to 20$, there's no reduction, correct?

JBP posted:

Are you or have you ever been an official of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association?

Cartoon posted:

At best you are balancing/redistributing/rationalising. It strains the English language beyond what it can take to suggest that reducing a penalty rate is giving anybody anything. Also your example (although obviously deliberately simple) in no way reflects the actual deals being talked about as 'gifts' The base rate generally didn't go up at all and other provisions were reduced gifted as well.
Perhaps the more appropriate question.