|
Surely the newspaper can give Caleb a more flattering photo.
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Andrew Bolt posted:DANCING POLICEMAN. TERRORISTS WOULD SMILE. comments posted:We've created a generation (or more) of man-children through shunning and shaming traditional masculinity. And we wonder why we're in this predicament. It's all very pathetic. snoremac fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:Could you make it any easier for your opponents to make unflattering comparisons between you and ISIS? I'm just surprised that there's been multiple terrorist attacks -- which is Bolt's green light for full Islam bashing -- and this is all he can muster after one day. This and crying about Waleed Aly being more relevant than he is. snoremac fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Was there a ww2 Andrew bolt crying for people to be more afraid during the blitz? WW2 Andrew Bolt was telling Norwegians to embrace their new German masters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Are there readership figures available for news outlets, including online?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:Mumbrela has your back. That's digital news anyway. Shouldn't be hard to track down regular TV numbers either. Cheers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
couldn't resist the display window's saucy pix
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
It's fascism the moment they resort to glitter spray.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Bolt posted:If three Australian Patriots had attacked an ABC presenter in the street, that would be in every news bulletin, right? With much rage directed at thugs trying to silence debate? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Isn't Ramadan not really a 'happy' time of year? I don't know but this is the same marketing team that came up with Fresh in our Memories.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Is it a cause for alarm if my employment contract says the employer can increase/decrease my pay at their own discretion? There are no stipulations - that's literally all it says.
snoremac fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
norp posted:Pretty sure that's not actually ok. Thanks. I turned it down anyway when I found out they were paying minimum wage and approx. $8 less/h than people earn for the position on average.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
I'm a monster who's on the dole and needs to vent. I turned down a job as a sales/logistics coordinator because it was paying minimum wage when, based on my research, people on average earn about $25 for that position. I could've accepted less than that, but the employer wouldn't raise the pay and we parted on amicable terms. I contacted my recruitment agency to let them know and they said my Newstart might now be at risk of termination because I didn't accept suitable employment. I pointed out that this forces me to accept employment I don't want, which screws over the employer a few months down the road when I find better work and they've wasted time training me (this was a small business and I would have been running their whole office, so they would have ended up in a very lovely position). I pointed out that being forced into the job makes me less flexible in terms of taking calls/attending interviews for jobs I do want. I didn't point out that any employer who went through the agency and was aware of these terms could force people into contracts offering less pay than the position deserves. I also didn't point out that this could lead to me attending interviews for jobs I don't want and tanking them just so I'm meeting my obligations. It's absurd. They know I'm actively trying to find work. I got interviewed and offered the job two hours after the agency told me about it. I liked it and would've accepted if the pay was reasonable. And now I might be cut off from assistance. I doubt Centrelink are going to appreciate the nuances of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
hooman posted:This is unbelievably lovely and a perfect example of the system failing to provide for a person doing the right thing. Centrelink should be supporting job seekers getting the right job not getting "any loving job". It's totally missing the forest for the trees in terms of economic outcomes and going straight to kicking the poor. I have to wait until tomorrow to hear back from the agency. I might be okay on the technicality that I've said I'm looking for full-time work and the position was part-time (for some reason the employer told the agency it's full-time when it was only 20 hours). Also, they were only paying $13 during the training period, which has to be illegal? Hopefully the agency consider this and doesn't forward anything to Centrelink, but who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
open24hours posted:It's only legit if it's part of an actual training program with a corresponding qualification. Wow, thanks. The agency wasn't aware of the illegal training rate when I mentioned it, so hopefully when they call me back tomorrow they'll accept my refusal to sign the contract as not breaching my obligations. Surely they won't say something like "You should have informed us of the illegal rate so we could contact the employer and have them amend the contract." Surely I had recourse to reject it on the spot. Otherwise I'll definitely do what you said. I'll be transferring to a new agency regardless. snoremac fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Do recruitment agents get commissions when they successfully find an employee for an employer? I'm just wondering whether they have an actual stake in this that might explain why they suddenly became such assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Korgan posted:Please update on what the JSP says tomorrow. I'm going to have to go back to dealing with one shortly, after being with one JSP for the maximum allowed time and finding a job through them. Coincidentally, my job stopped giving me hours when I was no longer on the JSP's books. Gonna be fun times ahead. Sure, will do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Waiting to hear back from the job agency about whether they're going to tell Centrelink I turned down suitable employment. The only factor that has any play on the "not suitable" front is the $13 training wage, which they're checking the legality of. They scoffed at me when I pointed out the employer was operating a forklift without a license -- which would have put my safety at risk since I would also be working in the warehouse, and which left me unclear on where this lands me legally -- saying that was for Workcover to deal with. They said "If the training wage was legal you'll be cut off Newstart for 8 weeks," in the most blasé manner possible. They don't care that I didn't understand I wasn't allowed to reject a job if the pay was unsatisfactory. I understand this is my fault, what I mean is they're acting like I cheated the system when I honestly made a mistake. They told me to stop getting annoyed at them when I'd try to raise counterpoints. All my concerns were stonewalled by them reciting the "refusing suitable employment" process. pray for me snoremac fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Complain to Centrelink directly and mention the forklift etc. That's my next step regardless of the outcome. I'm changing agencies ASAP. I haven't threatened them. Personally, if the pay was reasonable I would've accepted the job and stayed mum about the forklift stuff. I only argued the point because their entire argument hinges on a legal technicality so I was just trying to give potential legal reasons why the employment isn't "suitable". But despite technically being an unsafe work environment and that I'd be abetting a crime, the agency doesn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
I got off due to the illegal training wage. They were suddenly very chipper and kind. Haven't slept since yesterday and I'm too tired to process what that means.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
hooman posted:That's great news, and I'm glad to hear it. Thanks. I spent the last 24 hours poring over my rights. If I don't get a job I can at least look forward to telling a job agency I'm doing voluntary work instead of Work for the Dole. That will feel good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Periphery posted:Nice. Yeah I'll definitely do this tomorrow once I can think straight. I felt iffy about it at first since on the surface the employer was very nice, but considering the details he's a real piece of work. I'm curious whether the job agency had any hand in the contract or not. It's possible they're doing this to other people (underpaying them) so I'd be a prick not to report it. I did receive one job opportunity from them in the past that was paying a good rate, but it was a multinational corporation who would have had their poo poo together.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
My saga with the job agency continues: I just got a text alert from them, which I assume they forwarded to everyone because it's advertising the same job I just turned down. In my contract the job was called "Administration, Sales and Logistics Coordinator" but it's being advertised here as "Sales Admin/Storeperson". This is just after I kicked up a stink with them about sales and logistics coordinators earning far more than minimum wage. I guess they're redefining the job so it appears as one that offers less on average. Admittedly, I don't know if they originally advertised it in the same way, or if they're really bound in an SMS to accurately title the position. Logistics were a major part of the job as it was explained to me by the employer. I would have basically been in charge of arranging transportation of all their products on an interstate level. This is on top of processing sales, dealing with their clients, and running the office and warehouse. It's far from menial and carries a lot of responsibilities. If they have changed the position's title, it's very shady in my opinion. Anyway, about my job agency, I'm waiting to hear back from the Unemployment Union about what I should do. Specifically who I can report to about the agency almost trapping me in an illegal contract and interpreting the job as suitable employment despite the employer operating a forklift without a license in the same warehouse I'd be working in. I didn't mention this to the union, but someone in this thread mentioned reporting this to the media and I was thinking about that. I'm wondering if I could set my phone on record and have the agency clarify to me that they interpret a job with an unsafe work environment as suitable employment, ergo they knowingly send their candidates into unsafe work environments. And then I'd forward that to The Guardian or something. I'm just spitballing. That might not even be legal and maybe I just need to be talked down because I'm pissed off. What do you think?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Endman posted:Depends on state laws regarding privacy as to whether you can record someone without their knowledge Just checked and it's legal in Victoria for protection reasons, but can't be published without the consent of both parties.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Is email possible for communication? I'm not sure. I suppose it might be legal to give a media outlet a recording and have them report on it but not publish it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
hooman posted:Definitely talk to the union about what your legal recourses are. Do not turbofuck yourself over these shitheads. Yeah, you're right. Thanks y'all for the advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
wtf is this caleb bond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHx5NZxt55Q
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Mordialloc posted:Hi folks, I can't answer your question, but as someone who's looking for work I mostly check advertisements on Seek and other job search websites. So that's an option if you want to avoid providers altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6VJpjjEi_o We were Americans and you were freakin' communists!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Bolt posted:Turnbull must surely know Trump is thin-skinned. He must also know that Trump is so fiercely embattled that sticking up from him could inspire a useful gratitude. And he must certainly know that Trump has the power to make or break Turnbull's dumb refugee swap deal with the US. So which put all that at risk just to get a laugh from journalists? what a cuck
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
hooman posted:Comedy is Andrew Bolt getting glitter bombed. Comedy is Andrew Bolt getting glitter bombed and then lionising himself as a tough guy. His ego was so jacked by this he's auctioning off the glitter suit as memorabilia of "The Battle of Lygon Street". To his credit, morons are actually paying thousands for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
snoremac posted:Comedy is Andrew Bolt getting glitter bombed and then lionising himself as a tough guy. His ego was so jacked by this he's auctioning off the glitter suit as memorabilia of "The Battle of Lygon Street". To his credit, morons are actually paying thousands for it. More to this point, it's strange that Bolt's book was a total flop and yet his fans kept posting photos of it near landmarks all around the world (Bolt used this to promote the book on his blog). Does he have a really dedicated bunch of rich fans? Or were the miserable book sale numbers a fabrication of the totalitarian Left?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Lid posted:He's alongside Billy McMahon for worst PM in history and that's the entire shortlist. To know that every rival PM in his political career, no matter how much they are frauds, gently caress ups, or powerless will be remembered more fondly and better than him must be loving his ego. He's trying to save his wikipedia article section under "Legacy". I wonder if he's insulated from the truth by the soothing praise of sycophants like Bolt.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
So uh, is my job agency just loving with me by making me attend 13 appointments a month now? I've been on Newstart for 10 months but surely this is way beyond my minimum requirements? Already fired an email to the DoE for clarification.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Do they set you up with the appointments or do you have to find them yourself? They set them up. According to them, once you've been on the dole for 10 months you need to attend 3 job search appointments a week, which basically amounts to me job searching in their computer room for 1 hour instead of doing it at home. Just a waste of time and petrol with no benefit I can think of. 1 day a week and I'd bite my tongue, but 3 is absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Korgan posted:They're loving with you. I have to attend appointments with my provider once a fortnight at the most. And yeah, the "job searching" they "provide assistance and facilities" for is a loving joke. Years back I was having to come in once a week to use their computers for job searching. PCs running outdated windows, slowest internet connection so your searches take forever (but it's ok, here's the local paper on the table and oh someone took the job section with them, welp), grimiest loving keyboards and mice you ever saw. Walking into that room was the most humiliating, demoralising thing. I finally found a job through no assistance of that useless pack of shits and they had the gall to mail me a satisfaction survey and then ring me once a week to remind me to fill it out and return it or otherwise my personal agent would get a low mark. Thanks - this was my gut feeling. Hopefully I can get the DoE to speak on my behalf and put a stop to it. They are really annoying people, obsessed with the processes they've memorized without any ability to just be reasonable for two seconds. I'm sick but went to my normal appointment today (it's an in-and-out thing). They tell me about this new 3-appointments-a-week and say it starts tomorrow. I tell them I'm sick and ask if they can push the appointment forward to next week; they say no, we're scheduling it and you must attend unless you can provide a doctor's certificate. So I went to the doctor and got a certificate saying I'm not fit to attend any more appointments for 2 weeks. They then sent me an email saying they'd let me off this time but next time I must get an official Centrelink doctor's certificate (something like that), despite having not mentioned this in the first place. snoremac fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Convicted racist upset there are too many Aboriginesquote:I was sued by activists insisting no one could choose their "race". Yet the latest Census suggests 40,000 just did. There are now 649,171 Aborigines counted, compared to 548,368 just five years earlier. snoremac fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Sad Wendigo posted:I had similar a couple of years back, with Max Employment, the evil fuckers. For the record, the DoE told me my agency can set as many appointments as they like so I'm now spending 24 hours a month in their offices to apply for 20 jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:33 |
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:He doesn't actually sound very upset... Are you disputing something in particular in what you posted? I'm disputing that people choose to identify as Aboriginal for financial gain. I think if anyone is choosing to identify as Aboriginal now who didn't in the last census (assuming this is even a thing - I sure as poo poo know Bolt didn't crunch the numbers) it's because our racial climate, wherein Adam Goodes is reviled nationally because he did a cultural dance, is still more friendly to Indigenous people than it was in the past. snoremac fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 04:19
|
|